Attitudes, Beliefs, and Practices of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons Regarding Informed Consent

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chelsea O Hagopian ◽  
Teresa B Ades ◽  
Thomas M Hagopian ◽  
Erik M Wolfswinkel ◽  
W Grant Stevens
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Plastic Surgery ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
Beliefs And Practices ◽  
Aesthetic Plastic Surgery

Abstract Background Best practice for informed consent in aesthetic plastic surgery is a process of shared decision-making, yet evidence strongly suggests this is not commonly reflected in practice nor is it supported by traditional informed consent documents (ICD). Falsely held beliefs by clinicians about shared decision-making may contribute to its lack of adoption. Objective The authors sought to understand the baseline attitudes, beliefs, and practices of informed consent among board-certified plastic surgeons with a primarily aesthetics practice. Methods A 15-question online survey was emailed to active members of the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery. Items included demographics, Likert scales, free-text, acceptability, and 1 question seeking consensus on general information all patients must understand before any surgery. Results This survey yielded a 13% response rate with a 52% completion rate across 10 countries and 31 US states. A total of 69% were very or extremely confident that ICD contain evidence-based information, but 63% were not at all or not so confident in ICD effectiveness of prompting patients to teach-back essential information. A total of 50% believed surgical ICD should be reviewed annually. Eighty-six percent reported assistance with patient education during informed consent. Members of professional plastic surgery societies should be a source of evidence for content (free-text). A total of 64% were somewhat to very satisfied with the survey and 84% will probably to definitely participate in future related surveys. Conclusions The findings echo concerns in the literature that ICD are focused on disclosure instead of patient understanding. There is notable concern regarding information overload and retention but less regarding the quality and completeness of information. Current culture suggests key clinician stakeholders are amenable to change.

scholarly journals Public understanding of female genital anatomy and pelvic organ prolapse (POP); a questionnaire-based pilot study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dina El-Hamamsy ◽  
Chanel Parmar ◽  
Stephanie Shoop-Worrall ◽  
Fiona M. Reid
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Pelvic Organ Prolapse ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Pelvic Organ ◽  
Public Understanding ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
White Ethnicity ◽  
Female Genital

Abstract Introduction and hypothesis Health literacy underpins informed consent and shared decision-making. In gynaecology, this includes understanding of normal anatomy and urogenital disease. This study evaluated public knowledge of external female genital anatomy and pelvic organ prolapse (POP). Methods A questionnaire study asked participants for their demographics and to label a female external genitalia diagram and included free-text questions on POP, its symptoms and treatment. Questionnaires were distributed at general outpatient (OPD) and urogynaecology (UG) departments at a UK teaching hospital. Differences in the number of correct anatomy labels between participant genders were assessed via chi-squared tests and, within female participants, multivariable linear and logistic regressions assessed associations with increasing correct anatomical labels and an understanding (versus no understanding) of POP, respectively. Results Within 191 (n = 160 OPD, n = 31 UG), 9/103 (9%) labelled all anatomical structures correctly. Females had more correct labels (median 1, IQR 0,3) versus males (median 0, IQR 0,1), P = 0.022). Higher education (vs. < secondary) and white ethnicity were associated with greater numbers of correct labels [coefficient (95% CI): 1.05 (0.14, 1.96), P = 0.024, 1.45 (0.58, 2.33), P = 0.001 respectively]. Fifty-three per cent understood POP. POP understanding increased with increasing age, white ethnicity (OR: 4.38, 95% CI: 1.36, 14.08, P = 0.013) and more correct anatomy labels (OR: 1.43, 95% CI 1.14, 1.79, P = 0.002). Of those who understood POP, only 35% identified “bulge” as a symptom and 7% physiotherapy as a treatment option. Conclusion There was poor public understanding of external female genital anatomy and POP, which may have significant implications for health-seeking, shared decision-making and informed consent.

Knowledge of, and attitudes to, shared decision-making in orthodontics in the UK

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (4) ◽  
pp. 294-302
Author(s):  
Sophy K Barber ◽  
Fiona Ryan ◽  
Susan J Cunningham
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Treatment Providers ◽  
The Uk

Objective: To establish UK orthodontic treatment providers’ knowledge of, and attitudes to, shared decision-making (SDM). SDM involves patients as equal partners in decisions about treatment. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Setting: Online survey across the UK. Population: Dentists and orthodontists providing orthodontic treatment in the UK. Methods: Potential participants were contacted through the British Orthodontic Society mailing lists. An online survey was developed to examine knowledge of, and attitudes to, SDM using a combination of evidence-based statements and free text boxes. Questions regarding previous training in SDM and preferences for further training were also included. Results: The survey was completed by 210 respondents, yielding an approximate response rate of 15%. Respondents were mainly consultants (34%) and specialist orthodontists (42%). SDM was well described in terms of the people involved in this process, how it is approached, the components and topics of discussion, and the overall purpose of SDM. Generally, there was consistency in attitudinal responses, with the largest variance in responses to questions about the professional–patient partnership, the interface between SDM and clinical guidelines, and accepting a decision that is discordant with the professional’s opinion. Fifty-one respondents reported having some previous teaching/training in SDM, with the majority (87%) indicating that they would like more training. Conclusion: Clinicians providing orthodontic treatment in the UK have a good understanding of the meaning of shared decision-making. Concerns raised about using SDM and knowledge gaps suggest there is value in providing SDM training for the orthodontic team and that orthodontic providers would welcome it.

scholarly journals THU0647-HPR SHARED DECISION MAKING AMONGST RHEUMATOLOGISTS IN TRAINING IN THE NETHERLANDS: WHERE DO WE STAND?

2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 568.2-568
Author(s):  
L. Kranenburg ◽  
M. Dankbaar ◽  
N. Basoski ◽  
W. Van den Broek ◽  
J. Hazes
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
The Netherlands ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Daily Practice ◽  
Clear Understanding ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Professional Activities ◽  
Self Evaluation ◽  
The Subject

Background:The training curriculum for rheumatologists in training in the Netherlands describes competences and entrusted professional activities (EPA) to monitor the progress in learning. However, this training program does not discuss training of Shared Decision Making. As the basis for shared care and patient participation is made during these years, the question arises how rheumatologist in training think about Shared Decision Making and how they use this in daily practice.Objectives:Inventory of vision, experience and self-evaluation of skills related to Shared Decision Making amongst rheumatologists in training in the Netherlands in order to identify barriers in the implementation of Shared Decision Making in daily practice.Methods:Qualitative data was collected from on online survey amongst rheumatologists in training who were registered in January 2018 by the Dutch Society of Rheumatology.Results:Forty-two rheumatologists in training from various years of training responded (60%). Respondents think that Shared Decision Making is important. A third applies Shared Decision Making on a regular basis in daily practice. Self rating of skills for Shared Decision Making varies from sufficient to good. However, respondents are uncertain about their performance due to a lack of feedback and unclearness of the concept. They indicate that Shared Decision Making is not possible for all patients and find it difficult to assess whether the patient has a clear understanding of the options. Patient’s preferences are discussed only by 33% of the doctors on a regular basis when starting new treatment.Conclusion:Rheumatologists in training agree on the importance of Shared Decision Making, but are uncertain about their performance. Unclearness of the concept is described as a known barrier in literature1,2and is frequently mentioned by respondents. Rheumatologist in training indicate that not all patients are fit for Shared Decision Making. Regarding the limited training on the subject this could also be a misjudgment of patients preferences and lack of experience how to deal with different patient types. There is a clear plea for more training and feedback on the subject. Training should be integrated in the curriculum focusing on how to assess patients preferences and how to apply Shared Decision Making also for patients who indicate to leave decisions up to their doctor.References:[1]van Veenendaal, H.et al.Accelerating implementation of shared decision-making in the Netherlands: An exploratory investigation.Patient Educ Couns101, 2097-2104 (2018).[2]Legare, F., Ratte, S., Gravel, K. & Graham, I. D. Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: update of a systematic review of health professionals’ perceptions.Patient Educ Couns73, 526-535 (2008).Disclosure of Interests:Laura Kranenburg Grant/research support from: Pfizer and UCB for the development of the Reuma App, a tool to support selfmanagement for patients. This is not used for the research related to the submitted abstract., Mary Dankbaar: None declared, Natalja Basoski: None declared, Walter Van den Broek: None declared, Johanna Hazes: None declared

Certified Patient Decision Aids: Solving Persistent Problems with Informed Consent Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thaddeus Mason Pope
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Legal Doctrine ◽  
Patient Decision Aids ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Decision Making Processes

The legal doctrine of informed consent has overwhelmingly failed to assure that the medical treatment patients get is the treatment patients want. This Article describes and defends an ongoing shift toward shared decision making processes incorporating the use of certified patient decision aids.

Holistic Nurse Practitioner Care Including Promotion of Shared Decision-Making

2021 ◽  
pp. 089801012110627
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Kinchen
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Nurse Practitioner ◽  
Medical Condition ◽  
Holistic Care ◽  
Special Focus ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Convenience Sample

The purpose of this quantitative, descriptive, exploratory study was to gauge the degree to which nurse practitioners (NPs) incorporate holistic nursing values in their care, with a special focus on shared decision-making (SDM), using the Nurse Practitioner Holistic Caring Instrument (NPHCI), an investigator-developed scale. A single open-ended question inviting free-text comment was also included, soliciting participants’ views on the holistic attributes of their care. A convenience sample of NPs ( n = 573) was recruited from a southeastern U.S. state Board of Nursing's (BON) publicly available list of licensed NPs. Results suggest that NPs do indeed perceive their care to be holistic, and that they routinely incorporate elements of SDM in their care. Highest scores were accorded to listening, taking time to talk to patients, knowledge of physical condition, soliciting patient input in care decisions, considering how other areas of a patient's life may affect their medical condition, and attention to “what matters most” to the patient. Age, gender, level of education, practice specialty, and location were also associated with inclusion of holistic care. Free-text responses revealed that NPs value holistic care and desire to practice holistically, but identify “lack of time” to incorporate or practice holistic care as a barrier.

Das präoperative anästhesiologische Patientengespräch

2009 ◽  
Vol 66 (7) ◽  
pp. 503-508 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Harms ◽  
Christoph H. Kindler
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision

Anästhesisten treffen ihre Patienten häufig in Ausnahmesituationen an, geprägt von Angst und großer Unsicherheit. Selbst zeitlich kurze Kontakte sind daher meist intensiv und bedeutsam. Das persönliche, anästhesiologische Gespräch steht am Beginn der Beziehung von Patient und Anästhesist und soll die geplanten Maßnahmen, welche der Anästhesist durchführen wird, erklären und begleiten. Ein solches Gespräch dauert heute durchschnittlich 20 Minuten. Es beinhaltet die Erhebung der Anamnese, die strukturierte und verständliche Informationsübermittlung zwischen Anästhesist und Patient (inklusive Informationen über die anästhesiologischen Interventionen, Instruktionen zum Verhalten des Patienten und die offene und klare Kommunikation von Vor- und Nachteilen sowie Risiken möglicher Anästhesieverfahren) sowie den professionellen Umgang mit den Emotionen des Patienten, insbesondere seiner präoperativen Angst. Da Patienten heute in der Anästhesiologie vermehrt in den Entscheidungsprozess mit einbezogen werden, entwickelt sich dieses Gespräch zunehmend von einer eher paternalistischen Arzt-Patienten Interaktion zu einer gemeinsamen Entscheidungsfindung, dem so genannten „shared decision making“. Formal sollte das präoperative Gespräch die bekannten Voraussetzungen für eine erfolgreiche Verständigung zwischen Patient und Arzt wie Deutlichkeit, Eindeutigkeit, identische Kodierung, Empathie und Rückmeldung erfüllen und mit dem einholen eines „informed consent“ enden.

scholarly journals Adaption and validation of the Working Alliance Inventory for General Practice: qualitative review and cross-sectional surveys

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 516-522 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A Sturgiss ◽  
Elizabeth Rieger ◽  
Emily Haesler ◽  
Matthew J Ridd ◽  
Kirsty Douglas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Working Alliance ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Social Desirability ◽  
Concurrent Validity ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Working Alliance Inventory

Abstract Background Relational aspects of primary care are important, but we have no standard measure for assessment. The ‘working alliance’ incorporates elements of the therapeutic relationship, shared decision-making, goal setting and communication skills. The Working Alliance Inventory (short form) (WAI-SF) has been used in adult psychology, and a high score on the survey is associated with improved outcomes for clients. Objective To adapt the WAI-SF for use between GPs and patients and to test its concurrent validity with measures of shared decision-making and the doctor–patient relationship and discriminant validity with measures of social desirability. Methods Two rounds of online survey feedback from 55 GPs and 47 patients were used to adapt the WAI-SF—the WAI-GP. The tool was then completed by 142 patients in waiting rooms after seeing their GP and by 16 GPs at the end of their session. Concurrent validity with measures of shared decision-making and patient–doctor depth of relationship was determined using Spearman Rho correlations. Patients also completed two social desirability surveys, and discriminant validity with WAI-GP was assessed. Results Following feedback, the survey was re-worded to remove phrases that were perceived as judgmental or irrelevant. The patient measure of the WAI-GP was strongly correlated with Dyadic OPTION (rho = 0.705, P = 0.0001) and Patient–Doctor Depth of Relationship scale (rho = 0.591, P = 0.0001) and not with measures of social desirability. Conclusion The psychometric properties of the WAI-GP support its use for measuring GP-patient alliance. Possibilities for use include assessing the influence of therapeutic alliance on the effectiveness of interventions.

scholarly journals Principles for screening: Too few concerns for informed consent and shared decision-making?

2018 ◽  
Vol 190 (37) ◽  
pp. E1115-E1115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alain Braillon ◽  
Philippe Nicot ◽  
Cécile Bour
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document