scholarly journals THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INTERVENTION TO IMPROVE SHARED DECISION MAKING IN GERIATRIC OUTPATIENTS

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S297-S297
Author(s):  
Ruth E Pel-Littel ◽  
Julia van Weert ◽  
Mirella Minkman ◽  
Wilma Scholte op Reimer ◽  
Marjolein van de Pol ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Informal Caregivers ◽  
Complex Interventions ◽  
End Users ◽  
Multiple Chronic Conditions ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Share Information

Abstract Shared decision making (SDM) contributes to personalised decisions that fit the personal preferences of patients. However, older adults frequently face multiple chronic conditions (MCC). Therefore, implementing SDM requires special features. The aim of this paper is to describe the development of an intervention to improve SDM in older adults with MCC. Following the Medical Research Council framework for developing complex interventions, the SDMMCC intervention was developed step-wise. Based on a literature review and empirical research we developed in a co-creation process with the end-users a training for geriatricians and a preparatory tool for older patients with MCC and informal caregivers. After assessing feasibility the intervention was implemented at two outpatient geriatric clinics in a pilot study (N=108). Key elements of the training for geriatricians include: developing skills how to involve older adults with MCC and informal caregivers in SDM and learning how to explore personal goals related to quality of life. Key elements of the preparatory tool for patients include: an explicit invitation to participate in SDM, nomination that the patient’s own knowledge is valuable, invitation to form a partnership with the geriatrician, encouragement to share information about daily and social functioning and exploration of possible goals. Furthermore, invitation of informal caregivers to share their concerns. Through a process of co-creation both a training for geriatricians and a preparatory tool for older adults and their informal caregivers were developed, tailored to the needs of the end-users and based on the ‘Dynamic model of SDM with frail older adults’.

scholarly journals EFFECTS OF A SHARED DECISION MAKING INTERVENTION FOR OLDER ADULTS WITH CHRONIC CONDITIONS: AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S296-S297
Author(s):  
Ruth E Pel-Littel ◽  
Bianca Buurman ◽  
Marjolein van de Pol ◽  
Linda Tulner ◽  
Mirella Minkman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Chronic Conditions ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Multiple Chronic Conditions ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Perceived Involvement

Abstract Shared decision making (SDM) in older patients is more complex when multiple chronic conditions (MCC) have to be taken into account. The aim of this research is to explore the effect of the evidence based implementation intervention SDMMCC on (1) the preferred and perceived participation (2) decisional conflict and (3) actual SDM during consultations. 216 outpatients participated in a video observational study. The intervention existed of a SDM training for geriatricians and a preparatory tool for patients. Consultations were videotaped and coded with the OPTIONMCC. Pre- and post-consultation questionnaires were completed. Participation was measured by the Patients’ perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS). Decisional conflict was measured by the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). The patients mean age was 77 years, 56% was female. The preparatory tool was completed by 56 older adults (52%), of which 64% rated the tool as positive. The preparatory tool was used in 12% of the consultations. The mean overall OPTIONMCC score showed no significant changes on the level of SDM(39.3 vs 39.3 P0.98), however there were significant improvements on discussing goals and options on sub-items of the scale. There were no significant differences found in the match on preferred and perceived participation (86.5% vs 85.0% P 0.595) or in decisional conflict (22.7 vs 22.9 P0.630). The limited use of the preparatory tool could have biased the effect of the intervention. In future research more attention must be paid towards the implementation of preparatory tools, not only among patients but also among geriatricians.

Does providing autonomy for older adults through shared decision making improve quality of life?

2022 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Janelle Whitt ◽  
John Duke ◽  
Livia Maruoka Nishi ◽  
Molly Martin
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Improve Quality

scholarly journals Barriers and facilitators for shared decision making in older patients with multiple chronic conditions: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth E. Pel-Littel ◽  
Marjolein Snaterse ◽  
Nelly Marela Teppich ◽  
Bianca M. Buurman ◽  
Faridi S. van Etten-Jamaludin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Chronic Conditions ◽  
Older Patients ◽  
Informal Caregivers ◽  
Poor Health ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Multiple Chronic Conditions ◽  
Shared Decision

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to describe barriers and facilitators for shared decision making (SDM) as experienced by older patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs), informal caregivers and health professionals. Methods A structured literature search was conducted with 5 databases. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility and performed a quality assessment. The results from the included studies were summarized using a predefined taxonomy. Results Our search yielded 3838 articles. Twenty-eight studies, listing 149 perceived barriers and 67 perceived facilitators for SDM, were included. Due to poor health and cognitive and/or physical impairments, older patients with MCCs participate less in SDM. Poor interpersonal skills of health professionals are perceived as hampering SDM, as do organizational barriers, such as pressure for time and high turnover of patients. However, among older patients with MCCs, SDM could be facilitated when patients share information about personal values, priorities and preferences, as well as information about quality of life and functional status. Informal caregivers may facilitate SDM by assisting patients with decision support, although informal caregivers can also complicate the SDM process, for example, when they have different views on treatment or the patient’s capability to be involved. Coordination of care when multiple health professionals are involved is perceived as important. Conclusions Although poor health is perceived as a barrier to participate in SDM, the personal experience of living with MCCs is considered valuable input in SDM. An explicit invitation to participate in SDM is important to older adults. Health professionals need a supporting organizational context and good communication skills to devise an individualized approach for patient care.

High-risk surgery among older adults: Not-quite shared decision-making

Surgery ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana C. De Roo ◽  
Crystal Ann Vitous ◽  
Samantha J. Rivard ◽  
Michaela C. Bamdad ◽  
Sara M. Jafri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision

Optimizing patient adherence to stroke rehabilitation: A mixed method telerehabilitation trial (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabelle Gaboury ◽  
Michel Tousignant ◽  
Hélène Corriveau ◽  
Matthew Menear ◽  
Guylaine Le Dorze ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Stroke Rehabilitation ◽  
Patient Adherence ◽  
Interprofessional Collaboration ◽  
Interdisciplinary Collaboration ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
The Impact

BACKGROUND Strong evidence supports beginning stroke rehabilitation as soon as the patient’s medical status has stabilized and continuing following discharge from acute care. However, adherence to rehabilitation treatments over the rehabilitation phase has been shown to be suboptimal. OBJECTIVE Objective: The aim of this study is to assess the impact of a telerehabilitation platform on stroke patients’ adherence to a rehabilitation plan and on their level of reintegration to normal social activities, in comparison with usual care. The primary outcome is patient adherence to stroke rehabilitation (up to 12 weeks), which is hypothesized to influence reintegration to normal living. Secondary outcomes for patients include functional recovery and independence, depression, adverse events related to telerehabilitation, use of services (up to 6 months), perception of interprofessional shared decision making, and quality of services received. Interprofessional collaboration as well as quality of interprofessional shared decision making will be measured on clinicians. METHODS In this interrupted time series with a convergent qualitative component, rehabilitation teams will be trained to develop rehabilitation treatment plans that engage the patient and family, while taking advantage of a telerehabilitation platform to deliver the treatment. The intervention will entail 220 patients to receive stroke telerehabilitation with an interdisciplinary group of clinicians (telerehabilitation) versus face-to-face, standard of care (n = 110 patients). RESULTS Results: Our Research Ethics Board has approved the study in June 2020. Data collection for the control group is underway, with another year planned before we begin the intervention phase. CONCLUSIONS This study will contribute to minimize both knowledge and practice gaps, while producing robust, in-depth data on the factors related to the effectiveness of telerehabilitation in a stroke rehabilitation continuum. Findings will inform best practices guidelines regarding telecare services and the provision of telerehabilitation, including recommendations regarding effective interdisciplinary collaboration regarding stroke rehabilitation. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04440215

Improving the Perception of Patient-Centered Wellness in a Virtual Population During the COVID-19 Pandemic

2021 ◽  
pp. JDNP-D-20-00078
Author(s):  
Sybilla Myers ◽  
Christopher Kennedy
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Cognitive Theory ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Mobile App ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
The Social

BackgroundPerceived health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is fundamental to well-being and is a meaningful way to measure physical and mental health.Local ProblemNo standard method exists for measuring perceived HRQOL during the COVID-19 pandemic in participants as they attempt to improve their self-determined wellness goals. An implementation plan that considers the social distancing limitations imposed can be used to predict an individual’s likelihood of long-term success.MethodsDuring the four, 2-week plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles, the Social Cognitive Theory model informed the implementation of the four core interventions. To guide iterative changes, the data was analyzed through Excel and run charts.InterventionsThe four core interventions were the shared decision-making tool (SDMT), health mobile app tool (HMAT), wellness tracker tool (WTT), and the team engagement plan.ResultsAmong 28 participants, perceived quality of life increased by 70%, engagement in shared decision-making increased to 82%, app use and confidence increased to 85%, and goal attainment reached 81%.ConclusionsThe SDMT, health app, and wellness tracker created a methodical plan of accountability for increasing participant wellness. The contextual barrier of the COVID-19 pandemic added a negative wellness burden which was mitigated by creating a patient-centered culture of wellness.

scholarly journals Involvement of people with dementia in making decisions about their lives: a qualitative study that appraises shared decision-making concerning daycare

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (11) ◽  
pp. e018337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leontine Groen-van de Ven ◽  
Carolien Smits ◽  
Fuusje de Graaff ◽  
Marijke Span ◽  
Jan Eefsting ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Critical Points ◽  
Informal Caregivers ◽  
Case Managers ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
People With Dementia ◽  
Informed Preferences ◽  
Adapted Process

ObjectiveTo explore how people with dementia, their informal caregivers and their professionals participate in decision making about daycare and to develop a typology of participation trajectories.DesignA qualitative study with a prospective, multiperspective design, based on 244 semistructured interviews, conducted during three interview rounds over the course of a year. Analysis was by means of content analysis and typology construction.SettingCommunity settings and nursing homes in the Netherlands.Participants19 people with dementia, 36 of their informal caregivers and 38 of their professionals (including nurses, daycare employees and case managers).ResultsThe participants’ responses related to three critical points in the decision-making trajectory about daycare: (1) the initial positive or negative expectations of daycare; (2) negotiation about trying out daycare by promoting, resisting or attuning to others; and (3) trying daycare, which resulted in positive or negative reactions from people with dementia and led to a decision. The ways in which care networks proceeded through these three critical points resulted in a typology of participation trajectories, including (1) working together positively toward daycare, (2) bringing conflicting perspectives together toward trying daycare and (3) not reaching commitment to try daycare.ConclusionShared decision making with people with dementia is possible and requires and adapted process of decision making. Our results show that initial preferences based on information alone may change when people with dementia experience daycare. It is important to have a try-out period so that people with dementia can experience daycare without having to decide whether to continue it. Whereas shared decision making in general aims at moving from initial preferences to informed preferences, professionals should focus more on moving from initial preferences to experienced preferences for people with dementia. Professionals can play a crucial role in facilitating the possibilities for a try-out period.

scholarly journals Refusal to Travel in the National Ambulance Service. A Patient Care Report examination.

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Eamonn Byrne ◽  
Sasha Selby ◽  
Paul Gallen ◽  
Alan Watts
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Vital Signs ◽  
Ambulance Service ◽  
Guidance Document ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Clinical Guidance ◽  
Decision Making Model

<p><strong>Introduction</strong></p><p>Every patient has the right to refuse treatment and, or transport (RTT) to hospital (1). The National Ambulance Service (NAS) has operated under a clinical guidance document that requires an assessment of patient capacity and a baseline amount of data to be gathered on every patient to facilitate the patient making an informed decision (2,3). An increase in the rate of non-conveyance of patients and refusal to travel calls as well as an increasing number of complaints prompted a quality improvement initiative based on improving and facilitating a shared decision-making model.</p><p><strong>Aim</strong></p><p>For patients who RTT, to establish a baseline quality of information collected and recorded on a Patient Care Report.</p><p><strong>Methods</strong></p><p>All NAS incidents closed with a refusal of treatment or transport, from 1<sup>st</sup> Jan 2017 to 9<sup>th</sup> November 2017 were identified from National Emergency Operation Centre (NEOC). A random selection of 75 Patient care reports (52 Paper and 23 Electronic) were identified and reviewed. Compliance with the refusal to travel guidance document was measured.</p><p><strong>Results</strong></p><p>31% of paper PCR’s reviewed were missing a complete set of vital signs. An average of 48.4 % (Median 48.4% Range 36.5% to 61.5%) were missing a complete second set of vital signs. 17.3% of combined forms were missing the patient’s chief complaint and 38.7% had no practitioner clinical impression entered. 24% had no capacity assessment completed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p><p>Clinical information recorded by NAS staff did not meet the clinical guidance document requirements. It is impossible to assess what information was given to a patient to facilitate a shared decision-making model. The quality of NAS documentation can be improved for patients who refuse to travel.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document