scholarly journals The shared decision making of older adults in healthcare

2019 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 77-86
Author(s):  
Emilia Pusey ◽  
Anthea Tinker ◽  
Federica Lucivero
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Healthcare Setting ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Content Type ◽  
The Family

Purpose The research question is: what are older adults’ experiences of shared decision making (SDM) in a healthcare setting? This involved exploring older adults’ experiences and opinions of decision making in a healthcare setting, and understanding what SDM means to older adults. The paper aims to discuss this issue. Design/methodology/approach A qualitative study using face-to-face, semi-structured interviews with adults over 65 years was conducted. Thematic analysis was used. Findings Three broad themes were identified which ascribed roles to individuals involved in decision making. This includes the way in which older adults felt they should be involved actively: by asking questions and knowing their own body. The doctors’ role was described as assistive by facilitating discussion, giving options and advice. The role of the family was also explored; older adults felt the family could impact on their decisions in both a direct and indirect way. There was some confusion about what constituted a decision. Research limitations/implications This was a small qualitative study in a market town in England. Practical implications Clinicians should facilitate the involvement of older adults in SDM and consider how they can increase awareness of this. They should also involve the family in decision making. Originality/value There are limited studies which look at this issue in depth.

Patient Involvement in Anesthesia Decision-making: A Qualitative Study of Knee Arthroplasty

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Veena Graff ◽  
Justin T. Clapp ◽  
Sarah J. Heins ◽  
Jamison J. Chung ◽  
Madhavi Muralidharan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Primary Knee Arthroplasty

Background Calls to better involve patients in decisions about anesthesia—e.g., through shared decision-making—are intensifying. However, several features of anesthesia consultation make it unclear how patients should participate in decisions. Evaluating the feasibility and desirability of carrying out shared decision-making in anesthesia requires better understanding of preoperative conversations. The objective of this qualitative study was to characterize how preoperative consultations for primary knee arthroplasty arrived at decisions about primary anesthesia. Methods This focused ethnography was performed at a U.S. academic medical center. The authors audio-recorded consultations of 36 primary knee arthroplasty patients with eight anesthesiologists. Patients and anesthesiologists also participated in semi-structured interviews. Consultation and interview transcripts were coded in an iterative process to develop an explanation of how anesthesiologists and patients made decisions about primary anesthesia. Results The authors found variation across accounts of anesthesiologists and patients as to whether the consultation was a collaborative decision-making scenario or simply meant to inform patients. Consultations displayed a number of decision-making patterns, from the anesthesiologist not disclosing options to the anesthesiologist strictly adhering to a position of equipoise; however, most consultations fell between these poles, with the anesthesiologist presenting options, recommending one, and persuading hesitant patients to accept it. Anesthesiologists made patients feel more comfortable with their proposed approach through extensive comparisons to more familiar experiences. Conclusions Anesthesia consultations are multifaceted encounters that serve several functions. In some cases, the involvement of patients in determining the anesthetic approach might not be the most important of these functions. Broad consideration should be given to both the applicability and feasibility of shared decision-making in anesthesia consultation. The potential benefits of interventions designed to enhance patient involvement in decision-making should be weighed against their potential to pull anesthesiologists’ attention away from important humanistic aspects of communication such as decreasing patients’ anxiety. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New

scholarly journals Shared decision making in early knee osteoarthritis: A qualitative study of older adults and healthcare providers

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 ◽  
pp. S234-S235 ◽  
Author(s):  
A.J. Zbehlik ◽  
N.B. Riblet ◽  
M.E. Meinke ◽  
R.L. Pepin ◽  
R. Akkineni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Knee Osteoarthritis ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Shared Decision

scholarly journals Does a simple web-based intervention facilitate the articulation of patients’ unvoiced agenda for a consultation with their diabetologists? A qualitative study

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. e026588 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Frost ◽  
Andy Gibson ◽  
Obioha Ukoumunne ◽  
Bijay Vaidya ◽  
Nicky Britten
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Patients With Diabetes

ObjectiveTo explore whether a preconsultation web-based intervention enables patients with diabetes to articulate their agenda in a consultation in the hospital outpatient clinic with their diabetologist.Methods and designA qualitative study embedded in a pragmatic pilot randomised controlled trial.SettingTwo city outpatient departments in England.Participants25 patients attending a follow-up consultation and 6 diabetologists.InterventionThe PACE-D, a web-based tool adapted for patients with diabetes to use before their consultation to generate an agenda of topics to discuss with their diabetologist.Data collection25 participants had their consultation with their diabetologist audio-recorded: 12 in the control arm and 13 in the intervention arm; 12 of the latter also had their PACE-D intervention session and a consultation recorded. Semi-structured interviews with 6 diabetologists, and 12 patients (6 in the intervention group and 6 in the control group).AnalysisThematic discourse analysis undertaken with patient representatives trained in qualitative data analysis techniques.ResultsWe identified four consultation types: diabetologist facilitated; patient identified; consultant facilitated and patient initiated and patient ignored. We also identified three critical aspects that explained the production and utilisation of the agenda form: existing consultative style; orientation to the use of the intervention and impact on the consultation. Where patients and diabetologists have a shared preference for a consultant-led or patient-led consultation, the intervention augments effective communication and shared decision making. However, where preferences diverge (eg, there is a mismatch in patients' and diabetologists' preferences and orientations), the intervention does not improve the potential for shared decision making.ConclusionA simple web-based intervention facilitates the articulation of patients’ unvoiced agenda for a consultation with their diabetologist, but only when pre-existing consultation styles and orientations already favour shared decision making. More needs to be done to translate patient empowerment in the consultation setting into genuine self-efficacy.Trial registration numberISRCTN75070242.

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

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 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.

scholarly journals Measurement issues of shared decision making in mental health: challenges and opportunities

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 214-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lilisbeth Perestelo-Perez ◽  
Amado Rivero-Santana ◽  
Yolanda Alvarez-Perez ◽  
Yaara Zisman-Ilani ◽  
Emma Kaminskiy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Mental Health Care ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Psychometric Validation ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Deliberative Process ◽  
Content Type

Purpose Shared decision making (SDM) is a model of health care in which patients are involved in the decision-making process about their treatment, considering their preferences and concerns in a deliberative process with the health care provider. Many existing instruments assess the antecedents, process, or the outcomes of SDM. The purpose of this paper is to identify the SDM-related measures applied in a mental health context. Design/methodology/approach The authors performed a systematic review in several electronic databases from 1990 to October 2016. Studies that assessed quantitatively one or more constructs related to SDM (antecedents, process, and outcomes) in the field of mental health were included. Findings The authors included 87 studies that applied 48 measures on distinct SDM constructs. A large majority of them have been developed in the field of physical diseases and adapted or directly applied in the mental health context. The most evaluated construct is the SDM process in consultation, mainly by patients’ self-report but also by external observer measures, followed by the patients’ preferences for involvement in decision making. The most applied instrument was the Autonomy Preference Index, followed by the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making (OPTION) and the Control Preferences Scale (CPS). The psychometric validation in mental health samples of the instruments identified is scarce. Research limitations/implications The bibliographic search is comprehensive, but could not be completely exhaustive. Effort should be invested in the development of new SDM for mental health tools that will reflect the complexity and specific features of mental health care. Originality/value The authors highlight several limitations and challenges for the measurement of SDM in mental health care.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document