scholarly journals When patient-centred care is worth doing well: informed consent or shared decision-making

2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (7) ◽  
pp. 522-524 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marleen Kunneman ◽  
Victor M Montori
2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thaddeus Mason Pope

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.


2009 ◽  
Vol 66 (7) ◽  
pp. 503-508 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Harms ◽  
Christoph H. Kindler

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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 190 (37) ◽  
pp. E1115-E1115 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alain Braillon ◽  
Philippe Nicot ◽  
Cécile Bour

2016 ◽  
Vol 223 (4) ◽  
pp. e16
Author(s):  
Susan C. Pitt ◽  
Angela M. Ingraham ◽  
Megan C. Saucke ◽  
Elizabeth M. Wendt ◽  
Courtney J. Balentine ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 104 (8) ◽  
pp. 561 ◽  
Author(s):  
Howard Manyonga ◽  
Graham Howarth ◽  
Mark Dinwoodie ◽  
Paul Nisselle ◽  
Sarah Whitehouse

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. e037225
Author(s):  
Mary Simons ◽  
Frances Rapport ◽  
Yvonne Zurynski ◽  
Jeremy Cullis ◽  
Andrew Davidson

IntroductionPatient-centred care is pivotal to clinical practice and medical education. The practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM) and shared decision-making (SDM) are complementary aspects of patient-centred care, but they are frequently taught and reported as independent entities. To effectively perform all steps of EBM, clinicians need to include patients in SDM conversations, however, the uptake of this has been slow and inconsistent. A solution may be the incorporation of SDM into EBM training programmes, but such programmes do not routinely include SDM skills development. This scoping review will survey the literature on the kinds of EBM and SDM educational programmes that exist for recently qualified doctors, programmes that incorporate the teaching of both EBM and SDM skills, as well as identifying research gaps in the literature.Methods and analysisLiterature searches will be conducted in the databases Medline, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Library. Bibliographies of key articles and their citing references will also be hand-searched and assessed for inclusion. Selected grey literature will be included. Papers must be written in English, or provide English abstracts, and date from 1996 to the present day.Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts, check full texts of selected papers for eligibility and extract the data. Any disagreement will be resolved, and consensus reached, if necessary, with the assistance of a third reviewer. Qualitative and quantitative studies that address educational interventions for either EBM, SDM or both will be included. Data extraction tables will present bibliographic information, populations, interventions, context and outcomes. Data will be summarised using tables and figures and a description of findings.Ethics and disseminationThis review will synthesise information from publicly available publications and does not require ethics approval. The results will be disseminated via conference presentations and publications in medical journals.


2020 ◽  
pp. 10.1212/CPJ.0000000000000823
Author(s):  
James L. Bernat ◽  
Michael P. McQuillen

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document