scholarly journals The Experience of Older People in the Shared Decision-Making Process in Advanced Kidney Care

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicola Thomas ◽  
Karen Jenkins ◽  
Breeda McManus ◽  
Brian Gracey
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Older People ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Daily Living ◽  
Research Training ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Qualitative Descriptive ◽  
First Time

Introduction. This qualitative descriptive study was designed to understand the experiences of older people (>70 years) when making a decision about renal replacement therapy. This was a coproduced study, whereby patients and carers were involved in all aspects of the research process.Methods. A Patient and Carer Group undertook volunteer and research training. The group developed the interview questions and interviewed 29 people who had commenced dialysis or made a decision not to have dialysis. Interview data were transcribed and analysed, and common themes were identified.Results. 22 men and 7 women (mean age 77.4 yrs) from two hospitals were interviewed. 18 had chosen haemodialysis, 6 peritoneal dialysis, and 5 supportive care. The majority of patients were involved in the dialysis decision. Most were satisfied with the amount of information that they received, although some identified that the quality of the information could be improved, especially how daily living can be affected by dialysis.Conclusion. Our findings show that overall older patients were involved in the dialysis decision along with their families. Our approach is innovative because it is the first time that patients and carers have been involved in a coproduced study about shared decision-making.

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 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>

scholarly journals 023 PP: INVOLVING PATIENTS AND CARERS IN RESEARCH: THE EXPERIENCE OF OLDER PEOPLE IN THE SHARED DECISION-MAKING PROCESS IN ADVANCED KIDNEY CARE a

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (Suppl 2) ◽  
pp. bmjopen-2017-016492.41
Author(s):  
N Thomas ◽  
K Jenkins ◽  
S Datta ◽  
R Endacott ◽  
J Kent ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Older People ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Shared Decision

scholarly journals Choice of dialysis modality: patients’ experiences and quality of decision after shared decision-making

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeanette Finderup ◽  
Kirsten Lomborg ◽  
Jens Dam Jensen ◽  
Dawn Stacey
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Dialysis Modality

P002 IBD PARTNERSHIPS: UNDERSTANDING PATIENTS VS. CLINICIANS PERSPECTIVES OF IBD TREATMENT OPTIONS TO IMPROVE SHARED DECISION-MAKING

2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S51-S51
Author(s):  
Sandra Zelinsky ◽  
Catherine Finlayson
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Research Approach ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Rural And Urban

Abstract Background The patient is the only constant in the care journey, the person who experiences both processes and the outcomes of care. There is an international shift towards including patients as equal partners in research. Co-producing research with Inflammatory Bowel Disease (IBD) patients to understand their values, needs and priorities when making treatment decisions will potentially improve shared decision-making between IBD patients and their Healthcare Providers (HCPs). To facilitate this process patients and HCPs must have a common understanding of expected medication benefits, risks and the potential impact on quality of life. The information available to facilitate this conversation must be aligned and reflect the priorities that IBD Patients and Healthcare Providers consider when making treatment decisions. Both parties can then share information and work towards an agreement to what treatment plan should be implemented. Aims To understand what matters most to IBD patients when making treatment decisions by conducting a qualitative patient-led peer to peer study which will inform the development of an IBD patient and HCP survey. Methods IBD patients (≥ 18 years of age) were recruited through the IBD clinic at the University of Calgary and via social media. Focus groups were held in three separate provinces (British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario) in both rural and urban locations. The focus groups were facilitated by a Patient Engagement Researcher to alleviate any potential power dynamics and to create a safe space for IBD patients to share their perspectives. A participatory action research approach was used to encourage co-production with participants throughout the focus groups. The focus groups were audio recorded. Flip charts and sticky notes were used for brainstorming and prioritization exercises. All audio and written data were transcribed. Thematic analysis was used to identify emerging themes and patient priorities. Results A total of 21 participants attended the focus groups from both rural and urban locations. Participant diversity ranged in ethnicity and age. Most of the participants were female (18 females and 3 males) of which 4 were biologic naïve and 17 were biologic exposed. The Top 5 IBD Patient Priorities when making treatment decisions are 1) Risks(more serious/long term) 2) Education(Support/Evidence Based Information/Resources) 3) Side Effects(short term/less serious) 4) Efficacy 5) Impact(Quality of Life/ Lifestyle/Logistics). Conclusions Co-producing research ‘with’ and ‘by’ IBD patients helped to generate priorities that matter most to patients when making treatment decisions. The patient priorities will help in the development of an IBD Patient and HCP survey. The results from the two surveys will be compared to understand patient vs. HCP perspectives.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document