Abstract 86: What Do Patients Remember? The Knowledge Gap in Patients Undergoing Elective Percutaneous Coronary Interventions

2012 ◽  
Vol 5 (suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Grace Lin ◽  
Julie Bynum ◽  
Carol Cosenza ◽  
Adam Lucas ◽  
Celeste Reinking ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Bypass Surgery ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Percutaneous Coronary ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Treatment Alternatives ◽  
Physician Patient

Background: There is increasing scrutiny of the use of elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD), due to the lack of mortality benefit compared with optimal medical therapy. Because of the clinical equipoise involved, decisions for elective PCI should include the preferences and involvement (to the extent desired) of a well-informed patient. However, there have been no large, national studies directly assessing knowledge and decision-making in patients with stable CAD undergoing elective procedures, so the overall state of knowledge in such patients is not clear. Our objective was to assess whether patients who have undergone elective PCI recalled critical facts and key decision-making processes regarding their treatment. Methods: National cross-sectional survey of 461 randomly sampled Medicare beneficiaries aged ≥ 65 who underwent elective PCI in 2008. Survey questions assessed patient demographics, cardiac history, decision-making processes, and knowledge. Knowledge was measured as the percentage of correct responses to 7 questions about the risks and benefits of elective PCI, bypass surgery and medical therapy for CAD. Questions about the decision-making process included assessment of physician-patient communication about the procedure and the patient's perception of their participation in the decision-making process. Association between knowledge and various predictors was determined using multivariate linear regression. Results: Patients answered a mean of 31.1% of questions correctly, and no patients answered all the questions correctly. Patients having undergone prior coronary artery bypass surgery had slightly more knowledge than those having their first PCI (mean correct score 36.7% vs. 29.4%, p<0.01). In a multivariate model, younger patients and patients who had previous bypass surgery were more knowledgeable. Neither educational level nor the patients’ subjective feeling of being informed was associated with knowledge level. Very few patients reported that their physicians talked about alternate treatment options (4.3%) or asked their preferences about the procedure (14.3%), two critical elements of shared decision-making; however, 67.3% of patients felt that decision-making was equally shared between the physician and patient. Conclusions: Medicare patients who underwent elective PCI had poor recollection about the benefits and risks of PCI, making it difficult to assess whether or not the patients made informed decisions. In addition, patients reported incomplete discussions about treatment alternatives and limited discussion of treatment preferences, despite reporting a high level of perceived shared decision-making. Although it is not clear whether the gaps in knowledge are a result of poor recall by the patient, poor knowledge transfer, or both, greater focus on improving patient knowledge and the physician-patient conversation about treatment alternatives and preferences is needed to ensure that elective PCIs are reflective of the preferences of well-informed patients.

Differences between women’s preferred and actual experience with ‘shared decision-making’: A mixed method study.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (26_suppl) ◽  
pp. 34-34
Author(s):  
Deborah Ejem ◽  
J Nicholas Dionne-Odom ◽  
Danny Willis ◽  
Peter Kaufman ◽  
Laura Urquhart ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Treatment Decision ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Treatment Decision Making ◽  
Actual Experience ◽  
Decision Making Processes

34 Background: Women with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) face numerous treatment and ACP decisions along their illness trajectory. We aimed to explore the treatment and ACP decision-making processes and decision support needs of women with MBC. Methods: Convergent, parallel mixed methods study (9/08-7/09). Sample included women with MBC managed by 3 breast oncologists at the Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Lebanon, NH. Participants completed a semi-structured interview and standardized decision-making instruments (decision control preferences) at study enrollment (T1; n = 22) and when they faced a decision point or 3 months later (T2; n = 19), whichever came first. Results: Participants (n = 22) where all white, averaged 62 years and were mostly married (54%), retired (45%), had a ≥ bachelor’s degree (45%), and had incomes > $40,000 (50%). On the control preferences scale, most women reported a preference for a ‘shared decision’ with clinician (T1 = 14 (64%) vs T2 = 9 (47%)) compared to making the decision themselves (T1 = 6 (27%) vs T2 = 6 (32%)), or delegating the decision to their doctor (T1 = 2 (9%) vs T2 = 4 (21%)). In semi-structured interviews about their actual treatment decision-making experience, women described experiencing a passive or delegated rather than a shared decision-making process. Conversely, women described a much more active ACP decision-making process that was often shared with family rather than their oncologists. Conclusions: Women selected a “shared” process using a validated tool; however their descriptions of the treatment decision-making processes were inconsistent with their actual experience, which was a more passive process in which they followed the oncologists’ treatment suggestions.

Understanding the Low Take-Up of Home-Based Dialysis Through Shared Decision-Making: A Qualitative Study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Dallimore ◽  
Gareth W. Roberts ◽  
Leah McLaughlin ◽  
Gail Williams Wales Renal ◽  
James Chess ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Prior Knowledge ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Framework Analysis ◽  
Home Dialysis ◽  
Home Based ◽  
Decision Making Processes

Abstract Background Despite home dialysis having many advantages, take-up by people with established renal failure is low in many countries. Previous studies highlight complex social, psychological, economic and health-system obstacles to patients choosing home dialysis. The study explored how people who are pre-dialysis, caregivers and health professionals together navigate common shared decision-making processes, and assesses how this impacts on choice of dialysis, conservative treatment or transplant. Methods This qualitative study took place in Wales, a country within the United Kingdom with a publicly-funded healthcare system. From 5 renal centres, education literature used in patient education was collected and content analysis applied. The theoretical framework was the MAGIC shared decision-model. From February 2019 until data saturation was reached in January 2020, semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 51 patients, 41 caregivers and 49 renal professionals were undertaken. Interview data were analysed using framework analysis. Patient and public representatives were involved throughout. Results Thematic findings are presented as: Prior knowledge, choice talk, options talk, decision talk. Gaps were found in both knowledge and understanding at every stage of the decision-making process and amongst all involved. Patients and caregivers came with varying levels of prior knowledge and understanding, which can result in misinformation and biases that contaminate the shared decision-making process. This is not always recognised by renal professionals. Presentation of treatment options through education programmes was often found to be inadequate, biased or poorly understood. Such deficiencies create partialities towards some treatments and, in particular, mitigate against the take-up of home therapies, even when they may be the most appropriate. A logic model and a road map to further evolving clinical practice was developed. Conclusions There are critical points in the process at where change could benefit patients. Patients need to be better prepared and their preconceived ideas and misconceptions gently challenged. Healthcare professionals need to update their knowledge in order to provide the best advice and guidance. Shared decision-making processes need to be individually-tailored so that there is more attention paid to the benefits of home based options, and on people who could chose a home therapy but select a different option.

scholarly journals Shared decision-making in neurosurgery: a scoping review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alba Corell ◽  
Annie Guo ◽  
Tomás Gómez Vecchio ◽  
Anneli Ozanne ◽  
Asgeir S. Jakola
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient’S Satisfaction ◽  
Risks And Benefits ◽  
Treatment Alternatives

Abstract Background In modern neurosurgery, there are often several treatment alternatives, with different risks and benefits. Shared decision-making (SDM) has gained interest during the last decade, although SDM in the neurosurgical field is not widely studied. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review was to present the current landscape of SDM in neurosurgery. Methods A literature review was carried out in PubMed and Scopus. We used a search strategy based on keywords used in existing literature on SDM in neurosurgery. Full-text, peer-reviewed articles published from 2000 up to the search date February 16, 2021, with patients 18 years and older were included if articles evaluated SDM in neurosurgery from the patient’s perspective. Results We identified 22 articles whereof 7 covered vestibular schwannomas, 7 covered spinal surgery, and 4 covered gliomas. The other topics were brain metastases, benign brain lesions, Parkinson’s disease and evaluation of neurosurgical care. Different methods were used, with majority using forms, questionnaires, or interviews. Effects of SDM interventions were studied in 6 articles; the remaining articles explored factors influencing patients’ decisions or discussed SDM aids. Conclusion SDM is a tool to involve patients in the decision-making process and considers patients’ preferences and what the patients find important. This scoping review illustrates the relative lack of SDM in the neurosurgical literature. Even though results indicate potential benefit of SDM, the extent of influence on treatment, outcome, and patient’s satisfaction is still unknown. Finally, the use of decision aids may be a meaningful contribution to the SDM process.

Prudence in Shared Decision-Making: The Missing Link between the “Technically Correct” and the “Morally Good” in Medical Decision-Making

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Muleli Kioko ◽  
Pablo Requena Meana
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Patient Autonomy ◽  
Intellectual Ability ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Physician Patient Relationship ◽  
Good Healing ◽  
The Right ◽  
Physician Patient

Abstract Shared Decision-Making is a widely accepted model of the physician–patient relationship providing an ethical environment in which physician beneficence and patient autonomy are respected. It acknowledges the moral responsibility of physician and patient by promoting a deliberative collaboration in which their individual expertise—complementary in nature, equal in importance—is emphasized, and personal values and preferences respected. Its goal coincides with Pellegrino and Thomasma’s proximate end of medicine, that is, a technically correct and morally good healing decision for and with a particular patient. We argue that by perfecting the intellectual ability to apprehend the complexity of clinical situations, and through a perfection of the application of the first principles of practical reason, prudence is able to point toward the right and good shared medical decision. A prudent shared medical decision is therefore always in keeping with the kind of person the physician and the patient have chosen to be.

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.

The role of a shared decision-making process in paediatric epilepsy surgery

2021 ◽  
Vol 429 ◽  
pp. 119162
Author(s):  
Michelle Gratton ◽  
Bonnie Wooten ◽  
Sandrine Deribaupierre ◽  
Andrea Andrade
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Epilepsy Surgery ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Paediatric Epilepsy

scholarly journals Shared decision making for the initiation and continuation of dialysis: a proposal from the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kazuyoshi Okada ◽  
Ken Tsuchiya ◽  
Ken Sakai ◽  
Takahiro Kuragano ◽  
Akiko Uchida ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Japanese Society ◽  
Healthcare Management ◽  
Maintenance Hemodialysis ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Healthcare Team ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Dialysis Therapy ◽  
Terminal Stage

Abstract Background In Japan, forgoing life-sustaining treatment to respect the will of patients at the terminal stage is not stipulated by law. According to the Guidelines for the Decision-Making Process in Terminal-Stage Healthcare published by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare in 2007, the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy (JSDT) developed a proposal that was limited to patients at the terminal stage and did not explicitly cover patients with dementia. This proposal for the shared decision-making process regarding the initiation and continuation of maintenance hemodialysis was published in 2014. Methods and results In response to changes in social conditions, the JSDT revised the proposal in 2020 to provide guidance for the process by which the healthcare team can provide the best healthcare management and care with respect to the patient's will through advance care planning and shared decision making. For all patients with end-stage kidney disease, including those at the nonterminal stage and those with dementia, the decision-making process includes conservative kidney management. Conclusions The proposal is based on consensus rather than evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. The healthcare team is therefore not guaranteed to be legally exempt if the patient dies after the policies in the proposal are implemented and must respond appropriately at the discretion of each institution.

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
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document