scholarly journals Communication techniques for improved acceptance and adherence with therapeutic footwear

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 201-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jaap J van Netten ◽  
Anthony Francis ◽  
Ashley Morphet ◽  
Lauren V Fortington ◽  
Klaas Postema ◽  
...  

Background and aim: Clients’ acceptance and adherence with orthoses can be influenced by a clinician’s communication skills. In this clinical note, we describe two communication techniques, in the context of therapeutic footwear. Technique: Person-centred communication involves engaging with and listening to the attitudes of the client towards their condition, as well as discussing acceptance and expectations, in a structured consultation. Building a relationship is crucial and requires clients to feel heard and understood. An important influence on the acceptance and adherence is that a client makes a conscious decision to receive their device. This active receipt can be facilitated through shared decision making, wherein clinicians give clear, relevant and meaningful examples, based on clinical evidence, and ensure this is understood. Discussion: Two communication techniques for clinicians providing therapeutic footwear are described. These can be adapted for use with provision of other assistive technologies to improve client acceptance and adherence. Clinical relevance Small changes in how clinicians communicate to their clients in daily practice can have a big influence on the subsequent acceptance and adherence with therapeutic footwear and indeed other prescribed assistive technologies.

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia A. Zanini ◽  
Sara Rubinelli

This paper aims to identify the challenges in the implementation of shared decision-making (SDM) when the doctor and the patient have a difference of opinion. It analyses the preconditions of the resolution of this difference of opinion by using an analytical and normative framework known in the field of argumentation theory as the ideal model of critical discussion. This analysis highlights the communication skills and attitudes that both doctors and patients must apply in a dispute resolution-oriented communication. Questions arise over the methods of empowerment of doctors and patients in these skills and attitudes as the preconditions of SDM. Overall, the paper highlights aspects in which research is needed to design appropriate programmes of training, education and support in order to equip doctors and patients with the means to successfully engage in shared decision-making.


2020 ◽  
Vol 79 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 568.2-568
Author(s):  
L. Kranenburg ◽  
M. Dankbaar ◽  
N. Basoski ◽  
W. Van den Broek ◽  
J. Hazes

Background:The training curriculum for rheumatologists in training in the Netherlands describes competences and entrusted professional activities (EPA) to monitor the progress in learning. However, this training program does not discuss training of Shared Decision Making. As the basis for shared care and patient participation is made during these years, the question arises how rheumatologist in training think about Shared Decision Making and how they use this in daily practice.Objectives:Inventory of vision, experience and self-evaluation of skills related to Shared Decision Making amongst rheumatologists in training in the Netherlands in order to identify barriers in the implementation of Shared Decision Making in daily practice.Methods:Qualitative data was collected from on online survey amongst rheumatologists in training who were registered in January 2018 by the Dutch Society of Rheumatology.Results:Forty-two rheumatologists in training from various years of training responded (60%). Respondents think that Shared Decision Making is important. A third applies Shared Decision Making on a regular basis in daily practice. Self rating of skills for Shared Decision Making varies from sufficient to good. However, respondents are uncertain about their performance due to a lack of feedback and unclearness of the concept. They indicate that Shared Decision Making is not possible for all patients and find it difficult to assess whether the patient has a clear understanding of the options. Patient’s preferences are discussed only by 33% of the doctors on a regular basis when starting new treatment.Conclusion:Rheumatologists in training agree on the importance of Shared Decision Making, but are uncertain about their performance. Unclearness of the concept is described as a known barrier in literature1,2and is frequently mentioned by respondents. Rheumatologist in training indicate that not all patients are fit for Shared Decision Making. Regarding the limited training on the subject this could also be a misjudgment of patients preferences and lack of experience how to deal with different patient types. There is a clear plea for more training and feedback on the subject. Training should be integrated in the curriculum focusing on how to assess patients preferences and how to apply Shared Decision Making also for patients who indicate to leave decisions up to their doctor.References:[1]van Veenendaal, H.et al.Accelerating implementation of shared decision-making in the Netherlands: An exploratory investigation.Patient Educ Couns101, 2097-2104 (2018).[2]Legare, F., Ratte, S., Gravel, K. & Graham, I. D. Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: update of a systematic review of health professionals’ perceptions.Patient Educ Couns73, 526-535 (2008).Disclosure of Interests:Laura Kranenburg Grant/research support from: Pfizer and UCB for the development of the Reuma App, a tool to support selfmanagement for patients. This is not used for the research related to the submitted abstract., Mary Dankbaar: None declared, Natalja Basoski: None declared, Walter Van den Broek: None declared, Johanna Hazes: None declared


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 3402-3402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori E. Crosby ◽  
Francis J Real ◽  
Bradley Cruse ◽  
David Davis ◽  
Melissa Klein ◽  
...  

Background: Although hydroxyurea (HU) is an effective disease modifying treatment for sickle cell disease (SCD), uptake remains low in pediatric populations in part due to parental concerns such as side-effects and safety. NHLBI Guidelines recommend shared decision making for HU initiation to elicit family preferences and values; however, clinicians lack specific training. A HU shared decision-making (H-SDM) toolkit was developed to facilitate such discussions (NCT03442114). It includes: 1) decision aids to support parents (brochure, booklet, video narratives, and an in-visit issue card [featuring issues parents reported as key to decision-making about HU]); 2) quality improvement tools to monitor shared decision-making performance; and 3) a curriculum to train clinicians in advanced communication skills to engage parents in shared decision-making. This abstract describes the development and preliminary evaluation of the virtual reality (VR) component of the clinician curriculum. Objectives: The goals are to: 1) describe the development of a VR simulation for training clinicians in advanced communication skills, and 2) present preliminary data about its tolerability, acceptability, and impact. Methods: Immersive VR simulations administered via a VR headset were created. The VR environment was designed to replicate a patient room, and graphical character representatives (avatars) of parents and patients were designed based on common demographics of patients with SCD (Figure 1). During simulations, the provider verbally counseled the avatars around HU initiation with avatars' verbal and non-verbal responses matched appropriately. The H-SDM in-visit issue card was incorporated into the virtual environment to reinforce practice with this tool. The VR curriculum was piloted for initial acceptability with parents of a child with SCD and clinicians at a children's hospital. Evaluation: Hematology providers participated in the workshop training that included information on facilitating shared decision-making with subsequent deliberate practice of skills through VR simulations. Each provider completed at least one VR simulation. The view through the VR headset was displayed on to a projector screen so others could view the virtual interaction. Debriefing occurred regarding use of communication skills and utilization of the issue card. To assess tolerability, providers reported side effects related to participation. To assess acceptability, providers completed a modified version of the Spatial Presence Questionnaire and described their experience. Impact was assessed by self-report on a retrospective pre-post survey of confidence in specific communication skills using a 5-point scale (from not confident at all to very confident). Differences in confidence were assessed using Wilcoxon Signed-ranks tests. Results: Nine providers (5 pediatric hematologists and 4 nurse practitioners at 3 children's hospitals) participated. Tolerability: The VR experience was well tolerated with most providers reporting no side effects (Table 1). Acceptability: All providers agreed or strongly agreed that the VR experience captured their senses and that they felt physically present in the VR environment. Providers described the experience as "enjoyable", "immersive", and "fun". One provider noted, "It (the VR simulation) put me in clinic to experience what it felt like to discuss HU and use the tool." Impact: Providers' self-reported confidence significantly improved after VR simulations on 4 of 5 communication skills: confirming understanding, Z =1.98, p = .05, r = .44, eliciting parent concerns/values, Z = 2.22, p = .03, r = .50, using an elicit-provide-elicit approach, Z =1.8, p = .02, r = .50, minimizing medical jargon, Z = 1.8, p = .07, r = .40, and using open-ended questions, Z =1.98, p = .05, r = .44. Median scores changed by one-point for all responses and effects were medium to large (see Figure 2). Discussion: The VR curriculum was rated as immersive, realistic, and well-tolerated. Providers endorsed it as a desirable training method. Self-report of confidence in shared decision making-related communication skills improved following completion of VR simulation. Thus, initial data support that VR may be an effective method for educating providers to engage parents in shared decision making for HU. Disclosures Quinn: Amgen: Other: Research Support; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.


Good communication skills form a fundamental principle of the patient- centred clinical consultation. The new Part 3 of the MRCOG, assesses candidates based on their ability to apply the core clinical skills in the context of real- life scenarios. It assesses five core skills domains, with three relating to communication skills; i) Communicating with patients and their families, ii) Communicating with colleagues and iii) Information gathering. Communication skills in the Part 3 clinical assessment can be assessed in many forms: … ● Exploring patient symptoms or concerns (information gathering) ● Explaining a diagnosis, investigation or treatment (information giving) ● Involving the patient in a decision (shared decision making) ● Health promoting activities ● Obtaining informed consent for a procedure ● Breaking bad news ● Communicating with relatives ● Communicating with other members of the health care team … In order to provide patient- centred care, doctors must treat their patients as partners, involving them in the decision making regarding their care and instilling in them a sense of responsibility for their own health. When the patient feels that they are part of the team it increases their satisfaction with care, increases treatment adherence and improves clinical outcomes. It is these skills that are assessed in clinical assessment tasks involving communication. Clinical assessment candidates are often assessed in two communication domains; Process and Content. In order to do well in the information gathering stations, you must be aware of the differential diagnoses that may arise with various presentations and how to explore each one independently and as a collection. When it comes to information giving or shared decision marking, candidates need to be familiar with the most recent Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology guidelines and know how to interpret their meaning to the patient and their families. The Calgary- Cambridge Model is one of the most recognized communication theories in medical education (Kurtz, 1996). This theory can be adapted to fit into most clinical scenarios. Using the Calgary- Cambridge Model, you should be able to obtain the majority of the points related to process.


2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (5) ◽  
pp. 531-540 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Gerlach ◽  
Swantje Goebel ◽  
Sascha Weber ◽  
Martin Weber ◽  
Katherine E Sleeman

Background: Early integration of palliative care can improve outcomes for people with cancer and non-cancer diagnoses. However, prediction of survival for individuals is challenging, in particular in patients with haematological malignancies who are known to have limited access to palliative care. The ‘Surprise’-Question can be used to facilitate referral to palliative care. Aim: To explore experiences, views and perceptions of haemato-oncologists on the use of the ‘Surprise’-Question in the haemato-oncology outpatients clinics of a university hospital in Germany. Design: A qualitative study using individual semi-structured interviews transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically based on the framework approach. Setting/participants: The study took place at the haemato-oncology outpatient clinic and the bone marrow transplantation outpatient clinic of a university hospital. Nine haemato-oncologists participated in qualitative interviews. Results: Thematic analysis identified 4 themes and 11 subthemes: (1) meaning and relevance of the ‘Surprise’-Question; (2) feasibility; (3) the concept of ‘surprise’ and (4) personal aspects of prognostication. A key function of the ‘Surprise’-Question was to stimulate intuition and promote patient-centred goals of care by initiating a process of pause → reflection → change of perspective. It was easy and quick to use, but required time and communication skills to act on. Participants’ training in palliative care enhanced their willingness to use the ‘Surprise’-Question. Conclusion: Irrespective of its use in prognostication, the ‘Surprise’-Question is a valuable tool to facilitate consideration of patient-centred goals and promote holistic care in haemato-oncology. However, prognostic uncertainty, lack of time and communication skills are barriers for integration into daily practice. Further research should involve haematology patients to integrate their needs and preferences.


2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. 460-464
Author(s):  
Mary Fraser

Decision making takes place in all aspects of veterinary care. Throughout any consultation, work up, hospitalisation or ongoing home care, decisions need to be made about the next step to be taken. Clinical decision making is influenced by many different factors including past experience, emotions, owner wishes, financial concerns and communication skills. Within the veterinary team, it is important that everyone understands the factors influencing decisions. Decision making can follow a paternalistic, guardian or shared approach, which tends to be dominant in veterinary practice. Where practices adopt standard operating procedures, the use of clinical evidence and clear non-biased decisions need to be made.


2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. 300-300 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruno Castagneto ◽  
Ilaria Stevani ◽  
Roberto Bortolus ◽  
Alessandra Bearz ◽  
Roberta Buosi ◽  
...  

300 Background: Docetaxel (Doc) and Cabazitaxel (Cab) every 3 weeks with daily prednisone are standard first and second line chemotherapies in mCRPC. In daily practice, many mCRPC pts are aged > 65 years and around 20% are aged > 75years. MATuRITY registry shows that taxanes therapy provides EP with increased chances of surviving even in case of frailty. EP unfit due to their comorbidities are at risk of AE related to the chemo-treatment, so an appropriate adjustment of the dosage and schedule should be take into account. According to SIOG guidelines, G-8 Screening Tool represents a key tool to identify a suitable subset of EP able to receive cab. Methods: WeCabE enrolled mCRPC EP ≥ 70 and < 85 years, G8 Score 8-14, PS 0-2. Cab was administered at a dose of 8mg /m2 (10mg/m2 if well tolerated) for 4 out 5 weeks Use of G-CSF was allowed. Median PFS, primary endpoint, was evaluated according to PCWG-2. Secondary endpoints were: PSA Response, ORR, OS, Safety, Geriatric assessment (Minimal Data Set according with Elderly Task Force EORTC) on outcomes. PSA response, safety, impact of the treatment on pain and G8 score pre and post cab were analysed. Results: At time of this analysis 14 EP enrolled in WeCabE were analysed. Median age was 78 years, 35.7% of pts were 80-85 years. Median number of cycles received, in pts who ended treatment was 4. Overall 55.6% of pts reached a PSA response while 33.3% achieved a stability. 42.8% of pts ended therapy without a worsening/rising of symptoms, 42.8% and 14.4% showed, respectively, mild and severe pain at end of cab. G8 best score improvement during treatment was 1.28 (median). The most common AE G 3-4 was fatigue (20%) while G1-2 toxicities were diarrhea (40%) and fatigue (60%). Only one pt experienced neutropenia and anemia G3-4. Conclusions: These preliminary results confirm the usefulness of G8 tool to identify elderly mCRPC pts suitable to receive chemotherapy. It suggests that weekly cabazitaxel, in elderly mCRPC, is effective including in very old pts ( > 80 ), with a manageable safety profile. Additional results will be presented at ASCO GU meeting. Trial partially supported by Sanofi Genzyme Clinical trial information: 2014-001647-20.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document