scholarly journals External Validation of a risk stratification model to assist shared decision making for patients starting renal replacement therapy

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Peeters ◽  
Wim Van Biesen ◽  
Nic Veys ◽  
Wim Lemahieu ◽  
Bart De Moor ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Yu Shi ◽  
Wang Li ◽  
Fangjian Duan ◽  
Shi Pu ◽  
Hongmei Peng ◽  
...  

Abstract Purpose Shared decision-making (SDM) about the type of renal replacement therapy to use is a matter of great importance involving patients, their families, and health treatment teams. This review aims to synthesize the volume of qualitative work explaining the factors influencing SDM regarding renal replacement therapy. Methods A systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis approach recommended by JBI was used, six databases were searched. Studies were qualitative or mixed research published since 2000, with a primary focus on patient experiences, perceptions and practices regarding which method to choose for renal replacement therapy in End-Stage Kidney Disease (ESKD) patients. All themes were analyzed and compared to the established connectedness. Results A total of 1313 patients were enrolled in 32 studies focusing on factors associated with SDM regarding renal replacement therapy were included. All quality evaluations of the literature were medium to high. Four common themes were identified in our synthesis: (1) patient personal reasons, (2) family-related factors, (3) health care professional-related factors, and (4) social factors influence. Conclusion The model proposes pathways that could be explored further in future qualitative and quantitative studies and suggests that patients’ beliefs, emotions, and awareness should be targeted alongside patients’ decision-making practices to increase the efficacy of interventions. The majority of studies included in this review focus on older patients, and all report patients’ perspectives. Further research is required to understand the family member perspectives on SMD of renal replacement therapy.


2016 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 526-535 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul C. Schroy ◽  
Emir Duhovic ◽  
Clara A. Chen ◽  
Timothy C. Heeren ◽  
William Lopez ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 199 (3) ◽  
pp. 683-690 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin G. Sanda ◽  
Jeffrey A. Cadeddu ◽  
Erin Kirkby ◽  
Ronald C. Chen ◽  
Tony Crispino ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 231-231
Author(s):  
Paul M. Barr ◽  
Taral Patel ◽  
Servillano E. Dela Cruz ◽  
Maen A. Hussein ◽  
Michael J. Castine ◽  
...  

231 Background: Though FL generally has good outcomes, patients with high risk FL have poorer outcomes; proper risk stratification for early intervention has been shown to improve overall benefit in some patients. In a quality improvement (QI) initiative conducted in 4 community oncology systems, we assessed practice patterns involving prognostication and the integration of patient-disease-and treatment-related factors to improve decision-making for patients with FL. Methods: Between 10/17/2019 and 3/4/2020, we surveyed hematology/oncology health care professionals (HCP; N=59) to assess challenges, barriers, and self-reported performance of quality FL care. Electronic medical records (EMR) of 100 patients were audited for demographics, disease characteristics, risk stratification, treatment, and patient-centered metrics. To address suboptimal guideline-aligned care, teams participated in audit-feedback sessions to develop action plans for resolving identified gaps. Results: The EMR audit demonstrated low levels of documentation of staging, grade, and criteria required by risk stratification models (Table). Despite 92% of HCP indicating the use of risk stratification or prognostic models to determine treatment choice, only 23% of charts indicated use of a model for risk stratification. 55% of HCP indicated testing for t(14;18), though no patients had documented evidence of t(14;18) testing results. Survey findings indicated low confidence integrating patient-related factors to determine appropriate risk group (24%). Treatment choice was aligned with guidelines. In surveys, providers reported uncertainty about when to initiate treatment (13%), which treatments are most appropriate for each patient (23%), and engaging patients in shared decision-making (28%) as top barriers to care. During audit-feedback sessions, teams created action plans to improve documentation for variables of risk stratification, patient symptoms, molecular results, and shared decision-making. Further, teams identified the need for improved resources and personnel. Conclusions: These findings reveal important challenges to providing individualized FL care in community settings, such as documentation of clinically important metrics, care coordination, and engaging patients in shared decision-making. These gaps may inform future QI and implementation science initiatives. [Table: see text]


2021 ◽  
Vol 79 ◽  
pp. S1423-S1424
Author(s):  
R.F. Tutrone ◽  
M. Donovan ◽  
P. Torkler ◽  
V. Tadigotla ◽  
J. Alter ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Pryce ◽  
Amanda Hall

Shared decision-making (SDM), a component of patient-centered care, is the process in which the clinician and patient both participate in decision-making about treatment; information is shared between the parties and both agree with the decision. Shared decision-making is appropriate for health care conditions in which there is more than one evidence-based treatment or management option that have different benefits and risks. The patient's involvement ensures that the decisions regarding treatment are sensitive to the patient's values and preferences. Audiologic rehabilitation requires substantial behavior changes on the part of patients and includes benefits to their communication as well as compromises and potential risks. This article identifies the importance of shared decision-making in audiologic rehabilitation and the changes required to implement it effectively.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document