Decision dissonance/alignment scale to promote patient-centered decisions about urinary diversion with cystectomy for bladder cancer.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e16010-e16010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott Michael Gilbert ◽  
Michael C Leo ◽  
Christopher Wendel ◽  
Robert S. Krouse ◽  
Marcia Grant ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Urinary Diversion ◽  
Convergent Validity ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Kaiser Permanente ◽  
Decision Style ◽  
Patient Goals ◽  
Patient Values

e16010 Background: The choice of urinary diversion (UD) with cystectomy is an opportunity to provide preference-driven care. We adapted a decision dissonance scale to measure concordance of patient goals with choice of ileal conduit (IC) vs. neobladder (NB) UD. Methods: With patient and clinician input, we identified 6 IC- and 4 NB-aligned goals, each rated on an 11-point scale (0 = not at all important to 10 = very important). Kaiser Permanente members rated the importance of these goals in a comprehensive survey mailed 6 months post-op (71% response rate (269/381)). Excluding respondents (n=93) with contraindications to NB and missing data on goals, we examined structural validity with principal axis factor analysis and convergent validity using correlations with other decision-making measures. Results: Items aligned to IC vs. NB factored separately as hypothesized (Table 1). NB patients prioritized (p<.05) NB-aligned goals (M=8.8, SD=1.8) over NB-dissonant goals (M=4.3, SD=2.4). IC patients’ alignment (M=5.4, SD=2.7) and dissonance (M=5.6, SD=2.1) ratings were similar. Dissonance was negatively correlated with informed decision-making (r=-.27) and satisfaction with care (r=-.21), and positively correlated with decision regret (r=.28) (each p<.01), but not correlated with shared decision making or decision style preference. Alignment was not significantly correlated with decision-making measures. Conclusions: Our measure distinguished patient values that could guide shared decision-making about UD choice. Patients who chose a NB had strong preferences for maintaining body integrity and function. [Table: see text]

scholarly journals Crafting Care That Fits: Workload and Capacity Assessments Complementing Decision Aids in Implementing Shared Decision Making (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas H Wieringa ◽  
Manuel F Sanchez-Herrera ◽  
Nataly R Espinoza ◽  
Viet-Thi Tran ◽  
Kasey Boehmer
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Chronic Conditions ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Multiple Chronic Conditions ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Patient Goals ◽  
Minimally Disruptive Medicine ◽  
Workload Capacity

UNSTRUCTURED About 42% of adults have one or more chronic conditions and 23% have multiple chronic conditions. The coordination and integration of services for the management of patients living with multimorbidity is important for care to be efficient, safe, and less burdensome. Minimally disruptive medicine may optimize this coordination and integration. It is a patient-centered approach to care that focuses on achieving patient goals for life and health by seeking care strategies that fit a patient’s context and are minimally disruptive and maximally supportive. The cumulative complexity model practically orients minimally disruptive medicine–based care. In this model, the patient workload-capacity imbalance is the central mechanism driving patient complexity. These elements should be accounted for when making decisions for patients with chronic conditions. Therefore, in addition to decision aids, which may guide shared decision making, we propose to discuss and clarify a potential workload-capacity imbalance.

scholarly journals Crafting Care That Fits: Workload and Capacity Assessments Complementing Decision Aids in Implementing Shared Decision Making

10.2196/13763 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. e13763
Author(s):  
Thomas H Wieringa ◽  
Manuel F Sanchez-Herrera ◽  
Nataly R Espinoza ◽  
Viet-Thi Tran ◽  
Kasey Boehmer
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Chronic Conditions ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Multiple Chronic Conditions ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Patient Goals ◽  
Minimally Disruptive Medicine ◽  
Workload Capacity

About 42% of adults have one or more chronic conditions and 23% have multiple chronic conditions. The coordination and integration of services for the management of patients living with multimorbidity is important for care to be efficient, safe, and less burdensome. Minimally disruptive medicine may optimize this coordination and integration. It is a patient-centered approach to care that focuses on achieving patient goals for life and health by seeking care strategies that fit a patient’s context and are minimally disruptive and maximally supportive. The cumulative complexity model practically orients minimally disruptive medicine–based care. In this model, the patient workload-capacity imbalance is the central mechanism driving patient complexity. These elements should be accounted for when making decisions for patients with chronic conditions. Therefore, in addition to decision aids, which may guide shared decision making, we propose to discuss and clarify a potential workload-capacity imbalance.

scholarly journals Rationale and proposed framework for shared decision making in cardio-oncology

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah C. Hull ◽  
Aaron Soufer ◽  
Erica S. Spatz ◽  
Lauren A. Baldassarre
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Patient Perspective ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Advanced Malignancy ◽  
Patient Goals ◽  
Patient Values

AbstractPhysicians have a duty to present diagnostic and therapeutic choices with rational guidance that respects patient values and realizes patient goals. In cardio-oncology, we commonly encounter patients who understandably feel overwhelmed or feel that they have no favorable options, particularly in the context of advanced malignancy. Accordingly, a longitudinal multidisciplinary commitment to shared decision making (SDM) ensures that physicians and patients actively participate in this process to promote the best possible outcomes from the patient perspective. We propose a practical framework for approaching these difficult decisions in cardio-oncology drawing upon our experience in clinical practice.

The Role of Shared Decision-Making in Audiologic Rehabilitation

2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Pryce ◽  
Amanda Hall
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Behavior Changes ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Treatment Information ◽  
Centered Care ◽  
Potential Risks ◽  
Audiologic Rehabilitation

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.

MP9-12 PATIENT-CENTERED TREATMENT DECISIONS: USING CONJOINT ANALYSIS AS AN AID FOR SHARED DECISION-MAKING FOR URETHRAL STRICTURE TREATMENT

2015 ◽  
Vol 193 (4S) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsay Hampson ◽  
Thomas Gaither ◽  
Leslie Wilson ◽  
Jie Ting ◽  
Isabel Allen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Conjoint Analysis ◽  
Urethral Stricture ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered

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.

It may help you to know. . .": The early phase qualitative development of a rheumatoid arthritis goal elicitation tool

2021 ◽  
pp. jrheum.201615
Author(s):  
Julie Kahler ◽  
Ginnifer Mastarone ◽  
Rachel Matsumoto ◽  
Danielle ZuZero ◽  
Jacob Dougherty ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Guidelines ◽  
Training Session ◽  
Clinic Visit ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Communication Tool ◽  
Group Setting ◽  
Patient Goals

Objective Treatment guidelines for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) include a patient-centered approach and shared decision making which includes a discussion of patient goals. We describe the iterative early development of a structured goal elicitation tool to facilitate goal communication for persons with RA and their clinicians. Methods Tool development occurred in three phases: 1) clinician feedback on the initial prototype during a communication training session; 2) semi-structured interviews with RA patients; and 3) community stakeholder feedback on elements of the goal elicitation tool in a group setting and electronically. Feedback was dynamically incorporated into the tool. Results Clinicians (n=15) and patients (n=10) provided feedback on the tool prototypes. Clinicians preferred a shorter tool de-emphasizing goals outside of their perceived treatment domain or available resources, highlighted the benefits of the tool to facilitate conversation but raised concern regarding current constraints of the clinic visit. Patients endorsed the utility of such a tool to support agenda setting and prepare for a visit. Clinicians, patients, and community stakeholders reported the tool was useful but identified barriers to implementation that the tool could itself resolve. Conclusion A goal elicitation tool for persons with RA and their clinicians was iteratively developed with feedback from multiple stakeholders. The tool can provide a structured way to communicate patient goals within a clinic visit and help overcome reported barriers, such as time constraints. Incorporating a structured communication tool to enhance goal communication and foster shared decision making may lead to improved outcomes and higher quality care in RA.

Shared Decision Making — The Pinnacle of Patient-Centered Care

2012 ◽  
Vol 366 (9) ◽  
pp. 780-781 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael J. Barry ◽  
Susan Edgman-Levitan
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Patient Centered Care ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Centered Care

Shared Decision Making

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Apurupa Ballamudi ◽  
John Chi
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Medical Information ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Risks And Benefits ◽  
Benefit Patient ◽  
Risk And Benefit

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a process in which patients and providers work together to make medical decisions with a patient-centric focus, considering available evidence, treatment options, the patient’s values and goals, and risks and benefits. It is important for all providers to understand how to effectively use SDM in their interactions with patients to improve patients’ experiences throughout their healthcare journey. There are strategies to improve communication between patients and their providers, particularly when communicating quantitative data, risks and benefits, and treatment options. Decision aids (DAs) can help patients understand complex medical information and make an informed decision. This review contains 9 figures, 4 tables and 45 references Key words: Shared decision-making, decision-making, communication, risk and benefit, patient-centered, health literacy, quality of life, decision aids, option grid, pictographs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document