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 EFFECTS OF A SHARED DECISION MAKING INTERVENTION FOR OLDER ADULTS WITH CHRONIC CONDITIONS: AN OBSERVATIONAL STUDY

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S296-S297
Author(s):  
Ruth E Pel-Littel ◽  
Bianca Buurman ◽  
Marjolein van de Pol ◽  
Linda Tulner ◽  
Mirella Minkman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Observational Study ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Chronic Conditions ◽  
Decisional Conflict ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Multiple Chronic Conditions ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Perceived Involvement

Abstract Shared decision making (SDM) in older patients is more complex when multiple chronic conditions (MCC) have to be taken into account. The aim of this research is to explore the effect of the evidence based implementation intervention SDMMCC on (1) the preferred and perceived participation (2) decisional conflict and (3) actual SDM during consultations. 216 outpatients participated in a video observational study. The intervention existed of a SDM training for geriatricians and a preparatory tool for patients. Consultations were videotaped and coded with the OPTIONMCC. Pre- and post-consultation questionnaires were completed. Participation was measured by the Patients’ perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS). Decisional conflict was measured by the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). The patients mean age was 77 years, 56% was female. The preparatory tool was completed by 56 older adults (52%), of which 64% rated the tool as positive. The preparatory tool was used in 12% of the consultations. The mean overall OPTIONMCC score showed no significant changes on the level of SDM(39.3 vs 39.3 P0.98), however there were significant improvements on discussing goals and options on sub-items of the scale. There were no significant differences found in the match on preferred and perceived participation (86.5% vs 85.0% P 0.595) or in decisional conflict (22.7 vs 22.9 P0.630). The limited use of the preparatory tool could have biased the effect of the intervention. In future research more attention must be paid towards the implementation of preparatory tools, not only among patients but also among geriatricians.

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.

scholarly journals Shared decision-making in food allergy management

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
pp. 124-127
Author(s):  
Meera Patrawala ◽  
Gerald Lee ◽  
Brian Vickery
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Food Allergy ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Evidenced Based

Historically, the role of the health-care provider in medical practice has been primarily paternalistic by offering information, compassion, and decisive views with regard to medical decisions. This approach would exclude patients in the decision-making process. In a shift toward more patient-centered care, health-care providers are routinely encouraged to practice shared decision making (SDM). SDM uses evidence-based information about the options, elicitation of patient preferences, and decision support based on the patient’s needs with the use of decision aids or counseling. Although there are well-known benefits of SDM, including improvements in psychological, clinical, and health-care system domains providers have found it challenging to apply SDM in everyday clinical practice. In allergy, we have a unique role in the treatment of children and adults, and SDM should be applied appropriately when engaging with these specific groups. There are many situations in which there is not a clear best option (food allergy testing, food introduction and challenges, and immunotherapy). Therefore, decision aids specific to our field, coupled with evidenced-based information that ultimately leads to a decision that reflects the patient’s values will make for a vital skill in practice. In this article, we defined SDM, the benefits and barriers to SDM, unique situations in SDM, and approach to SDM in food allergy.

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 Barriers and facilitators for shared decision making in older patients with multiple chronic conditions: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth E. Pel-Littel ◽  
Marjolein Snaterse ◽  
Nelly Marela Teppich ◽  
Bianca M. Buurman ◽  
Faridi S. van Etten-Jamaludin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Chronic Conditions ◽  
Older Patients ◽  
Informal Caregivers ◽  
Poor Health ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Multiple Chronic Conditions ◽  
Shared Decision

Abstract Background The aim of this study was to describe barriers and facilitators for shared decision making (SDM) as experienced by older patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs), informal caregivers and health professionals. Methods A structured literature search was conducted with 5 databases. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility and performed a quality assessment. The results from the included studies were summarized using a predefined taxonomy. Results Our search yielded 3838 articles. Twenty-eight studies, listing 149 perceived barriers and 67 perceived facilitators for SDM, were included. Due to poor health and cognitive and/or physical impairments, older patients with MCCs participate less in SDM. Poor interpersonal skills of health professionals are perceived as hampering SDM, as do organizational barriers, such as pressure for time and high turnover of patients. However, among older patients with MCCs, SDM could be facilitated when patients share information about personal values, priorities and preferences, as well as information about quality of life and functional status. Informal caregivers may facilitate SDM by assisting patients with decision support, although informal caregivers can also complicate the SDM process, for example, when they have different views on treatment or the patient’s capability to be involved. Coordination of care when multiple health professionals are involved is perceived as important. Conclusions Although poor health is perceived as a barrier to participate in SDM, the personal experience of living with MCCs is considered valuable input in SDM. An explicit invitation to participate in SDM is important to older adults. Health professionals need a supporting organizational context and good communication skills to devise an individualized approach for patient care.

scholarly journals Shared Decision Making and Choice for Bariatric Surgery

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (24) ◽  
pp. 4966
Author(s):  
Yi-Chih Lee ◽  
Wei-Li Wu
Keyword(s):  
Bariatric Surgery ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Self Assessment ◽  
Patient Decision Aids ◽  
Decision Regret ◽  
Patient Decision

The number of people undergoing bariatric surgery is increasing every year, and their expectations for surgery often differ greatly. The purpose of this study was to develop a patient-centered decision-making aid to help people define their weight loss goals and assist them in discussing their surgical treatment with surgeons. Before the operation, the patients were asked to read the shared decision-making text and conduct a self-assessment. After the operation, we evaluated the program using survey questionnaires. A total of 103 patients were formally included in this study. The results show that patients were very satisfied with the use of patient decision aids (PDAs), with a score of 4.3 points (±0.6), and the postoperative decision-making satisfaction was also very high, at 4.4 points (±0.5), while the postoperative regret score was low, at 1.6 points (±0.6). Their satisfaction with surgical decision making and decision regret were statistically significantly negatively correlated (r = −0.711, p < 0.001). The experience of using PDAs was statistically significantly negatively correlated with decision regret (r = −0.451, p < 0.001); the experience of PDA use was statistically positively correlated with decision satisfaction (r = 0.522, p < 0.001). Patient decision aids are a means of helping patients make informed choices before they seek to undergo bariatric surgery.

scholarly journals Decide + Be Ready: A Contraceptive Decision-Making Mobile Application for Servicewomen

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine T Witkop ◽  
Dario M Torre ◽  
Lauren A Maggio
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Mobile Application ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Health Agency ◽  
Mobile App ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
The Military

ABSTRACT Women in the military have a high rate of unintended pregnancies, which is an issue both personally and with respect to the warfighting mission. One strategy to help servicewomen achieve family planning goals includes increasing education about and access to contraception. Research suggests that preference-sensitive decisions about contraceptives benefit from shared decision-making, and decision aids have been shown to facilitate this patient-centered approach. In this article, we describe the process by which we enhanced an existing evidence-based tool to meet the needs of military servicewomen and created Decide + Be Ready, a contraceptive decision-making mobile application. After extensive research into challenges faced by servicewomen with respect to contraceptive knowledge and access, we developed content for the decision aid and determined that a mobile app format would provide the privacy and convenience needed. Our team developed a prototype that, in collaboration with the Defense Health Agency Connected Health Branch, was tested with servicewomen and providers. User feedback shaped the final version, which can be accessed free from the App Store and Google Play. Early implementation has demonstrated patient and provider satisfaction. Obstacles to full implementation of Decide + Be Ready remain within the Military Health System. We lay out a roadmap for dissemination, implementation, and evaluation and explore the applications of the decision aid for health professions education in the realm of shared decision-making. Finally, we recommend consideration of decision aids for other health care decisions as a way to achieve patient-centered care, improve health outcomes, and potentially reduce costs.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document