scholarly journals Evaluation of Nurses’ Perceptions on Providing Patient Decision Support with Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation

ISRN Nursing ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 2012 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Nicole Pyl ◽  
Prudy Menard
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Education Session ◽  
Improvement Project ◽  
Ottawa Hospital ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Patient Decision Support

The decision whether to receive cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is a decision in which the personal values of the patient must be considered along with information about the risks and benefits of the treatment. A decision aid can be used to provide patient decision support to a patient who is seriously ill and needs to consider CPR options. The goal of this project was to identify the barriers and facilitators to using a CPR decision aid, through evaluating nursing perceptions on providing patient decision support. Using a needs assessment, it was determined that implementing a patient decision aid for CPR status in the Acute Monitor Area (AMA) of The Ottawa Hospital would be an excellent quality improvement project. The nurses who chose to participate were given an education session regarding patient decision support. Questionnaires were distributed to evaluate their views of patient decision support and decision aids before and after the education session and implementation of the CPR decision aid. Questionnaire results did not indicate a significant change between before or after education session and decision aid implementation. Qualitative reports did indicate that nurses generally have positive attitudes toward patient decision support and decision aids. The nurses identified specific barriers and facilitators in their commentaries. This clinically relevant data supports the idea that patient decision support should be integrated into daily nursing practice.

Evaluation of decision support tools for patients with advanced cancer: A systematic review of literature

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (03) ◽  
pp. 356-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane Tapp ◽  
Marie-Claude Blais
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Quality Standard ◽  
Decision Support Tools ◽  
Patient Decision Aids ◽  
Ottawa Hospital ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Support Tools

AbstractObjectiveMedical decisions in the context of advanced cancer are more based on patient values and preferences than during the early stages of the disease. The implementation of shared decision-making is particularly important with an oncology palliative care population. However, few decision support tools focus on this population. This literature review aims to identify decision support tools related to palliative care for an oncological population and to assess their quality using International Patient Decision Aids Standards criteria.MethodThe tools were identified through PsycINFO, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and CINAHL databases; the inventory of tools to assist the decisions of the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; and through the register of Cochrane trials. They were then evaluated using the third version of the International Patient Decision Aids Standards instrument.ResultSixteen tools were identified, which targeted five types of cancer and addressed a particular decision or the use of chemotherapy in addition to palliative care. The quality of the reviewed tools varies.Significance of resultsClinicians can use four decision support tools related to palliative care with an oncology population that meet a certain quality standard. Further studies are needed to develop new decision support tools targeting more types of cancer and decisions.

scholarly journals A Review of the Presentation of Overdiagnosis in Cancer Screening Patient Decision Aids

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 238146831988144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ashley J. Housten ◽  
Lisa M. Lowenstein ◽  
Aubri Hoffman ◽  
Lianne E. Jacobs ◽  
Zineb Zirari ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Potential Harm ◽  
Ottawa Hospital ◽  
Probability Estimates ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Meta Analyses

Introduction. Patient decision aid (PDA) certification standards recommend including the positive and negative features of each option of the decision. This review describes the inclusion of concepts related to overdiagnosis and overtreatment, negative features often ambiguously defined, in cancer screening PDAs. Methods. Our process followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We reviewed 1) current systematic reviews of decision aids, 2) the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute Decision Aid Library Inventory, and 3) a web-based, gray literature search. Two independent reviewers identified and evaluated PDAs using content analysis. Reviewers coded whether overdiagnosis/overtreatment was described as 1) detecting cancer that would not lead to death, 2) detecting cancer that would not cause symptoms, and/or 3) a potential harm or consequence of screening. Coding discrepancies were resolved through consensus. Results. A total of 904 records (e.g., articles, PDAs) were reviewed and 85 PDAs were identified: prostate ( n = 36), breast ( n = 26), lung ( n = 10), colorectal ( n = 10), and other ( n = 3). Sixty-seven PDAs included concepts related to overdiagnosis/overtreatment; 57 (67.1%) used a term other than overdiagnosis/overtreatment, 23 (27.1%) used the specific term “overdiagnosis,” and 13 (15.3%) used “overtreatment.” PDAs described overdiagnosis/overtreatment as a potential harm or consequence of screening ( n = 62) and/or a detection of a cancer that would not cause symptoms (n = 49). Thirty-six described overdiagnosis as the detection of a cancer that would not result in death. Twenty PDAs described the probabilities associated with overdiagnosis/overtreatment. Conclusions. Over three quarters of cancer screening PDAs addressed concepts related to overdiagnosis/overtreatment, yet terminology was inconsistent and few included probability estimates. Consistent terminology and minimum standards to describe overdiagnosis/overtreatment would help guide the design and certification of cancer screening PDAs.

scholarly journals Systematic Development of Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the IPDAS Collaboration

2021 ◽  
pp. 0272989X2110141
Author(s):  
Holly O. Witteman ◽  
Kristin G. Maki ◽  
Gratianne Vaisson ◽  
Jeanette Finderup ◽  
Krystina B. Lewis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Aid ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Rapid Development ◽  
User Involvement ◽  
User Centered Design ◽  
Patient Decision Aid ◽  
Patient Decision Aids ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Development Processes ◽  
Systematic Development

Background The 2013 update of the evidence informing the quality dimensions behind the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) offered a model process for developers of patient decision aids. Objective To summarize and update the evidence used to inform the systematic development of patient decision aids from the IPDAS Collaboration. Methods To provide further details about design and development methods, we summarized findings from a subgroup ( n = 283 patient decision aid projects) in a recent systematic review of user involvement by Vaisson et al. Using a new measure of user-centeredness (UCD-11), we then rated the degree of user-centeredness reported in 66 articles describing patient decision aid development and citing the 2013 IPDAS update on systematic development. We contacted the 66 articles’ authors to request their self-reports of UCD-11 items. Results The 283 development processes varied substantially from minimal iteration cycles to more complex processes, with multiple iterations, needs assessments, and extensive involvement of end users. We summarized minimal, medium, and maximal processes from the data. Authors of 54 of 66 articles (82%) provided self-reported UCD-11 ratings. Self-reported scores were significantly higher than reviewer ratings (reviewers: mean [SD] = 6.45 [3.10]; authors: mean [SD] = 9.62 [1.16], P < 0.001). Conclusions Decision aid developers have embraced principles of user-centered design in the development of patient decision aids while also underreporting aspects of user involvement in publications about their tools. Templates may reduce the need for extensive development, and new approaches for rapid development of aids have been proposed when a more detailed approach is not feasible. We provide empirically derived benchmark processes and a reporting checklist to support developers in more fully describing their development processes. [Box: see text]

scholarly journals Basing Information on Comprehensive, Critically Appraised, and Up-to-Date Syntheses of the Scientific Evidence: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards

2021 ◽  
pp. 0272989X2199662
Author(s):  
Tammy C. Hoffmann ◽  
Mina Bakhit ◽  
Marie-Anne Durand ◽  
Lilisbeth Perestelo-Pérez ◽  
Catherine Saunders ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Aid ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Patient Decision Aid ◽  
Patient Decision Aids ◽  
Research Areas ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Evidence Quality ◽  
Emerging Issues

Background Patients and clinicians expect the information in patient decision aids to be based on the best available research evidence. The objectives of this International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) review were to 1) check the currency of, and where needed, update evidence for the domain of “basing the information in decision aids on comprehensive, critically appraised, and up-to-date syntheses of the evidence”; 2) analyze the evidence characteristics of decision aids; and 3) propose updates to relevant IPDAS criteria. Methods We searched MEDLINE and PubMed to inform updates of this domain’s definitions, justifications, and components. We also searched 5 sources to identify all publicly available decision aids ( N = 471). Two assessors independently extracted each aid’s evidence characteristics. Results Minor updates to the definitions and theoretical justifications of this IPDAS domain are provided and changes to relevant IPDAS criteria proposed. Nearly all aids (97%) provided a year of creation/update, but most (81%) did not report an explicit update or expiration policy. No scientific references were cited in 33% of aids. Of the 314 that cited at least 1 reference, 39% cited at least 1 guideline, 44% cited at least 1 systematic review, and 23% cited at least 1 randomized trial. In 35%, it was unclear what statement in the aid the citations referred to. Only 14% reported any of the processes used to find and decide on evidence inclusion. Only 14% reported the evidence quality. Many emerging issues and future research areas were identified. Conclusions Although many emerging issues need to be addressed, this IPDAS domain is validated and criteria refined. High-quality patient decision aids should be based on comprehensive and up-to-date syntheses of critically appraised evidence.

scholarly journals Experts' views on the implementation of the prenatal screening decision aid in Iran: A qualitative study

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Razieh Zahedi ◽  
Leila Nemati-Anaraki ◽  
Shahram Sedghi ◽  
Mamak Shariat
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Prenatal Screening ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Personal Factors ◽  
Snowball Sampling ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Patient Decision Aids ◽  
Patient Decision

Background & Aim: Patient decision aids are detailed and personalized health education materials that assist patients in decision making. According to expert viewpoints, this study aimed to determine important factors in implementing the prenatal screening decision aid in Iran. Methods & Materials: In this qualitative study, 24 experts, including seven obstetricians, four information scientists, five managers or policymakers, and eight midwives, were selected using purposive and snowball sampling approaches. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to collect the data between January 2020 and June 2020 in Tehran, Iran. A prenatal screening decision aid was presented to the participants, and we asked them to raise their concerns and thoughts regarding the factors influencing the implementation of patient decision aids. We used MAXQDA 10 and applied conventional content analysis for data analysis. Results: Two organizational and personal factors themes were identified to implement Iran's prenatal screening decision aids. Conclusion: We identified the viewpoints of experts regarding major factors in patient decision aids implementation for prenatal screening. Before implementing prenatal screening decision aids in Iran, it would be helpful to consider these organizational and personal factors. Prenatal screening decision aids can provide better information for pregnant women and strengthen their decision-making ability.

20th Anniversary Update of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework: Part 2 Subanalysis of a Systematic Review of Patient Decision Aids

2020 ◽  
Vol 40 (4) ◽  
pp. 522-539 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren Hoefel ◽  
Krystina B Lewis ◽  
Annette O’Connor ◽  
Dawn Stacey
Keyword(s):  
Decision Support ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Risk Perceptions ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Decision Quality ◽  
Patient Decision Aids ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Decision Support Framework ◽  
Ottawa Decision Support Framework

Background. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) has guided the development of patient decision aids (PtDAs) for 20 years and needs updating across a range of decisions and hypothesized outcomes. Purpose. To determine the effectiveness of ODSF-developed PtDAs on hypothesized outcomes and to recommend framework changes. Data Source. A subanalysis of randomized controlled trials included in the 2017 Cochrane review of PtDAs comparing PtDAs to usual care in adults considering health treatment or screening decisions (searched to 2015). Study Selection. Trials in the original review that evaluated ODSF-developed PtDAs. Data Synthesis. Meta-analyses of ODSF outcomes with similar measurements and descriptions of other reported outcomes. Results. Of 105 trials, 24 evaluated ODSF-developed PtDAs. Compared with usual care, ODSF PtDAs improved knowledge (mean difference [MD] 13.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 10.32−17.37; 14 trials), increased accurate risk perceptions (risk ratio [RR] 2.41; 95% CI 1.66−3.48; 7 trials), and increased congruence between informed values and chosen options (RR 1.32; 95% CI 1.09−1.59; 4 trials). They reduced perceived decisional needs as measured using the Decisional Conflict Scale (MD −5.92; 95% CI −8.58 to −3.26; 15 trials) and the proportion of undecided patients (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.50−0.83; 13 trials). Non-ODSF PtDAs, designed with or without a specific framework, also outperformed usual care. Few ODSF trials measured secondary outcomes. Limitations. The included trials had heterogeneity. Conclusion. ODSF PtDAs address decisional needs and improve decision quality; the best indicator of addressing perceived uncertainty is “proportion undecided.” Secondary ODSF outcomes should be reduced to adherence to one’s chosen option and use/costs of health services, which warrant further research.

scholarly journals Do published patient decision aids for end-of-life care address patients’ decision-making needs? A systematic review and critical appraisal

2019 ◽  
Vol 33 (8) ◽  
pp. 985-1002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georgina Phillips ◽  
Kate Lifford ◽  
Adrian Edwards ◽  
Marlise Poolman ◽  
Natalie Joseph-Williams
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
End Of Life ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Patient Needs ◽  
Patient Decision Making ◽  
Patient Decision Aids ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
End Of Life Decision ◽  
Life Decision

Background: Many decisions are made by patients in their last months of life, creating complex decision-making needs for these individuals. Identifying whether currently existing patient decision aids address the full range of these patient decision-making needs will better inform end-of-life decision support in clinical practice. Aims and design: This systematic review aimed to (a) identify the range of patients’ decision-making needs and (b) assess the extent to which patient decision aids address these needs. Data sources: MEDLINE, PsycINFO and CINAHL electronic literature databases were searched (January 1990–January 2017), supplemented by hand-searching strategies. Eligible literature reported patient decision-making needs throughout end-of-life decision-making or were evaluations of patient decision aids. Identified decision aid content was mapped onto and assessed against all patient decision-making needs that were deemed ‘addressable’. Results: Twenty-two studies described patient needs, and seven end-of-life patient decision aids were identified. Patient needs were categorised, resulting in 48 ‘addressable’ needs. Mapping needs to patient decision aid content showed that 17 patient needs were insufficiently addressed by current patient decision aids. The most substantial gaps included inconsistent acknowledgement, elicitation and documentation of how patient needs varied individually for the level of information provided, the extent patients wanted to participate in decision-making, and the extent they wanted their families and associated healthcare professionals to participate. Conclusion: Patient decision-making needs are broad and varied. Currently developed patient decision aids are insufficiently addressing patient decision-making needs. Improving future end-of-life patient decision aid content through five key suggestions could improve patient-focused decision-making support at the end of life.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document