‘Pieces of eight! Pieces of eight!’ But where’s the treasure? A commentary on “Patient involvement and shared decision-making: an analysis of components, models and practical knowledge.” [Cribb and Donetto (2012). European Journal for Person Centered H

2013 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 50
Author(s):  
Stephen Buetow
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Practical Knowledge ◽  
Shared Decision

Patient Involvement in Anesthesia Decision-making: A Qualitative Study of Knee Arthroplasty

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Veena Graff ◽  
Justin T. Clapp ◽  
Sarah J. Heins ◽  
Jamison J. Chung ◽  
Madhavi Muralidharan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Primary Knee Arthroplasty

Background Calls to better involve patients in decisions about anesthesia—e.g., through shared decision-making—are intensifying. However, several features of anesthesia consultation make it unclear how patients should participate in decisions. Evaluating the feasibility and desirability of carrying out shared decision-making in anesthesia requires better understanding of preoperative conversations. The objective of this qualitative study was to characterize how preoperative consultations for primary knee arthroplasty arrived at decisions about primary anesthesia. Methods This focused ethnography was performed at a U.S. academic medical center. The authors audio-recorded consultations of 36 primary knee arthroplasty patients with eight anesthesiologists. Patients and anesthesiologists also participated in semi-structured interviews. Consultation and interview transcripts were coded in an iterative process to develop an explanation of how anesthesiologists and patients made decisions about primary anesthesia. Results The authors found variation across accounts of anesthesiologists and patients as to whether the consultation was a collaborative decision-making scenario or simply meant to inform patients. Consultations displayed a number of decision-making patterns, from the anesthesiologist not disclosing options to the anesthesiologist strictly adhering to a position of equipoise; however, most consultations fell between these poles, with the anesthesiologist presenting options, recommending one, and persuading hesitant patients to accept it. Anesthesiologists made patients feel more comfortable with their proposed approach through extensive comparisons to more familiar experiences. Conclusions Anesthesia consultations are multifaceted encounters that serve several functions. In some cases, the involvement of patients in determining the anesthetic approach might not be the most important of these functions. Broad consideration should be given to both the applicability and feasibility of shared decision-making in anesthesia consultation. The potential benefits of interventions designed to enhance patient involvement in decision-making should be weighed against their potential to pull anesthesiologists’ attention away from important humanistic aspects of communication such as decreasing patients’ anxiety. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New

Usability and Perceived Usefulness of the AFib 2gether™ Mobile App in a Clinical Setting: Single-Arm Intervention Study (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alok Kapoor ◽  
Anna Hayes ◽  
Jay Patel ◽  
Harshal Patel ◽  
Andreza Andrade ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Mobile App ◽  
Perceived Usefulness ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Average Score ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Item Questionnaire

BACKGROUND Although the American Heart Association and other professional societies have recommended shared decision-making as a way for patients with atrial fibrillation or flutter (AF) to reach informed decisions about using anticoagulation (AC), the best method of facilitating shared decision-making remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to assess the AFib 2gether™ mobile app for usability, perceived usefulness, and extent and nature of shared decision making that occurred for clinical encounters between patients with AF and their cardiology providers in which the app was used. METHODS We identified patients coming to see a cardiology provider from October 2019 until May 2020. We measured usability from patients and providers through the mobile app rating scale (MARS). From the eight items of the MARS, we report the average score (out of 5) for domains of functionality, aesthetics, and overall quality. We administered a three-item questionnaire to patients relating to their perceived usefulness and a separate three-item questionnaire to providers to measure their perceived usefulness. We performed a chart review to track AC starts occurring within 6 months of the index visit. We also audio-recorded a subset of encounters to identify evidence of shared decision-making. RESULTS We facilitated shared decision-making visits for 37 patients seeing 13 providers. In terms of usability, patients’ ratings of functionality, aesthetics, and overall quality were (average ± standard deviation): 4.51 ± 0.61, 4.26 ± 0.51, and 4.24 ± 0.89, respectively. In terms of usefulness, 40% of patients agreed that the app improved their knowledge regarding AC and 62% agreed that the app helped clarify to their provider, their preferences regarding AC. Among providers, 79% agreed that the app helped clarify their patients’ preferences; 82% agreed that the app saved them time; and 59% agreed that the app helped their patients make decisions about AC. Additionally, 12 patients started AC after their shared decision-making visits. We audio-recorded 25 encounters. Of these encounters, 84% included mention of AC for AF, 44% included discussion of multiple options for AC, 72% included a provider recommendation for AC, and 48% included evidence of patient involvement in the discussion. CONCLUSIONS Patients and providers rated the app with high usability and perceived usefulness. Moreover, a third of patients began AC and in nearly ½ the encounters, there was evidence of patient involvement in decision-making. In the future, we plan to study the effect of the app in a larger sample and with a controlled study design. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04118270. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT RR2-21986

scholarly journals Process and impact of patient involvement in a systematic review of shared decision making in primary care consultations

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 298-308 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Hyde ◽  
Kate M. Dunn ◽  
Adele Higginbottom ◽  
Carolyn A. Chew-Graham
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Shared Decision

Patient involvement in consultation for atrial fibrillation – the cardiologists’ perspective

2019 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 765-776 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ulla Hellström Muhli ◽  
Jan Trost ◽  
Eleni Siouta
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Content Analysis ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Qualitative Content Analysis ◽  
Medical Consultation ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Consultation Process ◽  
Content Type

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to analyse the accounts of Swedish cardiologists concerning patient involvement in consultations for atrial fibrillation (AF). The questions were: how cardiologists handle and provide scope for patient involvement in medical consultations regarding AF treatment and how cardiologists describe their familiarity with shared decision-making. Design/methodology/approach A descriptive study was designed. Ten interviews with cardiologists at four Swedish hospitals were held, and a qualitative content analysis was performed on the collected data. Findings The analysis shows cardiologists’ accounts of persuasive practice, protective practice, professional role and medical craftsmanship when it comes to patient involvement and shared decision-making. The term “shared decision-making” implies a concept of not only making one decision but also ensuring that it is finalised with a satisfactory agreement between both parties involved, the patient as well as the cardiologist. In order for the idea of patient involvement to be fulfilled, the two parties involved must have equal power, which can never actually be guaranteed. Research limitations/implications Methodologically, this paper reflects the special contribution that can be made by the research design of descriptive qualitative content analysis (Krippendorff, 2004) to reveal and understand cardiologists’ perspectives on patient involvement and participation in medical consultation and shared decision-making. The utility of this kind of analysis is to find what cardiologists said and how they arrived at their understanding about patient involvement. Accordingly, there is no quantification in this type of research. Practical implications Cardiologists should prioritise patient involvement and participation in decision-making regarding AF treatment decisions in consultations when trying to meet the request of patient involvement. Originality/value Theoretically, the authors have learned that the patient involvement and shared decision-making requires the ability to see patients as active participants in the medical consultation process.

scholarly journals Implementation of Shared Decision Making in Physical Therapy: Observed Level of Involvement and Patient Preference

2013 ◽  
Vol 93 (10) ◽  
pp. 1321-1330 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katreine Dierckx ◽  
Myriam Deveugele ◽  
Philip Roosen ◽  
Ignaas Devisch
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Physical Therapy ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Physical Therapists ◽  
Good Clinical Practice ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Best Interest ◽  
Level Of Involvement ◽  
Individual Variables

BackgroundShared decision making (SDM) reduces the asymmetrical power between the therapist and the patient. Patient involvement improves patient satisfaction, adherence, and health outcomes and is a prerequisite for good clinical practice. The opportunities for using SDM in physical therapy have been previously considered.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to examine the status of SDM in physical therapy, patients’ preferred levels of involvement, and the agreement between therapist perception and patient preferred level of involvement.DesignThis was an observational study of real consultations in physical therapy.MethodsIn total, 237 consultations, undertaken by 13 physical therapists, were audiorecorded, and 210 records were analyzed using the Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION) instrument. Before the consultation, the patient and therapist completed the Control Preference Scale (CPS). Multilevel analysis was used to study the association between individual variables and the level of SDM. Agreement on preferences was calculated using kappa coefficients.ResultsThe mean OPTION score was 5.2 (SD=6.8), out of a total score of 100. Female therapists achieved a higher OPTION score (b=−0.86, P=0.01). In total, 36.7% of the patients wanted to share decisions, and 36.2% preferred to give their opinion before delegating the decisions. In the majority of cases, therapists believed that they had to decide. The kappa coefficient for agreement was poor at .062 (95% confidence interval=−.018 to .144).LimitationsOnly 13 out of 125 therapists who were personally contacted agreed to participate.ConclusionShared decision making was not applied; although patients preferred to share decisions or at least provide their opinion about the treatment, physical therapists did not often recognize this factor. The participating physical therapists were more likely to make decisions in the best interest of their patients; that is, these therapists tended to apply a paternalistic approach rather than involving the patient.

scholarly journals Do consultants do what they say they do? Observational study of the extent to which clinicians involve their patients in the decision-making process

BMJ Open ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. e056471
Author(s):  
Ellen M Driever ◽  
Anne M Stiggelbout ◽  
Paul L P Brand
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Junior Doctors ◽  
Secondary Outcome Measure ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Preference Scale ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Sectional Analysis

ObjectivesTo assess whether consultants do what they say they do in reaching decisions with their patients.DesignCross-sectional analysis of hospital outpatient encounters, comparing consultants’ self-reported usual decision-making style to their actual observed decision-making behaviour in video-recorded encounters.SettingLarge secondary care teaching hospital in the Netherlands.Participants41 consultants from 18 disciplines and 781 patients.Primary and secondary outcome measureWith the Control Preference Scale, the self-reported usual decision-making style was assessed (paternalistic, informative or shared decision making). Two independent raters assessed decision-making behaviour for each decision using the Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION)5 instrument ranging from 0 (no shared decision making (SDM)) to 100 (optimal SDM).ResultsConsultants reported their usual decision-making style as informative (n=11), shared (n=16) and paternalistic (n=14). Overall, patient involvement was low, with mean (SD) OPTION5 scores of 16.8 (17.1). In an unadjusted multilevel analysis, the reported usual decision-making style was not related to the OPTION5 score (p>0.156). After adjusting for patient, consultant and consultation characteristics, higher OPTION5 scores were only significantly related to the category of decisions (treatment vs the other categories) and to longer consultation duration (p<0.001).ConclusionsThe limited patient involvement that we observed was not associated with the consultants’ self-reported usual decision-making style. Consultants appear to be unconsciously incompetent in shared decision making. This can hinder the transfer of this crucial communication skill to students and junior doctors.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document