I Just Can\u27t Make Eyes Behave

https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/mmb-vp/1662/thumbnail.jp

Working with interpreters: the challenges of introducing Option Grid patient decision aids

Objective We aimed to observe how an Option GridTM decision aid for clinical encounters might be used where an interpreter is present, and to assess the impact of its use on shared decision making. Methods Data were available from three clinical consultations between patient, clinician (a physiotherapist), and interpreter about knee osteoarthritis. Clinicians were trained in the use of an Option Grid decision aid and the tool was used. Consultations were audio-recorded, transcribed, and translated by independent translators into English. Results Analysis revealed the difficulties with introducing a written decision aid into an interpreted consultation. The extra discussion needed between the clinician and interpreter around the principles and purpose of shared decision making and instructions regarding the Option Grid decision aid proved challenging and difficult to manage. Discussion of treatment options while using an Option Grid decision aid was predominantly done between clinician and interpreter. The patient appeared to have little involvement in discussion of treatment options. Conclusion Patients were not active participants within the discussion. Further work needs to be done on how shared decision making can be achieved within interpreted consultations. Practice Implications Option Grid decision aids are not being used as intended in interpreted consultations

Deconstructing patient centred communication and uncovering shared decision making: an observational study

BACKGROUND: Patient centred communication (PCC) has been described as a method for doctor-patient communication. The principles of shared decision making (SDM) have been proposed more recently. AIMS: This study aimed to examine PCC and SDM empirically with respect to their mutual association, the variation in practitioners' working styles, and the associations with patient characteristics. METHODS: Sixty general practitioners recruited 596 adult patients who gave written consent to have their consultations videotaped. The tapes were assessed by two researchers, using a standardised instrument for global communication. For the purpose of this exploratory study, scales for PCC and SDM were based on subsamples of items in the MAAS. RESULTS: The scales for PCC and SDM were weakly associated (Pearson correlation: 0.25). Physicians varied more on SDM than on PCC. The intracluster correlation of the PCC and SDM scales were, respectively, 0.34 and 0.19. However, hypotheses regarding associations with patient characteristics were not confirmed. Neither PCC nor SDM scores were related to patient gender, education, age, functional health status or existence of chronic conditions. CONCLUSION: The study provides evidence that PCC and SDM can be differentiated and comprise approaches to communication between clinicians and patients which may be more clearly distinguished by further focused research and training developments

Developing a facilitation model to promote organisational development in primary care practices

BACKGROUND: The relationship between effective organisation of general practices and health improvement is widely accepted. The Maturity Matrix is an instrument designed to assess organisational development in general practice settings and to stimulate quality improvement. It is undertaken by a practice team with the aid of a facilitator. There is a tradition in the primary care systems in many countries of using practice visitors to educate practice teams about how to improve. However the role of practice visitors as facilitators who enable teams to plan practice-led organisational development using quality improvement instruments is less well understood. The objectives of the study were to develop and explore a facilitation model to support practice teams in stimulating organisational development using a quality improvement instrument called the Maturity Matrix. A qualitative study based on transcript analysis was adopted. METHOD: A model of facilitation was constructed based on a review of relevant literature. Audio tapes of Maturity Matrix assessment sessions with general practices were transcribed and facilitator skills were compared to the model. The sample consisted of two facilitators working with twelve general practices based in UK primary care. RESULTS: The facilitation model suggested that four areas describing eighteen skills were important. The four areas are structuring the session, obtaining consensus, handling group dynamics and enabling team learning. Facilitators effectively employed skills associated with the first three areas, but less able to consistently stimulate team learning. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that facilitators need careful preparation for their role and practices need protected time in order to make best use of practice-led quality improvement instruments. The role of practice visitor as a facilitator is becoming important as the need to engender ownership of the quality improvement process by practices increases

On a learning curve for shared decision making: interviews with clinicians using the knee osteoarthritis Option Grid

Rational: Tools used in clinical encounters to illustrate to patients the risks and benefits of treatment options have been shown to increase shared decision making. However, we do not have good information about how these tools are viewed by clinicians, and how clinicians think patients would react to their use. Objective: Our aim was to examine clinicians’ views about the possible and actual use of tools designed to support patients and clinicians to collaborate and deliberate about treatment options, namely Option Grid TM decision aids. Method: We conducted a thematic analysis of qualitative interviews embedded in the intervention phase of a trial of an Option Grid decision aid for Osteoarthritis of the knee. Interviews were conducted with six participating clinicians before they used the tool, and again after clinicians had used the tool with six patients. Results: In the first interview, clinicians voiced concern that the tool would lead to an increase in encounter duration, to patient resistance regarding involvement in decision making, and potential information overload. At the second interview, after minimal training, the clinicians reported that the tool had changed their usual way of communicating, and it was generally acceptable and helpful integrate it into practice. Discussion and Conclusions: After experiencing the use of Option Grids, clinicians became more willing to use the tools in their clinical encounters with patients. How best to introduce Option Grids to clinicians and adopt their use into practice will need careful consideration of context, workflow and clinical pathways

Patients' views on the use of an Option Grid for knee osteoarthritis in physiotherapy clinical encounters: an interview study

Background: Patient decision support tools have been developed as a means of providing accurate and accessible information in order for patients to make informed decisions about their care. Option GridsTM are a type of decision support tool specifically designed to be used during clinical encounters. Objective: To explore patients’ views of the Option Grid encounter tool used in clinical consultations with physiotherapists, in comparison to usual care, within a patient population who are likely to be disadvantaged by age and low health literacy. Methods: Semi-structured interviews with 72 patients (36 who had been given an Option Grid in their consultation and 36 who had not). Thematic analysis explored patients’ understanding of treatment options, perceptions of involvement, and readability and utility of the Option Grid. Results: Interviews suggested that the Option Grids facilitated more detailed discussion about the risks and benefits of a wider range of treatment options for osteoarthritis of the knee. Participants indicated that the Option Grid was clear and aided their understanding of a structured progression of the options as their condition advanced, although it was not clear whether the option grid facilitated greater engagement in shared decision making. Discussion and Conclusion: The Option Grid for osteoarthritis of the knee was well received by patient participants who reported that it helped them to understand their options, and made the notion of choice explicit. Use of Option Grids should be considered within routine consultations

Arduous implementation: Does the Normalisation Process Model explain why it's so difficult to embed decision support technologies for patients in routine clinical practice

Background: decision support technologies (DSTs, also known as decision aids) help patients and professionals take part in collaborative decision-making processes. Trials have shown favorable impacts on patient knowledge, satisfaction, decisional conflict and confidence. However, they have not become routinely embedded in health care settings. Few studies have approached this issue using a theoretical framework. We explained problems of implementing DSTs using the Normalization Process Model, a conceptual model that focuses attention on how complex interventions become routinely embedded in practice.Methods: the Normalization Process Model was used as the basis of conceptual analysis of the outcomes of previous primary research and reviews. Using a virtual working environment we applied the model and its main concepts to examine: the 'workability' of DSTs in professional-patient interactions; how DSTs affect knowledge relations between their users; how DSTs impact on users' skills and performance; and the impact of DSTs on the allocation of organizational resources.Results: conceptual analysis using the Normalization Process Model provided insight on implementation problems for DSTs in routine settings. Current research focuses mainly on the interactional workability of these technologies, but factors related to divisions of labor and health care, and the organizational contexts in which DSTs are used, are poorly described and understood.Conclusion: the model successfully provided a framework for helping to identify factors that promote and inhibit the implementation of DSTs in healthcare and gave us insights into factors influencing the introduction of new technologies into contexts where negotiations are characterized by asymmetries of power and knowledge. Future research and development on the deployment of DSTs needs to take a more holistic approach and give emphasis to the structural conditions and social norms in which these technologies are enacte

Assessments of the Extent to which Health‐Care Providers Involve Patients in Decision Making: A Systematic Review of Studies Using the OPTION Instrument

Background: We have no clear overview of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in the decision-making process during consultations. The Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making instrument (OPTION) was designed to assess this. Objective: To systematically review studies that used the OPTION instrument to observe the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in decision making across a range of clinical contexts, including different health professions and lengths of consultation. We conducted online literature searches in multiple databases (2001-12) and gathered further data through networking

Implementing Shared Decision Making in the NHS: Lessons from the MAGIC Programme

Contains fulltext : 174279.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access