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

Measuring organisational readiness for patient engagement (MORE) : an international online Delphi consensus study

Date of Acceptance: 28/01/2015. © 2015 Oostendorp et al.; licensee BioMed Central. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise statedWidespread implementation of patient engagement by organisations and clinical teams is not a reality yet. The aim of this study is to develop a measure of organisational readiness for patient engagement designed to monitor and facilitate a healthcare organisation’s willingness and ability to effectively implement patient engagement in healthcarePeer reviewedFinal Published versio

The role of internet resources in health decision-making::a qualitative study

Objective: Internet resources remain important for health information and advice but their specific role in decision-making is understudied, often assumed and remains unclear. In this article, we examine the different ways in which internet resources play a role in health decision-making within the context of distributed decision-making. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with thirty-seven people in the United Kingdom who reported using the internet in relation to decision-making and represented a range of long and short-term health conditions. The interviews focused on decision-making activities across different settings and in relation to different stakeholders to understand how internet resources play a role in these activities. We carried out a thematic analysis of the interviews. Results: We identified three main ways in which internet resources played a role in health decision-making. A supportive role (as a decision crutch), a stimulating role (as a decision initiator), and an interactional role (impacting on the doctor–patient relationship). These three roles spanned different resources and illustrated how the decision-making process can be impacted by the encounters people have with technology – specifically internet based health resources, in different ways and at different time points. Conclusions: Examining health decisions in respect to internet resources highlights the complex and distributed nature of decision-making alongside the complexity of online health information sourcing. We discuss the role of internet resources in relation to the increasing importance of online personal experiences and their relevance within shared decision-making

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

How to deal with institutional barriers

Item does not contain fulltextRelatively little is known about why some patients are reluctant to engage in a collaborative discussion with physicians about their choices in health care. To explore this issue further, we conducted six focus-group sessions with forty-eight people in the San Francisco Bay Area. In the focus groups, we found that participants voiced a strong desire to engage in shared decision making about treatment options with their physicians. However, several obstacles inhibit those discussions. These include the fact that even relatively affluent and well-educated patients feel compelled to conform to socially sanctioned roles and defer to physicians during clinical consultations; that physicians can be authoritarian; and that the fear of being categorized as "difficult" prevents patients from participating more fully in their own health care. We argue that physicians may not be aware of a need to create a safe environment for open communication to facilitate shared decision making. Rigorous measures of patient engagement, and of the degree to which health care decisions truly reflect patient preferences, are needed to advance shared decision making in clinical practice.1 mei 201

Dual equipoise shared decision making: definitions for decision and behaviour support interventions

Contains fulltext : 80919.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in interventions that can support patients who face difficult decisions and individuals who need to modify their behaviour to achieve better outcomes. Evidence for effectiveness is used to categorise patients care. Effective care is where evidence of benefit outweighs harm: patients should always receive this type of care, where indicated. Preference-sensitive care describes a situation where the evidence for the superiority of one treatment over another is either not available or does not allow differentiation; in this situation, there are two or more valid approaches, and the best choice depends on how individuals value the risks and benefits of treatments. DISCUSSION: Preference-sensitive decisions are defined by equipoise: situations where options need to be deliberated. Moreover, where both healthcare professionals and patients agree that equipoise exists, situations may be regarded as having 'dual equipoise'. Such conditions are ideal for shared decision making. However, there are many situations in medicine where dual equipoise does not exist, where health professionals hold the view that scientific evidence for benefit strongly outweighs harm. This is often the case where people suffer from chronic conditions, and where behaviour change is recommended to improve outcomes. However, some patients, are either ambivalent or find it difficult to sustain optimal behaviours, i.e., patients will be in varying degrees of equipoise. Therefore, situations where dual equipoise exists (or not) help to clarify the definitions of two classes of support, namely, decision and behaviour change support interventions. Decision support interventions help people think about choices they face; they describe where and why choice exists, in short, conditions of dual equipoise; they provide information about options, including, where reasonable, the option of taking no action. These interventions help people to deliberate, independently or in collaboration with others, about options by considering relevant attributes; they support people to forecast how they might feel about short, intermediate, and long-term outcomes that have relevant consequences, in ways that help the process of constructing preferences and eventual decision making appropriate to their individual situation. Whereas, behavioural support interventions describe, justify, and recommend actions that, over time, lead to predictable outcomes over short, intermediate, and long-term timeframes, and that have relevant and important consequences for those who are considering behaviour change. SUMMARY: Decision and behaviour support interventions have divergent aims, different relationships to equipoise, and form two classes of interventions

Assessing decision quality in patient-centred care requires a preference-sensitive measure.

A theory-based instrument for measuring the quality of decisions made using any form of decision technology, including both decision-aided and unaided clinical consultations is required to enable person- and patient-centred care and to respond positively to individual heterogeneity in the value aspects of decision making. Current instruments using the term 'decision quality' have adopted a decision- and thus condition-specific approach. We argue that patient-centred care requires decision quality to be regarded as both preference-sensitive across multiple relevant criteria and generic across all conditions and decisions. MyDecisionQuality is grounded in prescriptive multi criteria decision analysis and employs a simple expected value algorithm to calculate a score for the quality of a decision that combines, in the clinical case, the patient's individual preferences for eight quality criteria (expressed as importance weights) and their ratings of the decision just taken on each of these criteria (expressed as performance rates). It thus provides an index of decision quality that encompasses both these aspects. It also provides patients with help in prioritizing quality criteria for future decision making by calculating, for each criterion, the Incremental Value of Perfect Rating, that is, the increase in their decision quality score that would result if their performance rating on the criterion had been 100%, weightings unchanged. MyDecisionQuality, which is a web-based generic and preference-sensitive instrument, can constitute a key patient-reported measure of the quality of the decision-making process. It can provide the basis for future decision improvement, especially when the clinician (or other stakeholders) completes the equivalent instrument and the extent and nature of concordance and discordance can be established. Apart from its role in decision preparation and evaluation, it can also provide real time and relevant documentation for the patient's record

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