Shared clinical decision-making experiences in nursing: a qualitative study.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Shared decision making (SDM) is a patient-centered nursing concept that emphasizes the autonomy of patients. SDM is a co-operative process that involves information exchange and communication between medical staff and patients for making treatment decisions. In this study, we explored the experiences of clinical nursing staff participating in SDM.Methods
This study adopted a qualitative research design. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 21 nurses at a medical center in northern Taiwan. All interview recordings were transcribed verbatim. Content analysis was performed to analyze the data.Results
The findings yielded the following three themes covering seven categories: knowledge regarding SDM, trigger discussion and coordination, and respect of sociocultural factors.Conclusions
The results of this study describe the experiences of clinical nursing staff participating in SDM and can be used as a reference for nursing education and nursing administrative supervisors wishing to plan and enhance professional nursing SDM in nursing education.
SUBMITTER: Chung FF
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8167946 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Shared clinical decision-making experiences in nursing: a qualitative study.
Chung Fen-Fang FF Wang Pao-Yu PY Lin Shu-Chuan SC Lee Yu-Hsia YH Wu Hon-Yen HY Lin Mei-Hsiang MH
BMC nursing 20210601 1
<h4>Background</h4>Shared decision making (SDM) is a patient-centered nursing concept that emphasizes the autonomy of patients. SDM is a co-operative process that involves information exchange and communication between medical staff and patients for making treatment decisions. In this study, we explored the experiences of clinical nursing staff participating in SDM.<h4>Methods</h4>This study adopted a qualitative research design. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 21 nurses at a medic ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making (SDM) is widely recommended and required by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid for patients considering lung cancer screening (LCS).ObjectiveWe examined clinicians' communication practices and perceived barriers of SDM for LCS at three medical centers with established screening programs.DesignMulticenter qualitative study of clinicians participating in LCS.ApproachWe performed semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed and analyzed using directed content analysis, guided by a theoretical model of patient-clinician communication.ParticipantsWe interviewed 24 clinicians including LCS coordinators (2), pulmonologists (3), and primary care providers (17), 4 of whom worked for the LCS program, a thoracic surgeon, and a radiologist.ResultsAll clinicians agreed with the goal of SDM, to ensure the screening decision was congruent with the patient's values. The depth and type of information presented by each clinician role varied considerably. LCS coordinators presented detailed information including numeric estimates of benefit and harm. Most PCPs explained the process more generally, focusing on logistics and the high rate of nodule detection. No clinician explicitly elicited values or communication preferences. Many PCPs tailored the conversation based on their implicit understanding of patients' values and preferences, gained from past experiences. PCPs reported that time, lack of detailed personal knowledge of LCS, and patient preferences were barriers to SDM. Many clinicians perceived that a significant proportion of patients were not interested in specific percentages and preferred to receive a clinician recommendation.ConclusionsOur results suggest that clinicians support the goal of SDM for LCS decisions but PCPs may not perform some of its elements. The lack of completion of some elements, such as PCPs' lack of in-depth information exchange, may reflect perceived patient preferences for communication. As LCS is implemented, further research is needed to support a personalized, patient-centered approach to produce better outcomes.
| S-EPMC7018920 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making (SDM) is a process whereby clinicians and patients work together to select treatments based on both the patient's preferences and clinical evidence. Although patients with psychotic disorders want to participate more in decisions regarding their care, they have limited opportunities to do so because of various barriers. Knowing about health professionals' experiences with SDM is important toward achieving successful implementation. The study aim was to describe and explore health professionals' SDM experiences with patients with psychotic disorders.MethodsThree focus group interviews were conducted, with a total of 18 health professionals who work at one of three Norwegian community mental health centres where patients with psychotic disorders are treated. We applied a descriptive and exploratory approach using qualitative content analysis.ResultsHealth professionals primarily understand the SDM concept to mean giving patients information and presenting them with a choice between different antipsychotic medications. Among the barriers to SDM, they emphasized that patients with psychosis have a limited understanding of their health situation and that time is needed to build trust and alliances. Health professionals mainly understand patients with psychotic disorders as a group with limited abilities to make their own decisions. They also described the concept of SDM with little consideration of presenting different treatment options. Psychological or social interventions were often presented as complementary to antipsychotic medications, rather than as an alternative to them.ConclusionHealth professionals' understanding of SDM is inconsistent with the definition commonly used in the literature. They consider patients with psychotic disorders to have limited abilities to participate in decisions regarding their own treatment. These findings suggest that health professionals need more theoretical and practical training in SDM.
| S-EPMC7694931 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients with incurable cancer face complex medical decisions. Their family caregivers play a prominent role in shared decision making processes, but we lack insights into their experiences. In this study, we explored how bereaved family caregivers experienced the shared decision making process.MethodsWe performed a qualitative interview study with in-depth interviews analysed with inductive content analysis. We used a purposive sample of bereaved family caregivers (n = 16) of patients with cancer treated in a tertiary university hospital in the Netherlands.ResultsFour themes were identified: 1. scenarios of decision making, 2. future death of the patient 3. factors influencing choices when making a treatment decision, and 4. preconditions for the decision making process. Most family caregivers deferred decisions to the patient or physician. Talking about the patient's future death was not preferred by all family caregivers. All family caregivers reported life prolongation as a significant motivator for treatment, while the quality of life was rarely mentioned. A respectful relationship, close involvement, and open communication with healthcare professionals in the palliative setting were valued by many interviewees. Family caregivers' experiences and needs seemed to be overlooked during medical encounters.ConclusionsFamily caregivers of deceased patients with cancer mentioned life prolongation, and not quality of life, as the most important treatment aim. They highly valued interactions with the medical oncologist and being involved in the conversations. We advise medical oncologists to take more effort to involve the family caregiver, and more explicitly address quality of life in the consultations.
| S-EPMC8423331 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionShared decision-making (SDM) refers to the collaboration between patients and their healthcare providers to make clinical decisions based on evidence and patient preferences, often supported by patient decision aids (PDAs). This study explored practitioner experiences of SDM in a context where SDM has been successfully implemented. Specifically, we focused on practitioners' perceptions of SDM as a paradigm, factors influencing implementation success, and outcomes.MethodsWe used a qualitative approach to examine the experiences and perceptions of 10 Danish practitioners at a cancer hospital experienced in SDM implementation. A semi-structured interview format was used and interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data was analyzed through thematic analysis.ResultsPrior to SDM implementation, participants had a range of attitudes from skeptical to receptive. Those with more direct long-term contact with patients (such as nurses) were more positive about the need for SDM. We identified four main factors that influenced SDM implementation success: raising awareness of SDM behaviors among clinicians through concrete measurements, supporting the formation of new habits through reinforcement mechanisms, increasing the flexibility of PDA delivery, and strong leadership. According to our participants, these factors were instrumental in overcoming initial skepticism and solidifying new SDM behaviors. Improvements to the clinical process were reported. Sustaining and transferring the knowledge gained to other contexts will require adapting measurement tools.ConclusionsApplying SDM in clinical practice represents a major shift in mindset for clinicians. Designing SDM initiatives with an understanding of the underlying behavioral mechanisms may increase the probability of successful and sustained implementation.
| S-EPMC8584754 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making has received national and international interest by providers, educators, researchers, and policy makers. The literature on shared decision-making is extensive, dealing with the individual components of shared decision-making rather than a comprehensive process. This view of shared decision-making leaves healthcare providers to wonder how to integrate shared decision-making into practice.ObjectiveTo understand shared decision-making as a comprehensive process from the perspective of the patient and provider in all healthcare settings.MethodsAn integrative review was conducted applying a systematic approach involving a literature search, data evaluation, and data analysis. The search included articles from PubMed, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PsycINFO from 1970 through 2016. Articles included quantitative experimental and non-experimental designs, qualitative, and theoretical articles about shared decision-making between all healthcare providers and patients in all healthcare settings.ResultsFifty-two papers were included in this integrative review. Three categories emerged from the synthesis: (a) communication/ relationship building; (b) working towards a shared decision; and (c) action for shared decision-making. Each major theme contained sub-themes represented in the proposed visual representation for shared decision-making.ConclusionA comprehensive understanding of shared decision-making between the nurse and the patient was identified. A visual representation offers a guide that depicts shared decision-making as a process taking place during a healthcare encounter with implications for the continuation of shared decisions over time offering patients an opportunity to return to the nurse for reconsiderations of past shared decisions.
| S-EPMC5806202 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionSurgical treatments are being offered to more patients than ever before, and increasingly to high-risk patients (typically multimorbid and over 75). Shared decision making is seen as essential practice. However, little is currently known about what 'good' shared decision making involves nor how it applies in the context of surgery for high-risk patients. This new study aims to identify how high-risk patients, their families and clinical teams negotiate decision making for major surgery.Methods and analysisFocusing on major joint replacement, colorectal and cardiac surgery, we use qualitative methods to explore how patients, their families and clinicians negotiate decision making (including interactional, communicative and informational aspects and the extent to which these are perceived as shared) and reflect back on the decisions they made. Phase 1 involves video recording 15 decision making encounters about major surgery between patients, their carers/families and clinicians; followed by up to 90 interviews (with the same patient, carer and clinician participants) immediately after a decision has been made and again 3-6 months later. Phase 2 involves focus groups with a wider group of (up to 90) patients and (up to 30) clinicians to test out emerging findings and inform development of shared decision making scenarios (3-5 summary descriptions of how decisions are made).Ethics and disseminationThe study forms the first part in a 6-year programme of research, Optimising Shared decision-makIng for high-RIsk major Surgery (OSIRIS). Ethical challenges around involving patients at a challenging time in their lives will be overseen by the programme steering committee, which includes strong patient representation and a lay chair. In addition to academic outputs, we will produce a typology of decision making scenarios for major surgery to feed back to patients, professionals and service providers and inform subsequent work in the OSIRIS programme.
| S-EPMC7223149 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo explore older people's perspectives and experiences with shared decision-making (SDM) about medication for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention.Design, setting and participantsSemi-structured interviews with 30 general practice patients aged 75 years and older in New South Wales, Australia, who had elevated CVD risk factors (blood pressure, cholesterol) or had received CVD-related lifestyle advice. Data were analysed by multiple researchers using Framework analysis.ResultsTwenty eight participants out of 30 were on CVD prevention medication, half with established CVD. We outlined patient experiences using the four steps of the SDM process, identifying key barriers and challenges: Step 1. Choice awareness: taking medication for CVD prevention was generally not recognised as a decision requiring patient input; Step 2. Discuss benefits/harms options: CVD prevention poorly understood with emphasis on benefits; Step 3. Explore preferences: goals, values and preferences (eg, length of life vs quality of life, reducing disease burden vs risk reduction) varied widely but generally not discussed with the general practitioner; Step 4. Making the decision: overall preference for directive approach, but some patients wanted more active involvement. Themes were similar across primary and secondary CVD prevention, different levels of self-reported health and people on and off medication.ConclusionsResults demonstrate how older participants vary widely in their health goals and preferences for treatment outcomes, suggesting that CVD prevention decisions are preference sensitive. Combined with the fact that the vast majority of participants were taking medications, and few understood the aims and potential benefits and harms of CVD prevention, it seems that older patients are not always making an informed decision. Our findings highlight potentially modifiable barriers to greater participation of older people in SDM about CVD prevention medication and prevention in general.
| S-EPMC6475217 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesVarious treatment options are available for degenerative joint disease (DJD). During clinical visits, patients and clinicians collaboratively make decisions regarding the optimal treatment for DJD; this is the essence of shared decision-making (SDM). Here, we collated and assessed the SDM-related experiences and perspectives of outpatients with DJD in Taiwan.DesignIn-depth interviews and thematic analysis.SettingPrimary care clinics of a regional teaching hospital in Taiwan, October 2021-May 2022.Participants21 outpatients with at least three visits for DJD and who were aware of SDM.ResultsFour main themes emerged in this study: first, equipping themselves with knowledge: outpatients obtained disease-related and treatment-related knowledge in various ways-seeking relevant information online, discussing with family and friends, learning from their own experiences or learning from professionals. Second, shared or not shared: physicians had different patterns for communicating with patients, particularly when demonstrating authority, performing mutual discussion, respecting patient preferences or responding perfunctorily. Third, seldom saying no to physician-prescribed treatment plans during clinical visits: most patients respected physicians' professionalism; however, some patients rejected physicians' recommendations indirectly, whereas some responded depending on their disease prognosis. Fourth, whose call?-participants decided to accept or reject a treatment plan independently or by discussing it with their families or by obeying their physicians' recommendations.ConclusionsIn general, patients with DJD sought reliable medical information from various sources before visiting doctors; however, when having a conversation with patients, physicians dominated the discussion on treatment options. The patient-physician interaction dynamics during the SDM process determined the final medical decision, which was in accordance with either patients' original autonomy or physicians' recommendations. To alleviate medical paternalism and physician dominance, patients should be empowered to engage in medical decision-making and share their opinions or concerns with their physicians. Family members should also be included in SDM.
| S-EPMC10840022 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Shared decision-making (SDM) can advance patient satisfaction, understanding, goal fulfilment, and patient-reported outcomes. We lack clarity on whether this physician-focused literature applies to community rehabilitation, and on the integration of SDM policies in healthcare settings. We aimed to understand patient and provider perceptions of shared decision-making (SDM) in community rehabilitation, particularly the barriers and facilitators to SDM. METHODS:We used a focused ethnography involving 14 community rehabilitation sites across Alberta, including rural, regional-urban and metropolitan-urban sites. We conducted semi-structured interviews that asked participants about their positive and negative communication experiences (n = 23 patients; n = 26 providers). RESULTS:We found SDM experiences fluctuated between extremes: Getting Patient Buy-In and Aligning Expectations. The former is provider-driven, prescriptive and less flexible; the latter is collaborative, inquisitive and empowering. In Aligning Expectations, patients and providers express humility and openness, communicate in the language of ask and listen, and view education as empowering. Patients and providers described barriers and facilitators to SDM in community rehabilitation. Facilitators included geography influencing context and connections; consistent, patient-specific messaging; patient lifestyle, capacity and perceived outlook; provider confidence, experience and perceived independence; provider training; and perceptions of more time (and control over time) for appointments. SDM barriers included lack of privacy; waitlists and financial barriers to access; provider approach; how choices are framed; and, patient's perceived assertiveness, lack of capacity, and level of deference. CONCLUSIONS:We have found both excellent experiences and areas for improvement for applying SDM in community rehabilitation. We proffer recommendations to advance high-quality SDM in community rehabilitation based on promoting facilitators and overcoming barriers. This research will support the spread, scale and evaluation of a new Model of Care in rehabilitation by the provincial health system, which aimed to promote patient-centred care.
| S-EPMC7168887 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatients with kidney failure experience a complex decision on dialysis modality performed either at home or in hospital. The options have different levels of impact on their physical and psychological condition and social life. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation of an intervention designed to achieve shared decision-making for dialysis choice. Specific objectives were: 1) to measure decision quality as indicated by patients' knowledge, readiness and achieved preferences; and 2) to determine if patients experienced shared decision-making.MethodA mixed methods descriptive study was conducted using both questionnaires and semi-structured interviews. Eligible participants were adults with kidney failure considering dialysis modality. The intervention, based on the Three-Talk model, consisted of a patient decision aid and decision coaching meetings provided by trained dialysis coordinators. The intervention was delivered to 349 patients as part of their clinical pathway of care. After the intervention, 148 participants completed the Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire and the Decision Quality Measurement, and 29 participants were interviewed. Concordance between knowledge, decision and preference was calculated to measure decision quality. Interview transcripts were analysed qualitatively.ResultsThe participants obtained a mean score for shared decision-making of 86 out of 100. There was no significant difference between those choosing home- or hospital-based treatment (97 versus 83; p = 0.627). The participants obtained a knowledge score of 82% and a readiness score of 86%. Those choosing home-based treatment had higher knowledge score than those choosing hospital-based treatment (84% versus 75%; p = 0.006) but no significant difference on the readiness score (87% versus 84%; p = 0.908). Considering the chosen option and the knowledge score, 83% of the participants achieved a high-quality decision. No significant difference was found for decision quality between those choosing home- or hospital-based treatment (83% versus 83%; p = 0.935). Interview data informed the interpretation of these results.ConclusionsAlthough there was no control group, over 80% of participants exposed to the intervention and responded to the surveys experienced shared decision-making and reached a high-quality decision. Both participants who chose home- and hospital-based treatment experienced the intervention as shared decision-making and made a high-quality decision. Qualitative findings supported the quantitative results.Trial registrationThe full trial protocol is available at ClinicalTrials. Gov ( NCT03868800 ). The study has been registered retrospectively.
| S-EPMC7409698 | biostudies-literature