What population factors influence the decision to donate blood?

Donations of blood in most of the developed world are by nonremunerated volunteers. As such factors, which impact upon the motivation of individuals to donate, are critical to achieving a stable supply, we analyze the factors, which influence the decision to donate. Using data on 130,356 [corrected] individuals from 1999 and 2000, we investigate which factors determine the proportion of blood donors in postcode areas. Variables analyzed include blood donation status and sociodemographic characteristics in order to provide information on donation decisions. We find the proportion of donors in an area is significantly increased by higher proportions of women aged 20-29 and 40-49, and of men aged 60-69. Conversely, a higher proportion of males aged 20-29 significantly reduces proportion of donors. Also, a higher proportion of individuals born overseas significantly reduces the proportion of blood donors in an area. To increase supplies, blood collection agencies should target specific groups. Young men and men and women aged 30-49 need to be encouraged to donate. Collection agencies also need to target individuals who are born overseas to participate in the process. Using these results to aid targeting should help to maintain the blood supply.     

Does shared decision making respect a patient's relational autonomy?

According to many of its proponents, shared decision making (“SDM”) is the right way to interpret the clinician‐patient relationship because it respects patient autonomy in decision‐making contexts. In particular, medical ethicists have claimed that SDM respects a patient's relational autonomy understood as a capacity that depends upon, and can only be sustained by, interpersonal relationships as well as broader health care and social conditions. This paper challenges that claim. By considering two primary approaches to relational autonomy, this paper argues that standard accounts of SDM actually undermine patient autonomy. It also provides an overview of the obligations generated by the principle of respect for relational autonomy that have not been captured in standard accounts of SDM and which are necessary to ensure consistency between clinical practice and respect for patient autonomy.     

Graduate nurses: critical thinkers or better decision makers?

This study evaluates the difference in development of critical thinking across four groups of nurses at different stages of the academic process and their perception of their decision-making ability in practice. With the move of nurse education into institutes of higher education nationally, there are no empirical data in the UK to suggest that graduates practice any differently from their non-graduate colleagues. An opportunistic sample of 82 nurses, was chosen from recent admission on a pre-registration degree programme, to mature graduates, as well as a group of experienced, non-graduate practitioners. A quasi-experimental, between-subjects design was used. A series of one-way ANOVAs was used to analyse the difference in critical thinking across all four groups, employing the Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal. Additionally, the Jenkins Clinical Decision-Making in Nursing Scale was used to determine the differences in decision-making ability in practice across three of the groups with clinical experience. Furthermore, a correlation was undertaken to determine what relationship, if any, existed between critical thinking and decision-making in practice. It was found that there was no significant difference in the critical thinking skills across all groups studied, supporting the findings of other studies in the USA, which examined the cognitive skills of students undertaking graduate programmes. However, in their practice, it was found that those exposed to the academic process were significantly better at decision-making than their non-academic colleagues. Finally, no relationship could be found between the development of critical thinking and decision-making in practice, suggesting that more work needs to be done to look carefully at both critical thinking skills and decision-making in practice and the tools used to measure these.     

How do we facilitate carers’ involvement in decision making?

BACKGROUND: Government health care policy urges service providers to involve service users in the decision-making process. Research studies have recommended changes to current health care practice to facilitate this involvement. However, carers' organizations continue to highlight a gap between policy and practice in relation to involvement. AIM: The aim of the study reported on in this paper was to investigate involvement in a specific health care context with a view to identifying both opportunities for change and practical, realistic ways of bringing about that change. This was a qualitative case study using a case study design. The field site selected was a respite and assessment (23 bedded) ward within the Psychiatric Unit of a hospital specializing in the care of older people. Informal carers (n=20) and members of the multidisciplinary team (n=29) were interviewed about their views and experiences. The interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed. Family meetings, multidisciplinary team meetings and ward routines were the focus of non-participant observation. Field notes from these observations, together with the interview data were analysed using constant comparative method. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS. The reported experiences of carers in this study highlighted four markers of satisfactory involvement: feeling that information is shared; feeling included in decision making; feeling that there is someone you can contact when you need to; and feeling that the service is responsive to your needs. The majority of carers felt dissatisfied with the level of involvement. The situation we found echoed that found in other studies, i.e. the majority of informal carers (henceforth 'carers') interviewed were dissatisfied with the level of their involvement. However, our investigation, in which the views of health care professionals as well as those of carers were sought, provided invaluable insight into why this might be the case. Two main sources of difficulty were found: hospital systems and processes, and the relationship between nursing staff and carers. The argument made is that practitioners themselves must notice and challenge these barriers if carer involvement is to be facilitated.     

Improved health or improved decision making? The ethical goals of EBM

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is frequently portrayed as a value-free approach to knowing what kinds of treatment 'really work.' Since practitioners should help patients to improve their health, and EBM tells us which interventions will work, then it follows that we must practice EBM, offering only those interventions supported by evidence. The primary goal of EBM, then, is an ethical one - to improve health. More recently, EBM's authors have also committed themselves to 'shared decision making' in which evidence plays a role in the clinical encounter, but where patients, motivated by their own values, should have final decision-making authority. Envisioned this way, strengthening the informed consent process, rather than improved health per se, is viewed as the goal of EBM. In this paper, I will explore this shift in EBM's ethics from the goal of improved health towards the goal of strengthened informed consent. Drawing upon data from a qualitative enquiry of scholars involved in the development of EBM, I will argue that EBM is now committed to both of these ethical goals. Where they conflict, the aim of the intervention will determine which goal practitioners should pursue. Having increased the ethical complexity of EBM, we are left with the question of whether EBM would still be judged a success if it did not lead to much in the way of improvements in health, but primarily strengthened informed consent. This paper will conclude by arguing that this more nuanced version of EBM's ethics accurately reflects the dynamics of real clinical practice but undermines the original, perceived need for EBM.     

How well does decision support software perform in the emergency department?

Objective: To determine how well general decision support systems perform given the data collected in an emergency department (ED).     

The seriously ill hospitalized patient: preferred role in end-of-life decision making?

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to further our understanding of the decision-making process near the end of life. Specifically, we ascertained the seriously ill patients' preferred role in the decision-making process, what factors were associated with this role, and how this stated preference related to physicians' perception of preferred role. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective cohort study of hospitalized patients with end-stage congestive heart disease, chronic pulmonary disease, cirrhosis, or metastatic cancer. Eligible patients were interviewed to ascertain their personal views on end-of-life decision making, desired role, and level of symptoms experienced. RESULTS: A total of 135 patients were enrolled in this study. The majority of patients (103, 76%) had thought about end-of-life issues although only 48 (36%) had discussed them with their doctor in the hospital. With respect to preferred role in decision making, in the scenario of a competent patient, 14 (10%) preferred to leave all decisions to the doctor, 12 (9%) preferred that the doctor make the final decision after considering their opinion, 43 (32%) preferred that the doctor shared responsibility with them to make the decision, 32 (24%) patients preferred to make the final decision after considering the doctor's opinion, 21 (16%) preferred to make the treatment decision alone, and 13 (10%) did not answer. Physicians were not able to accurately predict patient's preferred role nor could the variability in patient choice be accounted for by demographic or symptom covariates. CONCLUSION: Seriously ill hospitalized patients desire to discuss end-of-life issues with their physicians but their preferred role in decision making is variable and difficult to predict.     

Patient preferences for medical decision making: who really wants to participate?

OBJECTIVES: To identify the determinants of patient preferences for participation in medical decision making. METHODS: Data were analyzed for 2,197 patients from the Medical Outcomes Study, a 4-year observational study of patients with chronic disease (hypertension, diabetes, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and depression). Multivariate logistic regression models estimated the effects of patients' sociodemographic, clinical, psychosocial, and lifestyle characteristics on their decision-making preferences. RESULTS: A majority of the patients (69%) preferred to leave their medical decisions to their physicians. The odds for preferring an active role significantly decreased with age and increased with education. Women were more likely to be active than men (odds ratio [OR] = 1.44, P < 0.001). Compared with patients who only suffered with unsevere hypertension, those with severe diabetes (OR = 0.62, P = 0.04) and unsevere heart disease (OR = 0.45, P = 0.02) were less likely to prefer an active role. Patients with clinical depression were more likely to be active (OR = 1.64, P = 0.01). Patients pursuing active coping strategies had higher odds for an active role than "passive" copers, while those who placed higher value on their health were less likely to be active than those with low health value (OR = 0.59, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Although a majority of patients prefer to delegate decision making to physicians, preferences vary significantly by patient characteristics. Approaches to enhancing patient involvement will need to be flexible and accommodating to individual preferences in order to maximize the benefits of patient participation on health outcomes.