Shared decision making process measures and patient problems

ObjectivesPurposeful SDM posits four modes of shared decision making (SDM). The use of each mode depends on the type of problem of care that is being addressed. We sought to identify how current observer-based SDM measures apply to each mode of Purposeful SDM.MethodsFour coders, working independently, evaluated 192 items pertaining to 12 observer-based SDM process measures. They classified the items into 6 themes that vary across Purposeful SDM modes and then into one of the four modes (weighing, negotiating, problem-solving, developing insight). Disagreements were resolved by consensus.ResultsThe items were classified as pertaining to the following themes: problem (28), roles/participation (84), options (62), preferences (21), decision (15), and evaluation (6). They were then classified as pertaining particularly to the SDM modes of weighing (54), negotiating (5), problem-solving (0), and developing insight (0) modes, with 191 items applying broadly to all modes of Purposeful SDM.ConclusionsObserver-based SDM measures describe behaviors pertinent to all modes but lack items sensitive to behaviors particular to some modes of SDM.Practice ImplicationsNew or revised observer-based measures of the SDM process could help estimate the extent to which the appropriate SDM mode is being used to address the patient’s problem.     

Shared decision making,patient-centered communication and patient satisfaction – A cross-sectional analysis

ObjectivesThe integration of shared decision making (SDM) and patient-centered communication (PCC) is needed to actively involve patients in decision making. This study examined the relationship between shared decision making and patient-centered communication.MethodsIn 82 videotaped hospital outpatient consultations by 41 medical specialists from 18 disciplines, we assessed the extent of shared decision making by the OPTION⁵ score and patient-centered communication by the Four Habits Coding Scheme (4HCS), and analyzed the occurrence of a high versus low degree (above or below median) of SDM and/or PCC, and its relation to patient satisfaction scores.ResultsIn comparison to earlier studies, we observed comparable 4HCS scores and relatively low OPTION⁵ scores. The correlation between the two was weak (r = 0.29, p = 0.009). In 38% of consultations, we observed a combination of high SDM and low PCC scores or vice versa. The combination of a high SDM and high PCC, which was observed in 23% of consultations, was associated with significantly higher patient satisfaction scores.ConclusionShared decision making and patient-centered communication are not synonymous and do not always co-exist.Practice implicationsThe value of integrated training of shared decision making and patient-centered communication should be further explored.     

Involving patients in undergraduate health professions education: What’s in it for them?

ObjectivesPatients have become more involved in research, policy, and health professions education. They are involved in teaching students competencies required for person-centred care, but patient benefits have not received proper attention. This exploratory study identifies how patient involvement in health professions education help patients to practice self-management and shared decision-making.MethodsIndividual interviews were conducted with patients (hereafter ‘experts by experience’) (N = 11) who participated in the Patient As a Person Module, organised for students of health professions in The Netherlands. Additionally, one of their healthcare professionals (N = 10) and family members (N = 9) were interviewed. Directed content analysis was used.ResultsParticipants reported that sharing lived experiences helped experts by experience to reflect on their preferences regarding health and healthcare, accept their changed selves, and obtain a renewed sense of purpose. They reported gaining insight into the perspectives of healthcare professionals, which yielded more equal healthcare professional-patient relationships.ConclusionsSharing their lived experiences with health and health care with students could help patients in practising effective self-management and participate in shared decision-making.Practice implicationsApproaching patient involvement in health professions education from both the perspectives of students and experts by experience, as opposed to students alone, optimises its societal impact.     

The effects of patient–professional partnerships on the self-management and health outcomes for patients with chronic back pain: A quasi-experimental study

BackgroundSelf-management may be a lifelong task for patients with chronic back pain. Research suggests that chronic pain self-management programmes have beneficial effects on patients’ health outcome. Contemporary pain management theories and models also suggest that a good patient–professional partnership enhances patients’ ability to self-manage their condition.Objectives(1) To investigate whether there is a reciprocal relationship between self-management of chronic back pain and health-related quality of life (HRQoL); (2) to examine the impact of a good patient–professional partnership on HRQoL, either directly, or indirectly via change in the ability to self-manage pain.Design and settingThis quasi-experimental study was designed to take place during routine service appointments and conducted in a community-based pain management service in the United Kingdom. A patient–professional partnership was established in which patients were actively involved in setting up goals and developing individualised care plans. Through this, health professionals undertook patients’ health needs assessment, collaborated with patients to identify specific problems, provided written materials and delivered individualised exercise based on patients’ life situation. Patients were recruited following initial consultation and followed up three months later.ParticipantsA total of 147 patients (65% female) with a mean age of 48 years (standard deviation (SD): 14 years) were enrolled in the study. Of these, 103 subjects completed the study. Patients were included if they were aged 18 and over, suffered from chronic back pain, had opted in to the clinic and had sufficient ability to read and understand English. Patients were excluded if they opted out this service after the initial assessment, suffered from malignant pain or required acute medical interventions for their pain relief.MethodsSelf-reported measures of HRQoL, patient–professional partnerships and self-management ability were collected at baseline and three months later. Pathways proposed were depicted using structural equation modelling.ResultsThere was no association between patients’ self-management ability and HRQoL at baseline. However, a positive direct effect was detected at three months (−0.38, p < 0.01). A patient–professional partnership was not found to be beneficial for patients’ HRQoL through a direct pathway, but via an indirect pathway where self-management was a mediator (−19.09, p < 0.01).ConclusionsThis study suggests that the increase in patients’ self-management ability may lead to improvement in HRQoL after pain management support provided in a partnership with health professionals. A good patient–professional partnership appears to be beneficial as an augmentation to self-management practice for patients with chronic back pain.     

Giving voice to quality and safety matters at board level: A qualitative study of the experiences of executive nurses working in England and Wales

BackgroundRecent reports into egregious failing in the quality and safety of healthcare in the UK have focussed on the ability of executive boards to discharge their duties effectively. Inevitably the role of executive nurses, whose remit frequently includes responsibility for quality and safety, has become the object of increased scrutiny. However, limited evidence exists about the experiences of the UK's most senior nurses of working at board level.ObjectiveWe aimed to generate empirical evidence on the experiences of executive nurses working at board level in England and Wales. We posed two research questions: What are the experiences of nurse executives working at board level? What strategies and/or processes do nurse executives deploy to ensure their views and concerns about quality and safety are taken into account at board level?DesignQualitative interviews using semi-structured interviews.SettingNHS England and Wales.ParticipantsPurposive sample of 40 executive board nurses.MethodsSemi-structured interviews followed by a process of thematic data analysis using NVivo10 and feedback on early findings from participants.ResultsOur findings are presented under three headings: the experiences of executive nurses working with supportive, engaged boards; their experiences of being involved with unsupportive, avoidant boards with a poor understanding of safety, quality and the executive nursing role and the strategies deployed by executive nurses to ensure that the nursing voice was heard at board. Two prominent and interrelated discursive strategies were used by executive nurses – briefing and building relationships and preparing and delivering a credible case. Considerable time and effort were invested in these strategies which were described as having significant impact on individual board members and collective board decision making. These strategies, when viewed through the lens of the concept of “groupthink”, can be seen to protect executive nurses from accusations by board colleagues of disloyalty whislt also actively restricting the development of “groupthink” within the board.Another finding of note was that executive boards may not be permanently fixed as either unsupportive or supportive as participants described how certain boards that were initially unsupportive adopted a more supportive attitude towards matters of safety and quality.ConclusionsThese highly positioned nurses can provide invaluable advice and support to boards around matters of quality and safety. However, the work of nurse executives remains an under-research area and more work is needed to better understand the ebb and flow of power and influence at play within hospital boards.