Shared decision making in rural general practices:a qualitative exploration of older rural South Australians'perceived involvement in clinical consultations with doctors

Background:Shared decision-making(SDM)implementation is a priority for Australian health systems,including general practices but it remains complex for specific groups like older rural Australians.We initiated a qualitative study with older rural Australians to explore barriers to and facilitators of SDM in local general practices.Methods:We conducted a patient-oriented research,partnering with older rural Australians,families,and health service providers in research design.Participants who visited general practices were purposively sampled from five small rural towns in South Australia.A semi-structured interview guide was used for interviews and reflexive thematic coding was conducted.Results:Telephone interviews were held with 27 participants.Four themes were identified around older rural adults’involvement in SDM:(1)Understanding of"patient involvement";(2)Positive and negative outcomes;(3)Barriers to SDM;and(4)Facilitators to SDM.Understanding of patient involvement in SDM considerably varied among participants,with some reporting their involvement was contingent on the“opportunity to ask questions”and the“treatment choices”offered to them.Alongside the opportunity for involvement,barriers such as avoidance of cultural care and a lack of continuity of care are new findings.Challenges encountered in SDM implementation also included resource constraints and time limitations in general practices.Rural knowledge of general practitioners and technology integration in consultations were viewed as potential enablers..Conclusion:Adequate resources and well-defined guidelines about the process should accompany the implementation of SDM in rural general practices of South Australia.Innovative strategies by general practitioners promoting health literacy and culturally-tailored communication approaches could increase older rural Australians'involvement in general.

Management of gastroesophageal reflux disease: Patient and physician communication challenges and shared decision making

Gastroesophageal reflux disease(GERD) is a common upper esophageal condition and typical symptoms can include heartburn and sensation of regurgitation while atypical symptoms include chronic cough, asthma, hoarseness, dyspepsia and nausea. Typically, diag-nosis is presumptive given the presence of typical and atypical symptoms and is an indication for empiric therapy. Treatment management can include lifestyle modifications and/or medication therapy with proton pump inhibitor(PPI) class being the preferred and most effective. Complete symptom resolution is not always achieved and long-term PPI therapy can put patients at risk for serious side effects and needless expense. The brain-gut connection and hypervigilance plays an important role in symptom resolution and treatment success, especially in the case of non-PPI responders. Hypervigilance is a combination of increased esophageal sensory sensitivity in combination with exaggerated threat perception surrounding esophageal symptoms. Hypervigilance requires a different approach to GERD managements, where continued PPI therapy and surgery are usually not recommended. Rather, helping physicians and patients understand the brain-gut connection can guide and improve care.Education and reassurance should be the main pillars or treatment. However, it is important not to suggest the symptoms are due to anxiety alone, this often leads to patient dissatisfaction. Patient dissatisfaction with treatment reveals the need for a more patient-centered approach to GERD management and better communication between patients and providers. Shared decision making(SDM) with the incorporation of patient-reported outcomes(PRO) promotes patient adherence and satisfaction. SDM is a joint discussion between clinician and patient in which a mutually shared solution is explored for GERD symptoms. For SDM to work the physician needs to capture patients' perceptions which may not be obtained in the standard interview. This can be done through the use of PROs which promote a dialogue with patients about their symptoms and treatment priorities in the context of the SDM patient encounter. SDM could potentially help in the management of patient expectations for GERD treatment, ultimately positively impacting their health-related quality of life.

Older Patients’ Involvement in Shared Decision-Making—A Systematic Review

Shared decision-making has been described as allowing patients to gain more control over their life situation and feel less helpless. The aim of this systematic review was to describe the involvement of older patients in shared decision-making in community settings. In accordance with the systematic review method, a total of 2468 abstracts were read, after which nine quantitative studies were included. A qualitative thematic analysis was performed and two themes emerged;increased understanding of self-management and a desire to strengthen one’s position in relationship with professionals, both of which were essential for empowering older patients to participate in shared decision-making. Older patients’ shared decision-making was seen as a struggle to maintain their autonomy in different areas of everyday life. Emotional and psychological problems made their position more difficult. In order to empower them in relationships with healthcare professionals, older patients require more knowledge (self-efficacy) and information about their illness, which could strengthen their position in the decision-making process. They also need a greater awareness of decisional conflicts that may arise. Age, gender and health status influence older patients’ chance of being respected and taken seriously in relationship with professionals.

Preferences for participation in shared decision making of psychiatric outpatients with affective disorders

Objective: To assess preferences for participation in shared decision making in a representative sample of psychiatric outpatients with affective disorders and to understand how clinical and socio-demographic variables influence patients’ preferences for participation. Method: A cross-sectional survey of 172 consecutive psychiatric outpatients with affective disorders attending at Community Mental Health Care setting was carried out. Patients expressed preferences on each of 3 aspects of decision making (seeking information, discussing options, making the final decision). The “CGI Severity and Improvement Scales” and the “Beck Depression Inventory” scale were used for severity assessment. Additionally the “Drug Attitude Inventory”, the “Beliefs about Medicine Questionnaire” and the “Leeds Attitude toward Concordance Scale” were applied to all participants. Effects of variables considered on preferences were assessed using proportional odds regression models. Results: We registered a high response rate of 85%. Nearly all patients (91%) preferred to leave final decisions to their treating psychiatrists and 87% preferred to rely on psychiatrists for medical knowledge rather than seeking their own information. In contrast, 81% of patients preferred to be offered options and to be asked their opinion by their doctors. Gender, age, educational level, number of psychotropics used and belief about psychiatric medication overuse were significant predictors in decision making dimensions considered. Conclusion: Shared decision making approach of patients with affective disorder must take into consideration a more doctor-directed approach preferred by the patients in which the desire to be offered options is not automatically linked with the willingness of taking decisions or getting more knowledge.

Patient’s Perception of Autonomy Support and Shared Decision Making in Physical Therapy

Background: Shared Decision Making (SDM) is primarily intended to enhance patient autonomy. To date, the relationship between patients’ perceived levels of involvement and autonomy support has never been investigated in the field of physical therapy. Based on the recently reported extremely low level of observed SDM in physical therapy, similarly poor patient perceptions are expected. Objective: The main objectives of this study were to examine patients’ perceptions of SDM and autonomy support in physical therapy and to explore the relationship between both. Design: Patient survey after real consultations in physical therapy. Methods: Patients completed the Dyadic Observing Patient Involvement (Dyadic OPTION) instrument and the Health Care Climate Questionnaire (HCCQ) to examine patients’ perceived levels of SDM and autonomy support, respectively. Multilevel analyses were applied to determine the relationship between both perceptions. Results: Two hundred and twenty-nine patients, who were recruited by 13 physical therapists, agreed to participate. The median Dyadic OPTION score was 72.9 out of a total possible score of 100. The median HCCQ score was 94.3 out of a total possible score of 100. Patients’ experienced level of SDM (b = 0.14;p < 0.001) and patients’ age (b = 0.12;p = 0.001) contributed to patients’ perceived autonomy support. None of the physical therapist characteristics were related to patients’ perceived autonomy support. Limitations: Only 13 out of 125 therapists who were personally contacted agreed to participate. Conclusion: Using patients’ perceptions, we found that a relationship between SDM and autonomy support existed. In contrast to observational studies, our study also demonstrated that the participating physical therapists individually tailored patient support by adapting their implementation of SDM to each patient.

Role of decision aids in orthopaedic surgery

Medical treatment of patients inherently entails the risk of undesired complication or side effects. It is essential to inform the patient about the expected outcomes, but also the possible undesired outcomes. The patients preference and values regarding the potential outcomes should be involved in the decision making process. Even though many orthopaedic surgeons are positive towards shared decision-making, it is minimally introduced in the orthopaedic daily practice and decision-making is still mostly physician based. Decision aids are designed to support the physician and patient in the shareddecision-making process. By using decision aids, patients can learn more about their condition and treatment options in advance to the decision-making. This will reduce decisional conflict and improve participation and satisfaction.

临床医生实践医患共同决策的思考

医患共同决策是继家长式决策模式和知情同意模式后,逐渐被大家认可的临床决策模式。在我国经历20多年的发展,逐渐被临床医生所认可并不断引入临床实践,但其发展并不如想象中那么乐观。虽然它可以改善医患关系、减少决策失误,但实际工作中仍存在缺乏政策指引、医患双方互不信任、医生没有实现共情等诸多实际问题,致使医患共同决策的推进并不顺畅。因此,医患共同决策模式作为理想的决策模式,在我国临床工作中仍需要不断探索与完善。

医患共同决策对患者家属诊疗期望值及满意度的影响

应用病例对照研究方法对拟行冠状动脉旁路移植术的患者进行医患共同决策干预。研究发现,经过医患共同决策干预的患者和家属,沟通后对诊疗结果的期望值明显减低,且沟通诊疗期望值低于传统方式沟通的患者和家属;在满意度测评中,干预组满意度和患者参与满意度调查的比例高于对照组,且干预组患者主导的满意度得分高于对照组和干预组家属主导的满意度得分。积极应用医患共同决策能够合理调控患者及其家属对诊疗行为的期望值,提升患者满意度,值得在国内医疗机构推广。

医患共同决策对老年慢性病共病患者家庭医生签约服务质量的影响

目的:深入剖析医患共同决策水平对老年慢性病共病患者家庭医生签约服务质量的作用路径,为推动慢性病健康管理、改善患者就医体验感和签约服务质量提供参考。方法:在武汉市和贵阳市采取多阶段随机抽样方法对599名老年慢性病共病患者及其对应的63名签约医生开展问卷调查,借助分层回归模型分析医患共同决策水平对签约服务质量的作用路径。结果:我国中西部地区老年慢性病共病患者的医患共同决策得分为32.07±6.46,家庭医生签约服务质量得分为95.20±8.73,其中经济性和纵向连续性维度得分较低。分层回归模型分析结果显示医患共同决策水平对签约服务质量产生正向影响(β=0.369,P<0.05),家庭医生对签约患者的信任程度起到正向调节作用(β=0.548,P<0.05)。结论:我国中西部地区老年慢性病共病患者的医患共同决策水平和家庭医生签约服务质量均处于中等水平且有待提升,医患共同决策显著提升签约服务质量,对签约患者的信任程度强化共同决策对服务质量的正向效应。今后应加强医患共同决策、规范慢性病患者转诊服务、强化医患沟通信任,切实提升家庭医生签约服务质量。

基于终末期肾病患者共享决策下的自动腹膜透析治疗

近年来,我国终末期肾病(end-stage renal disease,ESRD)发病率逐年增长,透析患者常常伴随多种并发症,同时也是焦虑抑郁等心理疾病的高发人群。透析方式及透析过程与患者本人及家属的日常生活息息相关,这类患者更需要以人为本的治疗策略。进入ESRD准备接受肾脏替代治疗前,让患者及家属知晓每种肾脏替代治疗方式的特点,在充分考虑临床治疗需求基础上,结合患者生活环境、工作学习需求、社会回归、心理需求及个性化喜好共同决策选择合适的肾脏替代治疗方式。在此共享决策模式下,越来越多的患者希望进行居家透析治疗。目前鉴于设备技术、经济成本及人力资源等限制,居家血液透析短期内较难普及,作为居家透析主要方式的腹膜透析,也因操作培训及随访管理等问题,存在患者操作不规范、治疗依从性差、处方调整或并发症干预不及时等问题。本文着重就ESRD患者共享决策流程、自动腹膜透析治疗处方设置及患者远程随访管理进行阐述,以期共同提高居家腹透患者的治疗质量及社会回归。

患者决策辅助工具开发流程研究现状

患者决策辅助工具是实施医患共同决策的有效手段。本文介绍国际上主要组织关于患者决策辅助工具的开发流程与方法,探讨其特点和差异,分析国内开发患者决策辅助工具的挑战,提出相应建议,以期为国内患者决策辅助工具的开发提供参考。

癌症患者决策辅助工具应用体验质性研究的Meta整合

目的对成年癌症患者决策辅助工具应用体验进行系统整合,为开发我国本土化决策辅助工具、实现共享决策提供循证指导。方法计算机检索PubMed、Cochrane Library、CINAHL、Embase、Web of Science、ProQuest、中国知网、万方数据库、维普网、中国生物医学文献数据库中关于癌症患者决策辅助工具应用体验的质性研究,检索时限为建库至2023年7月。采用JBI循证卫生保健中心质性研究质量评价标准(2020)进行文献质量评价,以Meta整合方法对文献研究结果进行整合。结果纳入17篇文献,提炼出50个研究结果,归纳出7个类别,最终形成3个整合结果:患者对决策辅助工具总体满意度较高、增强患者决策参与体验、阻碍因素。结论决策辅助工具可以帮助癌症患者了解治疗方案并积极参与决策,满足患者的决策需求,缓解决策冲突,从而改善患者的临床结局。

医患共同决策诊疗模式在胸部肿瘤患者中的应用进展

医患共同决策(shared decision making,SDM)作为新型的诊疗决策模式,能够有效解决胸部肿瘤诊疗过程中患者的依从性问题,平衡医患双方的地位,逐渐在胸外科临床实践中得到重视和应用。将SDM应用于胸部肿瘤诊疗过程中有利于提升医生的诊疗水平,缓解责任压力;减轻患者的心理压力,提高患者的依从性;提高医信力并减少医患冲突。由于患者自身的医学素养和自主性有限,医患比例失衡导致的诊疗时间紧张,同时由于已有的研究存在样本量有限等原因尚不能证明采用SDM模式对于胸部肿瘤的治疗有明确的增益,推行SDM模式仍面临阻力。未来通过开发辅助决策系统以及提升医生的人文关怀能力将更有利于推动SDM模式在胸外科的实际应用。

“为癌症患者心理赋能”的临床干预路径

“为患者心理赋能”是近年来医疗健康领域出现的一种新的积极医疗照护理念,其关注点是个体的能力而非缺陷,它强调医疗实践应该为改善健康和生活质量建立患者激励结构。首先梳理了赋能的概念发展与心理结构,随后引证多个实证研究总结出为癌症患者心理赋能的四条临床干预路径,指出医患共同决策、同伴支持、赋能教育以及认知行为压力管理的赋能价值。最后结合已有成果和研究中发现的问题,提出癌症心理赋能干预发展建议,有利于进一步开展临床研究和实践探索。

手术病人决策辅助的研究进展

介绍病人决策辅助的定义、使用情景、意义、内涵、形式以及开发的理论基础、质量评价、应用现状、目前存在的问题,以期为我国开展相关研究提供参考。

基于网络的患者决策辅助在肿瘤患者临床决策中的应用进展

介绍基于网络的患者决策辅助工具在肿瘤患者临床决策中的应用概况,阐述其设计特征,包括内容丰富且信息呈现可视化、决策设置个性化、功能交互性、临床可持续性;总结决策辅助工具在肿瘤患者临床决策中的具体应用,包括癌症筛查决策、癌症预防决策、癌症治疗决策、癌症患者生育力决策、预立医疗照护计划,提出此类工具在临床应用的挑战和建议,旨在为我国开发和应用基于网络的癌症患者决策辅助工具提供可行性参考。

从伦理视角看医患共同决策的多种模式

医患共同决策是一种道德要求,源于医务人员接受患者或患者家属的基本权利,如自主权、知情同意权和选择权。为实现医患共同决策,医务人员和患者担任了不同的角色,医务人员的任务是引入专业知识和具体经验,为患者提供诊断和治疗选择的多项建议,而患者的任务是根据其对治疗效果目标、健康价值、基本权利等医学和伦理知识的理解程度,选择其在共同决策中认可的治疗方案。从伦理视角出发,立足于医患共同决策,深入分析其伦理意义,围绕伦理基本要求,从医生-患者共同参与模式、医生-患者-家属共同参与模式、医生-护士-患者共同参与模式、医务部介入的高风险病例谈话模式、多学科团队共同协作模式等多种实践模式,展开多角度、深层次的探讨,为进一步促进医患共同决策的实现,提供一些参考依据。

医护患共同决策模式在甲状腺癌手术患者中的应用

目的:探讨医护患共同决策模式在甲状腺癌手术患者中的应用效果。方法:选取2022年1月1日~2023年4月1日行甲状腺癌手术的158例患者随机分为对照组和研究组各79例,对照组给予常规护理干预,研究组给予医护患共同决策模式。比较两组干预前后焦虑自评量表(SAS)评分、抑郁自评量表(SDS)评分、一般自我效能感量表(GSES)评分、简易应对方式问卷(SCSQ)评分、健康信念评分、中文版癌症治疗功能评价系统量表(FACT-G)评分、护理满意度。结果:干预后,两组SAS、SDS评分均低于干预前(P<0.05),且研究组低于对照组(P<0.01);干预后,两组GSES评分高于干预前(P<0.05),且研究组高于对照组(P<0.01);干预后,两组SCSQ中积极应对评分高于干预前(P<0.05),消极应对评分低于干预前(P<0.05),且研究组优于对照组(P<0.01);干预后,两组健康信念、FACT-G评分均高于干预前(P<0.05),且研究组高于对照组(P<0.01);研究组护理满意度高于对照组(P<0.05)。结论:将医护患共同决策模式应用于甲状腺癌手术患者,可有效缓解其负性情绪,提高自我效能感,使患者积极应对疾病,提高健康信念、生活质量和护理满意度。

患者参与医患共同决策的思考

医患共同决策克服了传统医疗决策模式的固有弊端,实现了“家长式决策模式”与“知情式决策模式”的有机结合,有利于做出最适合患者的医疗决策。然而,部分患者盲从医者权威、缺乏必要医学知识以及医患互信基础薄弱等现实问题,制约了患者对医疗决策的参与,阻碍了医患共同决策的推进。作为医疗决策的主体,患者有效参与能够促成医患双方相互理解、促进医患决策落实、纠正医患决策失误。破解医患共同决策实践难题,要将提升患者参与能力置于首位,开展面向社会公众的医学常识教育、发挥社会支持系统的正向作用、培育医患互信的现实基础。

生成式人工智能对医患共享决策的影响机制探究

随着大型语言模型日臻成熟,以ChatGPT/GPT-4为代表的生成式人工智能(GenAI)有望深度嵌入临床决策之中。然而,GenAI的临床应用同样存在莫拉维克悖论等隐忧,WHO发布的《卫生领域人工智能的伦理与治理:多模态大模型指南》提出了大模型应用于医疗领域时应遵守的六项原则。GenAI参与临床决策需要医患双方的共同参与。临床医生参与到GenAI的研发与推广应用,把控好技术发展方向。GenAI赋能患者参与决策,贴近医疗实际情况,满足患者价值选择偏好。深化GenAI可解释性、责任分配体系,赋能医患共享决策,妥善处理GenAI对传统告知与理解带来的挑战,实现临床效益最大化。