Gedeelde besluitvorming is in de praktijk niet zo eenvoudig. SDM vraagt van zowel de verpleegkundige als de patiënt eigenschappen die niet vanzelfsprekend aanwezig zijn. De verpleegkundige dient in staat te zijn verschillende mogelijkheden met de voor- en nadelen te presenteren en daarnaast de patiënt de ruimte te geven een keuze te maken die het best bij hem past. Deze werkwijze past goed in een persoonsgerichte visie, waarin gedeelde besluitvorming of samen beslissen en empowerment belangrijke elementen zijn.
LINK
Patients with a hematologic malignancy increasingly prefer to be actively involved in treatment decision-making.1,2 Shared decision-making (SDM), a process that supports decision-making in preference-sensitive decisions, fits well with this need. A decision is preference sensitive when well-informed patients considerably differ in their trade-offs between the pros and cons of one option, or if more equal treatment options are available, including no treatment. SDM involves several steps: the first is choice talk, where the professional informs the patient that a decision needs to be made between the various relevant options and that the patient's opinion is important. The second is option talk, where the professional explains the options and their pros and cons. In the third step, preference talk, the professional and the patient discuss the patient's preferences. The professional supports the patient in deliberation. The final step is decision talk, where the professional and patient discuss the patient's decisional role preference, make or defer the decision and discuss possible follow-up.3,4
DOCUMENT
Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) is often considered the ideal for decision-making in oncology. Views of specific groups such as ethnic minorities have seldom been considered in its development. Aim: In this study we seek to assess in oncology if there is a need for adaptation of the current SDM model to ethnic minorities and to formulate possible adjustments. Design: This study is embedded in empirical bioethics, an interdisciplinary approach integrating empirical data with ethical reasoning to formulate normative conclusions regarding a practice. For the empirical social scientific part, a cross-sectional qualitative study will be conducted; for the ethical reflection the Reflective Equilibrium will be used to develop a coherent view on the application of SDM among ethnic minorities in oncology. Method: Semi-structured interviews combined with visual methods (timelines and relational maps) will be held with healthcare professionals (HCPs), ethnic minority patients, and their relatives to identify values steering the behavior of these actors in SDM. In addition, focus groups (FGs) will be held with ethnic minority community members to identify value structures at the group level. Respondents will be recruited through organizations with access to ethnic minorities and collaborating hospitals. Data will be analyzed using a reflexive thematic analysis through the lens of Schwartz’s value theory. The results of the empirical phase will be included in the RE to formulate possible adjustments of the SDM model, if needed. Discussion: The integration of empirical data with ethical reflection is an innovative method in decision-making. This method enables a systematic and profound assessment of the need for adaptation of SDM and the formulation of theoretically and empirically based suggestions for adaptations of the model. Findings of this study may enrich the SDM model.
DOCUMENT
Background: Medical consultations with older patients often include triadic conversations and decision-making processes involving physicians, patients, and family members. The presence of family members may change the communication dynamics and therefore increase the complexity of the consultation and decision-making process. Objective: This study explored associations between physicians' shared decision-making (SDM) behaviour and patients' and family members' participation in the decision-making process. Methods: Using an observational design, we analysed 95 recorded consultations between medical specialists, patients aged ≥65 years, and accompanying family members at a Dutch hospital. The OPTIONMCC was used to assess the physicians' SDM behaviour and patients' and family members' levels of involvement in SDM. Results: We found a strong positive correlation between physicians' behaviour and patients' and family members' participation in SDM (0.68 and 0.64, respectively, p < .01). Family members were more involved in SDM for patients aged 80 and older. Conclusion: While not asserting causation, our study suggests physicians potentially play a facilitating role in shaping the SDM process together with proactive contributions from patients and family members. Innovation: The results offer new insights into triadic SDM and provide suggestions for refining the OPTIONMCC. Further research is recommended into participants' mutual directional influences in triadic SDM.
DOCUMENT
Objective: To construct the underlying value structure of shared decision making (SDM) models. Method: We included previously identified SDM models (n = 40) and 15 additional ones. Using a thematic analysis, we coded the data using Schwartz’s value theory to define values in SDM and to investigate value relations. Results: We identified and defined eight values and developed three themes based on their relations: shared control, a safe and supportive environment, and decisions tailored to patients. We constructed a value structure based on the value relations and themes: the interplay of healthcare professionals’ (HCPs) and patients’ skills [Achievement], support for a patient [Benevolence], and a good relationship between HCP and patient [Security] all facilitate patients’ autonomy [Self-Direction]. These values enable a more balanced relationship between HCP and patient and tailored decision making [Universalism]. Conclusion: SDM can be realized by an interplay of values. The values Benevolence and Security deserve more explicit attention, and may especially increase vulnerable patients’ Self-Direction. Practice implications: This value structure enables a comparison of values underlying SDM with those of specific populations, facilitating the incorporation of patients’ values into treatment decision making. It may also inform the development of SDM measures, interventions, education programs, and HCPs when practicing.
DOCUMENT
Background: The majority of patients diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer are in a position to choose between having a mastectomy or lumpectomy with radiation therapy (breast-conserving therapy). Since the long-term survival rates for mastectomy and for lumpectomy with radiation therapy are comparable, patients’ informed preferences are important for decision-making. Although most clinicians believe that they do include patients in the decision-making process, the information that women with breast cancer receive regarding the surgical options is often rather subjective, and does not invite patients to express their preferences. Shared decision-making (SDM) is meant to help patients clarify their preferences, resulting in greater satisfaction with their final choice. Patient decision aids can be very supportive in SDM. We present the protocol of a study to β test a patient decision aid and optimise strategies for the implementation of SDM regarding the treatment of early-stage breast cancer in the actual clinical setting. Methods/design: This paper concerns a preimplementation and post-implementation study, lasting from October 2014 to June 2015. The intervention consists of implementing SDM using a patient decision aid. The intervention will be evaluated using qualitative and quantitative measures, acquired prior to, during and after the implementation of SDM. Outcome measures are knowledge about treatment, perceived SDM and decisional conflict. We will also conduct face-to-face interviews with a sample of these patients and their care providers, to assess their experiences with the implementation of SDM and the patient decision aid.
DOCUMENT
Background: For most women, participation in decision-making during maternity care has a positive impact on their childbirth experiences. Shared decision-making (SDM) is widely advocated as a way to support people in their healthcare choices. The aim of this study was to identify quality criteria and professional competencies for applying shared decision-making in maternity care. We focused on decision-making in everyday maternity care practice for healthy women. Methods: An international three-round web-based Delphi study was conducted. The Delphi panel included international experts in SDM and in maternity care: mostly midwives, and additionally obstetricians, educators, researchers, policy makers and representatives of care users. Round 1 contained open-ended questions to explore relevant ingredients for SDM in maternity care and to identify the competencies needed for this. In rounds 2 and 3, experts rated statements on quality criteria and competencies on a 1 to 7 Likert-scale. A priori, positive consensus was defined as 70% or more of the experts scoring ≥6 (70% panel agreement). Results: Consensus was reached on 45 quality criteria statements and 4 competency statements. SDM in maternity care is a dynamic process that starts in antenatal care and ends after birth. Experts agreed that the regular visits during pregnancy offer opportunities to build a relationship, anticipate situations and revisit complex decisions. Professionals need to prepare women antenatally for unexpected, urgent decisions in birth and revisit these decisions postnatally. Open and respectful communication between women and care professionals is essential; information needs to be accurate, evidence-based and understandable to women. Experts were divided about the contribution of professional advice in shared decision-making and about the partner’s role. Conclusions: SDM in maternity care is a dynamic process that takes into consideration women’s individual needs and the context of the pregnancy or birth. The identified ingredients for good quality SDM will help practitioners to apply SDM in practice and educators to prepare (future) professionals for SDM, contributing to women’s positive birth experience and satisfaction with care.
MULTIFILE
The aim of the research reported in this thesis was to gain knowledge about the implementation of evidence‐based practice (EBP) in nursing to find a way to integrate shared decision making (SDM) with EBP in a chronic care environment in nursing, and to develop a strategy for an integrated approach of EBP and SDM in daily nursing practice in the individual aftercare for cancer survivors.
DOCUMENT
People with dementia are confronted with many decisions. However, they are often not involved in the process of the decision-making. Shared Decision-Making (SDM) enables involvement of persons with dementia in the decision-making process. In our study, we develop a supportive IT application aiming to facilitate the decision-making process in care networks of people with dementia. A key feature in the development of this SDM tool is the participation of all network members during the design and development process, including the person with dementia. In this paper, we give insight into the first phases of this design and development process in which we conducted extensive user studies and translated wishes and needs of network members into user requirements
DOCUMENT
Patients with a hematologic malignancy increasingly prefer to be actively involved in treatment decision-making. Shared decision-making (SDM), a process that supports decision-making in preference-sensitive decisions, fits well with this need. A decision is preference sensitive when well-informed patients considerably differ in their trade-offs between the pros and cons of one option, or if more equal treatment options are available, including no treatment. SDM involves several steps: the first is choice talk, where the professional informs the patient that a decision needs to be made between the various relevant options and that the patient's opinion is important. The second is option talk, where the professional explains the options and their pros and cons. In the third step, preference talk, the professional and the patient discuss the patient's preferences. The professional supports the patient in deliberation. The final step is decision talk, where the professional and patient discuss the patient's decisional role preference, make or defer the decision and discuss possible follow-up.
DOCUMENT
