In the decision-making environment of evidence-based practice, the following three sources of information must be integrated: research evidence of the intervention, clinical expertise, and the patient’s values. In reality, evidence-based practice usually focuses on research evidence (which may be translated into clinical practice guidelines) and clinical expertise without considering the individual patient’s values. The shared decision-making model seems to be helpful in the integration of the individual patient’s values in evidence-based practice. We aim to discuss the relevance of shared decision making in chronic care and to suggest how it can be integrated with evidence-based practice in nursing. We start by describing the following three possible approaches to guide the decision-making process: the paternalistic approach, the informed approach, and the shared decision-making approach. Implementation of shared decision making has gained considerable interest in cases lacking a strong best-treatment recommendation, and when the available treatment options are equivalent to some extent. We discuss that in chronic care it is important to always invite the patient to participate in the decision-making process. We delineate the following six attributes of health care interventions in chronic care that influence the degree of shared decision making: the level of research evidence, the number of available intervention options, the burden of side effects, the impact on lifestyle, the patient group values, and the impact on resources. Furthermore, the patient’s willingness to participate in shared decision making, the clinical expertise of the nurse, and the context in which the decision making takes place affect the shared decision-making process. A knowledgeable and skilled nurse with a positive attitude towards shared decision making – integrated with evidence-based practice – can facilitate the shared decision-making process. We conclude that nurses as well as other health care professionals in chronic care should integrate shared decision making with evidence- based practice to deliver patient-centred care.
Background: There is an increasing number of patients with a chronic illness demanding primary care services. This demands for effective self-management support, including collaborative goal setting. Despite the fact that primary care professionals seem to have difficulties implementing goal setting, little information is available about the factors influencing the complexity of this process in primary care. Objective: The aim of this study was to contribute to an understanding of the complexity of selfmanagement goal setting in primary care by exploring experts’ and primary care professionals’ experiences with self-management goal setting and viewpoints regarding influencing factors. Methods: A descriptive qualitative research methodology was adopted. Two focus groups and three individual interviews were conducted (total participants n = 17). Thematic content analysis was used to analyse the data. Results: The findings were categorized into four main themes with subordinated subthemes. The themes focus around the complexity of setting non-medical goals and around professionals’ skills and attitudes to negotiate and decide about goals with patients. Furthermore, patients’ skills and attitudes for goal setting and the integration of goal setting in the time available were formulated as themes. Conclusions: Setting self-management goals in primary care, especially in family medicine, might require a shift from a medical perspective to a biopsychosocial perspective, with an increasing role set aside for the professional to coach the patient in expressing his self-management goals and to take responsibility for these goals.
Background: To prevent deterioration after admission to the intensive care unit (ICU), and to improve rehabilitation, the ICU team should use digital technologies to provide comprehensive and practical information alongside personalised support for survivors and their family members. However, a knowledge gap exists on the users’ preferences for such an e-health platform in ICU follow-up services. Objectives: This study aims to explore the opinions and priorities for an e-health platform, including choices in digital elements, according to survivors of critical illness and their family members. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was used among members and other interested individuals of the Dutch volunteer organisation ‘Foundation Family- and Patient-Centred Intensive Care’. An investigator-developed questionnaire was disseminated through the newsletter and social media channels of the Foundation Family- and Patient-Centred Intensive Care. The results of this member consultation were analysed and reported as descriptive statistics on demographic variables and outcome measures in opinions and priorities of the participants. Results: Most of the 227 participants were female (76%), aged 46–55 years (33%), and completed higher education (70%). The participants reported high confidence in advice delivered through an e-health platform (72%). They prioritised the provision of a guide including relevant professionals who may support them during their recovery when using an e-health platform. Conclusions: ICU survivors prioritised the provision of relevant professionals who may support them during their recovery when using an e-health platform; however, selection bias means the population studied is likely to be more digitally connected than the general ICU population. Digital solutions could cater to their information and support needs. For family members, the highest priority reported was receiving help in managing their emotional distress. The development of an e-health platform considering the opinions and priorities of this target group could contribute to a personalised recovery trajectory promoting self-management while including digital elements addressing relevant ICU follow-up services.
MULTIFILE
