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
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
Abstract Specialist oncology nurses (SONs) have the potential to play a major role in monitoring and reporting adverse drug reactions (ADRs); and reduce the level of underreporting by current healthcare professionals. The aim of this study was to investigate the long term clinical and educational efects of real-life pharmacovigilance education intervention for SONs on ADR reporting. This prospective cohort study, with a 2-year follow-up, was carried out in the three postgraduate schools in the Netherlands. In one of the schools, the prescribing qualifcation course was expanded to include a lecture on pharmacovigilance, an ADR reporting assignment, and group discussion of self-reported ADRs (intervention). The clinical value of the intervention was assessed by analyzing the quantity and quality of ADR-reports sent to the Netherlands Pharmacovigilance Center Lareb, up to 2 years after the course and by evaluating the competences regarding pharmacovigilance of SONs annually. Eighty-eight SONs (78% of all SONs with a prescribing qualifcation in the Netherlands) were included. During the study, 82 ADRs were reported by the intervention group and 0 by the control group. This made the intervention group 105 times more likely to report an ADR after the course than an average nurse in the Netherlands. This is the frst study to show a signifcant and relevant increase in the number of well-documented ADR reports after a single educational intervention. The real-life pharmacovigilance educational intervention also resulted in a long-term increase in pharmacovigilance competence. We recommend implementing real-life, context- and problem-based pharmacovigilance learning assignments in all healthcare curricula.
MULTIFILE
