Literature DB >> 10488002

Towards a feasible model for shared decision making: focus group study with general practice registrars.

G Elwyn1, A Edwards, R Gwyn, R Grol.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To explore the views of general practice registrars about involving patients in decisions and to assess the feasibility of using the shared decision making model by means of simulated general practice consultations.
DESIGN: Qualitative study based on focus group interviews.
SETTING: General practice vocational training schemes in south Wales. PARTICIPANTS: 39 general practice registrars and eight course organisers (acting as observers) attended four sessions; three simulated patients attended each time.
METHOD: After an introduction to the principles and suggested stages of shared decision making the registrars conducted and observed a series of consultations about choices of treatment with simulated patients using verbal, numerical, and graphical data formats. Reactions were elicited by using focus group interviews after each consultation and content analysis undertaken.
RESULTS: Registrars in general practice report not being trained in the skills required to involve patients in clinical decisions. They had a wide range of opinions about "involving patients in decisions," ranging from protective paternalism ("doctor knows best"), through enlightened self interest (lightening the load), to the potential rewards of a more egalitarian relationship with patients. The work points to three contextual precursors for the process: the availability of reliable information, appropriate timing of the decision making process, and the readiness of patients to accept an active role in their own management.
CONCLUSIONS: Sharing decisions entails sharing the uncertainties about the outcomes of medical processes and involves exposing the fact that data are often unavailable or not known; this can cause anxiety to both patient and clinician. Movement towards further patient involvement will depend on both the skills and the attitudes of professionals, and this work shows the steps that need to be taken if further progress is to be made in this direction.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10488002      PMCID: PMC28229          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.319.7212.753

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  12 in total

1.  When is a shared decision not (quite) a shared decision? Negotiating preferences in a general practice encounter.

Authors:  R Gwyn; G Elwyn
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 4.634

2.  All changed, changed utterly. British medicine will be transformed by the Bristol case.

Authors:  R Smith
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-06-27

3.  Partnership with patients.

Authors:  T Richards
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-01-10

Review 4.  Doctor-patient communication: a review of the literature.

Authors:  L M Ong; J C de Haes; A M Hoos; F B Lammes
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 5.  Potential of using simulated patients to study the performance of general practitioners.

Authors:  P Kinnersley; R Pill
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 5.386

6.  Shared decision-making in primary care: the neglected second half of the consultation.

Authors:  G Elwyn; A Edwards; P Kinnersley
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  1999-06       Impact factor: 5.386

7.  General practice registrar responses to the use of different risk communication tools in simulated consultations: a focus group study.

Authors:  A Edwards; G Elwyn; R Gwyn
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-09-18

8.  Is 'shared decision-making' feasible in consultations for upper respiratory tract infections? Assessing the influence of antibiotic expectations using discourse analysis.

Authors:  Glyn Elwyn; Richard Gwyn; Adrian Edwards; Richard Grol
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 3.377

9.  Communication about risk: diversity among primary care professionals.

Authors:  A Edwards; E Matthews; R Pill; M Bloor
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 2.267

Review 10.  Patient participation in decision-making.

Authors:  E Guadagnoli; P Ward
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 4.634

View more
  82 in total

1.  Paternalism or partnership? Patients have grown up-and there's no going back.

Authors:  A Coulter
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-09-18

2.  Shared decision making and non-directiveness in genetic counselling.

Authors:  G Elwyn; J Gray; A Clarke
Journal:  J Med Genet       Date:  2000-02       Impact factor: 6.318

Review 3.  Understanding risk and lessons for clinical risk communication about treatment preferences.

Authors:  A Edwards; G Elwyn
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2001-09

4.  Informing, communicating and sharing decisions with people who have cancer.

Authors:  A J Sowden; C Forbes; V Entwistle; I Watt
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2001-09

Review 5.  How do patients' treatment preferences compare with those of clinicians?

Authors:  A A Montgomery; T Fahey
Journal:  Qual Health Care       Date:  2001-09

6.  Patient and provider perceptions of decision making about use of epidural analgesia during childbirth: a thematic analysis.

Authors:  Holly Bianca Goldberg; Allison Shorten
Journal:  J Perinat Educ       Date:  2014

Review 7.  The importance of patient preferences in treatment decisions--challenges for doctors.

Authors:  Rebecca E Say; Richard Thomson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2003-09-06

Review 8.  Valuing learners' experience and supporting further growth: educational models to help experienced adult learners in medicine.

Authors:  Penny Newman; Ed Peile
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-07-27

Review 9.  Non-clinical influences on clinical decision-making: a major challenge to evidence-based practice.

Authors:  F M Hajjaj; M S Salek; M K A Basra; A Y Finlay
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 5.344

10.  Mutual influence in shared decision making: a collaborative study of patients and physicians.

Authors:  Beth A Lown; William D Clark; Janice L Hanson
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2009-02-22       Impact factor: 3.377

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.