Literature DB >> 16480987

Incorporating patient preferences into orthopaedic practice: should the orthopaedic encounter change?

Dianne Bryant1, Elzbieta Bednarski, Amiram Gafni.   

Abstract

The issues concerning treatment decision-making are that often options for treatment lead to uncertain outcomes (benefits and risks) at the individual patient level and that both patients and physicians might value these outcomes differently. There are three main approaches commonly used to describe treatment decision-making including paternalistic, shared and informed decision-making. The challenge and responsibility of physicians is to effectively communicate to patients that they should feel welcome to participate in decision-making through whichever approach seems suitable to them. Changes in laws governing the ethics of medical practice mandate a more comprehensive decision-making tactic requiring a two-way flow of information between patient and physician. The key to information exchange lies in evoking patient preferences by informing the patient of the benefits and risks associated with each treatment option. Decision aids have been developed in a variety of forms to facilitate this transfer of information about available treatment alternatives in as unbiased fashion as possible. We believe that treatment options presented should include not only those available by the particular physicians at that institution but also those available at outside institutions and within other healthcare systems. We discuss barriers for physicians who wish to encourage patient participation such as the power differential that exists between patients and physicians, factors related to health policy, and those unique to surgery. We believe that investigation is necessary to understand how the differences between types of medical practices, or even within a medical field, will influence the importance that patients attach to having their values and preferences considered during treatment decision-making and to evaluate how this importance changes as the severity of adverse events associated with treatment outcomes changes. We feel that it is important for physicians and surgeons to begin to think about these issues and how they might investigate potential resolutions for incorporating patient values and sharing their own preferences for treatment options with their patients during the orthopaedic encounter.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16480987     DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2006.01.030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Injury        ISSN: 0020-1383            Impact factor:   2.586


  11 in total

1.  Shared decision-making in orthopaedic surgery.

Authors:  James Slover; Jennifer Shue; Karl Koenig
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 4.176

2.  Endoscopic carpal tunnel release is preferred over mini-open despite similar outcome: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Ho Jung Kang; Il Hyun Koh; Tae Jin Lee; Yun Rak Choi
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2012-10-26       Impact factor: 4.176

3.  Surgical preferences of patients at risk of hip fractures: hemiarthroplasty versus total hip arthroplasty.

Authors:  Noor Alolabi; Bashar Alolabi; Raman Mundi; Paul J Karanicolas; Jonathan D Adachi; Mohit Bhandari
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2011-12-23       Impact factor: 2.362

4.  The development of a decision aid to elicit treatment preferences for displaced femoral neck fractures.

Authors:  Bashar Alolabi; Janhavi Shirali; Sohail Bajammal; Paul J Karanicolas; Michael Zlowodzki; Amiram Gafni; Mohit Bhandari
Journal:  Indian J Orthop       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 1.251

5.  Patients' values and preferences of the expected efficacy of hip arthroscopy for osteoarthritis: a protocol for a multinational structured interview-based study combined with a randomised survey on the optimal amount of information to elicit preferences.

Authors:  Yuqing Zhang; Kari A O Tikkinen; Thomas Agoritsas; Olufemi R Ayeni; Paul Alexander; Maha Imam; Daniel Yoo; Athanasios Tsalatsanis; Benjamin Djulbegovic; Lehana Thabane; Holger Schünemann; Gordon H Guyatt
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-10-17       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Comparison of an Artificial Intelligence-Enabled Patient Decision Aid vs Educational Material on Decision Quality, Shared Decision-Making, Patient Experience, and Functional Outcomes in Adults With Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Prakash Jayakumar; Meredith G Moore; Kenneth A Furlough; Lauren M Uhler; John P Andrawis; Karl M Koenig; Nazan Aksan; Paul J Rathouz; Kevin J Bozic
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-02-01

7.  Clinician and cancer patient views on patient participation in treatment decision-making: a quantitative and qualitative exploration.

Authors:  A H Pieterse; M C M Baas-Thijssen; C A M Marijnen; A M Stiggelbout
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2008-09-16       Impact factor: 7.640

8.  Intraindividual comparison between open and endoscopic release in bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Kejia Hu; Tiansong Zhang; Wendong Xu
Journal:  Brain Behav       Date:  2016-02-16       Impact factor: 2.708

9.  Patient preferences for emergency or planned hip fracture surgery: a cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Abhinav Aggarwal; Ian A Harris; Justine M Naylor
Journal:  J Orthop Surg Res       Date:  2016-10-17       Impact factor: 2.359

10.  Dynamics of an orthopaedic team: Insights to improve teamwork through a design thinking approach.

Authors:  E Caprari; J T Porsius; P D'Olivo; R M Bloem; S B W Vehmeijer; N Stolk; M Melles
Journal:  Work       Date:  2018
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.