Marjolein H J van de Pol1, Cornelia R M G Fluit2, Joep Lagro3, Yvonne H P Slaats4, Marcel G M Olde Rikkert5, Antoine L M Lagro-Janssen6. 1. Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Postbus 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: Marjolein.vandepol@radboudumc.nl. 2. Academic Educational Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Postbus 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: lia.fluit@radboudumc.nl. 3. Department of Internal Medicine, Haga Teaching Hospital, Postbus 40551, 2504 LN The Hague, The Netherlands. Electronic address: j.lagro@hagaziekenhuis.nl. 4. Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Postbus 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: yvonne_slaats@hotmail.com. 5. Department of Geriatrics, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Postbus 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: marcel.olderikkert@radboudumc.nl. 6. Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Postbus 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Electronic address: toine.lagro@radboudumc.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Shared decision-making (SDM) is widely recommended as a way to support patients in making healthcare choices. Due to an ageing population, the number of older patients will increase. Existing models for SDM are not sufficient for this patient group, due to their multi-morbidity, the lack of guidelines and evidence applicable to the numerous combinations of diseases. The aim of this study was to gain consensus on a model for SDM in frail older patients with multiple morbidities. METHODS: We used a three-round Delphi study to reach consensus on a model for SDM in older patients with multiple morbidities. The expert panel consisted of 16 patients (round 1), and 59 professionals (rounds 1-3). In round 1, the SDM model was introduced, rounds 2 and 3 were used to validate the importance and feasibility of the SDM model. RESULTS: Consensus for the proposed SDM model as a whole was achieved for both importance (91% panel agreement) and feasibility (76% panel agreement). CONCLUSIONS: SDM in older patients with multiple morbidities is a dynamic process. It requires a continuous counselling dialogue between professional and patient or proxy decision maker. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The developed model for SDM in clinical practice may help professionals to apply SDM in the complex situation of the care for older patients.
OBJECTIVE: Shared decision-making (SDM) is widely recommended as a way to support patients in making healthcare choices. Due to an ageing population, the number of older patients will increase. Existing models for SDM are not sufficient for this patient group, due to their multi-morbidity, the lack of guidelines and evidence applicable to the numerous combinations of diseases. The aim of this study was to gain consensus on a model for SDM in frail older patients with multiple morbidities. METHODS: We used a three-round Delphi study to reach consensus on a model for SDM in older patients with multiple morbidities. The expert panel consisted of 16 patients (round 1), and 59 professionals (rounds 1-3). In round 1, the SDM model was introduced, rounds 2 and 3 were used to validate the importance and feasibility of the SDM model. RESULTS: Consensus for the proposed SDM model as a whole was achieved for both importance (91% panel agreement) and feasibility (76% panel agreement). CONCLUSIONS: SDM in older patients with multiple morbidities is a dynamic process. It requires a continuous counselling dialogue between professional and patient or proxy decision maker. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The developed model for SDM in clinical practice may help professionals to apply SDM in the complex situation of the care for older patients.
Authors: Stephanie Anna Lenzen; Ramon Daniëls; Marloes Amantia van Bokhoven; Trudy van der Weijden; Anna Beurskens Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-11-26 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Bram Tilburgs; Myrra Vernooij-Dassen; Raymond Koopmans; Hans van Gennip; Yvonne Engels; Marieke Perry Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-06-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Neeltje P C A Vermunt; Mirjam Harmsen; Gert P Westert; Marcel G M Olde Rikkert; Marjan J Faber Journal: BMC Geriatr Date: 2017-07-31 Impact factor: 3.921
Authors: Glyn Elwyn; Marie Anne Durand; Julia Song; Johanna Aarts; Paul J Barr; Zackary Berger; Nan Cochran; Dominick Frosch; Dariusz Galasiński; Pål Gulbrandsen; Paul K J Han; Martin Härter; Paul Kinnersley; Amy Lloyd; Manish Mishra; Lilisbeth Perestelo-Perez; Isabelle Scholl; Kounosuke Tomori; Lyndal Trevena; Holly O Witteman; Trudy Van der Weijden Journal: BMJ Date: 2017-11-06
Authors: Ekin Ozturk; Marianne van Iersel; Martijn Mwj Stommel; Yvonne Schoon; Richard Rpg Ten Broek; Harry van Goor Journal: World J Emerg Surg Date: 2018-10-20 Impact factor: 5.469