Literature DB >> 27628463

Health Policy and Shared Decision Making in Emergency Care: A Research Agenda.

Brandon C Maughan1,2, Zachary F Meisel3, Arjun K Venkatesh4, Michelle P Lin5, Warren M Perry4, Jeremiah D Schuur6, Jesse M Pines7, Constance L Kizzie-Gillett8,9, William Vaughan10, Corita R Grudzen11.   

Abstract

Although the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and other laws have promoted the use of shared decision making (SDM) in recent years, few specific policies have addressed the opportunities and challenges of utilizing SDM in the emergency department (ED). Policies relating to physician payment, quality measurement, and medical-legal risks each present unique challenges to adoption of SDM in the ED. This article summarizes findings from a health policy breakout session of the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference "Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: Development of a Policy-relevant, Patient-centered Research Agenda." The objectives were to 1) describe federal and state policies that influence utilization or assessment of SDM; 2) identify policies and policy-focused knowledge gaps that serve as barriers to adoption of ED SDM; and 3) to define a consensus-based, policy-focused research agenda to support adoption of SDM in emergency care.
© 2016 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27628463      PMCID: PMC5634330          DOI: 10.1111/acem.13098

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Emerg Med        ISSN: 1069-6563            Impact factor:   3.451


  18 in total

1.  Medscape's response to the Institute of Medicine Report: Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century.

Authors:  M Leavitt
Journal:  MedGenMed       Date:  2001-03-05

2.  A piece of my mind. Winners and losers.

Authors:  Daniel Merenstein
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-01-07       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Medicare's public reporting initiative on hospital quality had modest or no impact on mortality from three key conditions.

Authors:  Andrew M Ryan; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Justin B Dimick
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 6.301

4.  Evidence that consumers are skeptical about evidence-based health care.

Authors:  Kristin L Carman; Maureen Maurer; Jill Mathews Yegian; Pamela Dardess; Jeanne McGee; Mark Evers; Karen O Marlo
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2010-06-03       Impact factor: 6.301

5.  Extending the P4P agenda, part 1: how Medicare can improve patient decision making and reduce unnecessary care.

Authors:  John E Wennberg; Annette M O'Connor; E Dale Collins; James N Weinstein
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2007 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 6.301

6.  The locality rule and the physician's dilemma: local medical practices vs the national standard of care.

Authors:  Michelle Huckaby Lewis; John K Gohagan; Daniel J Merenstein
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2007-06-20       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  Reactions of potential jurors to a hypothetical malpractice suit: alleging failure to perform a prostate-specific antigen test.

Authors:  Michael J Barry; Pamela H Wescott; Ellen J Reifler; Yuchaio Chang; Benjamin W Moulton
Journal:  J Law Med Ethics       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 1.718

8.  Fee-for-service will remain a feature of major payment reforms, requiring more changes in Medicare physician payment.

Authors:  Paul B Ginsburg
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 6.301

Review 9.  Engaging patients in health care decisions in the emergency department through shared decision-making: a systematic review.

Authors:  Darren Flynn; Meghan A Knoedler; Erik P Hess; M Hassan Murad; Patricia J Erwin; Victor M Montori; Richard G Thomson
Journal:  Acad Emerg Med       Date:  2012-07-31       Impact factor: 3.451

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.