| Literature DB >> 28529122 |
Trudy van der Weijden1, Heleen Post2, Paul L P Brand3, Haske van Veenendaal4, Ton Drenthen5, Linda Aj van Mierlo6, Peep Stalmeier7, Olga C Damman8, Anne Stiggelbout9.
Abstract
Currently, shared decision making (SDM) is on the agenda among target patient representative groups, policy makers and professional bodies. Although the International Conference for Shared Decision Making (ISDM) 2011 generated a positive boost, hesitation was also felt among Dutch clinicians, who are challenged by many new tasks. No hesitation is seen among the majority of patients, opting mostly for the SDM model. We haven't reached these patients' needs fully yet, given disappointing research data on patients' experiences and professional behaviour. There is plenty of room for improvement in daily practice, for which many best practices are being designed and increasingly implemented, such as national campaigns to empower patients, central governance of patient decision aids that are developed along clinical practice guidelines, postgraduate training, collaborative learning and system changes, and merging goal setting and SDM in complex care. This is explicitly supported by the Dutch government, the Ministry of Health, patient groups, professional bodies and health insurers. The culture shift in the minds and hearts of patients and clinicians has started but is still ongoing. Enthusiasm for this way of working could be undermined if SDM is defined and implemented in a simplistic, dogmatic manner leading to irresponsible transferring of the professionals' uncertainty, responsibility, and decisional stress to patients.Entities:
Keywords: Implementierung; Patientenbeteiligung; implementation; medizinische Entscheidungshilfen; partizipative Entscheidungsfindung; patient decision aids; patient participation; shared decision making
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28529122 DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2017.05.016
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes ISSN: 1865-9217