Literature DB >> 29175855

Increasing the use of patient decision aids in orthopaedic care: results of a quality improvement project.

Mahima Mangla1, Thomas D Cha2,3, Janet M Dorrwachter2, Andrew A Freiberg2,3, Lauren J Leavitt1, Harry E Rubash2,3, Leigh H Simmons1,3, Emily L Wendell1, Karen R Sepucha1,3.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To integrate patient decision aid (DA) delivery to promote shared decision-making and provide more patient-centred care within an orthopaedic surgery department for treatment of hip and knee osteoarthritis, lumbar herniated disc and lumbar spinal stenosis.
METHODS: Different strategies were used across three distinct phases to promote DA delivery. First, we used a quality improvement bonus to generate awareness and interest in the DAs among specialists. Second, we adapted the electronic referral management system to enable DA orders at referral to a specialist. Third, we engaged clinic staff and specialists to design workflows that promoted DA delivery. We tracked the number of patients who received a DA, who ordered the DA, and collected usage data from a subset of patients. Our target was to reach 60% of patients with DAs.
RESULTS: In phase 1, 28% (43/155) of spine patients and 37% (114/308) of hip/knee patients received a DA. In phase 2, 54% (64/118) of spine referrals and 58% (189/324) of hip/knee referrals included a request to send a patient a DA. In phase 3, 56% (90/162) of spine patients and 69% (213/307) of hip/knee patients received a DA, significantly more than in phase 1 (P<0.0001). In phase 3, both more DAs were ordered by clinic staff compared with specialists (56% phase 3 vs 34% phase 1, P<0.001) and sent before the visit (74% phase 3 vs 17% phase 1, P<0.001). Patients were more likely to report reviewing the DA when delivered before the visit (63% before vs 50% after, P=0.005).
CONCLUSION: DA implementation into clinic workflow is possible and facilitated by engagement of the entire care team and the support of health information technology. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Entities:  

Keywords:  implementation science; patient-centred care; quality improvement; shared decision-making; surgery

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29175855     DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007019

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf        ISSN: 2044-5415            Impact factor:   7.035


  4 in total

1.  Comparison of Three Measures of Shared Decision Making: SDM Process_4, CollaboRATE, and SURE Scales.

Authors:  Suzanne Brodney; Floyd J Fowler; Michael J Barry; Yuchiao Chang; Karen Sepucha
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2019-06-21       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  Advancing the science of patient decision aids through reporting guidelines.

Authors:  Robert J Volk; Angela Coulter
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2018-01-25       Impact factor: 7.035

3.  Introducing Decision Aids into Routine Prostate Cancer Care in The Netherlands: Implementation and Patient Evaluations from the Multi-regional JIPPA Initiative.

Authors:  Maarten Cuypers; Hoda H M Al-Itejawi; Cornelia F van Uden-Kraan; Peep F M Stalmeier; Romy E D Lamers; Inge M van Oort; Diederik M Somford; Reindert Jeroen A van Moorselaar; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse; Julia J van Tol-Geerdink; Marieke de Vries
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2020-12       Impact factor: 2.037

4.  Assessment of Public Perception Regarding Patient Engagement for Patient Safety in Korea.

Authors:  Hyeon-Jeong Lee; Seung Gyeong Jang; Ji Eun Choi; Won Lee; Jeehee Pyo; Minsu Ock; Sang-Il Lee
Journal:  J Patient Saf       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 2.243

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.