Elizabeth M Schoenfeld1,2, Hemal K Kanzaria3, Denise D Quigley4, Peter St Marie5, Nikita Nayyar6, Sarah H Sabbagh7, Kyle L Gress8, Marc A Probst9. 1. Department of Emergency Medicine, Springfield, MA. 2. Institute for Healthcare Delivery and Population Science, Springfield, MA. 3. University of California San Francisco, Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, San Francisco, CA. 4. RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA. 5. Office of Research and the Epidemiology/Biostatistics Research Core, University of Massachusetts Medical School-Baystate, Springfield, MA. 6. New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine, Old Westbury, NY. 7. Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, CA. 8. Georgetown University School of Medicine, Washington, DC. 9. Department of Emergency Medicine, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: As shared decision making (SDM) has received increased attention as a method to improve the patient-centeredness of emergency department (ED) care, we sought to determine patients' desired level of involvement in medical decisions and their perceptions of potential barriers and facilitators to SDM in the ED. METHODS: We surveyed a cross-sectional sample of adult ED patients at three academic medical centers across the United States. The survey included 32 items regarding patient involvement in medical decisions including a modified Control Preference Scale and questions about barriers and facilitators to SDM in the ED. Items were developed and refined based on prior literature and qualitative interviews with ED patients. Research assistants administered the survey in person. RESULTS: Of 797 patients approached, 661 (83%) agreed to participate. Participants were 52% female, 45% white, and 30% Hispanic. The majority of respondents (85%-92%, depending on decision type) expressed a desire for some degree of involvement in decision making in the ED, while 8% to 15% preferred to leave decision making to their physician alone. Ninety-eight percent wanted to be involved with decisions when "something serious is going on." The majority of patients (94%) indicated that self-efficacy was not a barrier to SDM in the ED. However, most patients (55%) reported a tendency to defer to the physician's decision making during an ED visit, with about half reporting they would wait for a physician to ask them to be involved. CONCLUSION: We found that the majority of ED patients in our large, diverse sample wanted to be involved in medical decisions, especially in the case of a "serious" medical problem, and felt that they had the ability to do so. Nevertheless, many patients were unlikely to actively seek involvement and defaulted to allowing the physician to make decisions during the ED visit. After fully explaining the consequences of a decision, clinicians should make an effort to explicitly ascertain patients' desired level of involvement in decision making.
OBJECTIVES: As shared decision making (SDM) has received increased attention as a method to improve the patient-centeredness of emergency department (ED) care, we sought to determine patients' desired level of involvement in medical decisions and their perceptions of potential barriers and facilitators to SDM in the ED. METHODS: We surveyed a cross-sectional sample of adult ED patients at three academic medical centers across the United States. The survey included 32 items regarding patient involvement in medical decisions including a modified Control Preference Scale and questions about barriers and facilitators to SDM in the ED. Items were developed and refined based on prior literature and qualitative interviews with ED patients. Research assistants administered the survey in person. RESULTS: Of 797 patients approached, 661 (83%) agreed to participate. Participants were 52% female, 45% white, and 30% Hispanic. The majority of respondents (85%-92%, depending on decision type) expressed a desire for some degree of involvement in decision making in the ED, while 8% to 15% preferred to leave decision making to their physician alone. Ninety-eight percent wanted to be involved with decisions when "something serious is going on." The majority of patients (94%) indicated that self-efficacy was not a barrier to SDM in the ED. However, most patients (55%) reported a tendency to defer to the physician's decision making during an ED visit, with about half reporting they would wait for a physician to ask them to be involved. CONCLUSION: We found that the majority of ED patients in our large, diverse sample wanted to be involved in medical decisions, especially in the case of a "serious" medical problem, and felt that they had the ability to do so. Nevertheless, many patients were unlikely to actively seek involvement and defaulted to allowing the physician to make decisions during the ED visit. After fully explaining the consequences of a decision, clinicians should make an effort to explicitly ascertain patients' desired level of involvement in decision making.
Authors: Dawn Stacey; France Légaré; Krystina Lewis; Michael J Barry; Carol L Bennett; Karen B Eden; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas; Anne Lyddiatt; Richard Thomson; Lyndal Trevena Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-04-12
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Hemal K Kanzaria; Robert H Brook; Marc A Probst; Dustin Harris; Sandra H Berry; Jerome R Hoffman Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2015-03-23 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Erik P Hess; Meghan A Knoedler; Nilay D Shah; Jeffrey A Kline; Maggie Breslin; Megan E Branda; Laurie J Pencille; Brent R Asplin; David M Nestler; Annie T Sadosty; Ian G Stiell; Henry H Ting; Victor M Montori Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2012-04-10
Authors: Elizabeth M Schoenfeld; Marc A Probst; Denise D Quigley; Peter St Marie; Nikita Nayyar; Sarah H Sabbagh; Tanesha Beckford; Hemal K Kanzaria Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2019-09-26 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Elizabeth M Schoenfeld; Shelby Mader; Connor Houghton; Robert Wenger; Marc A Probst; David A Schoenfeld; Peter K Lindenauer; Kathleen M Mazor Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2019-01-03 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Elizabeth M Schoenfeld; Connor Houghton; Pooja M Patel; Leanora W Merwin; Kye P Poronsky; Anna L Caroll; Carol Sánchez Santana; Maggie Breslin; Charles D Scales; Peter K Lindenauer; Kathleen M Mazor; Erik P Hess Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2020-02-16 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Marc A Probst; Michelle P Lin; Jeremy J Sze; Erik P Hess; Maggie Breslin; Dominick L Frosch; Benjamin C Sun; Marie-Noelle Langan; Venkatesh Thiruganasambandamoorthy; Lynne D Richardson Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2020-04-02 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Andrea N Jensen; Ove Andersen; Hejdi Gamst-Jensen; Maria Kristiansen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-11-28 Impact factor: 3.390