Literature DB >> 30717943

Does lack of deeper understanding of shared decision making explains the suboptimal performance on crucial parts of it? An example from breast cancer care.

W Savelberg1, L J Boersma2, M Smidt3, M F J Goossens4, R Hermanns5, T van der Weijden6.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Although most of the clinicians in breast cancer care seem to approve of shared decision making (SDM), actual implementation is limited. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences, issues and concerns of early-adopter professionals with regards to shared decision making.
METHODS: This qualitative descriptive study was part of a pilot study aimed at implementing SDM in breast cancer teams. We interviewed 27 clinicians; 9 breast cancer surgeons, 11 nurse practitioners and 7 nurses. The teams were exposed to a multifaceted implementation programme, among others: a patient decision aid (PtDA), a procedure to disseminate the PtDA and advice on redesigning the clinical pathway.
RESULTS: Participants considered SDM, including the delivery of the PtDA, to be a team effort, in which every professional should take responsibility. Most clinicians primarily focused on the first steps of SDM ignoring preference and decision talk. The remaining steps, like the uptake of the PtDA in the clinical pathway, were regarded as challenging, with surgeons, intentionally or unconsciously, delegating this responsibility to nurses. One barrier to successfully implementing SDM seems to lie in the fact that clinicians were unaware of their lack of competency regarding SDM.
CONCLUSIONS: A deeper understanding is needed among clinicians of what SDM actually is and how a PtDA contributes to this process. Nurses play an important role in the delivery of the PtDA, but their role is not clearly defined. Teams should consider a clear realignment of tasks between surgeons and nurses, which implies redesign of the pathway.
Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Breast cancer nurses; Early stage breast cancer; Implementation; Patient decision aid; Shared decision making

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30717943     DOI: 10.1016/j.ejon.2018.12.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Oncol Nurs        ISSN: 1462-3889            Impact factor:   2.398


  5 in total

1.  Elicitation of preferences in the second half of the shared decision making process needs attention; a qualitative study.

Authors:  W Savelberg; M Smidt; L J Boersma; T van der Weijden
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2020-07-09       Impact factor: 2.655

2.  Why do medical residents prefer paternalistic decision making? An interview study.

Authors:  Ellen M Driever; Ivo M Tolhuizen; Robbert J Duvivier; Anne M Stiggelbout; Paul L P Brand
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2022-03-08       Impact factor: 2.463

Review 3.  Exploring motivations and resistances for implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: A systematic review based on a structure-process-outcome model.

Authors:  Changhai Tang; Anqi Wang; Jingjing Yan
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2022-06-05       Impact factor: 3.318

Review 4.  Shared decision making in breast cancer treatment guidelines: Development of a quality assessment tool and a systematic review.

Authors:  Marta Maes-Carballo; Isabel Muñoz-Núñez; Manuel Martín-Díaz; Luciano Mignini; Aurora Bueno-Cavanillas; Khalid Saeed Khan
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2020-08-03       Impact factor: 3.377

5.  Implementing a patient decision aid, a process evaluation of a large-scale pre- and post-implementation trial.

Authors:  D B Raphael Daniela; N S Russell; E van Werkhoven; J M Immink; D P G Westhoff; M C Stenfert Kroese; M R Stam; L M van Maurik; C M J van Gestel; T van der Weijden; L J Boersma
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2020-10-24       Impact factor: 4.872

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.