Literature DB >> 32312760

Shared decision making about blood tests: secondary analysis of video-recorded primary care consultations.

Jessica E Martin1, Jessica Watson1, Rebecca K Barnes1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Awareness of the importance of shared decision making (SDM) is widespread; however, little research has focused on discussions surrounding investigations, despite increasing laboratory testing in primary care. AIM: To explore the discussion of blood tests in routine primary care consultations. DESIGN AND
SETTING: A secondary analysis of 50 video-recorded routine primary care consultations, linked surveys, and records data (all from the One in a Million [OiaM] archive). The consultations were taken by 22 GPs across 12 practices.
METHOD: A coding scheme was developed, using qualitative content analysis, to explore discussion of blood tests in transcripts of recorded consultations. Codes focused on instigating testing, the extent of SDM, and how results were explained. Survey data were used to compare patients' pre-visit expectations with consultation content. Medical records were reviewed to compare tests discussed with those ordered.
RESULTS: In 36 out of 50 consultations that discussed ordering blood tests, 11 patients (31%) hinted that they wanted a blood test; however, none asked explicitly. Only four patients (11%) were offered alternative options. In 29 cases (81%) the GP gave some explanation of the indication, but only in six cases (17%) were the limitations of testing explained. Only 10 out of 31 patients (32%) were informed about all blood tests ordered. Of the 23 out of 50 consultations in which results were conveyed, the GP gave no explanation of the results in six cases (26%). Thirteen patients (57%) were only informed of an assessment of the results (for example, 'normal'), rather than the actual results.
CONCLUSION: A lack of information dissemination and SDM exists around ordering tests and conveying results. Promoting SDM could reduce unnecessary testing and improve patient-centred care. © British Journal of General Practice 2020.

Entities:  

Keywords:  consultation; decision making; general practice; information dissemination; qualitative research

Year:  2020        PMID: 32312760      PMCID: PMC7176357          DOI: 10.3399/bjgp20X709409

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Gen Pract        ISSN: 0960-1643            Impact factor:   5.386


  20 in total

1.  Shared decision making--pinnacle of patient-centered care.

Authors:  Michael J Barry; Susan Edgman-Levitan
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-03-01       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  The qualitative content analysis process.

Authors:  Satu Elo; Helvi Kyngäs
Journal:  J Adv Nurs       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 3.187

Review 3.  Patients' expectations of the benefits and harms of treatments, screening, and tests: a systematic review.

Authors:  Tammy C Hoffmann; Chris Del Mar
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 21.873

Review 4.  Assessments of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in decision making: a systematic review of studies using the OPTION instrument.

Authors:  Nicolas Couët; Sophie Desroches; Hubert Robitaille; Hugues Vaillancourt; Annie Leblanc; Stéphane Turcotte; Glyn Elwyn; France Légaré
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2013-03-04       Impact factor: 3.377

5.  Achieving involvement: process outcomes from a cluster randomized trial of shared decision making skill development and use of risk communication aids in general practice.

Authors:  G Elwyn; A Edwards; K Hood; M Robling; C Atwell; I Russell; M Wensing; R Grol
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 2.267

6.  Importance of patient pressure and perceived pressure and perceived medical need for investigations, referral, and prescribing in primary care: nested observational study.

Authors:  Paul Little; Martina Dorward; Greg Warner; Katharine Stephens; Jane Senior; Michael Moore
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2004-02-13

7.  Beyond accuracy: hidden motives in diagnostic testing.

Authors:  Matthias Michiels-Corsten; Norbert Donner-Banzhoff
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  2018-03-27       Impact factor: 2.267

8.  What do tests do for doctors? A qualitative study of blood testing in UK primary care.

Authors:  Jessica Watson; Isabel de Salis; Jonathan Banks; Chris Salisbury
Journal:  Fam Pract       Date:  2017-11-16       Impact factor: 2.267

9.  Why do patients want to have their blood tested? A qualitative study of patient expectations in general practice.

Authors:  Marloes A van Bokhoven; Marjolein C H Pleunis-van Empel; Hèlen Koch; Richard P T M Grol; Geert-Jan Dinant; Trudy van der Weijden
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2006-12-13       Impact factor: 2.497

10.  Temporal trends in use of tests in UK primary care, 2000-15: retrospective analysis of 250 million tests.

Authors:  Jack W O'Sullivan; Sarah Stevens; F D Richard Hobbs; Chris Salisbury; Paul Little; Ben Goldacre; Clare Bankhead; Jeffrey K Aronson; Rafael Perera; Carl Heneghan
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2018-11-28
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.