Re-engineering shared decision-making

By Muriel R Gillick
J Med Ethics 2015;41:785-788
doi:10.1136/medethics-2014-102618

Abstract

Shared decision-making is widely accepted as the gold standard of clinical care. Numerous obstacles to achieving shared decision-making have been identified, including patient factors, physician factors and systemic factors. Until now, the paradigm is seldom successfully implemented in clinical practice, raising questions about the practicality of the process recommended for its use. A re-engineered model is proposed in which physicians elicit and prioritise patients’ goals of care and then help translate those goals into treatment options, after clarifying the patient's underlying health status. Preliminary evidence suggests that each step of this revised process is feasible and that patients and physicians are comfortable with this strategy. Adoption of this model, after further testing, would allow the goal of shared decision-making to be realised.

The entire article is here.

Shared Decision Making and Motivational Interviewing: Achieving Patient-Centered Care Across the Spectrum of Health Care Problems

By Glyn Elwyn, Christine Dehlendorf, Ronald Epstein, Katy Marrin, James White, and Dominick Frosch
doi: 10.1370/afm.1615
Ann Fam Med May/June 2014 vol. 12 no. 3 270-275

Abstract

Patient-centered care requires different approaches depending on the clinical situation. Motivational interviewing and shared decision making provide practical and well-described methods to accomplish patient-centered care in the context of situations where medical evidence supports specific behavior changes and the most appropriate action is dependent on the patient’s preferences. Many clinical consultations may require elements of both approaches, however. This article describes these 2 approaches—one to address ambivalence to medically indicated behavior change and the other to support patients in making health care decisions in cases where there is more than one reasonable option—and discusses how clinicians can draw on these approaches alone and in combination to achieve patient-centered care across the range of health care problems.

The entire article is here.

Owning Our Mistakes

By Nate Kreuter
Inside Higher Ed - Career Advice
Originally published May 15, 2013

Some of the columns that I write here at Inside Higher Ed arise from a really basic formula. It goes something like this: I make a mistake at work. I realize my error, or am compelled by another party to realize it, and I take corrective action. Then I write a column addressing the mistake in general terms, in hopes of perhaps removing a little of the trial and error from this whole higher education gig for a reader or two. Somewhat less frequently I simply observe the mistake of another and then write a column. I probably couldn’t keep up with this column without the steady stream of mistakes I make myself. Maybe my mistakes are job security of a strange sort.

I probably could even use this venue to make a public promise regarding my mistakes to my colleagues in my department, college, university, and across my discipline. Here goes: I promise you all that I’ll screw up again one day. I don’t know exactly how and I don’t know exactly when, but I promise to bungle something. Maybe just in a small way. Maybe in a big way. Who knows?

But here’s what I also promise: I promise to own up to whatever mistakes I make as soon as I recognize them, to do everything in my power to correct them, and to do my damnedest not to repeat them. This is, I think and I hope, what it means to be a good colleague. I certainly would not ask a colleague for more, but I also expect no less.

If to err is human, then 'fessing up is humane. Humane for ourselves and humane for our fellows.

The entire post is here.

Inviting Patients to Read Their Doctors' Notes

Patients and Doctors Look Ahead

Patient and Physician Surveys

Original Research: Improving Patient Care

Annals of Internal Medicine

By Jan Walker, RN, MBA; Suzanne G. Leveille, PhD, RN; Long Ngo, PhD; Elisabeth Vodicka, BA; Jonathan D. Darer, MD, MPH; Shireesha Dhanireddy, MD; Joann G. Elmore, MD, MPH; Henry J. Feldman, MD; Marc J. Lichtenfeld, PhD; Natalia Oster, MPH; James D. Ralston, MD, MPH; Stephen E. Ross, MD; and Tom Delbanco, MD

Abstract

Background: Little is known about what primary care physicians (PCPs) and patients would expect if patients were invited to read their doctors' office notes.

Objective: To explore attitudes toward potential benefits or harms if PCPs offered patients ready access to visit notes.

Design: The PCPs and patients completed surveys before joining a voluntary program that provided electronic links to doctors' notes.

Setting: Primary care practices in 3 U.S. states.

Participants: Participating and nonparticipating PCPs and adult patients at primary care practices in Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Washington.

Measurements: Doctors' and patients' attitudes toward and expectations of open visit notes, their ideas about the potential benefits and risks, and demographic characteristics.

Results: 110 of 114 participating PCPs (96%), 63 of 140 nonparticipating PCPs (45%), and 37 856 of 90 203 patients (42%) completed surveys. Overall, 69% to 81% of participating PCPs across the 3 sites and 92% to 97% of patients thought open visit notes were a good idea, compared with 16% to 33% of nonparticipating PCPs. Similarly, participating PCPs and patients generally agreed with statements about potential benefits of open visit notes, whereas nonparticipating PCPs were less likely to agree. Among participating PCPs, 74% to 92% anticipated improved communication and patient education, in contrast to 45% to 67% of nonparticipating PCPs. More than one half of participating PCPs (50% to 58%) and most nonparticipating PCPs (88% to 92%) expected that open visit notes would result in greater worry among patients; far fewer patients concurred (12% to 16%). Thirty-six percent to 50% of participating PCPs and 83% to 84% of nonparticipating PCPs anticipated more patient questions between visits. Few PCPs (0% to 33%) anticipated increased risk for lawsuits. Patient enthusiasm extended across age, education, and health status, and 22% anticipated sharing visit notes with others, including other doctors.

Limitations: Access to electronic patient portals is not widespread, and participation was limited to patients using such portals. Response rates were higher among participating PCPs than nonparticipating PCPs; many participating PCPs had small patient panels.

Conclusion: Among PCPs, opinions about open visit notes varied widely in terms of predicting the effect on their practices and benefits for patients. In contrast, patients expressed considerable enthusiasm and few fears, anticipating both improved understanding and more involvement in care. Sharing visit notes has broad implications for quality of care, privacy, and shared accountability.

Primary Funding Source: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Pioneer Portfolio, Drane Family Fund, and Koplow Charitable Foundation.

The entire story is here.

Thanks to Ken Pope for this story.