Search

Background: When doctors have honest conversations with patients about their illness and involve them in decisions about their care, patients express greater satisfaction with care and lowered anxiety and depression. The Serious Illness Care Programme (the Programme), originally developed in the United States (U.S), promotes meaningful, realistic and focused conversations about patient's wishes, fears and worries for the future with their illness. The Serious Illness Conversation Guide (the guide) provides a framework to structure these conversations. The aim of this paper is to present findings from a study to examine the 'face validity', acceptability and relevance of the Guide for use within the United Kingdom (UK) health care setting.Methods: A multi-stage approach was undertaken, using three separate techniques: 1. Nominal Group Technique with clinician 'expert groups' to review the Serious Illness Conversation Guide: 14 'experts' in Oncology, Palliative Care and Communication Skills; 2. Cognitive Interviews with 6 patient and public representatives, using the 'think aloud technique'; to explore the cognitive processes involved in answering the questions in the guide, including appropriateness of language, question wording and format 3. Final stakeholder review and consensus.Results: Nominal Group Technique Unanimous agreement the conversation guide could provide a useful support to clinicians. Amendments are required but should be informed directly from the cognitive interviews. Training highlighted as key to underpin the use of the guide. Cognitive interviews The 'holistic' attention to the person as a whole was valued rather than a narrow focus on their disease. Some concern was raised regarding the 'formality' of some wording however and suggestions for amendments were made. Final stakeholder review Stakeholders agreed amendments to 5/13 prompts and unanimously agreed the UK guide should be implemented as a part of the pilot implementation of the Serious Illness Care Programme UK.Conclusion: Use of the guide has the potential to benefit patients, facilitating a 'person-centred' approach to these important conversations, and providing a framework to promote shared decision making and care planning. Further research is ongoing, to understand the impact of these conversations on patients, families and clinicians and on concordance of care delivery with expressed patient wishes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The way patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) are treated is partly determined by non-medical factors. There is a solid body of evidence that patient and physician characteristics influence doctors' management decisions. Relatively little is known about the role of structural issues in the decision making process. This study focuses on the question whether doctors' diagnostic and therapeutic decisions are influenced by the health care system in which they take place. This non-medical determinant of medical decision-making was investigated in an international research project in the US, the UK and Germany. Methods: Videotaped patients within an experimental study design were used. Experienced actors played the role of patients with symptoms of CHD. Several alternative versions were taped featuring the same script with patients of different sex, age and social status. The videotapes were shown to 384 randomly selected primary care physicians in the three countries under study. The sample was stratified on gender and duration of professional experience. Physicians were asked how they would diagnose and manage the patient after watching the video vignette using a questionnaire with standardised and open-ended questions. Results: Results show only small differences in decision making between British and American physicians in essential aspects of care. About 90% of the UK and US doctors identified CHD as one of the possible diagnoses. Further similarities were found in test ordering and lifestyle advice. Some differences between the US and UK were found in the certainty of the diagnoses, prescribed medications and referral behaviour. There are numerous significant differences between Germany and the other two countries. German physicians would ask fewer questions, they would order fewer tests, prescribe fewer medications and give less lifestyle advice. Conclusion: Although all physicians in the three countries under study were presented exactly the same patient, some disparities in the diagnostic and patient management decisions were evident. Since other possible influences on doctors treatment decisions are controlled within the experimental design, characteristics of the health care system seem to be a crucial factor within the decision making process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is widespread interest in measuring healthcare provider attitudes about issues relevant to patient safety (often called safety climate or safety culture). Here we report the psychometric properties, establish benchmarking data, and discuss emerging areas of research with the University of Texas Safety Attitudes Questionnaire. Methods: Six cross-sectional surveys of health care providers (n = 10,843) in 203 clinical areas (including critical care units, operating rooms, inpatient settings, and ambulatory clinics) in three countries (USA, UK, New Zealand). Multilevel factor analyses yielded results at the clinical area level and the respondent nested within clinical area level. We report scale reliability, floor/ceiling effects, item factor loadings, inter-factor correlations, and percentage of respondents who agree with each item and scale. Results: A six factor model of provider attitudes fit to the data at both the clinical area and respondent nested within clinical area levels. The factors were: Teamwork Climate, Safety Climate, Perceptions of Management, Job Satisfaction, Working Conditions, and Stress Recognition. Scale reliability was 0.9. Provider attitudes varied greatly both within and among organizations. Results are presented to allow benchmarking among organizations and emerging research is discussed. Conclusion: The Safety Attitudes Questionnaire demonstrated good psychometric properties. Healthcare organizations can use the survey to measure caregiver attitudes about six patient safetyrelated domains, to compare themselves with other organizations, to prompt interventions to improve safety attitudes and to measure the effectiveness of these interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]