Search

Rationale: Previous studies have explored shared decision making (SDM) implementation to determine the renal replacement therapy modality; however, the SDM approach for dialysis initiation, especially when patients refuse physician suggestions for long‐term dialysis, remains unclear. Aims and Objectives: This study aimed to explore physicians' responses towards patients' refusal of long‐term dialysis during the SDM process and the thinking processes of both physicians and patients regarding dialysis refusal. Method: We conducted in‐depth semi‐structured interviews with 10 patients diagnosed with end‐stage renal disease, each of whom refused long‐term dialysis after physicians employed the SDM framework, and nine nephrologists at the Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan, from March to May 2020. Interviews were audio‐recorded, transcribed, and translated from Mandarin to English. They were then thematically analysed. Results: Three main themes on dialysis initiation SDM implementation and the differences between physician and patient perceptions on patient treatment refusal were yielded. While the SDM approach for dialysis initiation developed by nephrologists in Taiwan respects patient decisions, physicians often actively persuade patients to undergo dialysis in case of treatment refusal. The motivation behind this approach is to promote the patient's best medical interests, particularly post‐dialysis life quality, and to ensure a 'rational' medical decision is made. However, patients' perceptions of treatment refusal differ significantly from those of physicians, and their decision‐making process is often iterative and based on comprehensive evaluation of immediate concerns beyond biomedical factors. Conclusions: Findings suggest that the current physician‐led SDM approach for dialysis initiation characterises active persuasion with physicians' perspectives predominating the clinical encounter. To improve SDM implementation, we propose that physicians should acknowledge and understand patients' reasoning for dialysis refusal and the distinction between objective health and subjective well‐being during the decision‐making process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Reasons for suboptimal prescribing for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) have been identified, but it is unclear if they remain relevant with recent advances in healthcare delivery and technologies. This study aimed to identify and understand current clinician‐perceived challenges to prescribing guideline‐directed HFrEF medications. Methods: We conducted content analysis methodology, including interviews and member‐checking focus groups with primary care and cardiology clinicians. Interview guides were informed by the Cabana Framework. Results: We conducted interviews with 33 clinicians (13 cardiology specialists, 22 physicians) and member checking with 10 of these. We identified four levels of challenges from the clinician perspective. Clinician level challenges included misconceptions about guideline recommendations, clinician assumptions (e.g., drug cost or affordability), and clinical inertia. Patient–clinician level challenges included misalignment of priorities and insufficient communication. Clinician–clinician level challenges were primarily between generalists and specialists, including lack of role clarity, competing priorities of providing focused versus holistic care, and contrasting confidence regarding safety of newer drugs. Policy and system/organisation level challenges included insufficient access to timely/reliable patient data, and unintended care gaps for medications without financially incentivized metrics. Conclusion: This study presents current challenges faced by cardiology and primary care which can be used to strategically design interventions to improve guideline‐directed care for HFrEF. The findings support the persistence of many challenges and also sheds light on new challenges. New challenges identified include conflicting perspectives between generalists and specialists, hesitancy to prescribe newer medications due to safety concerns, and unintended consequences related to value‐based reimbursement metrics for select medications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To describe the perspectives of healthcare professionals regarding the implementation of Shared decision‐making (SDM) in primary healthcare centres (PHCCs) in Saudi Arabia. Methods: Qualitative semi‐structured interviews were conducted with a purposive and snowball sample of healthcare professionals in PHCCs. Interviews have been recorded, transcribed, translated and thematically analysed. Themes were mapped to the COM‐B model. Results: Sixteen healthcare professionals were interviewed. The data analysis identified six themes and 14 sub‐themes. The six themes are patient related factors, health professional related factors, environmental context and resources, patient–physician communication, patient–physician preferences toward SDM and physicians' perceived value and benefits of SDM. Physicians are unlikely to practice SDM in the context of time pressures, shortage of physicians, lack of treatment options, and decision‐making aids. The findings also underscored the importance of building a trustworthy physician‐patient relationship through the use of effective conversation techniques. Conclusions: There are multiple barriers to SDM in primary care. Unless these barriers are addressed, it is unlikely that physicians will effectively or fully engage in SDM with patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale, Aims and Objectives: Sharing aspects of the traditional medical record with patients has been successful in primary and antenatal care, but has not been investigated in the UK inpatient setting. Our aim was to evaluate the impact on patient and clinician experience of providing patients with a written lay summary of their care‐plan in the acute care setting. Method: We carried out a qualitative interview study on two acute medicine wards in an NHS University Teaching Hospital for a 4‐week period in 2019. A summary record, designed in response to suggestions from doctors and patients from a previous study, was distributed to patients on the first ward round after admission. Eligible participants included all doctors and nurses working on and all patients and their families attending the acute medical units; patients were excluded if they lacked capacity to consent or were under 18. We interviewed 20 patients, 10 relatives, 10 doctors and 7 nurses. Results: Patients felt that the summary improved their ability to remember details about their care so they could more accurately and easily update their relatives. They did not feel that the summary induced anxiety. Patient‐doctor communication was improved: patients felt empowered to ask more questions and doctors felt that it solidified their plan and encouraged them to avoid medical jargon. Most patients felt the summary included the 'right' amount of information. Healthcare professionals were more concerned about the risk of breaching confidentiality than patients. Doctors felt that providing summaries was time‐consuming; there were differing opinions about whether this was a worthwhile investment of time. Clinicians recognized that the traditional medical record has many roles. Conclusions: A summary record could empower patients and improve patient‐doctor communication but would require additional clinician and administrative time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]