Search

Objective: To confirm described dimensions of making care fit and explore how patients and clinicians collaborate to make care fit in clinical practice. Methods: As part of an ongoing study, we audiotaped and transcribed patient-clinician consultations in diabetes care. We purposively selected consultations based on participants’ demographical, biomedical and biographical characteristics. We analysed transcripts using reflexive thematic analysis. We combined a deductive and inductive approach, using the pre-described dimensions of making care fit and adding new (sub-)dimensions when pertinent. Results: We analysed 24 clinical consultations. Our data confirmed eight previously described dimensions and provided new sub-dimensions of making care fit with examples from clinical practice (problematic situation, influence of devices, sense of options, shared agenda setting, clinician context, adapting to changing organization of care, and possibility to reconsider). Conclusion: Our study confirmed, specified and enriched the conceptualization of making care fit through practice examples. We observed patient-clinician collaboration in exploration of patients’ context, and by responsively changing, adapting or maintaining care plans. Practice implications: Our findings support clinicians and researchers with insights in important aspects of patient-clinician collaboration. Ultimately, this would lead to optimal design of care plans that fit well in each patient life.

Objectives: Value-based healthcare (VBHC) involves the use of standardised outcome measures, including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). This study aimed to assess to what extent discussion of PROMs is associated with patient- and person-centredness. Methods: This study used a separate sample pre-/post-test design and multiple methods (observations, questionnaires, and interviews) in a VBHC care pathway for patients with a vestibular schwannoma, to assess to what extent the implementation of PROMs is associated with a difference in patient- and person-centredness. Results: A total of 139 patients with a vestibular schwannoma and their four treating physicians were included in the study. No significant differences were found in observed patient-centredness (Mpre=6.71 ± 2.42 vs. Mpost=6.93 ± 2.01; P = 0.60) or patient-reported patient-centredness (Mpre=1.73 vs. Mpost=1.68; P = 0.63) and person-centredness after PROM implementation (Mpre=11.81 vs. Mpost=13.42; P = 0.34). We observed more discussion of patient-reported outcomes. However, a majority of patients did not expect PRO discussion in consultations. Conclusions: The implementation of standardised PROMs in a VBHC care pathway was associated with more discussion on patient-reported outcomes in clinical consultations. Overall, the implementation of PROMs was not observed or perceived as leading to more patient-centred consultations. Practice implications: Physicians should assess whether the discussion of PROMs add value collaboratively with patients.

The authors regret to inform readers that there were errors in the numbering of some citations in Table 1 and in one sentence in section 3.3.2. The corrections (indicated in bold) are: Table 1, Alameddine, 2020, Dubai [64]; Baig, 2020, Pakistan [65]; Becher, 2021, Germany [40]; Carrotte, 2021, Australia [38]; Finlay, 2020, Canada [81]; Gibson, 2020, England [41]; Haugom, 2020, Norway [80]; House, 2021, USA [79]; Huang, 2021, China [45]; Jiang, 2021, China [54]; Keij, 2021, the Netherlands [9]; Moleman, 2021, the Netherlands [67]; Pan, 2022, China [26]; Rodenburg-Vandenbussche, 2020, the Netherlands [36], Sumpton, 2021, Australia [35], Van Beek-Peeters, 2021, the Netherlands [21]; Vedasto, 2021, Tanzania [25]; Whitney, 2021, USA [77]; Windon, 2021, USA [34]; Wubben, 2021, the Netherlands [66]. The corrected table can be found below. Self-efficacy and self-confidence in being involved in the SDM process were reported to benefit patient involvement [20, 35, 40, 54], and such self-efficacy may grow over time [35]. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused [Table presented]. DOI of original article: doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2023.107677.

Introduction: Shared decision making (SDM) requires an active role of both clinicians and patients. We aimed to conceptualise patient readiness for SDM about treatment, and to develop a patient questionnaire to assess readiness. Methods: We used the results of a scoping review and a qualitative study to inform the patient readiness construct. We conducted five additional rounds of data collection to finalise the construct definition and develop the Patient Readiness for SDM Questionnaire (ReadySDM) in an oncological setting: (1) longitudinal interviews with patients with cancer during and after a treatment decision-making process; (2) a pilot study among experts, clinicians, and patients for feedback on the concept and items; (3) a field test among (former) patients with cancer to test item format and content validity, and to reduce the number of items; (4) cognitive interviews with people with low literacy to test the comprehensibility of the questionnaire; and (5) a field test among (former) patients who faced a cancer treatment decision in the last year, to test the content validity of the final version of the questionnaire.Results: A total of 251 people participated in the various rounds of data collection. We identified eight elements of patient readiness for SDM about treatment: (1) understanding of and attitude towards SDM; (2) information skills; (3) skills in communicating and claiming space; (4) self-awareness; (5) consideration skills; (6) self-efficacy; (7) emotional distress; and (8) experienced time. We developed the 20-item ReadySDM to retrospectively measure these elements in an oncological setting. Conclusion: We conducted a thorough procedure to conceptualise patient readiness and to develop the ReadySDM. The questionnaire aims to provide novel insights into ways to enhance SDM in daily practice. Patient or Public Contribution

Rationale & Objective: Research on shared decision making (SDM) in chronic kidney disease (CKD) has focused almost exclusively on the modality of kidney replacement treatment. We explored what other CKD decisions are recognized by patients, what their preferences and experiences are regarding these decisions, and how decisions are made during their interactions with medical care professionals. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting & Participants: Patients with CKD receiving (outpatient) care in 1 of 2 Dutch hospitals. Exposure: Patients’ preferred decisional roles for treatment decisions were measured using the Control Preferences Scale survey administered after a health care visit with medical professionals. Outcome: Number of decisions for which patients experienced a decisional role that did or did not match their preferred role. Observed levels of SDM and motivational interviewing in audio recordings of health care visits, measured using the 4-step SDM instrument (4SDM) and Motivational Interviewing Treatment Integrity coding tools. Analytical Approach: The results were characterized using descriptive statistics, including differences in scores between the patients’ experienced and preferred decisional roles. Results: According to the survey (n = 122) patients with CKD frequently reported decisions regarding planning (112 of 122), medication changes (82 of 122), or lifestyle changes (59 of 122). Of the 357 reported decisions in total, patients preferred that clinicians mostly (125 of 357) or fully (101 of 357) make the decisions. For 116 decisions, they preferred a shared decisional role. For 151 of 357 decisions, the patients’ preferences did not match their experiences. Decisions were experienced as “less shared/patient-directed” (76 of 357) or “more shared/patient-directed” (75 of 357) than preferred. Observed SDM in 118 coded decisions was low (median 4; range, 0 – 22). Motivational interviewing techniques were rarely used. Limitations: Pot

Introduction: The assessment of using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) within comprehensive care follow-up programmes, specifically focused on health screening, remains largely unexplored. PROs were implemented in our late effects and comprehensive care programme after paediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for nonmalignant diseases. The programme focuses solely on screening of physical and mental health and on discussing PROs during the consultation. Methods: The primary method of this study was semistructured interviews to explore the perspective of both patients and healthcare providers' (HCP) on the use of PROs, which were thematically analyzed. Additionally, an explorative quantitative approach with patient-reported experience measures (PREMS) was used, with a pretest–posttest design, to assess whether the use of PROs was accompanied by more patient-centred care. Results: From the patient-interviews (N = 15) four themes were extracted: use of PROs (1) help to discuss topics; (2) make the patients feel understood; (3) create a moment of self-reflection; and (4) make consultations more efficient. Pre- and postimplementation analysis of PREMs (N = 40) did not show significant differences in terms of patient-centeredness. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate the added value of integrating PROs for health screening purposes within the long-term follow-up programme after paediatric HSCT, as perceived by both patient and HCP. With the active use of PROs, patients are stimulated to consciously assess their health status. Patient Contribution: This study included patients as participants. Caregivers were approached if patients were below a certain age. Additionally, preliminary results were shared with all patients (including nonparticipants) during a patient conference day.

BACKGROUND: Standardisation of outcome measures is integral to value-based healthcare (VBHC), which may conflict with patient-centred care, focusing on personalisation. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to provide an overview of measures used to assess the effect of VBHC implementation and to examine to what extent the evidence indicates that VBHC supports patient-centred care. DESIGN: A scoping review guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: We searched the following databases on 18 February 2021: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE and Web of Science. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included empirical papers assessing the effect of the implementation of VBHC, published after introduction of VBHC in 2006. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers double-screened papers and data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by the other. We classified the study measures used in included papers into six categories: process indicator, cost measure, clinical outcome, patient-reported outcome, patient-reported experience or clinician-reported experience. We then assessed the patient-centredness of the study measures used. RESULTS: We included 39 studies using 94 unique study measures. The most frequently used study measures (n=72) were process indicators, cost measures and clinical outcomes, which rarely were patient-centred. The less frequently used (n=20) patient-reported outcome and experience measures often measured a dimension of patient-centred care. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that the evidence on VBHC supporting patient-centred care is limited, exposing a knowledge gap in VBHC research. The most frequently used study measures in VBHC research are not patient-centred. The major focus seems to be on measures of quality of care defined from a provider, institution or payer perspective.

Introduction: Guidelines on chronic kidney disease (CKD) recommend that nephrologists use clinical prediction models (CPMs). However, the actual use of CPMs seems limited in clinical practice. We conducted a national survey study to evaluate: 1) to what extent CPMs are used in Dutch CKD practice, 2) patients’ and nephrologists’ needs and preferences regarding predictions in CKD, and 3) determinants that may affect the adoption of CPMs in clinical practice. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with CKD patients to inform the development of two online surveys; one for CKD patients and one for nephrologists. Survey participants were recruited through the Dutch Kidney Patient Association and the Dutch Federation of Nephrology. Results: A total of 126 patients and 50 nephrologists responded to the surveys. Most patients (89%) reported they had discussed predictions with their nephrologists. They most frequently discussed predictions regarded CKD progression: when they were expected to need kidney replacement therapy (KRT) (n = 81), and how rapidly their kidney function was expected to decline (n = 68). Half of the nephrologists (52%) reported to use CPMs in clinical practice, in particular CPMs predicting the risk of cardiovascular disease. Almost all nephrologists (98%) reported discussing expected CKD trajectories with their patients; even those that did not use CPMs (42%). The majority of patients (61%) and nephrologists (84%) chose a CPM predicting when patients would need KRT in the future as the most important prediction. However, a small portion of patients indicated they did not want to be informed on predictions regarding CKD progression at all (10–15%). Nephrologists not using CPMs (42%) reported they did not know CPMs they could use or felt that they had insufficient knowledge regarding CPMs. According to the nephrologists, the most important determinants for the adoption of CPMs in clinical practice were: 1) understandability for patients, 2) i

Objective: To identify patient-related characteristics considered to affect patient involvement in shared decision making (SDM) about treatment. Methods: We conducted a scoping review of qualitative studies. We searched for literature across seven databases until March 2022, and included qualitative studies that focused on associations between patient-related characteristics and SDM about treatment in adults. We analyzed studies using an inductive thematic approach. Results: The search yielded 5948 articles, of which 70 were included. We identified many different patient-related characteristics, which we grouped into four categories related to: (1) the individual who is facing the decision, (2) the decision, (3) the relationship between the patient and the clinician and others involved in the decision, and (4) the healthcare context. Conclusions: Studies report a variety of patient-related characteristics that may affect patient involvement in SDM. Amongst others, patients may need to feel informed, to understand their role in SDM, and be able to communicate. Involvement may be challenging with characteristics such as perceived time pressure, poor patient-clinician relationships, emotional distress, and severe illness. Practice implications: In order to truly involve patients in SDM, we might need to focus on characteristics such as patient emotions and relationship building, besides information provision and values clarification.