13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The use of PROMs and shared decision‐making in medical encounters with patients: An opportunity to deliver value‐based health care to patients

      research-article

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The recent emphasis on value‐based health care (VBHC) is thought to provide new opportunities for shared decision‐making (SDM) in the Netherlands, especially when using patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) in routine medical encounters. It is still largely unclear about how PROMs could be linked to SDM and what we expect from clinicians in this respect.

          Aim

          To describe approaches and lessons learned in the fields of SDM and VBHC implementation that converge in using PROMs in medical encounters.

          Approach

          Based on input from three Dutch forerunner case examples and available evidence about SDM and VBHC, we describe barriers and facilitators regarding the use of PROMs and SDM in the medical encounter. Barriers and facilitators were structured according to a conversational model that included monitoring and managing, team talk, option talk, choice talk, and decision talk. Key lessons learned and recommendations were synthesized.

          Results

          The use of individual, N = 1 PROMs scores in the medical encounter has been largely achieved in the forerunner projects. Conversation on monitoring and managing is relatively well implemented, and option talk to some extent, unlike team talk, and decision talk. Aggregated PROMs information describing outcomes of treatment options seemed to be scarcely used. Experienced barriers largely corresponded to what is known from the literature, eg, perceived lack of time and lack of tools summarizing the options. Some concerns were identified about increasing health care consumption as a result of using PROMs and SDM in the medical encounter.

          Conclusion

          Successful implementation of SDM within VBHC initiatives may not be self‐evident, even though individual, N = 1 PROMs scores are being used in the medical encounter. Education and staff resources on meso and macro levels may facilitate the more time‐consuming SDM aspects. It seems fruitful to especially target team talk and choice talk in redesigning clinical pathways.

          Related collections

          Most cited references72

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters.

          Given the fluidity with which the term shared decision making (SDM) is used in teaching, assessment and research, we conducted a focused and systematic review of articles that specifically address SDM to determine the range of conceptual definitions. In April 2005, we ran a Pubmed (Medline) search to identify articles published through 31 December 2003 with the words shared decision making in the title or abstract. The search yielded 681 citations, 342 of which were about SDM in the context of physician-patient encounters and published in English. We read and reviewed the full text of all 342 articles, and got any non-redundant references to SDM, which yielded an additional 76 articles. Of the 418 articles examined, 161 (38.5%) had a conceptual definition of SDM. We identified 31 separate concepts used to explicate SDM, but only "patient values/preferences" (67.1%) and "options" (50.9%) appeared in more than half the 161 definitions. Relatively few articles explicitly recognized and integrated previous work. Our review reveals that there is no shared definition of SDM. We propose a definition that integrates the extant literature base and outlines essential elements that must be present for patients and providers to engage in the process of SDM. The integrative definition of SDM is intended to provide a useful foundation for describing and operationalizing SDM in further research.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Shared decision making: Concepts, evidence, and practice

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              A three-talk model for shared decision making: multistage consultation process

              Objectives To revise an existing three-talk model for learning how to achieve shared decision making, and to consult with relevant stakeholders to update and obtain wider engagement. Design Multistage consultation process. Setting Key informant group, communities of interest, and survey of clinical specialties. Participants 19 key informants, 153 member responses from multiple communities of interest, and 316 responses to an online survey from medically qualified clinicians from six specialties. Results After extended consultation over three iterations, we revised the three-talk model by making changes to one talk category, adding the need to elicit patient goals, providing a clear set of tasks for each talk category, and adding suggested scripts to illustrate each step. A new three-talk model of shared decision making is proposed, based on “team talk,” “option talk,” and “decision talk,” to depict a process of collaboration and deliberation. Team talk places emphasis on the need to provide support to patients when they are made aware of choices, and to elicit their goals as a means of guiding decision making processes. Option talk refers to the task of comparing alternatives, using risk communication principles. Decision talk refers to the task of arriving at decisions that reflect the informed preferences of patients, guided by the experience and expertise of health professionals. Conclusions The revised three-talk model of shared decision making depicts conversational steps, initiated by providing support when introducing options, followed by strategies to compare and discuss trade-offs, before deliberation based on informed preferences.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                o.damman@amsterdamumc.nl
                Journal
                J Eval Clin Pract
                J Eval Clin Pract
                10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2753
                JEP
                Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                1356-1294
                1365-2753
                15 December 2019
                April 2020
                : 26
                : 2 ( doiID: 10.1111/jep.v26.2 )
                : 524-540
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Public and Occupational Health Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute Amsterdam The Netherlands
                [ 2 ] Value Based Healthcare Programme, Department of Primary Care University of Oxford Oxford United Kingdom
                [ 3 ] Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Neurology, MS Center Amsterdam Amsterdam Neuroscience Research Institute Amsterdam The Netherlands
                [ 4 ] Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Amsterdam UMC Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands
                [ 5 ] Amsterdam UMC Universiteit van Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands
                [ 6 ] Tranzo Scientific Center for Care and Wellbeing, Tilburg School of Social and Behavioral Sciences GGz Breburg and Tilburg University Tilburg The Netherlands
                [ 7 ] Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Department of Clinical Genetics Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands
                [ 8 ] Department of Surgery Amsterdam UMC, Universiteit van Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands
                [ 9 ] Department of Strategy and Policy Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Olga Damman, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute.

                Email: o.damman@ 123456amsterdamumc.nl

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4482-5042
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5397-5544
                Article
                JEP13321 JECP-2019-0353.R1
                10.1111/jep.13321
                7155090
                31840346
                d87c04df-4d32-4e7e-85c3-45db66ecb9eb
                © 2019 The Authors. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd

                This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

                History
                : 31 May 2019
                : 26 August 2019
                : 29 September 2019
                Page count
                Figures: 3, Tables: 2, Pages: 17, Words: 5557
                Categories
                Special Issue
                Special Issues
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                April 2020
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_JATSPMC version:5.8.0 mode:remove_FC converted:14.04.2020

                Medicine
                patient‐reported outcome measures,routine outcome monitoring,shared decision‐making,value‐based health care

                Comments

                Comment on this article