2
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Physician-identified barriers to and facilitators of shared decision-making in the Emergency Department: an exploratory analysis

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          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

          Objectives

          Shared decision-making (SDM) is receiving increasing attention in emergency medicine because of its potential to increase patient engagement and decrease unnecessary healthcare utilisation. This study sought to explore physician-identified barriers to and facilitators of SDM in the ED.

          Methods

          We conducted semistructured interviews with practising emergency physicians (EP) with the aim of understanding when and why EPs engage in SDM, and when and why they feel unable to engage in SDM. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and a three-member team coded all transcripts in an iterative fashion using a directed approach to qualitative content analysis. We identified emergent themes, and organised themes based on an integrative theoretical model that combined the theory of planned behaviour and social cognitive theory.

          Results

          Fifteen EPs practising in the New England region of the USA were interviewed. Physicians described the following barriers: time constraints, clinical uncertainty, fear of a bad outcome, certain patient characteristics, lack of follow-up and other emotional and logistical stressors. They noted that risk stratification methods, the perception that SDM decreased liability and their own improving clinical skills facilitated their use of SDM. They also noted that the culture of the institution could play a role in discouraging or promoting SDM, and that patients could encourage SDM by specifically asking about alternatives.

          Conclusions

          EPs face many barriers to using SDM. Some, such as lack of follow-up, are unique to the ED; others, such as the challenges of communicating uncertainty, may affect other providers. Many of the barriers to SDM are amenable to intervention, but may be of variable importance in different EDs. Further research should attempt to identify which barriers are most prevalent and most amenable to intervention, as well as capitalise on the facilitators noted.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          100963089
          22273
          Emerg Med J
          Emerg Med J
          Emergency medicine journal : EMJ
          1472-0205
          1472-0213
          29 October 2019
          16 May 2019
          June 2019
          01 June 2020
          : 36
          : 6
          : 346-354
          Affiliations
          [1 ]Institute of Healthcare Delivery and Population Science, University of Massachusetts Medical School-Baystate, Springfield, Massachusetts, USA
          [2 ]Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School - Baystate, Springfield, Massachusetts, USA
          [3 ]School of Public Health and Health Sciences, University of Massachusetts Amherst, Amherst, Massachusetts, USA
          [4 ]Department of Emergency Medicine, Maimonides Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA
          [5 ]Department of Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
          [6 ]Meyers Primary Care Institute, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA
          Author notes

          Contributors EMS, PKL, SLG and KMM conceived the study, designed the trial and obtained research funding. EMS and SLG supervised the conduct of the trial and data collection. EMS,TRE, KEP and KAN undertook recruitment of participating centres and patients and managed the data, including quality control. EMS, ERK and KEP analysed the data. EMS drafted the manuscript, and all authors contributed substantially to its revision. EMS takes responsibility for the paper as a whole.

          Correspondence to: Dr Elizabeth M Schoenfeld, Emergency Medicine, Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, MA 01199, USA; elizschoen@ 123456gmail.com
          Article
          PMC6865804 PMC6865804 6865804 nihpa1056687
          10.1136/emermed-2018-208242
          6865804
          31097464
          663a14c7-5e71-4ac9-a7f3-f3e7b10d2bba
          History
          Categories
          Article

          Comments

          Comment on this article