Confronting evidence: individualised care and the case for shared decision-making.
نویسندگان
چکیده
In many clinical scenarios there exists more than one clinically appropriate intervention strategy. When these involve subjective trade-offs between potential benefits and harms, patients' preferences should inform decision-making. Shared decision-making is a collaborative process, where clinician and patient reconcile the best available evidence with respect for patients' individualized care preferences. In practice, clinicians may be poorly equipped to participate in this process. Shared decision-making is applicable to many conditions including stable coronary artery disease, end-of-life care, and numerous small decisions in chronic disease management. There is evidence of more clinically appropriate care patterns, improved patient understanding and sense of empowerment. Many trials reported a 20% reduction in major surgery in favour of conservative treatment, although demand tends to increase for some interventions. The generalizability of international evidence to Ireland is unclear. Considering the potential benefits, there is a case for implementing and evaluating shared decision-making pilot projects in Ireland.
منابع مشابه
Role of quality of care and treatment in faciliting decision making and consent to organ donation in brain dead family: a qualitative study
Background: Caring for family is essential for organ donation request and decision making process and nurses are responsible for family caring. Aim: the present study have performed to explore the role of quality of care and treatment in facilitating decision making and consent to organ donation in family of the brain death patient. Methods: A qualitative research approach with its focus on th...
متن کاملUse of Cost-Effectiveness Data in Priority Setting Decisions: Experiences from the National Guidelines for Heart Diseases in Sweden
Background The inclusion of cost-effectiveness data, as a basis for priority setting rankings, is a distinguishing feature in the formulation of the Swedish national guidelines. Guidelines are generated with the direct intent to influence health policy and support decisions about the efficient allocation of scarce healthcare resources. Certain medical conditions may be given higher priority ran...
متن کاملDecisions of Value: Going Backstage; Comment on “Contextual Factors Influencing Cost and Quality Decisions in Health and Care: A Structured Evidence Review and Narrative Synthesis”
This commentary expands on two of the key themes briefly raised in the paper involving analysis of the evidence about key contextual influences on decisions of value. The first theme focuses on the need to explore in more detail what is called backstage decision-making looking at how actual decisions are made drawing on evidence from ethnographies about decision-making. These studies point to l...
متن کاملStrengthening group decision making within shared governance: A case study
Shared governance is an approach to empowering nurses and other health care workers to have authority for decisions concerning their practice. Commonly, visible definers of shared governance are groups of workers known as ‘councils’ whose membership works collectively to realise a shared goal. The literature is replete with rhetoric as to the benefits of shared governance yet the evidence base ...
متن کاملThe Feasibility of Evidence- based Decision Making in a Toxicology Emergency Case
Evidence- Based Medicine (EBM) aims to bring the best available evidence into clinical practice. Different clinical methods of education such as in-patient rounds, follow up rounds, out-patients rounds, group sessions, grand rounds, lectures, and journal clubs could be held by EBM approach. The current text presents two interrelated case reports; a case report of EBM decision making in an emer...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
- Irish medical journal
دوره 107 10 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2014