Women need better information about routine mammography.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Breast Neoplasms↗
Biomedical subjects
Adrian Edwards
Publications and source records attributed to Adrian Edwards.
Measuring access to primary care appointments: a review of methods.
BACKGROUND: Patient access to primary care appointments is not routinely measured despite the increasing interest in this aspect of practice activity. The generation of standardised data (or benchmarks) for access could inform developments within primary care organisations and act as a quality marker for clinical governance. Logically the setting of targets should be based on a sound system of measurement. The practicalities of developing appropriate measures need debate. Therefore we aimed to search for and compare methods that have been published or are being developed to measure patient access to primary care appointments, with particular focus on finding methods using appointment system data. METHOD: A search and review was made of the primary care literature from 1990 to 2001, which included an assessment of online resources (websites) and communication with recognised experts. The identified methods were assessed. RESULTS: The published literature in this specific area was not extensive but revealed emerging interest in the late 1990s. Two broad approaches to the measurement of waiting times to GP appointments were identified. Firstly, appointment systems in primary care organisations were analysed in differing ways to provide numerical data and, secondly, patient perceptions (reports) of access were evaluated using survey techniques. Six different methods were found which were based on appointment systems data. CONCLUSION: The two approaches of either using patient questionnaires or appointment system data are methods that represent entirely different aims. The latter method when used to represent patient waiting times for 'routine' elective appointments seems to hold promise as a useful tool and this avoids the definitional problems that surround 'urgent' appointments. The purpose for which the data is being collected needs to be borne in mind and will determine the chosen methods of data retrieval and representation.
Appointments and Schedules↗
Participation by clients and nurse midwives in family planning decision making in Indonesia.
In order to enhance understanding of the quality of decision making during family planning consultations in developing countries, provider competencies and client behaviors during 179 randomly selected consultations in Indonesia were assessed. Results show that family planning clients make a significant contribution to the quality of the decision-making process, most notably by identifying the problem requiring a decision, expressing their feelings about using a method, and asking questions. Client involvement may compensate for provider weaknesses, which tend to be in areas calling for interpersonal rather than technical skills. However, the programmatic ideal of informed choice has not yet been realized. Supervisors, trainers, communicators, and program managers can improve the quality of decision making by: creating opportunities for client involvement during consultations, strengthening providers' ability to fully inform clients about their options, and making providers aware of the opportunities for decision making in consultations with continuing clients.
Adolescent↗
The development of COMRADE--a patient-based outcome measure to evaluate the effectiveness of risk communication and treatment decision making in consultations.
Some instruments have been developed to evaluate 'decision effectiveness' such as the 'satisfaction with decision (SWD)' and 'decision conflict (DCS)' scales and are validated for the US context. Patients identify further outcome domains that are not fully covered in these scales. We developed a patient-based outcome measure to evaluate risk communication and decision making effectiveness, addressing these further domains and validated for use in the UK. Formulation of items was based on literature review and key informant interviews. The instrument was piloted and developed (including psychometric assessment) in the context of a trial of decision making and risk communication interventions in general practice. Patients were recruited to the trial with known atrial fibrillation, prostatism, menorrhagia or menopausal symptoms. High response rates (96% in first phase) indicated acceptability to patients. A 20 item patient-based outcome measure, with two sub-scales for 'risk communication' and 'confidence in decision', was produced. It allows for paternalistic, shared or informed choice decision making models. Usage in further studies will facilitate systematic reviews. Consequently, lessons for wider application of these interventions in practice, and policy implications regarding greater patient involvement should then be clearer.
Communication↗
Manufactured but not imported: new directions for research in shared decision making support and skills.
Significant conceptual work on shared decision making has taken place but there are still significant challenges in achieving it in routine clinical practice. This paper outlines what research has identified to date that may promote shared decision making, and the further research that is required to enable continuing progress. Greater understanding of the models of decision making and instruments to identify them in practice are still required. Specifying consumer competences, developing instruments to assess these and interventions to enhance them may also be important. Clarifying all these aspects may enable those charged with training professionals to improve the content of professional development programmes. This may be particularly important in the field of cancer treatments where the stakes are high-patients usually desire much information but their desire for involvement in decision making is more variable. The consequences of getting this balance right or wrong are significant with much to be gained or lost. Continued development and evaluation of decision aids and decision explorers that use interactive technology will also be important in identifying how to progress with consumer involvement. If we can learn these lessons, then wider implementation of shared decision making or consumer involvement may become a nearer prospect.
Clinical Competence↗
Evolving the multiple roles of 'patients' in health-care research: reflections after involvement in a trial of shared decision-making.
OBJECTIVE: This paper offers 'consumer-led' reflections by steering group members of a patient-centred research study involving consumer advocates, patients' associations and patients, throughout the whole study, from pre- to post-study phases. ORIGINAL STUDY DESIGN: The study: 'Shared decision making and risk communication in general practice' incorporated systematic reviews, psychometric evaluation of outcome measures, and quantitative, qualitative and health economic analyses of a cluster randomized trial of professional skill development, all informed by consumer and patient engagement. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The work was produced by a wide collaboration led by researchers from the Department of General Practice, University of Wales College of Medicine, Cardiff, including a consumers' advisory group and a patients' association. The study participants were 20 general practitioners from Gwent, their practice staff, and almost 800 patients at these practices. DISCUSSION: Consumers and patients contributed to several stages of the research from inception and design, securing of funding, implementation of the protocol, and interpretation and dissemination of the findings. 'Patient involvement' research initiatives that include an equally wide variety of 'user' participants as 'health-professional' participants, accountable to a 'Health in Partnership' funded project, require a user-led viewpoint to be presented and disseminated. This paper presents reflections on the processes of the research, the interpretations of study findings by the involved parties, and notes how this model is fundamental to effective research in the field of patient-centred health care if future practice, policy and research are to change.
Decision Making↗
Exploring doctor and patient views about risk communication and shared decision-making in the consultation.
BACKGROUND: There have been significant conceptual developments regarding shared decision-making (SDM) and assessments of people's hypothetical preferences for involvement in treatment or care decisions. There are few data on the perceptions of patients and professionals about SDM in actual practice. OBJECTIVE: To explore, from paired doctor-patient interviews, participants' perceptions of SDM in the consultation and the level of consensus between the participants in the consultation process. DESIGN: Qualitative analysis of semi-structured interview data. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Twenty general practitioners received training packages in 'risk communication' (RC) and 'SDM' to use as tools within the consultation. Forty patients with one of four conditions, for which a range of treatment options is available, were selected. Patient/doctor pairs were interviewed separately following consultations at four stages -'baseline' [general practitioner's (GP) usual consultation style], SDM training, RC alone, and both RC and SDM training. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using NVivo software. RESULTS: Risk communication interventions by doctors appeared to result in a greater perception of decisions being made in the consultation. High levels of satisfaction with consultations were evident before application of the interventions and did not change after the interventions. Doctors' and patients' perceptions of the consultations were highly congruent at all phases of the study. CONCLUSION: Shared decision-making and RC approaches were helpful in selected consultations and showed no detrimental effects to patients. However, the use of RC and SDM made only small differences to decision-making in consultations within the population studied. Increasing patient participation may be seen as more ethically justifiable than the traditional paternalistic approach but this needs to be set against the additional training costs incurred.
Adult↗
The problematic of decision-sharing: deconstructing 'cholesterol' in a clinical encounter.
Shared decision-making is increasingly advocated as a means of interacting with patients but there is also a widely accepted view that many factors will militate against this ideal. While some patients may not wish to take on the responsibility of decision-making, it is also evident that many find it difficult to assimilate probabilities about future events and overestimate the likelihood of some outcomes, especially when terms such as 'stroke', 'bleeding' and 'heart attack' are used in consultation and bring with them emotional connotations and reactions. Under such circumstances, should clinicians portray risks as best they can, in the hope that even a marginally improved understanding will be an improvement on unilateral professional decision-making? Or, conversely, should they 'guide' the decision process, acting in a way that is known as 'professional agency'? Developing some perspectives put forward in recent work by the authors and applying it to a distinct clinical context, this paper will provide (i) a discourse analytic exploration of a single extended example from clinical practice employing aspects of Bakhtin's theory of dialogism, and (ii) a discussion and summary of what we can learn from this analysis in the context of shared decision-making and risk communication.
Aged↗
Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Audiovisual Aids↗
Deconstructing patient centred communication and uncovering shared decision making: an observational study.
BACKGROUND: Patient centred communication (PCC) has been described as a method for doctor-patient communication. The principles of shared decision making (SDM) have been proposed more recently. AIMS: This study aimed to examine PCC and SDM empirically with respect to their mutual association, the variation in practitioners' working styles, and the associations with patient characteristics. METHODS: Sixty general practitioners recruited 596 adult patients who gave written consent to have their consultations videotaped. The tapes were assessed by two researchers, using a standardised instrument for global communication. For the purpose of this exploratory study, scales for PCC and SDM were based on subsamples of items in the MAAS. RESULTS: The scales for PCC and SDM were weakly associated (Pearson correlation: 0.25). Physicians varied more on SDM than on PCC. The intracluster correlation of the PCC and SDM scales were, respectively, 0.34 and 0.19. However, hypotheses regarding associations with patient characteristics were not confirmed. Neither PCC nor SDM scores were related to patient gender, education, age, functional health status or existence of chronic conditions. CONCLUSION: The study provides evidence that PCC and SDM can be differentiated and comprise approaches to communication between clinicians and patients which may be more clearly distinguished by further focused research and training developments.
Adult↗
Is 'shared decision-making' feasible in consultations for upper respiratory tract infections? Assessing the influence of antibiotic expectations using discourse analysis.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the discourse of consultations in which conflict occurs between parents and clinicians about the necessity of antibiotics to treat an upper respiratory tract infection. To appraise the feasibility of shared decision-making in such consultations. DESIGN: A qualitative study using discourse analysis techniques. SETTING: A general practice with 12 500 patients in an urban area of Cardiff, Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Two consultations were purposively selected from a number of audiotaped sessions. The consultations took place during normal clinics in which appointments are booked at 7-minute intervals. The practitioner is known to be interested in involving patients in treatment decisions. METHOD: Discourse analysis was employed to examine the consultation transcripts. This analysis was then compared with the theoretical competencies proposed for 'shared decision-making'. RESULTS: The consultations exhibit less rational strategies than those suggested by the shared decision-making model. Strong parental views are expressed (overtly and covertly) which seem derived from prior experiences of similar illnesses and prescribing behaviours. The clinician responds by emphasizing the 'normality' of upper respiratory tract infections and their recurrence, accompanied by expressions that antibiotic treatment is ineffective in 'viral' illness - the suggested diagnosis. The competencies of 'shared decision-making' are not exhibited. CONCLUSIONS: The current understanding of shared decision-making needs to be developed for those situations where there are dis-agreements due to the strongly held views of the participants. Clinicians have limited strategies in situations where patient treatment preferences are opposed to professional views. Dispelling 'misconceptions' by sharing information and negotiating agreed management plans are recommended. But it seems that communication skills, information content and consultation length have to receive attention if such strategies are to be employed successfully.
Journal Article↗