Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
-
Evidence of mechanisms plays an important role in medical decision-making, but this role is less well articulated than that of clinical trial evidence. A new book, Evaluating Evidence of Mechanisms in Medicine: Principles and Procedures, provides a framework and resources for explicitly evaluating evidence of mechanisms when assessing claims of efficacy and external validity. This review outlines the overall approach of the book, the contribution it makes to evidence evaluation in medicine and makes some suggestions for further work that will aid implementation of the framework into clinical decision-making.
-
Shared decision-making involves health professionals and patients/clients working together to achieve true person-centred health care. However, this goal is infrequently realized, and most barriers are unknown. Discussion between philosophers, clinicians, and researchers can assist in confronting the epistemic and moral basis of health care, with benefits to all. ⋯ Key barriers include existing cultural norms of "the doctor knows best" and "patient acquiescence" that prevent defeaters being acknowledged and discussed and can lead to legal challenges, overuse of medical intervention and, in some areas, obstetric violence. Shared decision-making in maternity care can thus be defined as an enquiry by clinician and expectant woman aimed at deciding upon a course of care or none, which takes the form of a dialogue within which the clinician fulfils their duty of care to the client's knowledge by making available their complete knowledge (based on all types of evidence) and expertise, including an exposition of any relevant and recognized potential defeaters. Research to develop measurement tools is required.
-
This paper describes a novel approach to explore how regulators, working with patients and practitioners, may contribute to supporting person-centred care and processes of shared decision making in implementing professional standards and reducing harms. Osteopathic patients report high levels of patient care. However, areas of consultations less likely to be rated as high included "fully understanding your concerns," "helping you to take control," and "making a plan of action with you," suggestive of a paternalistic approach to care and a barrier to the effective implementation of standards. ⋯ A series of approaches and tools were then developed for piloting including patient curriculum vitae; patient goal planner; patient animation to support preparation for an appointment; infographic: a patient poster or leaflet; practitioner reflective tool; and an audio recording to increase awareness and understanding of values-based practice. In conclusion, a range of approaches may help to support patients and practitioners to make explicit what is important to them in a consultation. The next phase of our programme will use a range of methods including cluster sampling, pre-testing and post-testing with the Consultation and Relational Empathy (CARE) measure tool, and interviews and focus groups with users and practitioners to demonstrate impact.
-
Shared decision-making takes many forms, involving different kinds of agents who share the requirement that they must have sufficient decision-making capacity for the decision in question. Advance care planning (ACP) is commonly viewed as a form of shared decision-making between carers and patients who anticipate losing decision-making capacity. What is unclear in this situation is the identity status of an individual who has become mentally incapacitated and how to evaluate their rights and interests. ⋯ Yet, an ACP framework based on narrative identity and the relevant capacities to construct such narratives results in more demanding capacity requirements than current medico-legal practice requires. The law thus espouses conflicting views as to who can be an appropriate decision-making authority for patient care. I therefore conclude that the law governing medical care needs to be clearer about how to resolve the identity problem and revisit its position on ACP or supported decision-making for those who have only focally preserved decision-making capacity.
-
Elements of shared decision-making (ie, collaboration, patient preferences, and working alliance) have long been discussed and studied in the field of clinical psychology; however, research indicates that shared decision-making is not typically used in clinical practice. Instead, clinicians often rely on a paternalistic approach. In this article, we provide a narrative review of the existing research supporting shared decision-making for mental and behavioural health concerns, we discuss several barriers that impede its use in actual clinical practice, and we provide recommendations for increasing shared decision-making when working with patients.