Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
-
Today, in the age of big data, we are more capable than ever before. But even having the world at our disposal with naught but the touch of a button, we find ourselves exceedingly vulnerable in the patient chair. With insurmountable amounts of knowledge being published and disseminated around the world, how can clinicians keep up and what can be done about it? And sitting in the patient chair, bewildered by the ever-changing landscape of medicine at the blink of an eye, how can we, as patients, ever hope to be part of the conversations revolving around our own health? In this work, we explore the present-day problems of big data in the clinical context, how failing to integrate patients can result in detrimental outcomes, and what shared decision making can do about it.
-
User participation is nowadays a desirable feature of social services work. The International Federation of Social Workers states that staff shall promote the participation of clients so as to "enable them to be empowered in all aspects of decisions and actions affecting their lives." The statement is codified in various national ethical codes; the Swedish Code of Conduct and Ethical Behaviour for Social Workers specifies that interventions shall build on client participation and common agreement. However, a 2012 Swedish governmental report noted that among 16 methods for user participation in the social services, psychiatry, and abuse and addiction care, only one, shared decision making (SDM), had been evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). ⋯ Social workers do have good reasons for choosing certain methods for user participation rather than others. These methods can be found by looking at specific justificatory reasons. The case for SDM is strengthened by its having been evaluated in RCTs and also because the SDM components harmonize with relevant components in the presented (Swedish) legislation.
-
The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of a structured patient-centred educational exchange to facilitate a shared conversation about stroke prevention medications. ⋯ The questionnaires engaged the participants, allowing them to share perceptions and beliefs, facilitating a patient-centred educational exchange in a timely manner.
-
Every individual experiences good luck and bad luck. Three features characterize medical events associated with good luck or bad luck: There is no control over the event, the event occurs through chance or accident, and the event is of significant interest. These characteristics can be used to develop a working definition of medical luck. ⋯ A total valence of zero before or after intervention does not, however, imply absent medical luck but simply a combination of medical good luck and medical bad luck because significance interest in the event persists. Therefore, there is no medical luck simpliciter, only medical good luck and medical bad luck. Medical events are especially helpful to understanding good luck and bad luck, because they are non-fictional, often generate significant interest, and are modifiable.
-
The way in which care providers describe incapacitated elderly people is not without implications. The different ways in which they describe their patients-client, patient, or a sick human being-have consequences for their relationships with these patients and the decision-making processes. The aim of this study is to use insights from complexity thinking to understand the dynamic relations between various patient descriptions in decision-making. ⋯ Shared-decision-making favours the involvement of patients and their families in decision-making. However, due to a domination of the logic of the market and the logic of medicine, decision-making is problematic. As professional mediators, health care providers learn, however, to balance client demands, medical perspectives, and embodied dialogic care in decision-making for voiceless patients.