Browsing by Subject "Shared decision-making"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Development of a Standardized Communication Intervention Bundle for Use at a Medical Training Hospital Intensive Care Unit
    (Medknow, 2019-05) Pollard, Katherine; Wessman, Brian Todd; Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine
    How to cite this article: Pollard K, Wessman BT. Development of a Standardized Communication Intervention Bundle for Use at a Medical Training Hospital Intensive Care Unit. Indian J Crit Care Med 2019;23(5):234-235.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Implementing CommonGround in a Community Mental Health Center: Lessons in a Computerized Decision Support System
    (American Psychological Association, 2016-10-10) Bonfils, Kelsey A.; Dreison, Kimberly C.; Luther, Lauren; Fukui, Sadaaki; Dempsey, Abigail E.; Rapp, Charles A.; Salyers, Michelle P.; Psychology, School of Science
    Objective: Although shared decision making (SDM) is a key element of client-centered care, it has not been widely adopted. Accordingly, interventions have been developed to promote SDM. The aim of this study was to explore the implementation process of one SDM intervention, CommonGround, which utilizes peer specialists and a computerized decision support center to promote SDM. Method: As part of a larger study, CommonGround was implemented in 4 treatment teams in a community mental health center. The implementation process was examined by conducting semistructured interviews with 12 staff members that were integral to the CommonGround implementation. Responses were analyzed using content analysis. Program fidelity and client program use were also examined. Results: Although key informants identified several client and staff benefits to using CommonGround, including improved treatment engagement and availability of peer specialists, most clients did not use CommonGround consistently throughout the implementation. Key informants and fidelity reports indicated a number of program (e.g., technological difficulties, increased staff burden) and contextual barriers (e.g., poor fit with service structure, decision support center location, low staff investment and high turnover) to the successful implementation of CommonGround. Strategies to maximize the implementation by increasing awareness, buy-in, and utilization are also reported. Conclusions and Implications for Practice: This implementation of CommonGround was limited in its success partly as a result of program and contextual barriers. Future implementations may benefit from incorporating the strategies identified to maximize implementation in order to obtain the full program benefits.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Layperson Views about the Design and Evaluation of Decision Aids: A Public Deliberation
    (Sage, 2021-07) Schwartz, Peter H.; O’Doherty, Kieran C.; Bentley, Colene; Schmidt, Karen K.; Burgess, Michael M.; Medicine, School of Medicine
    Purpose: We carried out the first public deliberation to elicit lay input regarding guidelines for the design and evaluation of decision aids, focusing on the example of colorectal ("colon") cancer screening. Methods: A random, demographically stratified sample of 28 laypeople convened for 4 days, during which they were informed about key issues regarding colon cancer, screening tests, risk communication, and decision aids. Participants then deliberated in small and large group sessions about the following: 1) What information should be included in all decision aids for colon screening? 2) What risk information should be in a decision aid and how should risk information be presented? 3) What makes a screening decision a good one (reasonable or legitimate)? 4) What makes a decision aid and the advice it provides trustworthy? With the help of a trained facilitator, the deliberants formulated recommendations, and a vote was held on each to identify support and alternative views. Results: Twenty-one recommendations ("deliberative conclusions") were strongly supported. Some conclusions matched current recommendations, such as that decision aids should be available for use with and without providers present (conclusions 1-4) and should support informed choice (conclusion 9). Some conclusions differed from current recommendations, at least in emphasis-for example, that decision aids should disclose cost of screening (conclusion 11) and should be kept simple and understandable (conclusion 14). Deliberants recommended that decision aids should disclose the baseline risk of getting colon cancer (conclusions 15, 17). Limitations: Single location and medical decision. Conclusions: Guidelines for design of decision aids should consider putting a greater focus on disclosing cost and keeping decision aids simple, and they possibly should recommend disclosing less extensive amounts of quantitative information than currently recommended.