Understanding decision making about major surgery: protocol for a qualitative study of shared decision making by high-risk patients and their clinical teams

被引:11
|
作者
Shaw, Sara [1 ]
Hughes, Gemma [1 ]
Stephens, Tim [2 ]
Pearse, Rupert [3 ]
Prowle, John [3 ]
Ashcroft, Richard Edmund [4 ]
Avagliano, Ester [5 ]
Day, James [6 ]
Edsell, Mark [5 ]
Edwards, Jennifer [7 ]
Everest, Leslie [8 ]
机构
[1] Univ Oxford, Nuffield Dept Primary Care Hlth Sci, Oxford, England
[2] Queen Mary Univ London, Sch Med & Dent, London, England
[3] Queen Mary Univ London, Barts & London Sch Med & Dent, London, England
[4] City Univ London, Sch Law, London, England
[5] St Georges Univ Hosp Fdn Trust, Dept Anaesthesia, London, England
[6] John Radcliffe Hosp, Dept Anaesthesia, Oxford, England
[7] Royal Alexandra Hosp, Dept Anaesthesia, Paisley, Renfrew, Scotland
[8] Patient Representat, Leeds, W Yorkshire, England
来源
BMJ OPEN | 2020年 / 10卷 / 05期
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
adult surgery; communication; high risk; qualitative research; shared decision making;
D O I
10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033703
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Introduction Surgical treatments are being offered to more patients than ever before, and increasingly to high-risk patients (typically multimorbid and over 75). Shared decision making is seen as essential practice. However, little is currently known about what 'good' shared decision making involves nor how it applies in the context of surgery for high-risk patients. This new study aims to identify how high-risk patients, their families and clinical teams negotiate decision making for major surgery. Methods and analysis Focusing on major joint replacement, colorectal and cardiac surgery, we use qualitative methods to explore how patients, their families and clinicians negotiate decision making (including interactional, communicative and informational aspects and the extent to which these are perceived as shared) and reflect back on the decisions they made. Phase 1 involves video recording 15 decision making encounters about major surgery between patients, their carers/families and clinicians; followed by up to 90 interviews (with the same patient, carer and clinician participants) immediately after a decision has been made and again 3-6 months later. Phase 2 involves focus groups with a wider group of (up to 90) patients and (up to 30) clinicians to test out emerging findings and inform development of shared decision making scenarios (3-5 summary descriptions of how decisions are made). Ethics and dissemination The study forms the first part in a 6-year programme of research, Optimising Shared decision-making for high-Risk major Surgery (OSIRIS). Ethical challenges around involving patients at a challenging time in their lives will be overseen by the programme steering committee, which includes strong patient representation and a lay chair. In addition to academic outputs, we will produce a typology of decision making scenarios for major surgery to feed back to patients, professionals and service providers and inform subsequent work in the OSIRIS programme.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] Community Health Teams: a qualitative study about the factors influencing the decision-making process
    Natkin, Lisa W.
    van den Broek-Altenburg, Eline
    Benson, Jamie S.
    Atherly, Adam
    [J]. BMC HEALTH SERVICES RESEARCH, 2023, 23 (01)
  • [42] Community Health Teams: a qualitative study about the factors influencing the decision-making process
    Lisa W. Natkin
    Eline van den Broek-Altenburg
    Jamie S. Benson
    Adam Atherly
    [J]. BMC Health Services Research, 23
  • [43] Patients' and clinicians' preferences in adjuvant treatment for high-risk endometrial cancer: Implications for shared decision making
    Post, Cathalijne C. B.
    Mens, Jan Willem M.
    Haverkort, Marie A. D.
    Koppe, Friederike
    Jurgenliemk-Schulz, Ina M.
    Snyers, An
    Roeloffzen, Ellen M. A.
    Schaake, Eva E.
    Slot, Annerie
    Stam, Tanja C.
    Beukema, Jannet C.
    van den Berg, Hetty A.
    Lutgens, Ludy C. H. W.
    Nijman, Hans W.
    de Kroon, Cornelis D.
    Kroep, Judith R.
    Stiggelbout, Anne M.
    Creutzberg, Carien L.
    [J]. GYNECOLOGIC ONCOLOGY, 2021, 161 (03) : 727 - 733
  • [44] Shared Decision Making: A Qualitative Exploration of Clinical Nurse Specialists in Gastroenterology
    Lukose, T.
    Forry, M.
    Lardner, C.
    Toole, A. O.
    Boland, K.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CROHNS & COLITIS, 2024, 18 : I2212 - I2212
  • [45] An Analysis of the Decision-Making Process After "Decision not to Operate" in Acutely Unwell, High-Risk General Surgery Patients
    Pinto-Lopes, Rui
    Thahir, Azeem
    Halahakoon, V. Chandima
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HOSPICE & PALLIATIVE MEDICINE, 2020, 37 (08): : 632 - 635
  • [47] New resources for understanding patients' values in the context of shared clinical decision-making
    Fulford, Kenneth W. M.
    Handa, Ashok
    [J]. WORLD PSYCHIATRY, 2021, 20 (03) : 446 - 447
  • [48] The shared decision-making model: Providers' and patients' knowledge and understanding in clinical practice
    Baca-Dietz, Debbie
    Wojnar, Danuta M.
    Espina, Christine R.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSE PRACTITIONERS, 2021, 33 (07) : 529 - 536
  • [49] A Multidisciplinary High-Risk Surgery Committee May Improve Perioperative Decision Making for Patients and Physicians
    Jones, Teresa S.
    Jones, Edward L.
    Barnett, Carlton C., Jr.
    Moore, John T.
    Wikiel, Krzysztof J.
    Horney, Carolyn P.
    Unruh, Morgan
    Levy, Cari R.
    Robinson, Thomas N.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF PALLIATIVE MEDICINE, 2021, 24 (12) : 1863 - 1866
  • [50] High-risk patients who do not proceed to surgery: assessment and decision-making processes
    Simpson, A.
    Hoskins, S.
    Wilson, H.
    Duffen, A.
    [J]. ANAESTHESIA, 2023, 78 : 43 - 43