...
首页> 外文期刊>European journal of anaesthesiology >Shared decision-making for postoperative analgesia
【24h】

Shared decision-making for postoperative analgesia

机译:术后镇痛的共同决策

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text BACKGROUND Shared decision-making (SDM) and decision-support tools have attracted broad support in healthcare as they improve medical decision-making. Experts disagree on how these can help patients evaluate their present situation and possible outcomes of therapy, and how they might reduce decisional conflict. Little is known about their implementation, especially in anaesthesiology. OBJECTIVE To obtain a more fundamental understanding of pre-operative SDM and evaluate the use of a decision-support tool for postoperative analgesia after major thoracic and abdominal surgery. DESIGN A qualitative study with semistructured, in-depth interviews of patients and professionals. SETTING Patient recruitment took place at the Radboud University Medical Centre in Nijmegen and the Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital in Nijmegen, a nonacademic teaching centre. Professionals of the Radboud University Medical Centre were invited to participate in the interviews. PARTICIPANTS Interviews were performed with 10 individual patients and two focus groups both consisting of eight different professionals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES To gain insight into the provision of pre-operative information, decision-making processes and the clarity and usability of a prototype decision-support tool. RESULTS Professionals seemed to provide their patients with information directed towards the application of epidural analgesia, providing little attention to its negative effects. For many patients, the information was not tailored to their needs. Patients’ involvement in decision-making was minimal, but they did not feel a need for more involvement. They were positive about the decision-support tool, although they indicated that it would not have influenced their treatment decision. Professionals expressed their doubt about the capacity of their patients to fully understand the decisions involved and about the clinical usability of the decision-support tool, because patients might misinterpret the information provided. CONCLUSION The results of this study suggest that both patients and professionals did not adhere to some ‘self-evident’ principles of SDM when postoperative analgesia after major thoracic and abdominal surgery was discussed.
机译:文本背景共享决策(SDM)和决策支持工具在医疗决策时吸引了广泛的支持,这些数字内容可用。专家不同意这些如何帮助患者评估他们目前的情况和可能的治疗结果,以及它们如何减少毁灭性冲突。对他们的实施毫无疑问,特别是在麻醉学中。目的了解对术前SDM的更基本的理解,并评估主要胸部和腹部手术后术后镇痛的决策支持工具的使用。设计了患者和专业人员的半结构,深入访谈的定性研究。在Nijmegen的Radboud University Center和Nijmegen的坎默里奥威廉纳米纳医院进行患者招聘,是一个非遗传学教学中心。 Radboud大学医疗中心的专业人士被邀请参加面试。参与者面试是用10名患者和两个不同专业人士组成的两个患者和两个焦点小组进行的。主要结果措施,以了解提供预审信息,决策过程以及原型决策支持工具的透明度和明确和可用性。结果专业人员似乎为他们的患者提供了针对硬膜外镇痛的应用的信息,从而提请对其负面影响的关注。对于许多患者来说,信息并未对其需求量身定制。患者参与决策是最小的,但他们没有觉得需要更多的参与。他们对决策支持工具是积极的,尽管他们表明它不会影响他们的治疗决定。专业人士对患者充分了解所涉及的决定以及决策支持工具的临床可用性的能力表示怀疑,因为患者可能会误解所提供的信息。结论本研究的结果表明,当讨论主要胸部和腹部手术后,患者和专业人员在术后镇痛时,患者和专业人士都没有遵守SDM的一些“不言而喻”的原则。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号