首页> 外文OA文献 >The Physician-as-Stakeholder: An Exploratory Qualitative Analysis of Physicians\u27 Motivations for Using Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department
【2h】

The Physician-as-Stakeholder: An Exploratory Qualitative Analysis of Physicians\u27 Motivations for Using Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department

机译:作为利益相关者的医生:医生在急诊室使用共享决策的动机的探索性定性分析

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) is increasingly recognized as an important facet of patient-centered care. Despite growing interest in SDM in the emergency department (ED), little is known about emergency physicians\u27 (EPs\u27) motivations for using SDM. Understanding current patterns of SDM use and EP\u27s rationale for using SDM is essential for the development of interventions to increase use.OBJECTIVES: Recognizing the EP as an important stakeholder in SDM research, we sought to identify and explore factors that may motivate EPs\u27 engagement in SDM.METHODS: In this qualitative study, informed by the Theory of Planned Behavior and Social Cognitive Theory, we conducted semistructured interviews with a purposeful sample of EPs. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Using a directed qualitative content analysis approach, three members of the research team performed open coding of the transcripts in an iterative process, building a provisional code book as coding progressed. Respondent validation was employed to ensure methodologic rigor.RESULTS: Fifteen EPs, ages 31-65, from both academic and community practice settings, were interviewed. Several had not heard of the specific phrase \u22shared decision making,\u22 but all understood the concept and felt that they used SDM techniques to some degree. Most noted they had often had an agenda when they used SDM, which often motivated them to have the conversation. Agendas described included counteracting an algorithmic or defensive approach to diagnosis and treatment, avoiding harmful tests, or sharing uncertainty. All participants believed that patients benefited from SDM in terms of satisfaction, engagement, or education. Nearly all participants identified research outcomes that they felt would encourage their use of SDM (e.g., improvements in patient engagement, mitigation of risk) and many prioritized patient-centered outcomes over systems outcomes such as improved resource utilization. Little consensus was seen, however, regarding the importance of individual outcomes: of eight potential research outcomes participants endorsed, no single outcome was endorsed by even half of the physicians interviewed.CONCLUSION: Emergency physicians identified many factors that motivated them to use SDM. This study informs current research on SDM in the ED, particularly regarding the motivations of the physician-as-stakeholder.
机译:背景:共享决策(SDM)越来越被认为是以患者为中心的护理的重要方面。尽管急诊科(ED)对SDM的兴趣日益浓厚,但对于急诊医师使用SDM的动机知之甚少。了解SDM使用的当前模式和EP使用SDM的基本原理对于开发增加使用的干预措施至关重要。目标:认识到EP是SDM研究的重要利益相关者,我们寻求确定和探索可能激发EP的因素\ u27参与SDM方法:在这项定性研究中,以计划行为理论和社会认知理论为基础,我们对有目的的EP进行了半结构化访谈。记录访谈并逐字记录。使用定向的定性内容分析方法,研究团队的三名成员在迭代过程中对成绩单进行了公开编码,在编码过程中建立了一个临时代码簿。结果:对来自学术和社区实践背景的15名EP(年龄在31-65岁之间)进行了访谈。一些人没有听说过特定的短语“共同决策”,但所有人都理解了这一概念,并认为他们在某种程度上使用了SDM技术。多数人指出,当他们使用SDM时常常有一个议程,这常常激励他们进行对话。描述的议程包括抵消诊断或治疗的算法或防御方法,避免有害测试或共享不确定性。所有参与者都认为,患者在满意度,参与度或教育方面都受益于SDM。几乎所有参与者都确定了他们认为会鼓励他们使用SDM的研究成果(例如,改善患者参与度,降低风险)以及许多以患者为中心的成果优先于系统成果(例如改善资源利用)。然而,关于个体结局的重要性,人们尚未达成共识:在八名潜在的研究结局参与者中,只有一半的受访医生认可了单个结局。结论:急诊医生发现了许多促使他们使用SDM的因素。这项研究为急诊科中有关SDM的当前研究提供了信息,特别是有关作为利益相关者的医师动机的研究。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

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