Patient participation, decision-makers and information flow in surgical treatment

Roles and competencies of nurses and physicians in shared decision-making in cardiac surgery: A scoping review

AIM

Identification and synthesis of research data related to the roles and competencies of physicians and nurses that are prerequisites for careful shared decision-making with patients potentially undergoing cardiac surgery.

DESIGN

A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology for scoping reviews and the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched from inception dates up to March 2022, to identify primary studies published in a peer-reviewed journal. Study selection, assessment of the methodological quality and data extracting of the included studies were done by at least two independent researchers. To describe the findings of the studies, an emergent synthesis approach was used to visualize a descriptive representation of professional roles and competencies in shared decision-making, in an overview.

RESULTS

The systematic search revealed 10,055 potential papers, 8873 articles were screened on title and abstract and 76 full texts were retrieved. Eight articles were included for final evaluation. For nurses and physicians, 26 different skills were identified in the literature to practice shared decision-making in cardiac surgery. The skills that emerged were divided into five professional roles: moderator; health educator; data collector; psychological supporter and translator.

CONCLUSIONS

This review specifies the professional roles and required competencies related to shared decision-making in cardiac surgery. Further research is needed to compare our findings with other clinical areas and from there to arrive at a professional division of roles between the different clinical disciplines involved.

IMPACT

The visualization of generic shared decision-making competencies and roles should establish the professional division of positions between various clinical physician and nurse disciplines in order to create a treatment plan based on evidence, values, preferences and the patient's personal situation.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution.

Patient engagement in perioperative settings: A mixed method systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient engagement has emerged as a key focus in the research literature to facilitate patients' recovery. The term is commonly used by researchers, yet without working definitions. This lack of clarity is further complicated by the interchangeable use of a few terms.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed at identifying how patient engagement was conceptualised and operationalised in perioperative settings.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library were searched for publications in English discussing patient engagement during the perioperative phase. Three reviewers conducted study selection and methodological assessment using Joanna Briggs Institute mixed methods review framework. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyse qualitative data and descriptive analysis for quantitative data.

FINDINGS

Twenty-nine studies were included with a total sample of 6289. Study types included qualitative (n = 14) and quantitative (n = 15) with different types of surgery. Sample sizes ranged from n = 7 to n = 1315. Only 38% (n = 11) of included studies offered an explicit definition. Four themes associated with operationalisation included provision of information, which was most studied theme, communication, decision-making and action-taking behaviours. All four themes were interconnected and co-dependent on each other.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient engagement in perioperative settings is a complex and multifaceted concept. The conceptual void in the literature calls for more theoretically informed and comprehensive approaches to researching surgical patient engagement. Future research should aim to better understand the factors that influence patient engagement, as well as the impact of different forms of engagement on patient outcomes through the whole surgical journey of a patient.

Staff experiences of encountering and treating outpatients with substance use disorder in the psychiatric context: a qualitative study

Background

High comorbidity exists between mental illness and substance use disorders (SUD). Patients in psychiatry living with problematic alcohol or drug consumption can experience a sense of exclusion, where seeking help for SUD can be perceived as stigmatizing. The aim of this study is to illuminate staff experiences of encountering patients with SUD within the psychiatric outpatient context.

Methods

The study was exploratory, with a qualitative design. Interviews with outpatient psychiatry managers and focus groups with clinical staff focused on the experience of encountering patients with SUD. Data were evaluated using content analysis inspired by phenomenological-hermeneutic methodology.

Results

Three themes were identified and each illuminated by two sub-themes. Bridging the organizational gap included sub-themes of having an established collaboration and facing difficulties in the collaboration; Having beliefs about the patient you encounter included sub-themes of working with patients who are exposed to prejudicial thoughts and expressing prejudicial thoughts about the patient. Striving to achieve a therapeutic alliance included sub-themes of having a feeling of developing together and supporting the patient towards recovery.

Conclusion

A life-world perspective, used to interpret results, indicated that caring for patients with SUD in psychiatry was perceived as difficult, where collaboration between psychiatry and addiction care was often experienced as problematic. Based on these findings, we believe that the current gap between the psychiatry and addiction care could be reduced to some extent by offering patients digital treatment for SUD. In this way, patients could remain under the care of their regular psychiatric clinic without having to physically visit SUD services. Thus, a virtual bridge could be established to bring psychiatry and addiction care closer to each other for the patients’ benefit.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13722-021-00235-9.

Shared decision making in surgery: a scoping review of patient and surgeon preferences

Background

Many suggest that shared decision-making (SDM) is the most effective approach to clinical counseling. It is unclear if this applies to surgical decision-making-especially regarding urgent, highly-morbid operations. In this scoping review, we identify articles that address patient and surgeon preferences toward SDM in surgery.

Methods

We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) to develop our protocol. Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception through 11.2017. Title/abstract review identified peer-reviewed, empirical articles that addressed patient/surgeon preferences toward SDM in surgery. Identified articles underwent full review by two independent investigators. We addressed the following questions: (1) What is known from existing empirical evidence about patients’ and/or surgeons’ surgical decision-making preferences? (2) Why might patients and/or surgeons prefer SDM? (3) Does acuity of intervention impact surgical decision-making preferences? Outcome measures included study methods, surgical specialty, diagnosis, study location/setting, type/number of subjects, acuity of intervention, surgeon/patient decision-making preferences, and factors associated with favoring SDM. Data was analyzed in Microsoft Excel.

Results

20,359 articles were identified with 4988 duplicates, yielding 15,371 articles for title/abstract review. 74 articles were included in final analysis. 68% of articles discussed oncologic decision-making. 46% of these focused on breast cancer. 92% of articles included patients, 22% included surgeons. 75% of articles found surgeons favored SDM, 25% demonstrated surgeons favored surgeon guidance. 54% of articles demonstrated patients favored SDM, 35% showed patients favored surgeon guidance, 11% showed patients preferred independent decision-making. The most common factors for patients favoring SDM included female gender, higher education, and younger age. For surgeons, the most common factors for favoring SDM included limited evidence for a given treatment plan, multiple treatment options, and impact on patient lifestyle. No articles evaluated decision-making preferences in an emergent setting.

Conclusions

There has been limited evaluation of patient and surgeon preferences toward SDM in surgical decision-making. Generally, patients and surgeons expressed preference toward SDM. None of the articles evaluated decision-making preferences in an emergent setting, so assessment of the impact of acuity on decision-making preferences is limited. Extension of research to complex, emergent clinical settings is needed.

Defining Patient Engagement in Research: Results of a Systematic Review and Analysis: Report of the ISPOR Patient-Centered Special Interest Group

OBJECTIVES

Lack of clarity on the definition of "patient engagement" has been highlighted as a barrier to fully implementing patient engagement in research. This study identified themes within existing definitions related to patient engagement and proposes a consensus definition of "patient engagement in research."

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify definitions of patient engagement and related terms in published literature (2006-2018). Definitions were extracted and qualitatively analyzed to identify themes and characteristics. A multistakeholder approach, including academia, industry, and patient representation, was taken at all stages. A proposed definition is offered based on a synthesis of the findings.

RESULTS

Of 1821 abstracts identified and screened for eligibility, 317 were selected for full-text review. Of these, 169 articles met inclusion criteria, from which 244 distinct definitions were extracted for analysis. The most frequently defined terms were: "patient-centered" (30.5%), "patient engagement" (15.5%), and "patient participation" (13.4%). The majority of definitions were specific to the healthcare delivery setting (70.5%); 11.9% were specific to research. Among the definitions of "patient engagement," the most common themes were "active process," "patient involvement," and "patient as participant." In the research setting, the top themes were "patient as partner," "patient involvement," and "active process"; these did not appear in the top 3 themes of nonresearch definitions.

CONCLUSION

Distinct themes are associated with the term "patient engagement" and with engagement in the "research" setting. Based on an analysis of existing literature and review by patient, industry, and academic stakeholders, we propose a scalable consensus definition of "patient engagement in research."

The evaluation of nursing students by patients instrument (ENSPA): Development and validation

BACKGROUND

Patient participation is increasingly used in different aspects of healthcare due to its positive outcomes. Still, instruments for involving patients in the evaluation of nursing students during their internship are scarce.

OBJECTIVES

To develop and validate an instrument that enables patients to evaluate nursing students during their internship.

DESIGN AND METHODS

A 3-phased validation process was conducted: (1) development of an instrument through literature and patient interviews; (2) content and response process validation by use of cognitive interviews and pilot-testing; (3) testing construct validity and reliability of the instrument which was completed by 244 hospitalized patients.

SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS

Patients from a variety of wards in a general hospital were recruited for the different phases. In phase 1, 17 interviews and 47 thought shower sessions with patients were performed. In phase 2, 9 cognitive interviews and pilot testing by 4 patients evaluating actual nursing students were used to refine the instrument. In phase 3, 380 patients were eligible to participate. Of these patients, 317 completed the instrument. A sample of 244 completed instruments was useful to perform the psychometric analyses. To assess the test-retest reliability, 50 patients completed the instrument twice with a 4 hour time interval.

RESULTS

The 19-item Evaluation of Nursing Students by Patients instrument (ENSPa) is designed. The ENSPa-instrument comprises 7 items that assess whether the patient can place trust in the student, 5 items evaluating person-oriented skills, 4 items appraising caring and 3 items to grade the integrity and honesty of the nursing students. Each item is scored both for importance and rating. The instrument shows high reliability and consistency ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

The ENSPa-instrument is a valuable instrument for collecting data on the performance and skills of nursing students during their internship from the patient's perspective. By receiving structured feedback from patients, important learning opportunities are created for nursing students.

Patients’ perceptions and preferences of participation in nursing care

The aim of this study was to investigate patients’ perceptions and preferences of their participation in nursing care during hospitalisation in Greece. The sample consisted of medical and surgical patients ( n = 300). A questionnaire was developed to measure patients’ perception of participation, including an open question and the control preference scale. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used for quantitative data analysis and content analysis for qualitative data. Participation was described as ‘information receiving and responsibility’ and ‘ability to influence’. One-third of the respondents preferred a collaborative role with the nurses, while 77.2% rationalised patient participation with the themes ‘strengthening patient’s role’, ‘improve hospitalisation’ and ‘collaborative relationship’. The meaning of participation seems to support shared information, patient responsibility and motivation during nursing care. Patients were aware of the positive effects of their involvement in care and were willing to assume, at least to some extent, an active role in their own care. Changes in nursing care organisation, nurses’ communication skills and additional educational strategies need to be developed and implemented in clinical practice to optimise patient participation.

Thai Nurses' experiences of post-operative pain assessment and its' influence on pain management decisions

Background

While many studies have addressed various issues with regards to pain management, there is limited knowledge about how nurses assess pain in surgical wards. This study aimed to describe Thai nurses’ experiences of pain assessment in a surgical ward.

Methods

A cross-sectional explorative study was conducted. Participants were selected through theoretical sampling. Data was collected through interviews with twelve registered nurses working in surgical wards. Qualitative content analysis guided the analysis of the data.

Results

Nurses use a double/triple check system, communicated to the healthcare team via records and protocols, and they used their skills and experiences in pain assessment. The results showed that nurses missed the opportunity to include the patients’ self-reported pain in their accounts. Though much evidence of pain was collected, this did not seem to benefit the patients. Furthermore, the nurses were not using instruments to measure pain, which illustrates the potential unreliability of professionals who have differing opinions concerning the patients’ pain.

Conclusions

Thai nurses worked based on a ‘patient-evidence’ paradigm when assessing patients in pain; this should be shifted to an evidence-based paradigm. Furthermore, by including the patients’ self-reported pain in their assessment, nurses would both improve the quality of the pain assessment and empower patients in their pain management. Pain management practices in Thailand should be improved through education, training, supportive innovation, and collegial competence development in order to improve the quality of care in the post-operative field.