Pursuing concordance: moving away from paternalism

Sharing decision-making between the older person and the nurse: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Sharing decision-making is globally recognised as an important concept in healthcare research, policy, education and practice which enhances person-centred care. However, it is becoming increasingly evident shared decision-making has not been successfully translated into everyday healthcare practice. Sharing decision-making has strong links with person-centred practice. Core to person-centredness and shared decision making, is the need to recognise that as we age, greater reliance is placed on emotion and life experience to inform decision making processes. With the world's ageing population, older persons facing more complex decisions and transitions of care, it is more important than ever it is understood how shared decision-making occurs.

OBJECTIVES

This scoping literature review aims to find out how sharing decision making between nurses and older persons in healthcare settings is understood and presented in published literature.

METHODS

This scoping review utilised the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework, advanced by Levac et al. Electronic databases and grey literature were searched, returning 362 records which were examined against defined inclusion criteria. Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR).

RESULTS

Twenty-two records met inclusion criteria for the review. Results indicate while shared decision-making is included in research, education and policy literature, it has not been effectively translated to inform practice and the relationship between a nurse and an older person. The records lack definitions of shared decision-making and theoretical or philosophical underpinnings. There is also no consideration of emotion and life experience in decision-making and how nurses 'do' shared decision-making with older persons.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings demonstrate sharing decision-making between nurses and older persons is not well understood in the literature, and therefore is not translated into nursing practice. Further research is needed.

Shared decision-making interventions for people with mental health conditions

BACKGROUND

One person in every four will suffer from a diagnosable mental health condition during their life. Such conditions can have a devastating impact on the lives of the individual and their family, as well as society.  International healthcare policy makers have increasingly advocated and enshrined partnership models of mental health care. Shared decision-making (SDM) is one such partnership approach. Shared decision-making is a form of service user-provider communication where both parties are acknowledged to bring expertise to the process and work in partnership to make a decision.  This review assesses whether SDM interventions improve a range of outcomes. This is the first update of this Cochrane Review, first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of SDM interventions for people of all ages with mental health conditions, directed at people with mental health conditions, carers, or healthcare professionals, on a range of outcomes including: clinical outcomes, participation/involvement in decision-making process (observations on the process of SDM; user-reported, SDM-specific outcomes of encounters), recovery, satisfaction, knowledge, treatment/medication continuation, health service outcomes, and adverse outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran searches in January 2020 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (2009 to January 2020). We also searched trial registers and the bibliographies of relevant papers, and contacted authors of included studies.  We updated the searches in February 2022. When we identified studies as potentially relevant, we labelled these as studies awaiting classification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-randomised controlled trials, of SDM interventions in people with mental health conditions (by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD) criteria).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review included 13 new studies, for a total of 15 RCTs. Most participants were adults with severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder, in higher-income countries. None of the studies included children or adolescents.  Primary outcomes We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve clinical outcomes, such as psychiatric symptoms, depression, anxiety, and readmission, compared with control due to very low-certainty evidence. For readmission, we conducted subgroup analysis between studies that used usual care and those that used cognitive training in the control group. There were no subgroup differences. Regarding participation (by the person with the mental health condition) or level of involvement in the decision-making process, we are uncertain if SDM interventions improve observations on the process of SDM compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence. On the other hand, SDM interventions may improve SDM-specific user-reported outcomes from encounters immediately after intervention compared with no intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.01; 3 studies, 534 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there was insufficient evidence for sustained participation or involvement in the decision-making processes. Secondary outcomes We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve recovery compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence. We are uncertain if SDM interventions improve users' overall satisfaction. However, one study (241 participants) showed that SDM interventions probably improve some aspects of users' satisfaction with received information compared with no intervention: information given was rated as helpful (risk ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.65); participants expressed a strong desire to receive information this way for other treatment decisions (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.68); and strongly recommended the information be shared with others in this way (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.58). The evidence was of moderate certainty for these outcomes. However, this same study reported there may be little or no effect on amount or clarity of information, while another small study reported there may be little or no change in carer satisfaction with the SDM intervention. The effects of healthcare professional satisfaction were mixed: SDM interventions may have little or no effect on healthcare professional satisfaction when measured continuously, but probably improve healthcare professional satisfaction when assessed categorically. We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve knowledge, treatment continuation assessed through clinic visits, medication continuation, carer participation, and the relationship between users and healthcare professionals because of very low-certainty evidence. Regarding length of consultation, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect compared with no intervention (SDM 0.09, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.41; 2 studies, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). On the other hand, we are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve length of hospital stay due to very low-certainty evidence. There were no adverse effects on health outcomes and no other adverse events reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review update suggests that people exposed to SDM interventions may perceive greater levels of involvement immediately after an encounter compared with those in control groups. Moreover, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect on the length of consultations.  Overall we found that most evidence was of low or very low certainty, meaning there is a generally low level of certainty about the effects of SDM interventions based on the studies assembled thus far. There is a need for further research in this area.

Grounded theory qualitative approach from Foucault's ethical perspective: Deconstruction of patient self-determination in the clinical setting

This paper aims to explain the construction of the autonomous subject from Foucault's ethical perspective for the qualitative analysis of interprofessional relationships, patient-professional relationships, and moral ethics critique. Foucault tried to break loose from the self, which is merely the result of a biopolitical subjectivation and constituted an interpersonal level. From this, different elements involved in the decision-making capacity of patients in a clinical setting were analysed. Firstly, the context in which decision-making occurs has been explained, distinguishing between traditional practices involved in self-care and the more modern conceptions that make certain possible transformations. Secondly, an attempt is made to explain the formation of the medicalisation of society using the transformations of what Foucault called "techniques of the self". Finally, the ethical framework for a subject's "self-creation", insisting more on the exercises of self-subjectivation, reinforcing the ethics of the self by itself, the "care of the self", has been explained. The role of the patient is understood as an autonomous subject to the extent that the clinical institution and the professionals involved comprehend how the patient's autonomy in the clinical environment is constituted. All these elements could generate grounded theory on the qualitative methodology of this phenomenon. The current ethical model based on universal principles is not useful to provide a capacity for patients decision-making, relegating to the background their opinions and beliefs. Consequently, a new ethical perspective emerges that aims to return the patient to the fundamental axis of attention.

The Mental Capacity Act: 'Best interests'-a review of the literature

The Mental Capacity Act (MCA) is statutory legislation introduced in 2007 in order to provide a consistent, robust framework with the aim to protect and empower people to make decisions themselves. However, an assessment as per the MCA may demonstrate that a person is lacking mental capacity and therefore unable to make an autonomous decision at the time it needs to be made. In this case, a 'best interests' decision may be made on their behalf, ensuring their wishes and beliefs are at the centre of the decision-making process. When making a best interests decision, a health practitioner must follow the guidance as set out in the MCA legislation to ensure fair and consistent approaches to safeguard and provide assurance that the outcome is truly the best decision for the individual. This review of the literature supports the findings of a 2014 post-legislative review by the House of Lords, which concluded the principles of the MCA are not sufficiently embedded into the practice of all health practitioners, due to a lack of knowledge, awareness and understanding. However, the evidence base also appreciates making a decision on behalf of another person can be a stressful, complex and intricate process when further support may be required from the wider multidisciplinary team, including potentially seeking legal advice.

What's in a name? Concordance is better than adherence for promoting partnership and self-management of chronic disease

The choice of language health professionals use to discuss self-management of chronic disease is important and influences patients' self-management. The words compliance, adherence and concordance are used to discuss patients' agreement with prescribed treatment plans, but have different tone and meanings. Models of care linked to the words compliance and adherence are underpinned by interactions between patients and healthcare providers that merely reinforce instructions about treatments. The 'patient-professional partnership' is introduced as a model by Bodenheimer et al. (2002, p. 2469) whereby true partnership working should be an opportunity to pool the expertise of both parties to arrive at mutually agreed goals in concordance. The impact these words might have on partnership working is important in defining the patient-health professional relationship, and for the patients' healthcare outcomes and the potential effect on healthcare utilisation.

Awake and unable to move: what can perioperative practitioners do to avoid accidental awareness under general anaesthesia?

I thought the last thing I would remember about my surgery was counting up to 10 ... but that didn't happen... I could hear people talking, instruments banging, the sound of my heart beat coming from the anaesthetic machine and all of a sudden, that horrible pain digging inside my body. Oh my God! I thought. I'm awake! I tried to tell someone but no sound came out of my mouth. I tried to kick my legs, shake my arms, blink, breathe... Nothing!! I couldn't move a muscle. I was paralysed and awake during my operation... I thought I was going to die!!!