Dataset Information

The role of older patients' goals in GP decision-making about medicines: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To optimise medication use in older people, it is recommended that clinicians evaluate evidence on potential benefits and harms of medicines in light of the patients' overall health, values and goals. This suggests general practitioners (GPs) should attempt to facilitate patient involvement in decision-making. In practice this is often challenging. In this qualitative study, we explored GPs' perspectives on the importance of discussing patients' goals and preferences, and the role patient preferences play in medicines management and prioritisation.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs from Australia (n =?32). Participants were purposively sampled to recruit GPs with variation in experience level and geographic location. Transcribed audio-recordings of interviews were coded using Framework Analysis.

Results

The results showed that most GPs recognised some value in understanding older patients' goals and preferences regarding their medicines. Most reported some discussions of goals and preferences with patients, but often this was initiated by the patient. Practical barriers were reported such as limited time during busy consultations to discuss issues beyond acute problems. GPs differed on the following main themes: 1) definition and perception of patients' goals, 2) relationship with the patient, 3) approach to medicines management and prioritisation. We observed that GPs preferred one of three different practice patterns in their approach to patients' goals in medicines decisions: 1) goals and preferences considered lower priority - 'Directive'; 2) goals seen as central - 'Goal-oriented'; 3) goals and preferences considered but not explicitly elicited - 'Tacit'.

Conclusions

This study explores how GPs differ in their approach to eliciting patients' goals and preferences, and how these differences are operationalised in the context of older adults taking multiple medicines. Although there are challenges in providing care that aligns with patients' goals and preferences, this study shows how complex decisions are made between GPs and their older patients in clinical practice. This work may inform future research that investigates how GPs can best incorporate the priorities of older people in decision-making around medicines. Developing practical support strategies may assist clinicians to involve patients in discussions about their medicines.

SUBMITTER: Weir KR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7796626 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The role of older patients' goals in GP decision-making about medicines: a qualitative study.

Weir Kristie Rebecca KR Naganathan Vasi V Carter Stacy M SM Tam Chun Wah Michael CWM McCaffery Kirsten K Bonner Carissa C Rigby Debbie D McLachlan Andrew J AJ Jansen Jesse J

BMC family practice 20210108 1

<h4>Background</h4>To optimise medication use in older people, it is recommended that clinicians evaluate evidence on potential benefits and harms of medicines in light of the patients' overall health, values and goals. This suggests general practitioners (GPs) should attempt to facilitate patient involvement in decision-making. In practice this is often challenging. In this qualitative study, we explored GPs' perspectives on the importance of discussing patients' goals and preferences, and the ...[more]

PMID: 33419389

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making (SDM) is widely recommended and required by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid for patients considering lung cancer screening (LCS).ObjectiveWe examined clinicians' communication practices and perceived barriers of SDM for LCS at three medical centers with established screening programs.DesignMulticenter qualitative study of clinicians participating in LCS.ApproachWe performed semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed and analyzed using directed content analysis, guided by a theoretical model of patient-clinician communication.ParticipantsWe interviewed 24 clinicians including LCS coordinators (2), pulmonologists (3), and primary care providers (17), 4 of whom worked for the LCS program, a thoracic surgeon, and a radiologist.ResultsAll clinicians agreed with the goal of SDM, to ensure the screening decision was congruent with the patient's values. The depth and type of information presented by each clinician role varied considerably. LCS coordinators presented detailed information including numeric estimates of benefit and harm. Most PCPs explained the process more generally, focusing on logistics and the high rate of nodule detection. No clinician explicitly elicited values or communication preferences. Many PCPs tailored the conversation based on their implicit understanding of patients' values and preferences, gained from past experiences. PCPs reported that time, lack of detailed personal knowledge of LCS, and patient preferences were barriers to SDM. Many clinicians perceived that a significant proportion of patients were not interested in specific percentages and preferred to receive a clinician recommendation.ConclusionsOur results suggest that clinicians support the goal of SDM for LCS decisions but PCPs may not perform some of its elements. The lack of completion of some elements, such as PCPs' lack of in-depth information exchange, may reflect perceived patient preferences for communication. As LCS is implemented, further research is needed to support a personalized, patient-centered approach to produce better outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundEffective management of metastatic disease requires multidisciplinary input and entails high risk of disease-related and treatment-related morbidity and mortality. The factors that influence clinician decision-making around spinal metastases are not well understood. We conducted a qualitative study that included a multidisciplinary cohort of physicians to evaluate the decision-making process for treatment of spinal metastases from the clinician's perspective.MethodsWe recruited operative and nonoperative clinicians, including orthopaedic spine surgeons, neurosurgeons, radiation oncologists, and physiatrists, from across North America to participate in either a focus group or a semistructured interview. All interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. We then performed a thematic analysis using all of the available transcript data. Investigators sequentially coded transcripts and identified recurring themes that encompass overarching patterns in the data and directly bear on the guiding study question. This was followed by the development of a thematic map that visually portrays the themes, the subthemes, and their interrelatedness, as well as their influence on treatment decision-making.ResultsThe thematic analysis revealed that numerous factors influence provider-based decision-making for patients with spinal metastases, including clinical elements of the disease process, treatment guidelines, patient preferences, and the dynamics of the multidisciplinary care team. The most prominent feature that resonated across all of the interviews was the importance of multidisciplinary care and the necessity of cohesion among a team of diverse health-care providers. Respondents emphasized aspects of care-team dynamics, including effective communication and intimate knowledge of team-member preferences, as necessary for the development of appropriate treatment strategies. Participants maintained that the primary role in decision-making should remain with the patient.ConclusionsNumerous factors influence provider-based decision-making for patients with spinal metastases, including multidisciplinary team dynamics, business pressure, and clinician experience. Participants maintained a focus on shared decision-making with patients, which contrasts with patient preferences to defer decisions to the physician, as described in prior work.Clinical relevanceThe results of this thematic analysis document the numerous factors that influence provider-based decision-making for patients with spinal metastases. Our results indicate that provider decisions regarding treatment are influenced by a combination of clinical characteristics, perceptions of patient quality of life, and the patient's preferences for care.

Project description:BackgroundEffective interpersonal communication is critical for shared decision-making (SDM). Previous SDM communication training in nephrology has lacked context-specific evidence from ethnographic analysis of SDM interactions with older patients considering treatment options of end stage kidney disease (ESKD). This study explores communication strategies in SDM discussions in nephrology, specifically focusing on older patients considering dialysis as kidney replacement therapy (KRT).MethodsWe conducted a qualitative study analysing naturally-occurring audio-recorded clinical interactions (n = 12) between Australian kidney doctors, patients aged 60+, and carers. Linguistic ethnography and qualitative socially-oriented functional approaches were used for analysis.ResultsTwo types of communication strategies emerged: (1) Managing and advancing treatment decisions: involving active checking of knowledge, clear explanations of options, and local issue resolution. (2) Pulling back: Deferring or delaying decisions through mixed messaging. Specifically for non-English speaking patients, pulling back was further characterised by communication challenges deferring decision-making including ineffective issue management, and reliance on family as interpreters. Age was not an explicit topic of discussion among participants when it came to making decisions about KRT but was highly relevant to treatment decision-making. Doctors appeared reluctant to broach non-dialysis conservative management, even when it appears clinically appropriate. Conservative care, an alternative to KRT suitable for older patients with co-morbidities, was only explicitly discussed when prompted by patients or carers.ConclusionsThe findings highlight the impact of different communication strategies on SDM discussions in nephrology. This study calls for linguistic-informed contextualised communication training and provides foundational evidence for nephrology-specific communication skills training in SDM for KRT among older patients. There is urgent need for doctors to become confident and competent in discussing non-dialysis conservative management. Further international research should explore naturally-occurring SDM interactions in nephrology with other vulnerable groups to enhance evidence and training integration.

Project description: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.

Dataset Information

The role of older patients' goals in GP decision-making about medicines: a qualitative study.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

The role of older patients' goals in GP decision-making about medicines: a qualitative study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets