Cargando…

Experiences of shared decision-making in community rehabilitation: a focused ethnography

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) can advance patient satisfaction, understanding, goal fulfilment, and patient-reported outcomes. We lack clarity on whether this physician-focused literature applies to community rehabilitation, and on the integration of SDM policies in healthcare settings. W...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Manhas, Kiran Pohar, Olson, Karin, Churchill, Katie, Vohra, Sunita, Wasylak, Tracy
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7168887/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32306972
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05223-4
_version_ 1783523734920888320
author Manhas, Kiran Pohar
Olson, Karin
Churchill, Katie
Vohra, Sunita
Wasylak, Tracy
author_facet Manhas, Kiran Pohar
Olson, Karin
Churchill, Katie
Vohra, Sunita
Wasylak, Tracy
author_sort Manhas, Kiran Pohar
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) can advance patient satisfaction, understanding, goal fulfilment, and patient-reported outcomes. We lack clarity on whether this physician-focused literature applies to community rehabilitation, and on the integration of SDM policies in healthcare settings. We aimed to understand patient and provider perceptions of shared decision-making (SDM) in community rehabilitation, particularly the barriers and facilitators to SDM. METHODS: We used a focused ethnography involving 14 community rehabilitation sites across Alberta, including rural, regional-urban and metropolitan-urban sites. We conducted semi-structured interviews that asked participants about their positive and negative communication experiences (n = 23 patients; n = 26 providers). RESULTS: We found SDM experiences fluctuated between extremes: Getting Patient Buy-In and Aligning Expectations. The former is provider-driven, prescriptive and less flexible; the latter is collaborative, inquisitive and empowering. In Aligning Expectations, patients and providers express humility and openness, communicate in the language of ask and listen, and view education as empowering. Patients and providers described barriers and facilitators to SDM in community rehabilitation. Facilitators included geography influencing context and connections; consistent, patient-specific messaging; patient lifestyle, capacity and perceived outlook; provider confidence, experience and perceived independence; provider training; and perceptions of more time (and control over time) for appointments. SDM barriers included lack of privacy; waitlists and financial barriers to access; provider approach; how choices are framed; and, patient’s perceived assertiveness, lack of capacity, and level of deference. CONCLUSIONS: We have found both excellent experiences and areas for improvement for applying SDM in community rehabilitation. We proffer recommendations to advance high-quality SDM in community rehabilitation based on promoting facilitators and overcoming barriers. This research will support the spread, scale and evaluation of a new Model of Care in rehabilitation by the provincial health system, which aimed to promote patient-centred care.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7168887
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71688872020-04-23 Experiences of shared decision-making in community rehabilitation: a focused ethnography Manhas, Kiran Pohar Olson, Karin Churchill, Katie Vohra, Sunita Wasylak, Tracy BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) can advance patient satisfaction, understanding, goal fulfilment, and patient-reported outcomes. We lack clarity on whether this physician-focused literature applies to community rehabilitation, and on the integration of SDM policies in healthcare settings. We aimed to understand patient and provider perceptions of shared decision-making (SDM) in community rehabilitation, particularly the barriers and facilitators to SDM. METHODS: We used a focused ethnography involving 14 community rehabilitation sites across Alberta, including rural, regional-urban and metropolitan-urban sites. We conducted semi-structured interviews that asked participants about their positive and negative communication experiences (n = 23 patients; n = 26 providers). RESULTS: We found SDM experiences fluctuated between extremes: Getting Patient Buy-In and Aligning Expectations. The former is provider-driven, prescriptive and less flexible; the latter is collaborative, inquisitive and empowering. In Aligning Expectations, patients and providers express humility and openness, communicate in the language of ask and listen, and view education as empowering. Patients and providers described barriers and facilitators to SDM in community rehabilitation. Facilitators included geography influencing context and connections; consistent, patient-specific messaging; patient lifestyle, capacity and perceived outlook; provider confidence, experience and perceived independence; provider training; and perceptions of more time (and control over time) for appointments. SDM barriers included lack of privacy; waitlists and financial barriers to access; provider approach; how choices are framed; and, patient’s perceived assertiveness, lack of capacity, and level of deference. CONCLUSIONS: We have found both excellent experiences and areas for improvement for applying SDM in community rehabilitation. We proffer recommendations to advance high-quality SDM in community rehabilitation based on promoting facilitators and overcoming barriers. This research will support the spread, scale and evaluation of a new Model of Care in rehabilitation by the provincial health system, which aimed to promote patient-centred care. BioMed Central 2020-04-19 /pmc/articles/PMC7168887/ /pubmed/32306972 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05223-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research Article
Manhas, Kiran Pohar
Olson, Karin
Churchill, Katie
Vohra, Sunita
Wasylak, Tracy
Experiences of shared decision-making in community rehabilitation: a focused ethnography
title Experiences of shared decision-making in community rehabilitation: a focused ethnography
title_full Experiences of shared decision-making in community rehabilitation: a focused ethnography
title_fullStr Experiences of shared decision-making in community rehabilitation: a focused ethnography
title_full_unstemmed Experiences of shared decision-making in community rehabilitation: a focused ethnography
title_short Experiences of shared decision-making in community rehabilitation: a focused ethnography
title_sort experiences of shared decision-making in community rehabilitation: a focused ethnography
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7168887/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32306972
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05223-4
work_keys_str_mv AT manhaskiranpohar experiencesofshareddecisionmakingincommunityrehabilitationafocusedethnography
AT olsonkarin experiencesofshareddecisionmakingincommunityrehabilitationafocusedethnography
AT churchillkatie experiencesofshareddecisionmakingincommunityrehabilitationafocusedethnography
AT vohrasunita experiencesofshareddecisionmakingincommunityrehabilitationafocusedethnography
AT wasylaktracy experiencesofshareddecisionmakingincommunityrehabilitationafocusedethnography