Cargando…

Patient perspectives on the need for implanted device information: Implications for a post‐procedural communication framework

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making and patient‐centred communication have become part of pre‐procedural decisions and perioperative care across medical specialties. However, gaps exist in patient communication about the implanted device received and the benefits in sharing information about their pr...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wilson, Natalia A., Reich, Amanda J., Graham, Jove, Bhatt, Deepak L., Nguyen, Louis L., Weissman, Joel S.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8369078/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33974346
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.13273
_version_ 1783739214427324416
author Wilson, Natalia A.
Reich, Amanda J.
Graham, Jove
Bhatt, Deepak L.
Nguyen, Louis L.
Weissman, Joel S.
author_facet Wilson, Natalia A.
Reich, Amanda J.
Graham, Jove
Bhatt, Deepak L.
Nguyen, Louis L.
Weissman, Joel S.
author_sort Wilson, Natalia A.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Shared decision making and patient‐centred communication have become part of pre‐procedural decisions and perioperative care across medical specialties. However, gaps exist in patient communication about the implanted device received and the benefits in sharing information about their procedure and device. OBJECTIVE: To understand the patients' knowledge of identifying information for their implanted devices and perspectives on sharing their implanted device information. METHODS: Four focus groups were conducted with patients who had received a cardiac or vascular implanted device from one of the study sites within the previous 6 months. Data were transcribed and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Five themes emerged: lack of awareness of identifying information on implanted devices; value of information on implanted devices; varying trust with sharing device information; perceived risk with sharing device information; and lack of consensus on a systematic process for tracking implanted devices. DISCUSSION: Patients desire post‐procedural information on their implanted device and a designated plan for longitudinal follow‐up, but lack trust and perceive risk with broadly sharing their implanted device information. CONCLUSION: After receiving an implanted device, post‐procedural patient communication needs to be expanded to include identifying information on the device including the unique device identifier, how long‐term tracking will be supported and the process for notification in case of a problem with the device. This communication should also include education on how sharing device information supports patients' long‐term health care, post‐market safety surveillance and research. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The research team included members who were also patients with implanted devices.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8369078
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83690782021-08-23 Patient perspectives on the need for implanted device information: Implications for a post‐procedural communication framework Wilson, Natalia A. Reich, Amanda J. Graham, Jove Bhatt, Deepak L. Nguyen, Louis L. Weissman, Joel S. Health Expect Original Articles BACKGROUND: Shared decision making and patient‐centred communication have become part of pre‐procedural decisions and perioperative care across medical specialties. However, gaps exist in patient communication about the implanted device received and the benefits in sharing information about their procedure and device. OBJECTIVE: To understand the patients' knowledge of identifying information for their implanted devices and perspectives on sharing their implanted device information. METHODS: Four focus groups were conducted with patients who had received a cardiac or vascular implanted device from one of the study sites within the previous 6 months. Data were transcribed and thematically analysed. RESULTS: Five themes emerged: lack of awareness of identifying information on implanted devices; value of information on implanted devices; varying trust with sharing device information; perceived risk with sharing device information; and lack of consensus on a systematic process for tracking implanted devices. DISCUSSION: Patients desire post‐procedural information on their implanted device and a designated plan for longitudinal follow‐up, but lack trust and perceive risk with broadly sharing their implanted device information. CONCLUSION: After receiving an implanted device, post‐procedural patient communication needs to be expanded to include identifying information on the device including the unique device identifier, how long‐term tracking will be supported and the process for notification in case of a problem with the device. This communication should also include education on how sharing device information supports patients' long‐term health care, post‐market safety surveillance and research. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The research team included members who were also patients with implanted devices. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2021-05-11 2021-08 /pmc/articles/PMC8369078/ /pubmed/33974346 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.13273 Text en © 2021 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Wilson, Natalia A.
Reich, Amanda J.
Graham, Jove
Bhatt, Deepak L.
Nguyen, Louis L.
Weissman, Joel S.
Patient perspectives on the need for implanted device information: Implications for a post‐procedural communication framework
title Patient perspectives on the need for implanted device information: Implications for a post‐procedural communication framework
title_full Patient perspectives on the need for implanted device information: Implications for a post‐procedural communication framework
title_fullStr Patient perspectives on the need for implanted device information: Implications for a post‐procedural communication framework
title_full_unstemmed Patient perspectives on the need for implanted device information: Implications for a post‐procedural communication framework
title_short Patient perspectives on the need for implanted device information: Implications for a post‐procedural communication framework
title_sort patient perspectives on the need for implanted device information: implications for a post‐procedural communication framework
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8369078/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33974346
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/hex.13273
work_keys_str_mv AT wilsonnataliaa patientperspectivesontheneedforimplanteddeviceinformationimplicationsforapostproceduralcommunicationframework
AT reichamandaj patientperspectivesontheneedforimplanteddeviceinformationimplicationsforapostproceduralcommunicationframework
AT grahamjove patientperspectivesontheneedforimplanteddeviceinformationimplicationsforapostproceduralcommunicationframework
AT bhattdeepakl patientperspectivesontheneedforimplanteddeviceinformationimplicationsforapostproceduralcommunicationframework
AT nguyenlouisl patientperspectivesontheneedforimplanteddeviceinformationimplicationsforapostproceduralcommunicationframework
AT weissmanjoels patientperspectivesontheneedforimplanteddeviceinformationimplicationsforapostproceduralcommunicationframework