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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |