Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) is a process in which clinicians and patients work together to select tests, treatments, management, or support packages based on clinical evidence and the patient's informed preferences. Similar to any skill, SDM requires practice to improve. Virtual patients (VPs) are simulations that allow one to practice a variety of clinical skills, including communication. VPs can be used to help professionals and students practice communication skills required to engage in SDM; however, this specific focus has not received much attention within the literature. A multiple-choice VP was developed to allow students the opportunity to practice SDM. To interact with the VP, users chose what they wanted to say to the VP by choosing from multiple predefined options, rather than typing in what they wanted to say. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate a VP workshop for medical students aimed at developing the communication skills required for SDM. METHODS: Preintervention and postintervention questionnaires were administered, followed by semistructured interviews. The questionnaires provided cohort-level data on the participants' views of the VP and helped to inform the interview guide; the interviews were used to explore some of the data from the questionnaire in more depth, including the participants' experience of using the VP. RESULTS: The interviews and questionnaires suggested that the VP was enjoyable and easy to use. When the participants were asked to rank their priorities in both pre- and post-VP consultations, there was a change in the rank position of respecting patient choices, with the median rank changing from second to first. Owing to the small sample size, this was not analyzed for statistical significance. The VP allowed the participants to explore a consultation in a way that they could not with simulated or real patients, which may be part of the reason that the VP was suggested as a useful intervention for bridging from the early, theory-focused years of the curriculum to the more patient-focused ones later. CONCLUSIONS: The VP was well accepted by the participants. The multiple-choice system of interaction was reported to be both useful and restrictive. Future work should look at further developing the mode of interaction and explore whether the VP results in any changes in observed behavior or practice.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: A proof-of-concept study has shown that the Added Value for Oral Care (ADVOCATE) Field Studies approach (academic detailing with feedback data) is considered a feasible, useful, and acceptable way to motivate general dental practitioners (GDPs) to reflect on and, if required, change their oral health-care delivery. The aims of this proof-of-principle study were to test whether such results were reproducible and to reach consensus among stakeholders on recommendations for wider implementation. METHODS: Eleven groups of GDPs were recruited in 6 countries (Denmark, England Germany, Hungary, Ireland, and The Netherlands). Each group had 3 academic detailing meetings, being stimulated by feedback data. Focus group interviews were held to evaluate the reproducibility of the Field Studies approach. A World Café session explored suggestions for the wider implementation of the approach. RESULTS: Replicable results on feasibility, acceptability, and usefulness of the Field Studies approach were seen; 7 out of 9 themes identified in the proof-of-concept study were validated. Directed content analyses identified that adjustments to procedures to collect and present feedback data were desirable. Overall, the approach can stimulate GDPs to reflect on and change aspects of their oral health-care delivery. CONCLUSIONS: The Field Studies approach, after some adjustments to data collection procedures, is ready for further testing in larger studies.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: Academic detailing (AD) is a defined form of educational outreach that can be used to influence decision making and reduce unwarranted variation in healthcare delivery. This paper describes the results of the proof of concept phase of the ADVOCATE Field Studies. This study evaluated the feasibility, acceptability and usefulness of AD reinforced with feedback data, to promote prevention-oriented, patient-centred and evidence-based oral healthcare delivery by general dental practitioners (GDPs).Methods: In the Field Studies, six groups of GDPs (n = 39) were recruited in The Netherlands, Germany and Denmark. Each group had four meetings reinforced with feedback data for open discussions on dental practice and healthcare delivery. Conventional and directed content analysis was used to analyze the qualitative data collected from focus group interviews, debriefing interviews, field notes and evaluation forms.Results: A total of nine themes were identified. Seven themes related to the process of the Field Studies and covered experiences, barriers and facilitators to AD group meetings, data collection and the use of an electronic dashboard for data presentation and storage. Two themes related to the outcomes of the study, describing how GDPs perceived they made changes to their clinical practice as a result of the Field Studies.Conclusions: The ADVOCATE Field Studies approach offers a novel way of collecting and providing feedback to care providers which has the potential to reduce variation oral healthcare delivery. AD plus feedback data is a useful, feasible approach which creates awareness and gives insight into care delivery processes. Some logistic and technical barriers to adoption were identified, which if resolved would further improve the approach and likely increase the acceptability amongst GDPs.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219931.].

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: In the last 30 years, innovations in oral healthcare (OHC), such as advanced restorative techniques, shifts towards preventive and evidence-based care and changes in patients' expectations, have increased the complexity of clinical decision-making in OHC. Little is known about the perspectives of general dental practitioners (GDPs) on the value of providing preventive, patient-centred and evidence-based OHC. This study aimed to explore the range of perspectives present amongst GDPs on OHC. METHOD: Q-methodology was used to explore perspectives among 78 GDPs working in the Netherlands. Participants were asked to sort 50 statements representing three central domains in OHC: i.) restorative versus preventative OHC, ii.) disease-centred versus patient-centred OHC and iii.) expertise-based versus evidence-based OHC. Opinion statements about delivering OHC were formulated on the basis of published literature and input from OHC professionals. By-person factor analysis was used to reveal clusters of communality in statement rankings, which were interpreted and formed perspectives on OHC. RESULTS: Four perspectives, explaining 47% of variance, on OHC were identified amongst GDPs: 'the patient-focused dentist who values prevention', 'the outcome-oriented dentist who values learning from colleagues', 'the team player with ultimate care responsibility' and 'the dentist who considers oral health the responsibility of the patient.' CONCLUSION: Q-methodology can be effectively used to describe the different perspectives that GDPs have on the challenges of preventive, patient-centred and evidence-based OHC. GDPs should not be seen as a homogenous group; rather they have different views and approaches to the care they provide. This has implications for health systems; awareness of the heterogeneity of practitioners' perspectives can potentially be used to develop bespoke quality of care improvement strategies that constructively engage with each of these different groups.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) involves a healthcare professional and a patient forming a congruent partnership, within which information is shared and decisions are made which align with the patient's values. SDM does not occur to the extent it ought to; SDM requires practice. Virtual reality could help facilitate this practice. Objective: To pilot an interactive, high-fidelity virtual patient (VP) who simulates SDM within a primary care consultation. Method: Academic pharmacists and doctors were recruited from the Keele University. Participants completed prequestionnaires and postquestionnaires. Results: 18 participants (14 pharmacists and 4 medical doctors) completed the study. 89% (n=16) suggested the VP was 'enjoyable' or 'highly enjoyable' to use and 72% (n=13) suggested it was 'very accessible'. There were diverse views about the way in which the user made their reply to the VP with ratings ranging from 'very poor' (n=2) to 'very good' (n=5); the modal rating was indifference (n=7). It seemed the multiple choice system caused the participants to feel restricted but it was unclear why those who liked the system did so. Conclusions: The VP was found to be enjoyable and thought-provoking. The data suggest that this type of intervention could be useful at many different stages of a professional's career although the multiple-choice conversation style may be too restrictive for more experienced consulters.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The evidence that large pay-for-performance schemes improve the health of populations is mixed-evidence regarding locally implemented schemes is limited. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the effects in Stoke-on-Trent of a local, multifaceted Quality Improvement Framework including pay for performance in general practice introduced in 2009 in the context of the national Quality and Outcomes Framework that operated from 2004. METHODS: We compared age-standardized mortality data from all 326 local authorities in England with the rates in Stoke-on-Trent using Difference-in-Differences, estimating a fixed-effects linear regression model with an interaction effect. RESULTS: In addition to the existing downward trend in cardiovascular deaths, we find an additional annual reduction of 36 deaths compared with the national mean for coronary heart disease and 13 deaths per 100000 from stroke in Stoke-on-Trent. Compared with the national mean, there was an additional reduction of 9 deaths per 100000 people per annum for coronary heart disease and 14 deaths per 100000 people per annum for stroke following the introduction of the 2009 Stoke-on-Trent Quality Improvement Framework. CONCLUSION: There are concerns about the unintended consequences of large pay-for-performance schemes in health care, but in a population with a high prevalence of disease, they may at least initially be beneficial. This study also provides evidence that a local, additional scheme may further improve the health of populations. Such schemes, whether national or local, require periodic review to evaluate the balance of their benefits and risks.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) involves the formation of a collaborative partnership between the patient and clinician combining both of their expertise in order to benefit decision making. In order for clinicians to be able to carry out this skilled task, they require practice. Virtual reality, in the form of a virtual patient, could offer a potential method of facilitating this. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to create a virtual patient that simulated a primary care consultation, affording the opportunity to practice SDM. A second aim was to involve patients in the design of a virtual patient simulation and report the process of the design. METHODS: We employed a multistep design process drawing on patient and expert involvement. RESULTS: A virtual patient, following a narrative style, was built, which allows a user to practice and receive feedback; both clinical and communication skills are required for the simulation. The patient group provided multiple insights, which the academic team had overlooked. They pertained mostly to issues concerning the patient experience. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to design a virtual patient that allows a learner to practice their ability to conduct SDM. Patient input into the design of virtual patient simulations can be a worthwhile activity.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Despite the widespread inclusion of consultation skills in undergraduate healthcare curricula, patient-doctor interactions are often an imparting of evidence or information rather than an exchange. Evidence-based practice may be further enhanced by increasing explicit understanding of decision-making processes used by healthcare professionals and patients. This exploratory investigation evaluated the impact of an educational intervention on understanding of decision-making processes and practice. The effect of session schedule was assessed to inform the future delivery strategy of such approaches. METHODS: Three groups of primary care health professionals (n = 85) completed questionnaires using Likert scales to assess strength of agreement with decision-making statements exploring four themes - Theory, Applied Theory, Practice and Joint Practice - pre-intervention and post-intervention. Responses were analysed, firstly to assess the impact of the intervention on understanding of decision-making processes and practice across all participants and then by group to determine the effect of session schedules on outcome measures. RESULTS: Overall agreement with the decision-making statements significantly increased after the learning set (Mean = -0.162, SD = 0.355); t(64) = -3.666, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis on effect of session schedule only found significant interactions for the theme 'Joint Practice' with group (p < 0.025) and 3-way interaction of Group and Main role. (p < 0.048). No consistent positive impact of longer session schedule was found. CONCLUSION: Participation in the learning sessions significantly improved self-reported understanding of decision-making processes and application to clinical practice. The extended learning sessions did not provide additional benefits over and above 2 half days or 1 whole day learning sessions.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

There is much variation in the implementation of the best available evidence into clinical practice. These gaps between evidence and practice are often a result of multiple individual decisions. When making a decision, there is so much potentially relevant information available, it is impossible to know or process it all (so called 'bounded rationality'). Usually, a limited amount of information is selected to reach a sufficiently satisfactory decision, a process known as satisficing. There are two key processes used in decision making: System 1 and System 2. System 1 involves fast, intuitive decisions; System 2 is a deliberate analytical approach, used to locate information which is not instantly recalled. Human beings unconsciously use System 1 processing whenever possible because it is quicker and requires less effort than System 2. In clinical practice, gaps between evidence and practice can occur when a clinician develops a pattern of knowledge, which is then relied on for decisions using System 1 processing, without the activation of a System 2 check against the best available evidence from high quality research. The processing of information and decision making may be influenced by a number of cognitive biases, of which the decision maker may be unaware. Interventions to encourage appropriate use of System 1 and System 2 processing have been shown to improve clinical decision making. Increased understanding of decision making processes and common sources of error should help clinical decision makers to minimize avoidable mistakes and increase the proportion of decisions that are better.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)