scholarly journals “Negotiorum Gestio” in Family Medicine, Informed Consent Obtainment, and Disciplinary Responsibility

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-4
Author(s):  
Søren Birkeland
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Family Medicine ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Family Doctor ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Legal Implications ◽  
Prior Consent

Introduction. Negotiorum gestio (NG) denotes an action where a person well intendedly acts on behalf of another without obtaining the latter’s prior consent. In broad terms, NG-like actions have played a considerable role in health care provision. In some settings, health care delivery with only little or presumed patients’ consent has been the rule rather than the exception. However, bioethical principles regarding patient autonomy and obtainment of the patient’s informed consent (IC) before intervention are now increasingly materialized in the law of many countries. Aim. To study legal consequences of NG in family medicine and IC handling options. Methods. Case law examination. Results. A disciplinary board case is described concerning a family doctor conducting unlawful NG by not coming up to legal IC requirements. Discussion and Conclusion. The practical and legal implications of IC and possible role of novel Shared Decision-Making approaches in coming up to regulation and bioethical demands are discussed. It is concluded that a doctor may run an unnecessary legal risk when conducting NG in decision-competent patients and furthermore it is suggested that novel Shared Decision-Making approaches could help in obtaining a rightful and practicable IC.

scholarly journals Engaging Multidisciplinary Stakeholders to Drive Shared Decision-Making in Oncology

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabrielle Rocque ◽  
Ellen Miller-Sonnet ◽  
Alan Balch ◽  
Carrie Stricker ◽  
Josh Seidman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Oncology Practice ◽  
Development And Validation

Although recognized as best practice, regular integration of shared decision-making (SDM) approaches between patients and oncologists remains an elusive goal. It is clear that usable, feasible, and practical tools are needed to drive increased SDM in oncology. To address this goal, we convened a multidisciplinary collaborative inclusive of experts across the health-care delivery ecosystem to identify key principles in designing and testing processes to promote SDM in routine oncology practice. In this commentary, we describe 3 best practices for addressing challenges associated with implementing SDM that emerged from a multidisciplinary collaborative: (1) engagement of diverse stakeholders who have interest in SDM, (2) development and validation of an evidence-based SDM tool grounded within an established conceptual framework, and (3) development of the necessary roadmap and consideration of the infrastructure needed for engendering patient engagement in decision-making. We believe these 3 principles are critical to the success of creating SDM tools to be utilized both within and outside of clinical practice. We are optimistic that shared use across settings will support adoption of this tool and overcome barriers to implementing SDM within busy clinical workflows. Ultimately, we hope that this work will offer new perspectives on what is important to patients and provide an important impetus for leveraging patient preferences and values in decision-making.

Observer Ratings of Shared Decision Making Do Not Match Patient Reports: An Observational Study in 5 Family Medicine Practices

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-59
Author(s):  
Gisèle Diendéré ◽  
Imen Farhat ◽  
Holly Witteman ◽  
Ruth Ndjaboue
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Family Medicine ◽  
Risk Communication ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Cross Sectional Study ◽  
Clinical Encounter ◽  
Values Clarification ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Medical Consultations

Background Measuring shared decision making (SDM) in clinical practice is important to improve the quality of health care. Measurement can be done by trained observers and by people participating in the clinical encounter, namely, patients. This study aimed to describe the correlations between patients’ and observers’ ratings of SDM using 2 validated and 2 nonvalidated SDM measures in clinical consultations. Methods In this cross-sectional study, we recruited 238 complete dyads of health professionals and patients in 5 university-affiliated family medicine clinics in Canada. Participants completed self-administered questionnaires before and after audio-recorded medical consultations. Observers rated the occurrence of SDM during medical consultations using both the validated OPTION-5 (the 5-item “observing patient involvement” score) and binary questions on risk communication and values clarification (RCVC-observer). Patients rated SDM using both the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q9) and binary questions on risk communication and values clarification (RCVC-patient). Results Agreement was low between observers’ and patients’ ratings of SDM using validated OPTION-5 and SDM-Q9, respectively (ρ = 0.07; P = 0.38). Observers’ ratings using RCVC-observer were correlated to patients’ ratings using either SDM-Q9 ( rpb = −0.16; P = 0.01) or RCVC-patients ( rpb = 0.24; P = 0.03). Observers’ OPTION-5 scores and patients’ ratings using RCVC-questions were moderately correlated ( rφ = 0.33; P = 0.04). Conclusion There was moderate to no alignment between observers’ and patients’ ratings of SDM using both validated and nonvalidated measures. This lack of strong correlation emphasizes that observer and patient perspectives are not interchangeable. When assessing the presence, absence, or extent of SDM, it is important to clearly state whose perspectives are reflected.

A survey of health care practitioners’ attitudes toward shared decision‐making for choice of next birth after cesarean

Birth ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Munro ◽  
Elizabeth S. Wilcox ◽  
Leah K. Lambert ◽  
Monica Norena ◽  
Sarah Kaufman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Health Care Practitioners

Certified Patient Decision Aids: Solving Persistent Problems with Informed Consent Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thaddeus Mason Pope
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Legal Doctrine ◽  
Patient Decision Aids ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Decision Making Processes

The legal doctrine of informed consent has overwhelmingly failed to assure that the medical treatment patients get is the treatment patients want. This Article describes and defends an ongoing shift toward shared decision making processes incorporating the use of certified patient decision aids.

Das präoperative anästhesiologische Patientengespräch

2009 ◽  
Vol 66 (7) ◽  
pp. 503-508 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Harms ◽  
Christoph H. Kindler
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision

Anästhesisten treffen ihre Patienten häufig in Ausnahmesituationen an, geprägt von Angst und großer Unsicherheit. Selbst zeitlich kurze Kontakte sind daher meist intensiv und bedeutsam. Das persönliche, anästhesiologische Gespräch steht am Beginn der Beziehung von Patient und Anästhesist und soll die geplanten Maßnahmen, welche der Anästhesist durchführen wird, erklären und begleiten. Ein solches Gespräch dauert heute durchschnittlich 20 Minuten. Es beinhaltet die Erhebung der Anamnese, die strukturierte und verständliche Informationsübermittlung zwischen Anästhesist und Patient (inklusive Informationen über die anästhesiologischen Interventionen, Instruktionen zum Verhalten des Patienten und die offene und klare Kommunikation von Vor- und Nachteilen sowie Risiken möglicher Anästhesieverfahren) sowie den professionellen Umgang mit den Emotionen des Patienten, insbesondere seiner präoperativen Angst. Da Patienten heute in der Anästhesiologie vermehrt in den Entscheidungsprozess mit einbezogen werden, entwickelt sich dieses Gespräch zunehmend von einer eher paternalistischen Arzt-Patienten Interaktion zu einer gemeinsamen Entscheidungsfindung, dem so genannten „shared decision making“. Formal sollte das präoperative Gespräch die bekannten Voraussetzungen für eine erfolgreiche Verständigung zwischen Patient und Arzt wie Deutlichkeit, Eindeutigkeit, identische Kodierung, Empathie und Rückmeldung erfüllen und mit dem einholen eines „informed consent“ enden.

scholarly journals US-based cross-sectional survey of clinicians’ knowledge and attitudes about shared decision-making across healthcare professions and specialties

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e022730 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel C Forcino ◽  
Renata West Yen ◽  
Maya Aboumrad ◽  
Paul J Barr ◽  
Danielle Schubbe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Family Medicine ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Physician Assistants ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Knowledge And Attitudes ◽  
Positive Attitudes

ObjectiveIn this study, we aim to compare shared decision-making (SDM) knowledge and attitudes between US-based physician assistants (PAs), nurse practitioners (NPs) and physicians across surgical and family medicine specialties.SettingWe administered a cross-sectional, web-based survey between 20 September 2017 and 1 November 2017.Participants272 US-based NPs, PA and physicians completed the survey. 250 physicians were sent a generic email invitation to participate, of whom 100 completed the survey. 3300 NPs and PAs were invited, among whom 172 completed the survey. Individuals who met the following exclusion criteria were excluded from participation: (1) lack of English proficiency; (2) area of practice other than family medicine or surgery; (3) licensure other than physician, PA or NP; (4) practicing in a country other than the US.ResultsWe found few substantial differences in SDM knowledge and attitudes across clinician types, revealing positive attitudes across the sample paired with low to moderate knowledge. Family medicine professionals (PAs) were most knowledgeable on several items. Very few respondents (3%; 95% CI 1.5% to 6.2%) favoured a paternalistic approach to decision-making.ConclusionsRecent policy-level promotion of SDM may have influenced positive clinician attitudes towards SDM. Positive attitudes despite limited knowledge warrant SDM training across occupations and specialties, while encouraging all clinicians to promote SDM. Given positive attitudes and similar knowledge across clinician types, we recommend that SDM is not confined to the patient-physician dyad but instead advocated among other health professionals.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document