Suppr超能文献

临床决策沟通障碍分析:医生和患者观点之间的差距

Barriers for an effective communication around clinical decision making: an analysis of the gaps between doctors' and patients' point of view.

机构信息

Health Psychology Department, Universidad Miguel Hernández, Elche, Spain; Sexual and Reproductive Health, Centro Salud Hospital-Pla, Alicante, Spain.

出版信息

Health Expect. 2014 Dec;17(6):826-39. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2012.00809.x. Epub 2012 Aug 17.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

There are doubts on whether patients feel that they have sufficient information for actively participating in clinical decisions.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the type of information that patients receive. To determine whether patients consider this information sufficient, and whether it contributes or not to improve clinical safety. To identify the barriers for patient participation in clinical decision making.

STUDY DESIGN

Cross-sectional study with 764 patients and 327 physicians.

STUDY SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Fourteen health centres belonging to three primary care districts and three hospitals in Spain.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Just 35.1% (268) (95% CI 32.2, 39.1%) of patients preferred to have the last word in clinical decisions. Age (39 vs. 62%, P < 0.001) and severity of illness (38 vs. 46%, P = 0.002) increased the tendency to take a passive role. In 85.1% (650) (95% CI 83.3, 88.3%) of the cases, patients reported having received sufficient information. Lack of consultation time (29.6%, 95% CI 25.8, 32.5%) and patients' use of Internet or other sources (19.2%, 95% CI 16.4, 22.2%) were identified as new obstacles to doctor-patient communication by the patients. Only 19.6% (64) (95% CI 15.4, 24.2%) of doctors considered that they could intervene to involve patients in the decisions.

DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients prefer the decisions to be made by their doctor, especially those with more severe illnesses, and older patients. Patients are not normally informed about medication interactions, precautions and foreseeable complications. The information provided by general practitioners does not seem to contribute enough to the patient involvement in clinical safety.

摘要

背景

人们对患者是否认为自己获得了足够的信息以积极参与临床决策存在疑虑。

目的

描述患者所获得的信息类型。确定患者是否认为这些信息足够,并确定其是否有助于提高临床安全性。识别患者参与临床决策制定的障碍。

研究设计

一项包含 764 名患者和 327 名医生的横断面研究。

研究地点和参与者

西班牙三个初级保健区的 14 个卫生中心和 3 家医院。

主要发现

只有 35.1%(268 人)(95%CI 32.2%,39.1%)的患者希望在临床决策中拥有最终决定权。年龄(39 岁比 62%,P<0.001)和疾病严重程度(38 岁比 46%,P=0.002)增加了被动参与的倾向。在 85.1%(650 人)(95%CI 83.3%,88.3%)的情况下,患者报告说他们获得了足够的信息。缺乏咨询时间(29.6%,95%CI 25.8%,32.5%)和患者使用互联网或其他来源(19.2%,95%CI 16.4%,22.2%)被患者视为医患沟通的新障碍。只有 19.6%(64 人)(95%CI 15.4%,24.2%)的医生认为他们可以干预以促使患者参与决策。

讨论和结论

大多数患者更喜欢由医生做出决定,尤其是那些病情较重和老年患者。患者通常不会被告知药物相互作用、预防措施和可预见的并发症。全科医生提供的信息似乎不足以促进患者参与临床安全。

相似文献

1
3
Patient involvement in decision-making: a cross-sectional study in a Malaysian primary care clinic.
BMJ Open. 2016 Jan 4;6(1):e010063. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010063.
5
Understanding patients' and doctors' attitudes about shared decision making for advance care planning.
Health Expect. 2015 Dec;18(6):2054-65. doi: 10.1111/hex.12285. Epub 2014 Oct 22.
8
Patient experience and satisfaction with shared decision-making: A cross-sectional study among outpatients.
Patient Educ Couns. 2024 Dec;129:108410. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2024.108410. Epub 2024 Aug 28.
9
Predictors of hospitalised patients' preferences for physician-directed medical decision-making.
J Med Ethics. 2012 Feb;38(2):77-82. doi: 10.1136/jme.2010.040618. Epub 2011 Jun 22.
10
Has patients' involvement in the decision-making process changed over time?
Health Expect. 2006 Dec;9(4):333-42. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2006.00413.x.

引用本文的文献

3
Laypeople's Perspective on Physician Work-Hour Restrictions in Japan: A Cross-Sectional Study.
J Patient Exp. 2024 Dec 12;11:23743735241305337. doi: 10.1177/23743735241305337. eCollection 2024.
4
Differences in Perception of Healthcare Management between Patients and Professionals.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2023 Feb 21;20(5):3842. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20053842.
5
Patient coaching: What do patients want? A mixed methods study in waiting rooms of outpatient clinics.
PLoS One. 2022 Jun 9;17(6):e0269677. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0269677. eCollection 2022.
7
The Effects of Physicians' Communication and Empathy Ability on Physician-Patient Relationship from Physicians' and Patients' Perspectives.
J Clin Psychol Med Settings. 2022 Dec;29(4):849-860. doi: 10.1007/s10880-022-09844-1. Epub 2022 Jan 28.
8
[Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient-reported patient safety in Primary Care].
Aten Primaria. 2021 Dec;53 Suppl 1(Suppl 1):102222. doi: 10.1016/j.aprim.2021.102222.
10
Proposals for person-centred care in the COVID-19 era. Delphi study.
Health Expect. 2021 Apr;24(2):687-699. doi: 10.1111/hex.13218. Epub 2021 Feb 27.

本文引用的文献

1
Patient participation: current knowledge and applicability to patient safety.
Mayo Clin Proc. 2010 Jan;85(1):53-62. doi: 10.4065/mcp.2009.0248.
2
Development and validation of the Family Decision-Making Self-Efficacy Scale.
Palliat Support Care. 2009 Sep;7(3):315-21. doi: 10.1017/S1478951509990241.
3
[Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the Picker Patient Experience Questionnaire-15 for use in the Spanish population].
Rev Calid Asist. 2009 Sep-Oct;24(5):192-206. doi: 10.1016/j.cali.2009.02.003. Epub 2009 Jul 23.
4
Review: engaging patients as vigilant partners in safety: a systematic review.
Med Care Res Rev. 2010 Apr;67(2):119-48. doi: 10.1177/1077558709342254. Epub 2009 Aug 11.
5
Keeping the patient in the equation--humanism and health care reform.
N Engl J Med. 2009 Aug 6;361(6):554-5. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp0904813.
6
[Perceptions of clinical safety after hospital discharge].
Med Clin (Barc). 2008 Dec;131 Suppl 3:26-32. doi: 10.1016/s0025-7753(08)76458-3.
7
Understanding respect: learning from patients.
J Med Ethics. 2009 Jul;35(7):419-23. doi: 10.1136/jme.2008.027235.
9
Predictors of patient satisfaction in surgery.
Surgery. 2009 May;145(5):536-41. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2009.01.012.
10
[Listen carefully to the patient, it means more advantages than costs].
Med Clin (Barc). 2010 Oct 2;135(10):477-8. doi: 10.1016/j.medcli.2009.01.019. Epub 2009 Apr 16.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验