Center for Health Research, Geisinger Clinic, Danville, PA USA.
Transl Behav Med. 2011 Mar;1(1):123-33. doi: 10.1007/s13142-011-0023-5.
Advances in shared decision making (SDM) have not successfully translated to practice. We describe our experience and lessons learned in translating an SDM process for primary care cardiovascular disease management. The SDM process operationalized recognized SDM elements using workflow modifications, a computerized patient questionnaire, an automated risk calculator to identify at-risk patients, a web-based tool for patients to choose interventions, automated feedback on the personalized benefits of choices, and a web-based tool for providers to view patient risk, patient choice, and expert advice. Although medication was typically the intervention resulting in the greatest risk reduction, the majority of patients preferred dietary and other lifestyle changes. Patients generally favored the opportunity to make and communicate choices. However, providers only viewed patient choice data in 20% of the encounters. Translation of the SDM process was successful for patients and the difference between patient choice and optimal risk reduction points to the importance of engaging in an SDM process. Lack of engagement by providers may be due to "alert fatigue" or to the failure of the SDM process to improve efficiency in the office visit.
共享决策(SDM)的进展并未成功转化为实践。我们描述了我们在将 SDM 流程转化为初级保健心血管疾病管理方面的经验和教训。该 SDM 流程使用工作流程修改、计算机化患者问卷、自动风险计算器来识别高危患者、用于患者选择干预措施的基于网络的工具、对选择的个性化益处的自动反馈以及用于查看患者风险、患者选择和专家建议的基于网络的工具来实现公认的 SDM 要素。尽管药物治疗通常是导致最大风险降低的干预措施,但大多数患者更喜欢饮食和其他生活方式的改变。患者通常赞成有机会做出和沟通选择。然而,在 20%的就诊中,医生只查看了患者选择数据。SDM 流程的转换对患者来说是成功的,患者选择与最佳风险降低之间的差异表明了进行 SDM 流程的重要性。提供者缺乏参与可能是由于“警报疲劳”或 SDM 流程未能提高就诊效率所致。