Patient engagement through shared decision-making (SDM) is increasingly seen as a key component for patient safety, patient satisfaction, and quality of care. Current SDM models do not adequately account for medical and environmental contexts, which may influence medical decisions in the hospital. We identified leading SDM models and reviews to inductively construct a novel SDM model appropriate for the inpatient setting. A team of medicine and pediatric hospitalists reviewed the literature to integrate core SDM concepts and processes and iteratively constructed a synthesized draft model. We then solicited broad SDM expert feedback on the draft model for validation and further refinement. The SDM 3 Circle Model identifies 3 core categories of variables that dynamically interact within an “environmental frame.” The resulting Venn diagram includes overlapping circles for 1)patient/family, 2)provider/team, and 3)medical context. The environmental frame includes all external, contextual factors that may influence any of the 3 circles. Existing multistep SDM process models were then re-articulated and contextualized to illustrate how a shared decision might be made. The SDM 3 Circle Model accounts for important environmental and contextual characteristics that vary across settings. The visual emphasis generated by each “circle” and by the environmental frame direct attention to often overlooked interactive forces and has the potential to more precisely define, promote, and improve SDM. This model provides a framework to develop interventions to improve quality and patient safety through SDM and patient engagement for hospitalists.

Important opportunities exist to improve inpatient SDM. Team size, number of learners, patient census, and type of decision being made did not affect SDM, suggesting that even large, busy services can perform SDM if properly trained.

Purpose To estimate the effectiveness of a multimodal educational intervention to increase use of shared decision-making (SDM) behaviors by inpatient pediatric and internal medicine hospitalists and trainees at teaching hospitals at Stanford University and the University of California, San Francisco. Method The 8-week Patient Engagement Project Study intervention, delivered at four services between November 2014 and January 2015, included workshops, campaign messaging, report cards, and coaching. For 12-week pre- and postintervention periods, clinician peers used the nine-point Rochester Participatory Decision-Making Scale (RPAD) to evaluate rounding teams’ SDM behaviors with patients during ward rounds. Eligible teams included a hospitalist and at least one trainee (resident, intern, medical student), in addition to nonphysicians. Random-effects models were used to estimate intervention effects based on RPAD scores that sum points on nine SDM behaviors per patient encounter. Results In total, 527 patient encounters were scored during 175 rounds led by 49 hospitalists. Patient and team characteristics were similar across pre- and postintervention periods. Improvement was observed on all nine SDM behaviors. Adjusted for the hierarchical study design and covariates, the mean RPAD score improvement was 1.68 points (95% CI, 1.33–2.03; P < .001; Cohen d = 0.82), with intervention effects ranging from 0.7 to 2.5 points per service. Improvements were associated with longer patient encounters and a higher percentage of trainees per team. Conclusions The intervention increased behaviors supporting SDM during ward rounds on four independent services. The findings recommend use of clinician-focused interventions to promote SDM adoption in the inpatient setting.

No abstract

Patient feedback has increasingly become part of medical students' training and formative assessment. We conducted a qualitative study using focus groups to explore students' experiences soliciting patient feedback, including the benefits, challenges, and potential strategies to obtain it. Fifteen medical students participated. Thematic analysis revealed students' (1) discomfort soliciting feedback and concern of being viewed as self-serving; (2) concerns about eroding patient trust; (3) indifference to nonspecific, positive feedback; and (4) belief that informally solicited feedback is most helpful for their learning. Strategies for soliciting more useful patient feedback included (1) team-based solicitation, (2) empowering patients as teachers, and (3) development of feedback instruments that allow patients to comment on specific student-identified learning goals. Solicitation of patient feedback is challenging for medical students and provokes discomfort. Strategies to integrate patient feedback into medical student training and assessment must attend to students' needs so the value of patient feedback can be realized.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract