ObjectiveTo document interactions during the antenatal consultation between parents and neonatologist that parents linked to their satisfaction with their participation in shared decision making for their infant at risk of being born at the limit of viability.MethodsThis multiple-case ethnomethodological qualitative research study, included mothers admitted for a threatened premature delivery between 200/7 and 266/7 weeks gestation, the father, and the staff neonatologist conducting the clinical antenatal consultation. Content analysis of an audiotaped post-antenatal consultation interview with parents obtained their satisfaction scores as well as their comments on physician actions that facilitated their desired participation.ResultsFive cases, each called a “system—infant at risk”, included 10 parents and 6 neonatologists. From the interviews emerged a blueprint for action by physicians, including communication strategies that parents say facilitated their participation in decision making; such as building trustworthy physician-parent relationships, providing "balanced" information, offering choices, and allowing time to think.ConclusionParent descriptions indicate that the opportunity to participate to their satisfaction in the clinical antenatal consultation depends on how the physician interacts with them.Practice implicationsThe parent-identified communication strategies facilitate shared decision making regarding treatment in the best interest of the infant at risk to be born at the limit of viability.
The right of the individual to participate in her life-prolonging treatment decisions, either as a decision maker or by having her treatment wishes used as a decision-making criterion, is the result of an evolution in legal guidelines over the last two decades. Although necessary, these legal guidelines are however not sufficient to assure the individual's opportunity to participate. For the chronically ill older adult residing in a health care institution, the opportunity to participate in decisions concerning life-prolonging treatments implicitly depends on the effective communication among three key actors (the individual, her physician, and her proxy). The necessity of this communication has important implications for clinical practice and future empirical research.
Much improvement is needed to facilitate patient involvement in medical decision-making related to life-prolonging care. Prior research focuses mainly on the communication in the physician-patient dyad; few studies have identified how other professionals are involved. Using a Research Action design, two rounds of interviews with four interprofessional groups from various clinical settings of a health center in Quebec, Canada were conducted between 2009 and 2010. The 37 participants represented nine professions (nurse, dietitian, occupational therapist, orderly, pastoral worker, physician, physiotherapist, respiratory therapist and social worker). The first round of interviews confirmed that all of these professionals are involved, in various ways, in communicating with patients regarding their goals of care. Based on these results, the research group developed two communications tools (paper forms) to facilitate the documentation of patient care goals. The first form includes a designated area where all professionals can note patients' comments regarding decisions related to life-prolonging care. The second is a prescription form to document in the medical file the patient's goals of care. Both tools were submitted to, and fine-tuned by, the professionals in the second round of interviews. These results confirm that interprofessional collaboration to facilitate patient participation in goals-of-care decisions is both possible and valued.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.