Surgeons’ perspective on shared decision making in trauma surgery. A national survey

Woltz, Sarah; Krijnen, Pieta; Pieterse, Arwen H.; Schipper, Inger B.

doi:10.1016/j.pec.2018.06.002

Cited by 26 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, communicative behaviours predefined as conflicting with SDM (ie, ‘Explaining to the patient why a certain treatment is chosen’ and ‘Letting the patient decide after giving thorough information’) were rated as essential for SDM by a substantial proportion of healthcare professionals. These results are consistent with those of studies in other clinical specialisations, indicating that healthcare professionals do not fully grasp the concept of SDM 23 27 28. Consequently, healthcare professionals may mistakenly believe that they apply SDM 29.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…Another survey, exploring Dutch trauma surgeons’ perspectives of SDM, was adapted for this study 23. The survey included both open-ended questions, asking participants to answer in their own words, and close-ended questions, providing multiple answer options.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Participants’ definitions were rated as inconclusive if they were too short or too ambiguous to reliably interpret what was meant. Online supplementary appendix 2 presents an overview of 13 communicative behaviours predefined as essential for SDM (seven out of 13), not essential for SDM (four out of 13) and conflicting with SDM (two out of 13) 23. With the third question, participants were asked to rate the 13 different communicative behaviours as essential for SDM or not.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Exploring healthcare professionals’ knowledge, attitudes and experiences of shared decision making in rheumatology

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo explore physicians’ and nurses’ knowledge, attitudes and experiences of shared decision making (SDM) in rheumatology, to identify barriers and facilitators to SDM, and to examine whether physicians’ and nurses’ perspectives of SDM differ.MethodsA cross-sectional, exploratory, online survey was used. Besides demographic characteristics, healthcare professionals’ knowledge, attitudes and experiences of SDM in rheumatology were assessed. Barriers and facilitators to SDM were identified from healthcare professionals’ answers. Descriptive statistics were computed and differences between physicians’ and nurses’ perspectives of SDM were examined with a t-test or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate.ResultsBetween April and June 2019, 77 physicians and 70 nurses completed the survey. Although most healthcare professionals lacked a full conceptual understanding of SDM, almost all physicians (92%) and all nurses had a (very) positive attitude toward SDM, which was most frequently motivated by the belief that SDM improves patients’ treatment adherence. The majority (>50%) of healthcare professionals experienced problems with the application of SDM in clinical practice, mostly related to time constraints. Other important barriers were the incompatibility of SDM with clinical practice guidelines and beliefs that patients do not prefer to be involved in decision making or are not able to take an active role. Modest differences between physicians’ and nurses’ perspectives of SDM were found.ConclusionsThere is a clear need for education and training that equips and empowers healthcare professionals to apply SDM. Furthermore, the commitment of time, resources and financial support for national, regional and organisational initiatives is needed to make SDM in rheumatology a practical reality.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Exploring healthcare professionals’ knowledge, attitudes and experiences of shared decision making in rheumatology

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, the role between the trauma team and the patient has been evolving over time. Shared decision-making [ 10 ] and patient engagement [ 11 – 13 ], which originated in non-surgical disciplines, have become widely accepted methods of decision-making in various medical fields and are particularly useful when there are more valid treatment options to be taken into consideration. The literature highlights how patients’ satisfaction increases once they are engaged in choosing their clinical options [ 14 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Team dynamics in emergency surgery teams: results from a first international survey

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Emergency surgery represents a unique context. Trauma teams are often multidisciplinary and need to operate under extreme stress and time constraints, sometimes with no awareness of the trauma’s causes or the patient’s personal and clinical information. In this perspective, the dynamics of how trauma teams function is fundamental to ensuring the best performance and outcomes. Methods An online survey was conducted among the World Society of Emergency Surgery members in early 2021. 402 fully filled questionnaires on the topics of knowledge translation dynamics and tools, non-technical skills, and difficulties in teamwork were collected. Data were analyzed using the software R, and reported following the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). Results Findings highlight how several surgeons are still unsure about the meaning and potential of knowledge translation and its mechanisms. Tools like training, clinical guidelines, and non-technical skills are recognized and used in clinical practice. Others, like patients’ and stakeholders’ engagement, are hardly implemented, despite their increasing importance in the modern healthcare scenario. Several difficulties in working as a team are described, including the lack of time, communication, training, trust, and ego. Discussion Scientific societies should take the lead in offering training and support about the abovementioned topics. Dedicated educational initiatives, practical cases and experiences, workshops and symposia may allow mitigating the difficulties highlighted by the survey’s participants, boosting the performance of emergency teams. Additional investigation of the survey results and its characteristics may lead to more further specific suggestions and potential solutions.

show abstract

“…This study presents an overview of the characteristics that implants should have as well as surgeons’ knowledge of the decision-making process and their expectations and requirements, a thorough understanding of which is necessary to facilitate implementation of the new technology. This technological adoption requires a proactive role, both from the point of view of orthopedic surgeons and health policies, since it will represent a change in the decision-making process of surgeons and the coverage of health benefits [28].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Orthopedic Surgeons’ Perspectives on the Decision-Making Process for the Use of Bioprinter Cartilage Grafts: Web-Based Survey

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Traumatic and degenerative lesions in the cartilage are one of the most difficult and frustrating types of injuries for orthopedic surgeons and patients. Future developments in medical science, regenerative medicine, and materials science may allow the repair of human body parts using 3D bioprinting techniques and serve as a basis for new therapies for tissue and organ regeneration. One future possibility is the treatment of joint cartilage defects with in vivo 3D printing from biological/biocompatible materials to produce a suitable cell attachment and proliferation environment in the damaged site and employ the natural recovery potential of the body. This study focuses on the perspectives of orthopedic surgeons regarding the key factors/determinants and perceived clinical value of a new therapeutic option. Objective This study aimed to determine the knowledge and expectations of orthopedic surgeons regarding the clinical use of bioprinted cartilage. Methods The survey, conducted anonymously and self-managed, was sent to orthopedic surgeons from the Catalan Society of Orthopedic and Traumatology Surgery. In accordance with the method devised by Eysenbach, the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys was used to analyze the results. The following factors were taken into consideration: the type and origin of the information received; its relevance; the level of acceptance of new technologies; and how the technology is related to age, years, and place of experience in the field. Results Of the 86 orthopedic surgeons included, 36 believed the age of the patient was a restriction, 53 believed the size of the lesion should be between 1 and 2 cm to be considered for this type of technology, and 51 believed that the graft should last more than 5 years. Surgeons over 50 years of age (38/86, 44%) gave more importance to clinical evidence as compared to surgeons from the other age groups. Conclusions The perspective of orthopedic surgeons depends highly on the information they receive and whether it is specialized and consistent, as this will condition their acceptance and implementation of the bioprinted cartilage.

show abstract

Surgeons’ perspective on shared decision making in trauma surgery. A national survey

Cited by 26 publications

References 22 publications

Exploring healthcare professionals’ knowledge, attitudes and experiences of shared decision making in rheumatology

Exploring healthcare professionals’ knowledge, attitudes and experiences of shared decision making in rheumatology

Team dynamics in emergency surgery teams: results from a first international survey

Orthopedic Surgeons’ Perspectives on the Decision-Making Process for the Use of Bioprinter Cartilage Grafts: Web-Based Survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About