Search tips
Search criteria

Results 1-5 (5)

Clipboard (0)

Select a Filter Below

Year of Publication
Document Types
1.  Most Important Factors for the Implementation of Shared Decision Making in Sciatica Care: Ranking among Professionals and Patients 
PLoS ONE  2014;9(4):e94176.
Due to the increasing specialization of medical professionals, patients are treated by multiple disciplines. To ensure that delivered care is patient-centered, it is crucial that professionals and the patient together decide on treatment (shared decision making (SDM)). However, it is not known how SDM should be integrated in multidisciplinary practice. This study determines the most important factors for SDM implementation in sciatica care, as it is known that a prior inventory of factors is crucial to develop a successful implementation strategy.
246 professionals (general practitioners, physical therapists, neurologists, neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons) (30% response) and 155 patients (96% response) responded to an internet-based survey. Respondents ranked barriers and facilitators identified in previous interviews, on their importance using Maximum Difference Scaling. Feeding back the personal top 5 most important factors, each respondent indicated whether these factors were barriers or facilitators. Hierarchical Bayes estimation was used to estimate the relative importance (RI) of each factor.
Professionals assigned the highest importance to: quality of professional-patient relationship (RI 4.87; CI 4.75–4.99); importance of quick recovery of patient (RI 4.83; CI 4.69–4.97); and knowledge about treatment options (RI 6.64; CI 4.53–4.74), which were reported as barrier and facilitator. Professionals working in primary care had a different ranking than those working in hospital care. Patients assigned the highest importance to: correct diagnosis by professionals (barrier, RI 8.19; CI 7.99–8.38); information provision about treatment options and potential harm and benefits (RI 7.87; CI 7.65–8.08); and explanation of the professional about the care trajectory (RI 7.16; CI 6.94–7.38), which were reported as barrier and facilitator.
Knowledge, information provision and a good relationship are the most important conditions for SDM perceived by both patients and professionals. These conditions are not restricted to one specific disease or health care system, because they are mostly professional or patient dependent and require healthcare professional training.
PMCID: PMC3978036  PMID: 24710328
2.  Decision making around living and deceased donor kidney transplantation: a qualitative study exploring the importance of expected relationship changes 
BMC Nephrology  2012;13:103.
Limited data exist on the impact of living kidney donation on the donor-recipient relationship. Purpose of this study was to explore motivations to donate or accept a (living donor) kidney, whether expected relationship changes influence decision making and whether relationship changes are actually experienced.
We conducted 6 focus groups in 47 of 114 invited individuals (41%), asking retrospectively about motivations and decision making around transplantation. We used qualitative and quantitative methods to analyze the focus group transcripts.
Most deceased donor kidney recipients had a potential living donor available which they refused or did not want. They mostly waited for a deceased donor because of concern for the donor’s health (75%). They more often expected negative relationship changes than living donor kidney recipients (75% vs. 27%, p = 0.01) who also expected positive changes. Living donor kidney recipients mostly accepted the kidney to improve their own quality of life (47%). Donors mostly donated a kidney because transplantation would make the recipient less dependent (25%). After transplantation both positive and negative relationship changes are experienced.
Expected relationship changes and concerns about the donor’s health lead some kidney patients to wait for a deceased donor, despite having a potential living donor available. Further research is needed to assess whether this concerns a selected group.
PMCID: PMC3493312  PMID: 22958636
Decision making; Donor-recipient relationship; Expectations; Kidney transplantation
3.  Designing a strategy to implement cost-effective blood transfusion management in elective hip and knee arthroplasties: A study protocol 
Total hip and knee arthroplasties are two of the most commonly performed procedures in orthopedic surgery. Different blood-saving measures (BSMs) are used to reduce the often-needed allogenic blood transfusions in these procedures. A recent large randomized controlled trial showed it is not cost effective to use the BSMs of erythropoietin and perioperative autologous blood salvage in elective primary hip and knee arthroplasties. Despite dissemination of these study results, medical professionals keep using these BSMs. To actually change practice, an implementation strategy is needed that is based on a good understanding of target groups and settings and the psychological constructs that predict behavior of medical professionals. However, detailed insight into these issuses is lacking. Therefore, this study aims to explore which groups of professionals should be targeted at which settings, as well as relevant barriers and facilitators that should be taken into acount in the strategy to implement evidence-based, cost-effective blood transfusion management and to de-implement BSMs.
The study consists of three phases. First, a questionnaire survey among all Dutch orthopedic hospital departments and independent treatment centers (n = 99) will be conducted to analyze current blood management practice. Second, semistructured interviews will be held among 10 orthopedic surgeons and 10 anesthesiologists to identify barriers and facilitators that are relevant for the uptake of cost-effective blood transfusion management. Interview questions will be based on the Theoretical Domains Interview framework. The interviews will be followed by a questionnaire survey among 800 medical professionals in orthopedics and anesthesiology (400 professionals per discipline) in which the identified barriers and facilitators will be ranked by frequency and importance. Finally, an implementation strategy will be developed based on the results from the previous phases, using principles of intervention mapping and an expert panel.
The developed strategy for cost-effective blood transfusion management by de-implementing BSMs is likely to reduce costs for elective hip and knee arthroplasties. In addition, this study will lead to generalized knowledge regarding relevant factors for the de-implementation of non-cost-effective interventions and insight in the differences between implementation and de-implementation strategies.
PMCID: PMC3443067  PMID: 22747693
Hip/Knee arthroplasties; Blood transfusion; Blood-saving measures; Problem analysis; Barriers and facilitators; Implementation strategy
4.  Surgical adverse outcomes and patients' evaluation of quality of care: inherent risk or reduced quality of care? 
Quality & Safety in Health Care  2007;16(6):428-433.
Previous research has shown that sicker patients are less satisfied with their healthcare, but specific effects of adverse health outcomes have not been investigated. The present study aimed to assess whether patients who experience adverse outcomes, in hospital or after discharge, differ in their evaluation of quality of care compared with patients without adverse outcomes.
Inhospital adverse outcomes were prospectively recorded by surgeons and surgical residents as part of routine care. Four weeks after discharge, patients were interviewed by telephone about the occurrence of post‐discharge adverse outcomes, and their overall evaluation of quality of hospital care and specific suggestions for improvements in the healthcare provided.
Of 2145 surgical patients admitted to the Leiden University Medical Center in 2003, 1876 (88%) agreed to be interviewed. Overall evaluation was less favourable by patients who experienced post‐discharge adverse outcomes only (average 19% lower). These patients were also more often dissatisfied (OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.24 to 3.31) than patients without adverse outcomes, and they more often suggested that improvements were needed in medical care (OR 2.07, 1.45 to 2.95) and that patients were discharged too early (OR 3.26, 1.72 to 6.20). The effect of inhospital adverse outcomes alone was not statistically significant. Patients with both inhospital and post‐discharge adverse outcomes also found the quality of care to be lower (on average 33% lower) than patients without adverse outcomes.
Post‐discharge adverse outcomes negatively influence patients' overall evaluation of quality of care and are perceived as being discharged too early, suggesting that patients need better information at discharge.
PMCID: PMC2653187  PMID: 18055886

Results 1-5 (5)