Group Health's Participation In A Shared Decision-Making Demonstration Yielded Lessons, Such As Role Of Culture Change

Health Affairs (Impact Factor: 4.97). 02/2013; 32(2):294-302. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1067
Source: PubMed


In 2007 Washington State became the first state to enact legislation encouraging the use of shared decision making and decision aids to address deficiencies in the informed-consent process. Group Health volunteered to fulfill a legislated mandate to study the costs and benefits of integrating these shared decision-making processes into clinical practice across a range of conditions for which multiple treatment options are available. The Group Health Demonstration Project, conducted during 2009-11, yielded five key lessons for successful implementation, including the synergy between efforts to reduce practice variation and increase shared decision making; the need to support modifications in practice with changes in physician training and culture; and the value of identifying best implementation methods through constant evaluation and iterative improvement. These lessons, and the legislated provisions that supported successful implementation, can guide other states and health care institutions moving toward informed patient choice as the standard of care for medical decision making.

18 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This "Legal Briefing" column covers recent legal developments involving patient decision aids.This topic has been the subject of recent articles in JCE. It is included in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. And it has received significant attention in the biomedical literature, including a new book, a thematic issue of Health Affairs, and a recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine. Moreover, physicians and health systems across the United States are increasingly integrating decision aids into their clinical practice. Both federal and state laws play a significant role in promoting this expanded use. On the other hand, concerns about liability could stymie development and implementation. We categorize legal developments concerning patient decision aids into the following five sections: 1. Development of decision aids. 2. Effectiveness of decision aids. 3. Federal regulation of decision aids. 4. State regulation of decision aids. 5. Legal concerns regarding decision aids.
    The Journal of clinical ethics 03/2013; 24(1):70-80. · 0.47 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We conducted a review of informed consent studies involving surgical and invasive procedures and report the degree to which current research targets a broader scope of patient outcomes beyond comprehension. Using PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Excerpta Medical Database, we identified 97 articles for review. Six members coded articles and generated scores of study design quality. The mean quality score (10.7 out of a total score of 20) was low. Most studies were single institution-based, relying on one-time data collections. Randomly assigning subjects to study conditions, using power analysis to determine subject numbers, and reporting psychometric evidence, such as reliability and validity, were not widely reported. Most frequently targeted patient outcomes were knowledge, understanding and satisfaction. Core informed consent outcomes (e.g. capacity, voluntariness, decision making) and emotional factors (e.g. anxiety) were not extensively addressed. Informed consent research may benefit from applying qualitative methods to more directly tap into patients' beliefs and decisions by eliciting in patients' own words their emotions and reasoning around processing informed consent content. Research that addresses patient perspectives toward surgical interventions should tap into underexplored ethical and emotional factors that shape decision making.
    Patient Education and Counseling 08/2013; 93(3). DOI:10.1016/j.pec.2013.08.018 · 2.20 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) relies on a team approach to patient care. For organizations engaged in transitioning to a PCMH model, identifying and providing the resources needed to promote team functioning is essential. To describe team-level resources required to support PCMH team functioning within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), and provide insight into how the presence or absence of these resources facilitates or impedes within-team delegation. Semi-structured interviews with members of pilot teams engaged in PCMH implementation in 77 primary care clinics serving over 300,000 patients across two VHA regions covering the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest United States. A purposive sample of 101 core members of pilot teams, including 32 primary care providers, 42 registered nurse care managers, 15 clinical associates, and 12 clerical associates. Investigators from two evaluation sites interviewed frontline primary care staff separately, and then collaborated on joint analysis of parallel data to develop a broad, comprehensive understanding of global themes impacting team functioning and within-team delegation. We describe four themes key to understanding how resources at the team level supported ability of primary care staff to work as effective, engaged teams. Team-based task delegation was facilitated by demarcated boundaries and collective identity; shared goals and sense of purpose; mature and open communication characterized by psychological safety; and ongoing, intentional role negotiation. Our findings provide a framework for organizations to identify assets already in place to support team functioning, as well as areas in need of improvement. For teams struggling to make practice changes, our results indicate key areas where they may benefit from future support. In addition, this research sheds light on how variation in medical home implementation and outcomes may be associated with variation in team-based task delegation.
    Journal of General Internal Medicine 04/2014; 29(S2). DOI:10.1007/s11606-013-2666-z · 3.42 Impact Factor
Show more

Similar Publications