Experiences of shared decision-making in community rehabilitation: a focused ethnography
- PMID: 32306972
- PMCID: PMC7168887
- DOI: 10.1186/s12913-020-05223-4
Experiences of shared decision-making in community rehabilitation: a focused ethnography
Abstract
Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) can advance patient satisfaction, understanding, goal fulfilment, and patient-reported outcomes. We lack clarity on whether this physician-focused literature applies to community rehabilitation, and on the integration of SDM policies in healthcare settings. We aimed to understand patient and provider perceptions of shared decision-making (SDM) in community rehabilitation, particularly the barriers and facilitators to SDM.
Methods: We used a focused ethnography involving 14 community rehabilitation sites across Alberta, including rural, regional-urban and metropolitan-urban sites. We conducted semi-structured interviews that asked participants about their positive and negative communication experiences (n = 23 patients; n = 26 providers).
Results: We found SDM experiences fluctuated between extremes: Getting Patient Buy-In and Aligning Expectations. The former is provider-driven, prescriptive and less flexible; the latter is collaborative, inquisitive and empowering. In Aligning Expectations, patients and providers express humility and openness, communicate in the language of ask and listen, and view education as empowering. Patients and providers described barriers and facilitators to SDM in community rehabilitation. Facilitators included geography influencing context and connections; consistent, patient-specific messaging; patient lifestyle, capacity and perceived outlook; provider confidence, experience and perceived independence; provider training; and perceptions of more time (and control over time) for appointments. SDM barriers included lack of privacy; waitlists and financial barriers to access; provider approach; how choices are framed; and, patient's perceived assertiveness, lack of capacity, and level of deference.
Conclusions: We have found both excellent experiences and areas for improvement for applying SDM in community rehabilitation. We proffer recommendations to advance high-quality SDM in community rehabilitation based on promoting facilitators and overcoming barriers. This research will support the spread, scale and evaluation of a new Model of Care in rehabilitation by the provincial health system, which aimed to promote patient-centred care.
Keywords: Buy-in; Community; Expectations; Patient perspectives; Provider perspectives; Rehabilitation; Shared decision-making.
Conflict of interest statement
Kiran Pohar Manhas, Karin Olson, Katie Churchill, Sunita Vohra, and Karin Olson declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Figures
References
-
- Yiu V, Gordon D, Woods S, Pougnet J. The patient first. Edmonton; 2015. Available from: https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/info/pf/first/if-pf-1-pf-str....
-
- Alberta Health Services. Alberta Health Services Health Plan & Business Plan 2016–17. Edmonton; 2016. Available from: https://www.albertahealthservices.ca/assets/about/publications/ahs-pub-h....
-
- AHS Provincial Rehabilitation Forum. Rehabilitation strategic plan 2016–2019. Edmonton; 2016. Available from: https://www.alberta-tr.org/media/46444/ahs-rehabilitation-strategic-plan....
-
- Advisory Panel on Healthcare Innovation . Unleashing Innovation: Excellent Healthcare for Canada. 2015.
-
- Department of Health. Liberating the NHS: No decision about me without me. London; 2010. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil....
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
