Decision Making
Discussion: Patient Preferences and Decision Making
Changes in culture and technology have resulted in patient populations that are often well informed and educated, even before consulting or considering a healthcare need delivered by a health professional. Fueled by this, health professionals are increasingly involving patients in treatment decisions. However, this often comes with challenges, as illnesses and treatments can become complex.
What has your experience been with patient involvement in treatment or healthcare decisions?
In this Discussion, you will share your experiences and consider the impact of patient involvement (or lack of involvement). You will also consider the use of a patient decision aid to inform best practices for patient care and healthcare decision making.
To Prepare:
· Review the Resources and reflect on a time when you experienced a patient being brought into (or not being brought into) a decision regarding their treatment plan.
· Review the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute’s Decision Aids Inventory at https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/.
o Choose “For Specific Conditions,” then Browse an alphabetical listing of decision aids by health topic.
NOTE: To ensure compliance with HIPAA rules, please DO NOT use the patient’s real name or any information that might identify the patient or organization/practice.
By Day 3 of Week 8
Post a brief description of the situation you experienced and explain how incorporating or not incorporating patient preferences and values impacted the outcome of their treatment plan. Be specific and provide examples. Then, explain how including patient preferences and values might impact the trajectory of the situation and how these were reflected in the treatment plan. Finally, explain the value of the patient decision aid you selected and how it might contribute to effective decision making, both in general and in the experience you described. Describe how you might use this decision aid inventory in your professional practice or personal life.
Assignment: Evidence-Based Project, Part 5: Recommending an Evidence-Based Practice Change
The collection of evidence is an activity that occurs with an endgame in mind. For example, law enforcement professionals collect evidence to support a decision to charge those accused of criminal activity. Similarly, evidence-based healthcare practitioners collect evidence to support decisions in pursuit of specific healthcare outcomes.
In this Assignment, you will identify an issue or opportunity for change within your healthcare organization and propose an idea for a change in practice supported by an EBP approach.
To Prepare:
· Reflect on the four peer-reviewed articles you critically appraised in Module 4.
· Reflect on your current healthcare organization and think about potential opportunities for evidence-based change.
The Assignment: (Evidence-Based Project)
Part 5: Recommending an Evidence-Based Practice Change
Create an 8- to 9-slide PowerPoint presentation in which you do the following:
· Briefly describe your healthcare organization, including its culture and readiness for change. (You may opt to keep various elements of this anonymous, such as your company name.)
· Describe the current problem or opportunity for change. Include in this description the circumstances surrounding the need for change, the scope of the issue, the stakeholders involved, and the risks associated with change implementation in general.
· Propose an evidence-based idea for a change in practice using an EBP approach to decision making. Note that you may find further research needs to be conducted if sufficient evidence is not discovered.
· Describe your plan for knowledge transfer of this change, including knowledge creation, dissemination, and organizational adoption and implementation.
· Describe the measurable outcomes you hope to achieve with the implementation of this evidence-based change.
· Be sure to provide APA citations of the supporting evidence-based peer reviewed articles you selected to support your thinking.
· Add a lessons learned section that includes the following:
o A summary of the critical appraisal of the peer-reviewed articles you previously submitted
o An explanation about what you learned from completing the evaluation table (1 slide)
o An explanation about what you learned from completing the levels of evidence table (1 slide)
o An explanation about what you learned from completing the outcomes synthesis table (1 slide)
Required Readings
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer.
Chapter 7, “Patient Concerns, Choices and Clinical Judgement in Evidence-Based Practice” (pp. 219–232)
Hoffman, T. C., Montori, V. M., & Del Mar, C. (2014). The connection between evidence-based medicine and shared decision making. Journal of the American Medical Association, 312(13), 1295–1296. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.10186. Retrieved from https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/1910118
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Kon, A. A., Davidson, J. E., Morrison, W., Danis, M., & White, D. B. (2016). Shared decision making in intensive care units: An American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society policy statement. Critical Care Medicine, 44(1), 188–201. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000001396. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4788386/
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Opperman, C., Liebig, D., Bowling, J., & Johnson, C. S., & Harper, M. (2016). Measuring return on investment for professional development activities: Implications for practice. Journal for Nurses in Professional Development, 32(4), 176–184. doi:10.1097/NND.0000000000000483
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
Schroy, P. C., Mylvaganam, S., & Davidson, P. (2014). Provider perspectives on the utility of a colorectal cancer screening decision aid for facilitating shared decision making. Health Expectations, 17(1), 27–35. doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00730.x
Note: You will access this article from the Walden Library databases.
