“专业驱动区患者或代理裁量权”模型的共同决策及其在急症护理中的应用。

IF 1.8 3区 哲学 Q2 ETHICS
Joshua T Landry
{"title":"“专业驱动区患者或代理裁量权”模型的共同决策及其在急症护理中的应用。","authors":"Joshua T Landry","doi":"10.1007/s10728-025-00524-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Shared decision-making (\"SDM\") has increased in acceptance and become a gold standard in medical decision-making over the last two decades. Despite this, there continues to be disagreement about several facets of SDM that many existing models or versions do not sufficiently address, including: that there is a lack of agreement about which version or model of SDM to utilize in practice; that there are practical limitations on when SDM ought to be utilized; that SDM may be required to use different \"harm thresholds\" when making decisions for patients who have lost decision-making capacity or competence, or for those who have never had such capacity in the first place; and that many existing models of SDM succumb to what is known as the \"framing problem,\" among other concerns. Elsewhere, this author presented a model of SDM titled, the Professionally-Driven Zone of Patient or Surrogate Discretion (or, Professionally-Driven ZPSD) as a more comprehensive and defensible way forward. This article sets out to expand on the expected benefits of the model, and apply it to several case studies in the acute-care setting in order to demonstrate its functionality as a model of SDM.</p>","PeriodicalId":46740,"journal":{"name":"Health Care Analysis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Shared Decision-Making with the \\\"Professionally-Driven Zone of Patient or Surrogate Discretion\\\" Model and its Application in Acute Care.\",\"authors\":\"Joshua T Landry\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10728-025-00524-3\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Shared decision-making (\\\"SDM\\\") has increased in acceptance and become a gold standard in medical decision-making over the last two decades. Despite this, there continues to be disagreement about several facets of SDM that many existing models or versions do not sufficiently address, including: that there is a lack of agreement about which version or model of SDM to utilize in practice; that there are practical limitations on when SDM ought to be utilized; that SDM may be required to use different \\\"harm thresholds\\\" when making decisions for patients who have lost decision-making capacity or competence, or for those who have never had such capacity in the first place; and that many existing models of SDM succumb to what is known as the \\\"framing problem,\\\" among other concerns. Elsewhere, this author presented a model of SDM titled, the Professionally-Driven Zone of Patient or Surrogate Discretion (or, Professionally-Driven ZPSD) as a more comprehensive and defensible way forward. This article sets out to expand on the expected benefits of the model, and apply it to several case studies in the acute-care setting in order to demonstrate its functionality as a model of SDM.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46740,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Care Analysis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Care Analysis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-025-00524-3\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Care Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-025-00524-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在过去的二十年里,共同决策(SDM)越来越被接受,并成为医疗决策的黄金标准。尽管如此,关于SDM的几个方面仍然存在分歧,许多现有的模型或版本没有充分解决这些问题,包括:在实践中使用SDM的哪个版本或模型缺乏共识;在何时应利用可持续发展机制方面存在实际限制;SDM在为丧失决策能力或能力的病人或从一开始就没有这种能力的病人做决定时,可能被要求使用不同的“伤害阈值”;许多现有的SDM模型屈服于所谓的“框架问题”,以及其他问题。在其他地方,作者提出了一个SDM模型,标题为专业驱动的患者或代理自由裁量权区域(或专业驱动的ZPSD),作为一个更全面和更可靠的前进方向。本文旨在扩展该模型的预期收益,并将其应用于急性护理环境中的几个案例研究,以证明其作为SDM模型的功能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Shared Decision-Making with the "Professionally-Driven Zone of Patient or Surrogate Discretion" Model and its Application in Acute Care.

Shared decision-making ("SDM") has increased in acceptance and become a gold standard in medical decision-making over the last two decades. Despite this, there continues to be disagreement about several facets of SDM that many existing models or versions do not sufficiently address, including: that there is a lack of agreement about which version or model of SDM to utilize in practice; that there are practical limitations on when SDM ought to be utilized; that SDM may be required to use different "harm thresholds" when making decisions for patients who have lost decision-making capacity or competence, or for those who have never had such capacity in the first place; and that many existing models of SDM succumb to what is known as the "framing problem," among other concerns. Elsewhere, this author presented a model of SDM titled, the Professionally-Driven Zone of Patient or Surrogate Discretion (or, Professionally-Driven ZPSD) as a more comprehensive and defensible way forward. This article sets out to expand on the expected benefits of the model, and apply it to several case studies in the acute-care setting in order to demonstrate its functionality as a model of SDM.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
期刊介绍: Health Care Analysis is a journal that promotes dialogue and debate about conceptual and normative issues related to health and health care, including health systems, healthcare provision, health law, public policy and health, professional health practice, health services organization and decision-making, and health-related education at all levels of clinical medicine, public health and global health. Health Care Analysis seeks to support the conversation between philosophy and policy, in particular illustrating the importance of conceptual and normative analysis to health policy, practice and research. As such, papers accepted for publication are likely to analyse philosophical questions related to health, health care or health policy that focus on one or more of the following: aims or ends, theories, frameworks, concepts, principles, values or ideology. All styles of theoretical analysis are welcome providing that they illuminate conceptual or normative issues and encourage debate between those interested in health, philosophy and policy. Papers must be rigorous, but should strive for accessibility – with care being taken to ensure that their arguments and implications are plain to a broad academic and international audience. In addition to purely theoretical papers, papers grounded in empirical research or case-studies are very welcome so long as they explore the conceptual or normative implications of such work. Authors are encouraged, where possible, to have regard to the social contexts of the issues they are discussing, and all authors should ensure that they indicate the ‘real world’ implications of their work. Health Care Analysis publishes contributions from philosophers, lawyers, social scientists, healthcare educators, healthcare professionals and administrators, and other health-related academics and policy analysts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信