心房颤动患者参与咨询-心脏病专家的观点。

IF 1 Q4 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Ulla Hellström Muhli, Jan Trost, Eleni Siouta
{"title":"心房颤动患者参与咨询-心脏病专家的观点。","authors":"Ulla Hellström Muhli,&nbsp;Jan Trost,&nbsp;Eleni Siouta","doi":"10.1108/IJHCQA-10-2017-0194","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this paper is to analyse the accounts of Swedish cardiologists concerning patient involvement in consultations for atrial fibrillation (AF). The questions were: how cardiologists handle and provide scope for patient involvement in medical consultations regarding AF treatment and how cardiologists describe their familiarity with shared decision-making.</p><p><strong>Design/methodology/approach: </strong>A descriptive study was designed. Ten interviews with cardiologists at four Swedish hospitals were held, and a qualitative content analysis was performed on the collected data.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The analysis shows cardiologists' accounts of persuasive practice, protective practice, professional role and medical craftsmanship when it comes to patient involvement and shared decision-making. The term \"shared decision-making\" implies a concept of not only making one decision but also ensuring that it is finalised with a satisfactory agreement between both parties involved, the patient as well as the cardiologist. In order for the idea of patient involvement to be fulfilled, the two parties involved must have equal power, which can never actually be guaranteed.</p><p><strong>Research limitations/implications: </strong>Methodologically, this paper reflects the special contribution that can be made by the research design of descriptive qualitative content analysis (Krippendorff, 2004) to reveal and understand cardiologists' perspectives on patient involvement and participation in medical consultation and shared decision-making. The utility of this kind of analysis is to find what cardiologists said and how they arrived at their understanding about patient involvement. Accordingly, there is no quantification in this type of research.</p><p><strong>Practical implications: </strong>Cardiologists should prioritise patient involvement and participation in decision-making regarding AF treatment decisions in consultations when trying to meet the request of patient involvement.</p><p><strong>Originality/value: </strong>Theoretically, the authors have learned that the patient involvement and shared decision-making requires the ability to see patients as active participants in the medical consultation process.</p>","PeriodicalId":47455,"journal":{"name":"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH CARE QUALITY ASSURANCE","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/IJHCQA-10-2017-0194","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient involvement in consultation for atrial fibrillation - the cardiologists' perspective.\",\"authors\":\"Ulla Hellström Muhli,&nbsp;Jan Trost,&nbsp;Eleni Siouta\",\"doi\":\"10.1108/IJHCQA-10-2017-0194\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>The purpose of this paper is to analyse the accounts of Swedish cardiologists concerning patient involvement in consultations for atrial fibrillation (AF). The questions were: how cardiologists handle and provide scope for patient involvement in medical consultations regarding AF treatment and how cardiologists describe their familiarity with shared decision-making.</p><p><strong>Design/methodology/approach: </strong>A descriptive study was designed. Ten interviews with cardiologists at four Swedish hospitals were held, and a qualitative content analysis was performed on the collected data.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>The analysis shows cardiologists' accounts of persuasive practice, protective practice, professional role and medical craftsmanship when it comes to patient involvement and shared decision-making. The term \\\"shared decision-making\\\" implies a concept of not only making one decision but also ensuring that it is finalised with a satisfactory agreement between both parties involved, the patient as well as the cardiologist. In order for the idea of patient involvement to be fulfilled, the two parties involved must have equal power, which can never actually be guaranteed.</p><p><strong>Research limitations/implications: </strong>Methodologically, this paper reflects the special contribution that can be made by the research design of descriptive qualitative content analysis (Krippendorff, 2004) to reveal and understand cardiologists' perspectives on patient involvement and participation in medical consultation and shared decision-making. The utility of this kind of analysis is to find what cardiologists said and how they arrived at their understanding about patient involvement. Accordingly, there is no quantification in this type of research.</p><p><strong>Practical implications: </strong>Cardiologists should prioritise patient involvement and participation in decision-making regarding AF treatment decisions in consultations when trying to meet the request of patient involvement.</p><p><strong>Originality/value: </strong>Theoretically, the authors have learned that the patient involvement and shared decision-making requires the ability to see patients as active participants in the medical consultation process.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47455,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH CARE QUALITY ASSURANCE\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1108/IJHCQA-10-2017-0194\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH CARE QUALITY ASSURANCE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHCQA-10-2017-0194\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEALTH CARE QUALITY ASSURANCE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/IJHCQA-10-2017-0194","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

目的:本文的目的是分析瑞典心脏病学家关于患者参与房颤(AF)咨询的帐户。问题是:心脏病专家如何处理和提供患者参与房颤治疗的医疗咨询的范围,以及心脏病专家如何描述他们对共同决策的熟悉程度。设计/方法/方法:设计了一项描述性研究。与四家瑞典医院的心脏病专家进行了十次访谈,并对收集到的数据进行了定性内容分析。研究结果:分析显示,当涉及到患者参与和共同决策时,心脏病专家对劝导实践、保护实践、专业角色和医疗工艺的描述。“共同决策”一词意味着不仅要做出一个决定,而且要确保在涉及双方(患者和心脏病专家)之间达成令人满意的协议。为了实现患者参与的理念,参与的双方必须拥有平等的权力,这实际上是永远无法保证的。研究局限性/启示:在方法上,本文反映了描述性定性内容分析(Krippendorff, 2004)的研究设计可以做出的特殊贡献,以揭示和理解心脏病专家对患者参与和参与医疗咨询和共同决策的观点。这种分析的用途是找出心脏病专家说了什么,以及他们是如何得出他们对患者参与的理解的。因此,在这种类型的研究中没有量化。实际意义:当试图满足患者参与的要求时,心脏病专家应优先考虑患者参与和参与房颤治疗决策的决策。原创性/价值:从理论上讲,作者已经了解到,患者参与和共同决策需要将患者视为积极参与医疗咨询过程的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Patient involvement in consultation for atrial fibrillation - the cardiologists' perspective.

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to analyse the accounts of Swedish cardiologists concerning patient involvement in consultations for atrial fibrillation (AF). The questions were: how cardiologists handle and provide scope for patient involvement in medical consultations regarding AF treatment and how cardiologists describe their familiarity with shared decision-making.

Design/methodology/approach: A descriptive study was designed. Ten interviews with cardiologists at four Swedish hospitals were held, and a qualitative content analysis was performed on the collected data.

Findings: The analysis shows cardiologists' accounts of persuasive practice, protective practice, professional role and medical craftsmanship when it comes to patient involvement and shared decision-making. The term "shared decision-making" implies a concept of not only making one decision but also ensuring that it is finalised with a satisfactory agreement between both parties involved, the patient as well as the cardiologist. In order for the idea of patient involvement to be fulfilled, the two parties involved must have equal power, which can never actually be guaranteed.

Research limitations/implications: Methodologically, this paper reflects the special contribution that can be made by the research design of descriptive qualitative content analysis (Krippendorff, 2004) to reveal and understand cardiologists' perspectives on patient involvement and participation in medical consultation and shared decision-making. The utility of this kind of analysis is to find what cardiologists said and how they arrived at their understanding about patient involvement. Accordingly, there is no quantification in this type of research.

Practical implications: Cardiologists should prioritise patient involvement and participation in decision-making regarding AF treatment decisions in consultations when trying to meet the request of patient involvement.

Originality/value: Theoretically, the authors have learned that the patient involvement and shared decision-making requires the ability to see patients as active participants in the medical consultation process.

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
4.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
6
期刊介绍: ■Successful quality/continuous improvement projects ■The use of quality tools and models in leadership management development such as the EFQM Excellence Model, Balanced Scorecard, Quality Standards, Managed Care ■Issues relating to process control such as Six Sigma, Leadership, Managing Change and Process Mapping ■Improving patient care through quality related programmes and/or research Articles that use quantitative and qualitative methods are encouraged.
×
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