Patient participation in decision making: views of health professionals caring for people with colorectal cancer

A systematic review of the effectiveness of decision making interventions on increasing perceptions of shared decision making occurring in advanced cancer consultations

OBJECTIVE

To determine how decision making interventions for use in advanced cancer treatment consultations function and whether they increase perceptions of shared decision making (SDM) behaviours within consultations.

METHODS

A systematic search of five literature databases was conducted. Evaluations of decision making interventions where participants faced active treatment decisions for stage 4 or otherwise incurable cancer were included. Intervention descriptions were coded using Behaviour Change Techniques (BCTs) to provide a narrative of how the interventions function. A narrative synthesis of interventions effect on perceptions of SDM behaviours compared to usual care was conducted.

RESULTS

Four studies presenting different interventions were included. Education, training, modelling and enablement intervention functions were identified. Oncologist SDM training alone and combined with a patient communication aid demonstrated the only significant effect (p < 0.05) on SDM behaviours in advanced cancer consultations.

CONCLUSION

Healthcare professional (HCP) SDM training which includes modelling and enablement functions may be effective in increasing clinician motivation, capability and opportunity to facilitate SDM in advanced cancer consultations.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Implementing HCP SDM training into practice may encourage greater uptake of SDM which may lead to treatment decisions concordant with the goals of care of people with advanced cancer.

Trust, discrimination and preference for shared decision-making in adolescents diagnosed with depression: Implications from Chinese mental health professionals

BACKGROUND

While evidence suggests that the attitudes of healthcare providers toward medical decision-making in adolescents diagnosed with depression merit exploration, research on their preferences for Shared Decision-Making (SDM) and the factors affecting these preferences remains limited.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate Chinese mental health professionals' (MHPs) preferences for SDM in adolescents with depression and identify the relationships between their preference for SDM and trust and discrimination.

METHODS

A cross-sectional design was used in this study. Clinical Decision-making Style-Staff (CDMS-S) was applied to evaluate their preferences for SDM. Physician Trust in the Patient Scale (PTPS) was utilised to assess their trust in consumers. Social Distance Scale to Mental Illness (SDSMI) was utilised to measure their discrimination against people with mental illness.

RESULTS

A total of 581 MHPs were identified in China. MHPs rated their preference for participation in decision making (PD) as shared (1.89 ± 0.472), information (IN) as moderate (2.62 ± 0.682), and family involvement (FI) as high (3.13 ± 0.840). The preferences for three decision topics ranked from the highest to the lowest score were working-related decision (2.35 ± 0.681), general preferences in decision (1.82 ± 0.581) and medication-related decision (1.74 ± 0.826). The mean score of PTPS and SDSMI were 34.71 (SD=9.709) and 15.17 (SD=4.299), respectively. Logistic regression indicated that the preference for PD was associated with discrimination; the preference for IN was associated with trust, discrimination and SDM-related training experience; and the preference for FI was associated with both trust and discrimination.

CONCLUSIONS

While MHPs generally exhibit a favourable attitude toward SDM, this positivity is not universally observed across all contexts. There remains room for improvement in the willingness to co-develop medication regimens and share health information. Rational recognition of depression, and building trusting and friendly therapeutic relationships are key to promoting MHPs' preferences for SDM.

PRACTICAL VALUE

MHPs' preferences for SDM have a significant impact on SDM implementation, which will be promoted by implementing SDM-related training.

Evaluating shared decision making for dialysis initiation: A qualitative study on patient refusal of long-term dialysis in Taiwan

RATIONALE

Previous studies have explored shared decision making (SDM) implementation to determine the renal replacement therapy modality; however, the SDM approach for dialysis initiation, especially when patients refuse physician suggestions for long-term dialysis, remains unclear.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to explore physicians' responses towards patients' refusal of long-term dialysis during the SDM process and the thinking processes of both physicians and patients regarding dialysis refusal.

METHOD

We conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with 10 patients diagnosed with end-stage renal disease, each of whom refused long-term dialysis after physicians employed the SDM framework, and nine nephrologists at the Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taiwan, from March to May 2020. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and translated from Mandarin to English. They were then thematically analysed.

RESULTS

Three main themes on dialysis initiation SDM implementation and the differences between physician and patient perceptions on patient treatment refusal were yielded. While the SDM approach for dialysis initiation developed by nephrologists in Taiwan respects patient decisions, physicians often actively persuade patients to undergo dialysis in case of treatment refusal. The motivation behind this approach is to promote the patient's best medical interests, particularly post-dialysis life quality, and to ensure a 'rational' medical decision is made. However, patients' perceptions of treatment refusal differ significantly from those of physicians, and their decision-making process is often iterative and based on comprehensive evaluation of immediate concerns beyond biomedical factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings suggest that the current physician-led SDM approach for dialysis initiation characterises active persuasion with physicians' perspectives predominating the clinical encounter. To improve SDM implementation, we propose that physicians should acknowledge and understand patients' reasoning for dialysis refusal and the distinction between objective health and subjective well-being during the decision-making process.

Shared Decision Making in Ophthalmology: A Scoping Review

PURPOSE

Shared decision making (SDM) has been associated with improved patient satisfaction and outcomes in both medical and surgical specialties, but its role in ophthalmology has not been systematically examined. Using a scoping review of the literature, the purpose of this study was to explore the characteristics, implementation, and outcomes of SDM in ophthalmology.

DESIGN

Scoping review of the literature.

METHODS

Searches were conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through August 2021 for SDM in ophthalmology. The resulting 1602 studies were screened by 2 independent reviewers with 57 full-text articles examined for inclusion of an ophthalmologic diagnosis, as well as discussion of SDM or patient decision aids. Nineteen studies were eligible and qualitatively coded for 11 predetermined codes, which included patient outcomes, patient and physician requests for SDM, and methods of implementation.

RESULTS

Of 19 included studies, all emphasized the value of SDM for ophthalmology and 2 studies reported improved patient outcomes. The most commonly examined topics were chronic ophthalmic diseases, such as cataracts and glaucoma. Limitations to SDM implementation were also universally discussed, including patients' lack of disease knowledge, communication barriers, and time restrictions. Although patient decision aids are an effective tool to mitigate these limitations, these have only been established for the subjects of cataracts and glaucoma.

CONCLUSION

SDM is a methodology for patient-centered care that is regarded as a potentially useful tool in the field of ophthalmology. However, significant barriers exist to its effective implementation. Evidence-based research on if and how these barriers should be attenuated, as well as the development of additional patient decision aids for different ophthalmic diseases, are needed.

Shared decision making in surgery: a scoping review of patient and surgeon preferences

Background

Many suggest that shared decision-making (SDM) is the most effective approach to clinical counseling. It is unclear if this applies to surgical decision-making-especially regarding urgent, highly-morbid operations. In this scoping review, we identify articles that address patient and surgeon preferences toward SDM in surgery.

Methods

We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) to develop our protocol. Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception through 11.2017. Title/abstract review identified peer-reviewed, empirical articles that addressed patient/surgeon preferences toward SDM in surgery. Identified articles underwent full review by two independent investigators. We addressed the following questions: (1) What is known from existing empirical evidence about patients’ and/or surgeons’ surgical decision-making preferences? (2) Why might patients and/or surgeons prefer SDM? (3) Does acuity of intervention impact surgical decision-making preferences? Outcome measures included study methods, surgical specialty, diagnosis, study location/setting, type/number of subjects, acuity of intervention, surgeon/patient decision-making preferences, and factors associated with favoring SDM. Data was analyzed in Microsoft Excel.

Results

20,359 articles were identified with 4988 duplicates, yielding 15,371 articles for title/abstract review. 74 articles were included in final analysis. 68% of articles discussed oncologic decision-making. 46% of these focused on breast cancer. 92% of articles included patients, 22% included surgeons. 75% of articles found surgeons favored SDM, 25% demonstrated surgeons favored surgeon guidance. 54% of articles demonstrated patients favored SDM, 35% showed patients favored surgeon guidance, 11% showed patients preferred independent decision-making. The most common factors for patients favoring SDM included female gender, higher education, and younger age. For surgeons, the most common factors for favoring SDM included limited evidence for a given treatment plan, multiple treatment options, and impact on patient lifestyle. No articles evaluated decision-making preferences in an emergent setting.

Conclusions

There has been limited evaluation of patient and surgeon preferences toward SDM in surgical decision-making. Generally, patients and surgeons expressed preference toward SDM. None of the articles evaluated decision-making preferences in an emergent setting, so assessment of the impact of acuity on decision-making preferences is limited. Extension of research to complex, emergent clinical settings is needed.

Defining Patient Engagement in Research: Results of a Systematic Review and Analysis: Report of the ISPOR Patient-Centered Special Interest Group

OBJECTIVES

Lack of clarity on the definition of "patient engagement" has been highlighted as a barrier to fully implementing patient engagement in research. This study identified themes within existing definitions related to patient engagement and proposes a consensus definition of "patient engagement in research."

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted to identify definitions of patient engagement and related terms in published literature (2006-2018). Definitions were extracted and qualitatively analyzed to identify themes and characteristics. A multistakeholder approach, including academia, industry, and patient representation, was taken at all stages. A proposed definition is offered based on a synthesis of the findings.

RESULTS

Of 1821 abstracts identified and screened for eligibility, 317 were selected for full-text review. Of these, 169 articles met inclusion criteria, from which 244 distinct definitions were extracted for analysis. The most frequently defined terms were: "patient-centered" (30.5%), "patient engagement" (15.5%), and "patient participation" (13.4%). The majority of definitions were specific to the healthcare delivery setting (70.5%); 11.9% were specific to research. Among the definitions of "patient engagement," the most common themes were "active process," "patient involvement," and "patient as participant." In the research setting, the top themes were "patient as partner," "patient involvement," and "active process"; these did not appear in the top 3 themes of nonresearch definitions.

CONCLUSION

Distinct themes are associated with the term "patient engagement" and with engagement in the "research" setting. Based on an analysis of existing literature and review by patient, industry, and academic stakeholders, we propose a scalable consensus definition of "patient engagement in research."

Physicians' perspective on shared decision-making in Dubai: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is an integral part of patient-centered delivery of care. Maximizing the opportunity of patients to participate in decisions related to their health is an expectation in care delivery nowadays. The purpose of this study is to explore the perceptions of physicians in regard to SDM in a large private hospital network in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

METHODS

This study utilized a cross-sectional design, where a survey questionnaire was assembled to capture quantitative and qualitative data on the perception of physicians in relation to SDM. The survey instrument included three sections: the first solicited physicians' personal and professional information, the second entailed a 9-item SDM Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9), and the third included an open-ended section. Statistical analysis assessed whether the average SDM-Q-9 score differed significantly by gender, age, years of experience, professional status-generalist versus specialist, and work location-hospitals versus polyclinics. Non-parametric analysis (two independent variables) with the Mann-Whitney test was utilized. The qualitative data was thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

Fifty physicians from various specialties participated in this study (25 of each gender-85% response rate). Although the quantitative data analysis revealed that most physicians (80%) rated themselves quite highly when it comes to SDM, qualitative analysis underscored a number of barriers that limited the opportunity for SDM. Analysis identified four themes that influence the acceptability of SDM, namely physician-specific (where the physicians' extent of adopting SDM is related to their own belief system and their perception that the presence of evidence negates the need for SDM), patient-related (e.g., patients' unwillingness to be involved in decisions concerning their health), contextual/environmental (e.g., sociocultural impediments), and relational (the information asymmetry and the power gradient that influence how the physician and patient relate to one another).

CONCLUSIONS

SDM and evidence-based management (EBM) are not mutually exclusive. Professional learning and development programs targeting caregivers should focus on the consolidation of the two perspectives. We encourage healthcare managers and leaders to translate declared policies into actionable initiatives supporting patient-centered care. This could be achieved through the dedication of the necessary resources that would enable SDM, and the development of interventions that are designed both to improve health literacy and to educate patients on their rights.

Addressing the quality of life needs of older patients with cancer: a SIOG consensus paper and practical guide

Around 60% of people living with cancer are aged 65 years or older. Older cancer patients face a unique set of age-associated changes, comorbidities and circumstances that impact on their quality of life (QoL) in ways that are different from those affecting younger patients. A Task Force of the International Society of Geriatric Oncology recommends and encourages all healthcare professionals involved in cancer care to place greater focus on the QoL of older people living with cancer. This paper summarizes current thinking on the key issues of importance to addressing QoL needs of older cancer patients and makes a series of recommendations, together with practical guidance.

"I need to know what makes somebody tick …": Challenges and Strategies of Implementing Shared Decision-Making in Individualized Oncology

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) has been advocated as an ethical framework for decision-making in cancer care. According to SDM, patients make decisions in light of their values and based on the available evidence. However, SDM is difficult to implement in cancer care. A lack of applicability in practice is often reported. This empirical-ethical study explores factors potentially relevant to current difficulties in translating the concept of SDM into clinical practice.

METHODS

This study was conducted with nonparticipant observation of the decision-making process in patients with gastrointestinal cancers for whom the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy was uncertain according to clinical guidelines. Triangulation of qualitative data analysis was conducted by means of semistructured interviews subsequent to the observation. Observation notes and interview transcripts were analyzed according to the principles of grounded theory.

RESULTS

Deviating from the concept of SDM, oncologists initiated a process of eliciting values and medical information prior to conveying information. The purpose of this approach was to select and individualize information relevant to the treatment decision. In doing so, the oncologists observed used two strategies: "biographical communication" and a "metacommunicative approach." Both strategies could be shown to be effective or to fail depending on patients' characteristics such as their view of the physicians' role and the relevance of value-related information for medical decision-making.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to the conceptual account of SDM, oncologists are in need of patient-related information prior to conveying information. Both strategies observed to elicit such information are in principle justifiable but need to be adapted in accordance with patient preferences and decision-making styles.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This study showed that knowledge of patients' values and preferences is very important to properly adapt the giving of medical information and to further the process of shared decision-making. Shared decision-making (SDM) trainings should consider different strategies of talking about values. The right strategy depends largely on the patient's preferences in communication. To be aware of the role of values in SDM and to be able to switch communicative strategies might prove to be of particular value. A more systematic evaluation of the patient's decision-making preferences as part of routine procedures in hospitals might help to reduce value-related barriers in communication.

Collaborative care: Using six thinking hats for decision making

AIM

To apply six thinking hats technique for decision making in collaborative care.

BACKGROUND

In collaborative partnerships, effective communications need to occur in patient, family, and health care professional meetings. The effectiveness of these meetings depends on the engagement of participants and the quality of the meeting process. The use of six thinking hats technique to engage all participants in effective dialogue is proposed.

DESIGN

Discussion paper.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases, CINAHL, Pub Med, and Science Direct, were searched for years 1990 to 2017.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Using six thinking hats technique in patient family meetings nurses can guide a process of dialogue that focuses decision making to build equal care partnerships inclusive of all participants. Nurses will need to develop the skills for using six thinking hats technique and provide support to all participants during the meeting process.

CONCLUSION

Collaborative decision making can be augmented by six thinking hat technique to provide patients, families, and health professionals with opportunities to make informed decisions about care that considers key issues for all involved. Nurses who are most often advocates for patients and their families are in a unique position to lead this initiative in meetings as they network with all health professionals.

Influential factors on treatment decision making among patients with colorectal cancer: A scoping review

PURPOSE

In recent years, a greater emphasis has been placed on shared decision-making (SDM) techniques between providers and patients with the goal of helping patients make informed decisions about their care and subsequently to improve patient health outcomes. Previous research has shown variability in treatment decision-making among patients with colorectal cancer (CRC), and there is little comprehensive information available to help explain this variability. Thus, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the current state of the literature on factors that are influential in treatment decision-making among patients with CRC.

METHOD

A priori search terms using Boolean connectors were used to examine PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, CINAHL, and MEDLINE for relevant studies. Eligibility criteria for inclusion in the study included patients with CRC and examination of influences on CRC treatment decision-making. All relevant data were extracted including, author, title and year, study methodology, and study results.

RESULTS

Findings (n = 13) yielded influences in four areas: informational, patient treatment goals, patient role preferences, and relationship with provider. Quality of life and trust in physician were rated a high priority among patients when making decisions between different therapeutic options. Several studies found that patients wanted to be informed and involved but did not necessarily want to make autonomous treatment choices, with many preferring a more passive role.

CONCLUSIONS

Providers who initiate a dialog to better understand their patients' treatment goals can establish rapport, increase patient understanding of treatment options, and help patients assume their desired role in their decision-making. Overall, there were a small number of studies that met all inclusion criteria with most used a cross-sectional design.

Decision-making in rectal and colorectal cancer: systematic review and qualitative analysis of surgeons' preferences

Surgeons are experiencing difficulties implementing recommendations not only owing to incomplete, confusing or conflicting information but also to the increasing involvement of patients in decisions relating to their health. This study sought to establish which common factors including heuristic factors guide surgeons' decision-making in colon and rectal cancers. We conducted a systematic literature review of surgeons' decision-making factors related to colon and rectal cancer treatment. Eleven of 349 identified publications were eligible for data analyses. Using the IRaMuTeQ (Interface of R for the Multidimensional Analyses of Texts and Questionnaire), we carried out a qualitative analysis of the significant factors collected in the studies reviewed. Several validation procedures were applied to control the robustness of the findings. Five categories of factors (i.e. patient, surgeon, treatment, tumor and organizational cues) were found to influence surgeons' decision-making. Specifically, all decision criteria including biomedical (e.g. tumor information) and heuristic (e.g. surgeons' dispositional factors) criteria converged towards the factor 'age of patient' in the similarity analysis. In the light of the results, we propose an explanatory model showing the impact of heuristic criteria on medical issues (i.e. diagnosis, prognosis, treatment features, etc.) and thus on decision-making. Finally, the psychosocial complexity involved in decision-making is discussed and a medico-psycho-social grid for use in multidisciplinary meetings is proposed.

Decision-Making Styles and Levels of Involvement Concerning Breast Reconstructive Surgery: An Israeli Study

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES

To address decision-making styles among breast cancer survivors considering breast reconstruction.
.

DESIGN

A primary analysis of a cross-sectional sample among survivors who chose to have breast reconstruction to examine correlations among patient age, decision-making style, and the level of involvement of decision making.
.

SETTING

Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem, Israel.
.

SAMPLE

70 women who had undergone breast reconstruction surgery in the past five years.
.

METHODS

Participants completed decision-making style and demographic questionnaires and an assessment of their level of involvement in the decision-making process. 
.

MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES

Level of involvement in decision making, decision-making model between provider and patient, and decision-making styles were examined.
.

FINDINGS

No correlation was found between four main decision-making styles and patient age or the extent of patient decision-making involvement and age. A statistically significant correlation was found between the level of involvement in decision making and the decision-making style of the patient.
.

CONCLUSIONS

Nurses should assess patient decision-making styles to ensure maximum patient involvement in the decision-making process based on personal desires regardless of age.
.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING

Nurses working in breast cancer care must address the decision-making process of patients diagnosed with breast cancer, including the choice to undergo breast reconstruction after mastectomy. Nurses should understand the complex factors that influence a woman's decision-making style to best help with the decision.

Correlates of type and quantity of child communication during pediatric subspecialty encounters

OBJECTIVES

Understanding the factors associated with child communication during subspecialty encounters may inform interventions promoting shared decision-making in chronic disease management. Objectives were to (1) describe the quantity and quality of child communication during outpatient subspecialty encounters and (2) determine if and how the quantity and quality of child communication vary by demographic and visit characteristics.

METHODS

We videotaped subspecialty clinic encounters involving 20 health care providers and 155 children with one of the following conditions: acute lymphoblastic leukemia (consolidation/maintenance), persistent asthma, cystic fibrosis, type 1 diabetes, and obesity. The Roter interaction analysis system was used to code child utterances into one of 10 discrete categories.

RESULTS

Children exhibited a mean of 15% of all utterances made during clinical encounters. Children spoke more during obesity encounters.

CONCLUSIONS

Similar to the findings of studies in primary care settings, children spoke infrequently during the subspecialty visits, and the most common utterances tended to be replies to questions from adults.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

In this study, there was relatively higher engagement of children during obesity clinic encounters in the area of lifestyle choices. Strategies used to engage children in conversation in obesity clinics may be useful for engaging children in other subspecialty clinics.

Physician attitudes toward shared decision making: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Although evidence suggests that shared decision-making (SDM) can improve patient outcomes, uptake to date has been sparse. The purpose of this review was to determine the reported opinions of physicians regarding the use of SDM in clinical practice and to identify strategies to promote uptake.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review, including papers published between 2007 and 2014.

RESULTS

The electronic search yielded 11,761 results. Following abstract review, 123 papers were selected for full text review, and 43 papers were included for analysis. Fourteen of the included studies considered SDM within the context of primary care, 25 in secondary care, and 4 in both.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians express positive attitudes toward SDM in clinical practice, although the level of support varies by clinical scenario, treatment decision and patient characteristics.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Physician support for SDM is a necessary, if not sufficient, condition to facilitate meaningful SDM. In order to garner support for SDM, additional empirical evidence regarding the clinical and patient important outcomes must be established. Based on the results of this review, the authors suggest assessing the impact of SDM within the context of chronic disease management where multiple therapeutic options exist, and outcomes may be measured long-term.

Trying something new

Trying something new is a universal living experience of health. Although trying something new frequently occurs in healthcare, its meaning has never explicitly been studied. Parse's humanbecoming school of thought is the theoretical perspective for this study. The research question for this study is: What is the structure of the living experience of trying something new? The purpose of this study was to advance nursing science. Parse's qualitative phenomenological-hermeneutic research method was used to guide this study. Participants were 8 men and 2 women, ages 29 to 65 who utilize an outpatient mental health facility in the Midwest. Data were collected with dialogical engagement. The major finding of the study is the structure: Trying something new is engaging in capricious exploitations with vacillating sentiments, as wistful contemplation surfaces with disparate affiliations.

A qualitative identification of categories of patient participation in decision-making by health care professionals and patients during surgical treatment

The aim of this article is to identify how health care professionals and patients experience patient participation in decision-making processes in hospitals. Eighteen semi-structured interviews with experts from different disciplines such as medicine and nursing in surgical departments as well as patients who have undergone surgical treatment constitute the data. By content analysis four categories of patient participation were identified: information dissemination, formulation of options, integration of information, and control. To meet the increasing demands of patient participation, this categorization with four identified critical areas for participation in decision-making has important implications in guiding information support for patients prior to surgery and during hospitalization.

Information needs across the colorectal cancer care continuum: scoping the literature

Because cancer care requires a multifaceted approach, providing useful and timely information to people with colorectal cancer may be fragmented and inconsistent. Our interest was in examining what has and has not captured the attention of researchers speaking to the information needs of people with colorectal cancer. We followed Arksey and O'Malley's framework for the methodology of scoping review. Focusing solely on colorectal cancer, we analysed 239 articles to get a picture of which information needs and sources of information, as well as the timing of providing information, were attended to. Treatment-related information received the most mentions (26%). Healthcare professionals (49%) were mentioned as the most likely source of information. Among articles focused on one stage of the care continuum, post-treatment (survivorship) received the most attention (16%). Only 27% of the articles consulted people with colorectal cancer and few attended to diet/nutrition and bowel management. This study examined the numerical representation of issues to which researchers attend, not the quality of the mentions. We ponder, however, on the relationship between the in/frequency of mentions and the actual information needs of people with colorectal cancer as well as the availability, sources and timing of information.

Opportunity lost? Psychiatric medications and problems with sexual function: a role for nurses in mental health

AIM

To explore patients' non-adherence to psychiatric medication with mental health nurses.

BACKGROUND

The ability of consumers to maintain normal sexual behaviours is complicated by abnormally high incidence of sexual problems arising from the medications they are prescribed. Sexual side effects of psychiatric medications are identified as a major reason for non-adherence to psychiatric medication regimes yet it remains an issue mental health nurses tend to avoid in their practice with consumers.

DESIGN

An exploratory, descriptive qualitative approach.

METHOD

Individual interviews were conducted with 14 nurses currently working with adult consumers of mental health services. Data analysis followed the framework approach developed by Ritchie and Spencer as the process for identification of the main themes.

RESULTS

Problems with sexual function in relation to psychiatric medication issues was one major theme to emerge from this research. More specifically the participants referred to: assessment of sexual function, the side effects of psychiatric medication, consumer embarrassment, and, the pros and cons of information. Participants recognised that sexual side effects were likely to have an impact on adherence to medication and that this was an important consideration but most did not discuss this issue with consumers. Consumer embarrassment and the belief that knowledge itself might cause non-adherence were the two main reasons for not discussing this topic.

CONCLUSIONS

Problems with sexual function of consumers presents an important practice consideration for nurses working in mental health settings. There is an urgent need for strategies to enhance awareness and confidence among nurses in exploring this topic with consumers.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Mental health nurses can adopt a leadership role in recognising the relevance of sexuality in care and treatment for consumers of mental health services. Strategies to assist in developing skill and confidence in this domain are required as a matter of priority.

The role of nurses and patients' involvement in the clinical decision-making process

This paper is a literature review based on articles in the nursing field about shared clinical decision. The objectives are to examine the role of nurses and patients in the decision-making process in the context of clinical practice. To support these themes, a review of recent literature was conducted with the following results: patients prefer shared decision-making with professionals who should support and provide information to patients in order to overcome the barriers hampering patients' involvement in decision-making. There is a clear need for more research studies that address the problems in the clinical decision-making process so as to contribute to healthcare improvement.

Colorectal cancer patients' attitudes towards involvement in decision making

OBJECTIVES

To design and administer an attitude rating scale, exploring colorectal cancer patients' views of involvement in decision making. To examine the impact of socio-demographic and/or treatment-related factors on decision making. To conduct principal components analysis to determine if the scale could be simplified into a number of factors for future clinical utility.

METHODS

An attitude rating scale was constructed based on previous qualitative work and administered to colorectal cancer patients using a cross-sectional survey approach.

RESULTS

375 questionnaires were returned (81.7% response). For patients it was important to be informed and involved in the decision-making process. Information was not always used to make decisions as patients placed their trust in medical expertise. Women had more positive opinions on decision making and were more likely to want to make decisions. Written information was understood to a greater degree than verbal information. The scale could be simplified to a number of factors, indicating clinical utility.

CONCLUSION

Few studies have explored the attitudes of colorectal cancer patients towards involvement in decision making. This study presents new insights into how patients view the concept of participation; important when considering current policy imperatives in the UK of involving service users in all aspects of care and treatment.

Patient satisfaction with colorectal cancer follow-up system: an audit

Although there have been studies into intensive follow-up versus non-intensive follow-up of patients following colorectal surgery, the evidence has not demonstrated sufficient benefit in the intensive follow-up regimen to warrant change in practice nationally, and there are no national guidelines for this. Currently at the authors' hospital the follow-up is non-intensive, and consists of an initial nurse-led surgical follow-up, dedicated patient hotline telephone number, surveillance, symptom list and open access to the nurse-led clinic as required. An audit was carried out to determine patient satisfaction with the current method of follow-up and to identify areas for improvement. The majority of patients (95%) were 'very or fairly' happy with the current service. Areas for improvement were identified. The key point from the survey was that patients would like a follow-up phone call post-diagnosis and 48 hours post-discharge from hospital. This has been implemented since the audit.