Conectar
To describe ambulance clinicians' experiences of self-determination in older patients.
The study had an inductive and explorative design, guided from a life-world perspective.
Thirty-two Swedish ambulance clinicians were interviewed in six focus groups in November 2019. The data were analysed with content analysis, developing manifest categories and latent themes.
The ambulance clinicians assessed the older patients' exercise of self-determination by engaging in conversation and by being visually alert, to eventually gain an overall picture of their decision-making capacity. This assessment was used as a platform when informing older patients of their rights, thus promoting their participation in care. Having limited time and narrow guidelines counteracted ambulance clinicians' ambitions to support older patients' general desire to avoid hospitalization, which resulted in an urge to displace their responsibility to external decision-makers.
Expectations that older patients with impaired decision-making ability will give homogeneous responses mean an increased risk of ageist attitudes with a simplified view of patient autonomy. Such attitudes risk the withholding of information about options that healthcare professionals do not wish older patients to choose. When decision-making is difficult, requests for expanded guidelines may paradoxically risk alienation from the professional nursing role.
The findings show ambulance clinicians' unwillingness to shoulder their professional responsibility when encountering older patients with impaired decision-making ability. In assuming that all older patients reason in the same way, ambulance clinicians tend to adopt a simplistic and somewhat ageist approach when it comes to patient autonomy. This points to deficiencies in ethical competence, which is why increased ethics support is deemed suitable to promote and develop ethical competence. Such support can increase the ability to act as autonomous professionals in accordance with professional ethical codes.
This study adhered to COREQ guidelines.
None.
To illuminate from the perspective of nurses in ambulance services the experiences of using a web-based advisory decision support system to assess care needs and refer patients.
Inductive and descriptive approaches.
Thirteen semi-structured interviews were conducted in the spring of 2020. The data were analysed through the reflexive thematic analysis.
The Swedish web-based advisory decision support system (ADSS) was found to strengthen nurses' feelings of security when they assess patients' care needs, promote their competence and professional pride, and help them manage stress. However, the system also generated difficulties for nurses to adjust to the dynamic ambulance team and revealed a discrepancy between their professional roles and responsibilities to refer patients and provide self-care advice. The nurses thought that the support system facilitated their increased participation and helped them understand patients and significant others by offering transparency in assessment and decision making. Thus, the support system provides nurses with an opportunity to strengthen patients' independence through information and education. However, in the care relationship, nurses worked to overcome patients' expectations.
Nurses using the ADSS increased their security while performing assessments and referrals and found new opportunities to provide information and promote understanding of their decisions. However, nursing care values can be threatened when new support systems are introduced, especially as ambulance services become increasingly protocol-driven.
These findings have implications for nurses' work environments and help them maintain consistency in making medical assessments and in providing equivalent self-care advice when referring patients to the different levels of care. The findings will also impact researchers and policymakers who formulate decision support systems.
Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ).
None.
Little research exists on how risk scores are used in counselling. We examined (a) how Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT) scores are presented during counselling; (b) how women react and (c) discuss them afterwards.
Consultations were video-recorded and participants were interviewed after the consultation as part of the NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Decision-Making Project 1 (NSABP DMP-1).
Two NSABP DMP-1 breast cancer care centres in the USA: one large comprehensive cancer centre serving a high-risk population and an academic safety-net medical centre in an urban setting.
Thirty women evaluated for breast cancer risk and their counselling providers were included.
Participants who were identified as at increased risk of breast cancer were recruited to participate in qualitative study with a video-recorded consultation and subsequent semi-structured interview that included giving feedback and input after viewing their own consultation. Consultation videos were summarised jointly and inductively as a team.tThe interview material was searched deductively for text segments that contained the inductively derived themes related to risk assessment. Subgroup analysis according to demographic variables such as age and Gail score were conducted, investigating reactions to risk scores and contrasting and comparing them with the pertinent video analysis data. From this, four descriptive categories of reactions to risk scores emerged. The descriptive categories were clearly defined after 19 interviews; all 30 interviews fit principally into one of the four descriptive categories.
Risk scores were individualised and given meaning by providers through: (a) presenting thresholds, (b) making comparisons and (c) emphasising or minimising the calculated risk. The risk score information elicited little reaction from participants during consultations, though some added to, agreed with or qualified the provider’s information. During interviews, participants reacted to the numbers in four primary ways: (a) engaging easily with numbers; (b) expressing greater anxiety after discussing the risk score; (c) accepting the risk score and (d) not talking about the risk score.
Our study highlights the necessity that patients’ experiences must be understood and put into relation to risk assessment information to become a meaningful treatment decision-making tool, for instance by categorising patients’ information engagement into types.
FreshRSS 