TY - JOUR
T1 - Shared decision making, a buzz-word in the Netherlands, the pace quickens towards nationwide implementation ...
AU - van der Weijden, Trudy
AU - Post, Heleen
AU - Brand, Paul L. P.
AU - van Veenendaal, Haske
AU - Drenthen, Ton
AU - van Mierlo, Linda A. J.
AU - Stalmeier, Peep
AU - Damman, Olga C.
AU - Stiggelbout, Anne
PY - 2017/6
Y1 - 2017/6
N2 - Currently, shared decision making (SDM) is on the agenda among target patient representative groups, policy makers and professional bodies. Although the International Conference for Shared Decision Making (ISDM) 2011 generated a positive boost, hesitation was also felt among Dutch clinicians, who are challenged by many new tasks. No hesitation is seen among the majority of patients, opting mostly for the SDM model. We haven't reached these patients' needs fully yet, given disappointing research data on patients' experiences and professional behaviour.There is plenty of room for improvement in daily practice, for which many best practices are being designed and increasingly implemented, such as national campaigns to empower patients, central governance of patient decision aids that are developed along clinical practice guidelines, postgraduate training, collaborative learning and system changes, and merging goal setting and SDM in complex care. This is explicitly supported by the Dutch government, the Ministry of Health, patient groups, professional bodies and health insurers. The culture shift in the minds and hearts of patients and clinicians has started but is still ongoing. Enthusiasm for this way of working could be undermined if SDM is defined and implemented in a simplistic, dogmatic manner leading to irresponsible transferring of the professionals' uncertainty, responsibility, and decisional stress to patients.
AB - Currently, shared decision making (SDM) is on the agenda among target patient representative groups, policy makers and professional bodies. Although the International Conference for Shared Decision Making (ISDM) 2011 generated a positive boost, hesitation was also felt among Dutch clinicians, who are challenged by many new tasks. No hesitation is seen among the majority of patients, opting mostly for the SDM model. We haven't reached these patients' needs fully yet, given disappointing research data on patients' experiences and professional behaviour.There is plenty of room for improvement in daily practice, for which many best practices are being designed and increasingly implemented, such as national campaigns to empower patients, central governance of patient decision aids that are developed along clinical practice guidelines, postgraduate training, collaborative learning and system changes, and merging goal setting and SDM in complex care. This is explicitly supported by the Dutch government, the Ministry of Health, patient groups, professional bodies and health insurers. The culture shift in the minds and hearts of patients and clinicians has started but is still ongoing. Enthusiasm for this way of working could be undermined if SDM is defined and implemented in a simplistic, dogmatic manner leading to irresponsible transferring of the professionals' uncertainty, responsibility, and decisional stress to patients.
KW - shared decision making
KW - patient participation
KW - patient decision aids
KW - implementation
KW - TREATMENT OPTIONS
KW - CONTROLLED-TRIAL
KW - RECTAL-CANCER
KW - CARE
KW - MODEL
KW - CONSULTATIONS
KW - PREFERENCES
KW - INFORMATION
KW - AID
U2 - 10.1016/j.zefq.2017.05.016
DO - 10.1016/j.zefq.2017.05.016
M3 - Article
C2 - 28529122
SN - 1865-9217
VL - 123-124
SP - 69
EP - 74
JO - Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen
JF - Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen
ER -