Shared decision-making for the treatment of proximal femoral fractures in frail institutionalised older patients: healthcare providers’ perceived barriers and facilitators
Abstract Introduction Proximal femoral fractures are common in frail institutionalised older patients. No convincing evidence exists regarding the optimal treatment strategy for those with a limited pre-fracture life expectancy, underpinning the importance of shared decision-making (SDM). This study...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Age and ageing 2022-08, Vol.51 (8) |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | |
---|---|
container_issue | 8 |
container_start_page | |
container_title | Age and ageing |
container_volume | 51 |
creator | Spronk, Inge Loggers, Sverre A I Joosse, Pieter Willems, Hanna C Van Balen, Romke Gosens, Taco Ponsen, Kornelis J Steens, Jeroen van de Ree, C L P (Marc) Zuurmond, Rutger G Verhofstad, Michael H J Van Lieshout, Esther M M Polinder, Suzanne |
description | Abstract
Introduction
Proximal femoral fractures are common in frail institutionalised older patients. No convincing evidence exists regarding the optimal treatment strategy for those with a limited pre-fracture life expectancy, underpinning the importance of shared decision-making (SDM). This study investigated healthcare providers’ barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of SDM.
Methods
Dutch healthcare providers completed an adapted version of the Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovations questionnaire to identify barriers and facilitators. If ≥20% of participants responded with ‘totally disagree/disagree’, items were considered barriers and, if ≥80% responded with ‘agree/totally agree’, items were considered facilitators.
Results
A total of 271 healthcare providers participated. Five barriers and 23 facilitators were identified. Barriers included the time required to both prepare for and hold SDM conversations, in addition to the reflective period required to allow patients/relatives to make their final decision, and the number of parties required to ensure optimal SDM. Facilitators were related to patients’ values, wishes and satisfaction, the importance of SDM for patients/relatives and the fact that SDM is not considered complex by healthcare providers, is considered to be part of routine care and is believed to be associated with positive patient outcomes.
Conclusion
Awareness of identified facilitators and barriers is an important step in expanding the use of SDM. Implementation strategies should be aimed at managing time constraints. High-quality evidence on outcomes of non-operative and operative management can enhance implementation of SDM to address current concerns around the outcomes. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1093/ageing/afac174 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9355456</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.1093/ageing/afac174</oup_id><sourcerecordid>2700182492</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c452t-bac6e06e499fdaec331a966295087e8fba57262ee859fd70fb02333528b836563</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkr2O1DAQgCME4paDlhJZooEid44dJzHFSejEn3QSBVBbE2ey8ZHEwXZW0PEaPAQvxZMwyy4noKGyPf78ecaeLHtY8LOCa3kOW3Tz9hx6sEVd3so2RVk1uWhkeTvbcM5FzmuhT7J7MV7TslCFuJudSKUlxdUm-_5ugIAd69C66PycT_CRhKz3gaUBWQoIacI5Md-zJfjPboKR9Tj5sB8D2LQGjMzN-4UbaRKTS2siF4wuktqPHQa2QHKkic_YgDCmwdK1e-HO0W788fUbWzBYdDs60UIIjqIM5o5RZW50CZIP8X52p4cx4oPjeJp9ePni_eXr_OrtqzeXz69yWyqR8hZshbzCUuu-A7RSFqCrSmjFmxqbvgVVi0ogNoqAmvctF1JKJZq2kZWq5Gl2cfAuazthZylxKtcsgaoPX4wHZ_7emd1gtn5ntFSq_CV4chQE_2nFmMzkosVxhBn9Go2otK65qpuS0Mf_oNd-DfR4RNX0Y40otSDq7EDZ4GMM2N8kU3Cz7wRz6ARz7AQ68OjPEm7w319PwNMD4Nflf7KfCWjGNw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2700182492</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Shared decision-making for the treatment of proximal femoral fractures in frail institutionalised older patients: healthcare providers’ perceived barriers and facilitators</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Spronk, Inge ; Loggers, Sverre A I ; Joosse, Pieter ; Willems, Hanna C ; Van Balen, Romke ; Gosens, Taco ; Ponsen, Kornelis J ; Steens, Jeroen ; van de Ree, C L P (Marc) ; Zuurmond, Rutger G ; Verhofstad, Michael H J ; Van Lieshout, Esther M M ; Polinder, Suzanne</creator><creatorcontrib>Spronk, Inge ; Loggers, Sverre A I ; Joosse, Pieter ; Willems, Hanna C ; Van Balen, Romke ; Gosens, Taco ; Ponsen, Kornelis J ; Steens, Jeroen ; van de Ree, C L P (Marc) ; Zuurmond, Rutger G ; Verhofstad, Michael H J ; Van Lieshout, Esther M M ; Polinder, Suzanne</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract
Introduction
Proximal femoral fractures are common in frail institutionalised older patients. No convincing evidence exists regarding the optimal treatment strategy for those with a limited pre-fracture life expectancy, underpinning the importance of shared decision-making (SDM). This study investigated healthcare providers’ barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of SDM.
Methods
Dutch healthcare providers completed an adapted version of the Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovations questionnaire to identify barriers and facilitators. If ≥20% of participants responded with ‘totally disagree/disagree’, items were considered barriers and, if ≥80% responded with ‘agree/totally agree’, items were considered facilitators.
Results
A total of 271 healthcare providers participated. Five barriers and 23 facilitators were identified. Barriers included the time required to both prepare for and hold SDM conversations, in addition to the reflective period required to allow patients/relatives to make their final decision, and the number of parties required to ensure optimal SDM. Facilitators were related to patients’ values, wishes and satisfaction, the importance of SDM for patients/relatives and the fact that SDM is not considered complex by healthcare providers, is considered to be part of routine care and is believed to be associated with positive patient outcomes.
Conclusion
Awareness of identified facilitators and barriers is an important step in expanding the use of SDM. Implementation strategies should be aimed at managing time constraints. High-quality evidence on outcomes of non-operative and operative management can enhance implementation of SDM to address current concerns around the outcomes.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0002-0729</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-2834</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/ageing/afac174</identifier><identifier>PMID: 35930725</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Aged ; Barriers ; Clinical decision making ; Clinical outcomes ; Decision Making ; Decision Making, Shared ; Femoral Fractures ; Femur ; Fractures ; Frail ; Frail Elderly ; Group decision making ; Health care ; Health Personnel ; Humans ; Implementation ; Innovations ; Institutionalization ; Life expectancy ; Life span ; Measurement ; Patient Participation ; Patients ; Research Paper</subject><ispartof>Age and ageing, 2022-08, Vol.51 (8)</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com. 2022</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c452t-bac6e06e499fdaec331a966295087e8fba57262ee859fd70fb02333528b836563</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c452t-bac6e06e499fdaec331a966295087e8fba57262ee859fd70fb02333528b836563</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-3891-7124 ; 0000-0001-9571-576X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,881,1578,27903,27904,30978</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35930725$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Spronk, Inge</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Loggers, Sverre A I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Joosse, Pieter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Willems, Hanna C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Balen, Romke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gosens, Taco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ponsen, Kornelis J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steens, Jeroen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van de Ree, C L P (Marc)</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zuurmond, Rutger G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verhofstad, Michael H J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Lieshout, Esther M M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Polinder, Suzanne</creatorcontrib><title>Shared decision-making for the treatment of proximal femoral fractures in frail institutionalised older patients: healthcare providers’ perceived barriers and facilitators</title><title>Age and ageing</title><addtitle>Age Ageing</addtitle><description>Abstract
Introduction
Proximal femoral fractures are common in frail institutionalised older patients. No convincing evidence exists regarding the optimal treatment strategy for those with a limited pre-fracture life expectancy, underpinning the importance of shared decision-making (SDM). This study investigated healthcare providers’ barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of SDM.
Methods
Dutch healthcare providers completed an adapted version of the Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovations questionnaire to identify barriers and facilitators. If ≥20% of participants responded with ‘totally disagree/disagree’, items were considered barriers and, if ≥80% responded with ‘agree/totally agree’, items were considered facilitators.
Results
A total of 271 healthcare providers participated. Five barriers and 23 facilitators were identified. Barriers included the time required to both prepare for and hold SDM conversations, in addition to the reflective period required to allow patients/relatives to make their final decision, and the number of parties required to ensure optimal SDM. Facilitators were related to patients’ values, wishes and satisfaction, the importance of SDM for patients/relatives and the fact that SDM is not considered complex by healthcare providers, is considered to be part of routine care and is believed to be associated with positive patient outcomes.
Conclusion
Awareness of identified facilitators and barriers is an important step in expanding the use of SDM. Implementation strategies should be aimed at managing time constraints. High-quality evidence on outcomes of non-operative and operative management can enhance implementation of SDM to address current concerns around the outcomes.</description><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Barriers</subject><subject>Clinical decision making</subject><subject>Clinical outcomes</subject><subject>Decision Making</subject><subject>Decision Making, Shared</subject><subject>Femoral Fractures</subject><subject>Femur</subject><subject>Fractures</subject><subject>Frail</subject><subject>Frail Elderly</subject><subject>Group decision making</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Health Personnel</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Implementation</subject><subject>Innovations</subject><subject>Institutionalization</subject><subject>Life expectancy</subject><subject>Life span</subject><subject>Measurement</subject><subject>Patient Participation</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Research Paper</subject><issn>0002-0729</issn><issn>1468-2834</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2022</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>TOX</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkr2O1DAQgCME4paDlhJZooEid44dJzHFSejEn3QSBVBbE2ey8ZHEwXZW0PEaPAQvxZMwyy4noKGyPf78ecaeLHtY8LOCa3kOW3Tz9hx6sEVd3so2RVk1uWhkeTvbcM5FzmuhT7J7MV7TslCFuJudSKUlxdUm-_5ugIAd69C66PycT_CRhKz3gaUBWQoIacI5Md-zJfjPboKR9Tj5sB8D2LQGjMzN-4UbaRKTS2siF4wuktqPHQa2QHKkic_YgDCmwdK1e-HO0W788fUbWzBYdDs60UIIjqIM5o5RZW50CZIP8X52p4cx4oPjeJp9ePni_eXr_OrtqzeXz69yWyqR8hZshbzCUuu-A7RSFqCrSmjFmxqbvgVVi0ogNoqAmvctF1JKJZq2kZWq5Gl2cfAuazthZylxKtcsgaoPX4wHZ_7emd1gtn5ntFSq_CV4chQE_2nFmMzkosVxhBn9Go2otK65qpuS0Mf_oNd-DfR4RNX0Y40otSDq7EDZ4GMM2N8kU3Cz7wRz6ARz7AQ68OjPEm7w319PwNMD4Nflf7KfCWjGNw</recordid><startdate>20220802</startdate><enddate>20220802</enddate><creator>Spronk, Inge</creator><creator>Loggers, Sverre A I</creator><creator>Joosse, Pieter</creator><creator>Willems, Hanna C</creator><creator>Van Balen, Romke</creator><creator>Gosens, Taco</creator><creator>Ponsen, Kornelis J</creator><creator>Steens, Jeroen</creator><creator>van de Ree, C L P (Marc)</creator><creator>Zuurmond, Rutger G</creator><creator>Verhofstad, Michael H J</creator><creator>Van Lieshout, Esther M M</creator><creator>Polinder, Suzanne</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><general>Oxford Publishing Limited (England)</general><scope>TOX</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3891-7124</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9571-576X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20220802</creationdate><title>Shared decision-making for the treatment of proximal femoral fractures in frail institutionalised older patients: healthcare providers’ perceived barriers and facilitators</title><author>Spronk, Inge ; Loggers, Sverre A I ; Joosse, Pieter ; Willems, Hanna C ; Van Balen, Romke ; Gosens, Taco ; Ponsen, Kornelis J ; Steens, Jeroen ; van de Ree, C L P (Marc) ; Zuurmond, Rutger G ; Verhofstad, Michael H J ; Van Lieshout, Esther M M ; Polinder, Suzanne</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c452t-bac6e06e499fdaec331a966295087e8fba57262ee859fd70fb02333528b836563</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2022</creationdate><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Barriers</topic><topic>Clinical decision making</topic><topic>Clinical outcomes</topic><topic>Decision Making</topic><topic>Decision Making, Shared</topic><topic>Femoral Fractures</topic><topic>Femur</topic><topic>Fractures</topic><topic>Frail</topic><topic>Frail Elderly</topic><topic>Group decision making</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Health Personnel</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Implementation</topic><topic>Innovations</topic><topic>Institutionalization</topic><topic>Life expectancy</topic><topic>Life span</topic><topic>Measurement</topic><topic>Patient Participation</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Research Paper</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Spronk, Inge</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Loggers, Sverre A I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Joosse, Pieter</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Willems, Hanna C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Balen, Romke</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gosens, Taco</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ponsen, Kornelis J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Steens, Jeroen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van de Ree, C L P (Marc)</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zuurmond, Rutger G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Verhofstad, Michael H J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Lieshout, Esther M M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Polinder, Suzanne</creatorcontrib><collection>Oxford Journals Open Access Collection</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Age and ageing</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Spronk, Inge</au><au>Loggers, Sverre A I</au><au>Joosse, Pieter</au><au>Willems, Hanna C</au><au>Van Balen, Romke</au><au>Gosens, Taco</au><au>Ponsen, Kornelis J</au><au>Steens, Jeroen</au><au>van de Ree, C L P (Marc)</au><au>Zuurmond, Rutger G</au><au>Verhofstad, Michael H J</au><au>Van Lieshout, Esther M M</au><au>Polinder, Suzanne</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Shared decision-making for the treatment of proximal femoral fractures in frail institutionalised older patients: healthcare providers’ perceived barriers and facilitators</atitle><jtitle>Age and ageing</jtitle><addtitle>Age Ageing</addtitle><date>2022-08-02</date><risdate>2022</risdate><volume>51</volume><issue>8</issue><issn>0002-0729</issn><eissn>1468-2834</eissn><abstract>Abstract
Introduction
Proximal femoral fractures are common in frail institutionalised older patients. No convincing evidence exists regarding the optimal treatment strategy for those with a limited pre-fracture life expectancy, underpinning the importance of shared decision-making (SDM). This study investigated healthcare providers’ barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of SDM.
Methods
Dutch healthcare providers completed an adapted version of the Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovations questionnaire to identify barriers and facilitators. If ≥20% of participants responded with ‘totally disagree/disagree’, items were considered barriers and, if ≥80% responded with ‘agree/totally agree’, items were considered facilitators.
Results
A total of 271 healthcare providers participated. Five barriers and 23 facilitators were identified. Barriers included the time required to both prepare for and hold SDM conversations, in addition to the reflective period required to allow patients/relatives to make their final decision, and the number of parties required to ensure optimal SDM. Facilitators were related to patients’ values, wishes and satisfaction, the importance of SDM for patients/relatives and the fact that SDM is not considered complex by healthcare providers, is considered to be part of routine care and is believed to be associated with positive patient outcomes.
Conclusion
Awareness of identified facilitators and barriers is an important step in expanding the use of SDM. Implementation strategies should be aimed at managing time constraints. High-quality evidence on outcomes of non-operative and operative management can enhance implementation of SDM to address current concerns around the outcomes.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><pmid>35930725</pmid><doi>10.1093/ageing/afac174</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3891-7124</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9571-576X</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0002-0729 |
ispartof | Age and ageing, 2022-08, Vol.51 (8) |
issn | 0002-0729 1468-2834 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_9355456 |
source | MEDLINE; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Aged Barriers Clinical decision making Clinical outcomes Decision Making Decision Making, Shared Femoral Fractures Femur Fractures Frail Frail Elderly Group decision making Health care Health Personnel Humans Implementation Innovations Institutionalization Life expectancy Life span Measurement Patient Participation Patients Research Paper |
title | Shared decision-making for the treatment of proximal femoral fractures in frail institutionalised older patients: healthcare providers’ perceived barriers and facilitators |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-26T08%3A39%3A16IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Shared%20decision-making%20for%20the%20treatment%20of%20proximal%20femoral%20fractures%20in%20frail%20institutionalised%20older%20patients:%20healthcare%20providers%E2%80%99%20perceived%20barriers%20and%20facilitators&rft.jtitle=Age%20and%20ageing&rft.au=Spronk,%20Inge&rft.date=2022-08-02&rft.volume=51&rft.issue=8&rft.issn=0002-0729&rft.eissn=1468-2834&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/ageing/afac174&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2700182492%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2700182492&rft_id=info:pmid/35930725&rft_oup_id=10.1093/ageing/afac174&rfr_iscdi=true |