Patient Preferences and Decision Making Essay

Diseases and treatments can become compound, thus involving patients in the decision-making process becomes problematic. Patient participation or involvement includes involving the clientele in making decisions or giving their views concerning distinct treatment procedures. Factors impacting patient involvement include reasons connected to health care experts like clinician-clientele interaction, allocation of adequate time for involvement, and acknowledgment of patient’s knowledge.  Other factors relate to clienteles such as cognitive and physical capacity, values, beliefs, knowledge, and emotional connections. Essentially, patient participation empowers patients, enhances health results and services, and ensures jointly agreeable medical decisions.

Patient Preferences and Decision Making Essay

My experience involved providing patient BC with CRC (collateral cancer) screening decision aids, to categorize a chosen screening alternative. Involving BC in the decision-making procedure when challenged with partiality-delicate selections connected to cancer treatment and screening was vital to the conception of clientele-based care. The process took place within the setting of SDM (shared decision making), where BC and the group of healthcare providers formed a partnership to simplify principles and morals, discuss statistics, and convey a jointly agreeable medical decision.

Essentially, decision aids function as implements to allow and empower clienteles to make a knowledgeable, value-concordant option concerning a particular course of action founded in the comprehension of probable risks, benefits, scientific uncertainty, and probabilities. Decision aids also enhance the efficiency and quality of the clientele- clinician encounter and enable patients to engage in decision-making (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2011 Patient Preferences and Decision Making Essay).  Research has proved that decision aids boost familiarity and information, alleviate decisional conflict, facilitate informed value-founded verdicts, and raises participation in the decision-making procedure (The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 2019). However, their influence on the decision quality, health outcomes, and satisfaction with the procedure of making decisions is still uncertain.

The decision aid tool employed art graphics and pictures, and videotaped narratives in DVD  data format to communicate crucial statistics concerning collateral cancer and the screening significance. The graphics and narratives also gave a comparison of the five suggested screening alternatives utilizing both option-based and attribute-based methodologies, and prompt patient partialities. The implement also integrated the CRC risk assessment tool. BC engaged in an interactional computer forum before a planned session with the practitioner.

The decision aids tool allowed BC to classify a chosen screening selection founded on the comparative ideals BC placed on distinct test features. The tool also increased BC’s understanding and familiarity with CRC screening. Unlike other patients who did not engage in patient participation, BC’s fulfillment with the decision-making procedure and screening purposes was augmented. However, in a case where the provider’s and patient’s preferences vary, test ordering and screening intentions are negatively impacted (Schroy, et al, 2014). Fortunately, BC’s and the provider’s test ordering and screening intentions were similar, providing patient satisfaction and the best outcomes.

Patient involvement in the decision-making practice is a suitable use of the clientele’s clinic time, saves clinicians time, and amplifies patient familiarity with the numerous screening selections, encompassing their risks and benefits. As a result, the process allowed BC to categorize a preferred screening option and augmented his wish to get screened. Notably, the clinicians impartial and unbiased in the valuation of the decision aids’ usefulness for boosting their regular tactic to collateral cancer screening, assisting clinicians to adapt their consultative method to BC’s requirements, enhancing BC visit quality, and increasing his satisfaction with care.

Significantly, health providers must measure the educational intervention’s impact to validate the achievement of professional development activities (Opperman et al., 2016). A major aspect to consider is the financial impact measurement, including the benefit-cost ratio and cost analysis. It is essential for providers to proactively validate the educational programs and decision aids tools’ value.

Most critical care professional institutions authorize SDM (shared decision making) as a fundamental element of clientele-based care.  According to Kon et al., 2016, providers should acclimate or integrate the decision-making classical to the patient’s needs and preferences. Notably, few ethical validations exist for formulating collaborations and partnerships between clienteles and practitioners. Practitioners have a legitimate function in the procedure of making decisions due to their proficiency in medicine and understanding of the medically specified interventions. Allowing patients to participate in the procedure demonstrates respect for individuals, a principal ethical duty of the medical profession.

Additionally, patient involvement guarantees that the decisions made are in line with the goals, preferences, and values. Hoffman, Montori, & Del assert that shared decision-making and evidence-based medicine are fundamental to quality care, however, the interdependence between the two methods is not commonly appreciated (2014). The SDM intends to  guarantee treatment options and decisions that are medically suitable and compatible with the clientele’s goals, ideals, and likings. However, occasionally, such partnerships fail to produce satisfactory decisions for the patient or the clinical team. when such cases arise, it is obliging to conscript the support and aid of clinical ethics counselors at conflict resolution (Kon et al., 2016). Ethical validations promote the decisions made from the partnerships.

Conclusively, patient participation in healthcare decision-making is significant as it empowers clienteles and boosts health and services outcomes.  To promote professional practice, clienteles’ knowledge and viewpoints should be encompassed, together with scientific and professional clinical knowledge.

Patient Preferences and Decision Making Essay References

  • Hoffman, T. C., Montori, V. M., & Del Mar, C. (2014). The connection between evidence-based medicine and shared decision making. Journal of the American Medical Association, 312(13), 1295–1296. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.10186
  • Kon, A. A., Davidson, J. E., Morrison, W., Danis, M., & White, D. B. (2016). Shared decision making in intensive care units: an American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society policy statement. Critical care medicine, 44(1), 188–201. doi:10.1097/CCM.0000000000001396
  • Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (Eds.). (2011). Evidence-based practice in nursing & healthcare: A guide to best practice. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
  • Opperman, C., Liebig, D., Bowling, J., Johnson, C. S., & Harper, M. (2016). Measuring Return on Investment for Professional Development Activities:: Implications for Practice. Journal for nurses in professional development, 32(4), 176-184. doi:10.1097/NND.0000000000000483
  • Schroy III, P. C., Mylvaganam, S., & Davidson, P. (2014). Provider perspectives on the utility of a colorectal cancer screening decision aid for facilitating shared decision making. Health Expectations, 17(1), 27-35. doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00730.x
  • The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. (2019). Patient decision aids. Retrieved from