{"title":"在临床实践中落实共同决策。","authors":"Marcus S Shaker, Marylee Verdi","doi":"10.2500/aap.2024.45.240048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Shared decision-making (SDM) requires a clear-eyed view of evidence certainty, context, and equipoise in clinical care. This paradigm of care builds on the foundational ethical principle of patient autonomy, further leveraging beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice to provide bespoke care in the appropriate clinical setting. When evidence is carefully evaluated together with acceptability and feasibility, equity, cost-effectiveness, resources, and patient preferences, an individualized assessment of the trade-off between possible benefits and harms can optimize patient management. In the setting of a conditional recommendation, it is appropriate to engage in SDM with patient partners, to the extent each patient is willing and able to engage in the SDM process. Three conversations inform SDM and include team talk, option talk, and decision talk with discussion of the plan of care. During these conversations, clear communication strategies that are specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, time sensitive, and provide assessment of absolute (not just relative) risk are important to provide necessary education to patient partners. Follow-up is key to ensure that decisions lead to effective treatment. Through this process, it is necessary to minimize cognitive overload and promote a minimally disruptive medicine approach. The acronym \"HOW\" promotes a holistic appraisal of evidence in context, open-minded teamwork with patients and families, and willingness to be a listening presence while serving as a partner and guide and appreciating the multidimensional and unique nature of each individual. SDM is and will continue to remain a cornerstone of appropriate medical care in settings of clinical equipoise.</p>","PeriodicalId":7646,"journal":{"name":"Allergy and asthma proceedings","volume":"45 6","pages":"398-403"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Operationalizing shared decision making in clinical practice.\",\"authors\":\"Marcus S Shaker, Marylee Verdi\",\"doi\":\"10.2500/aap.2024.45.240048\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Shared decision-making (SDM) requires a clear-eyed view of evidence certainty, context, and equipoise in clinical care. This paradigm of care builds on the foundational ethical principle of patient autonomy, further leveraging beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice to provide bespoke care in the appropriate clinical setting. When evidence is carefully evaluated together with acceptability and feasibility, equity, cost-effectiveness, resources, and patient preferences, an individualized assessment of the trade-off between possible benefits and harms can optimize patient management. In the setting of a conditional recommendation, it is appropriate to engage in SDM with patient partners, to the extent each patient is willing and able to engage in the SDM process. Three conversations inform SDM and include team talk, option talk, and decision talk with discussion of the plan of care. During these conversations, clear communication strategies that are specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, time sensitive, and provide assessment of absolute (not just relative) risk are important to provide necessary education to patient partners. Follow-up is key to ensure that decisions lead to effective treatment. Through this process, it is necessary to minimize cognitive overload and promote a minimally disruptive medicine approach. The acronym \\\"HOW\\\" promotes a holistic appraisal of evidence in context, open-minded teamwork with patients and families, and willingness to be a listening presence while serving as a partner and guide and appreciating the multidimensional and unique nature of each individual. SDM is and will continue to remain a cornerstone of appropriate medical care in settings of clinical equipoise.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7646,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Allergy and asthma proceedings\",\"volume\":\"45 6\",\"pages\":\"398-403\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Allergy and asthma proceedings\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2500/aap.2024.45.240048\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ALLERGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Allergy and asthma proceedings","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2500/aap.2024.45.240048","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Operationalizing shared decision making in clinical practice.
Shared decision-making (SDM) requires a clear-eyed view of evidence certainty, context, and equipoise in clinical care. This paradigm of care builds on the foundational ethical principle of patient autonomy, further leveraging beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice to provide bespoke care in the appropriate clinical setting. When evidence is carefully evaluated together with acceptability and feasibility, equity, cost-effectiveness, resources, and patient preferences, an individualized assessment of the trade-off between possible benefits and harms can optimize patient management. In the setting of a conditional recommendation, it is appropriate to engage in SDM with patient partners, to the extent each patient is willing and able to engage in the SDM process. Three conversations inform SDM and include team talk, option talk, and decision talk with discussion of the plan of care. During these conversations, clear communication strategies that are specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, time sensitive, and provide assessment of absolute (not just relative) risk are important to provide necessary education to patient partners. Follow-up is key to ensure that decisions lead to effective treatment. Through this process, it is necessary to minimize cognitive overload and promote a minimally disruptive medicine approach. The acronym "HOW" promotes a holistic appraisal of evidence in context, open-minded teamwork with patients and families, and willingness to be a listening presence while serving as a partner and guide and appreciating the multidimensional and unique nature of each individual. SDM is and will continue to remain a cornerstone of appropriate medical care in settings of clinical equipoise.
期刊介绍:
Allergy & Asthma Proceedings is a peer reviewed publication dedicated to distributing timely scientific research regarding advancements in the knowledge and practice of allergy, asthma and immunology. Its primary readership consists of allergists and pulmonologists. The goal of the Proceedings is to publish articles with a predominantly clinical focus which directly impact quality of care for patients with allergic disease and asthma. Featured topics include asthma, rhinitis, sinusitis, food allergies, allergic skin diseases, diagnostic techniques, allergens, and treatment modalities. Published material includes peer-reviewed original research, clinical trials and review articles.