NURS 6052 Discussion Patient Preferences and Decision Making Walden

Sample Answer for NURS 6052 Discussion Patient Preferences and Decision Making Walden Included After Question

Changes in culture and technology have resulted in patient populations that are often well informed and educated, even before consulting or considering a healthcare need delivered by a health professional. Fueled by this, health professionals are increasingly involving patients in treatment decisions. However, this often comes with challenges, as illnesses and treatments can become complex. 

What has your experience been with patient involvement in treatment or healthcare decisions? 

In this Discussion, you will share your experiences and consider the impact of patient involvement (or lack of involvement). You will also consider the use of a patient decision aid to inform best practices for patient care and healthcare decision making.

NURS 6052 Discussion Patient Preferences and Decision Making Walden 
NURS 6052 Discussion Patient Preferences and Decision Making Walden

 

To Prepare: 

  • Review the Resources and reflect on a time when you experienced a patient being brought into (or not being brought into) a decision regarding their treatment plan. 
  • Review the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute’s Decision Aids Inventory at https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/. 
  • Choose “For Specific Conditions,” then Browse an alphabetical listing of decision aids by health topic. 
  • NOTE: To ensure compliance with HIPAA rules, please DO NOT use the patient’s real name or any information that might identify the patient or organization/practice. 

By Day 3 of Week 11 

Post a brief description of the situation you experienced and explain how incorporating or not incorporating patient preferences and values impacted the outcome of their treatment plan. Be specific and provide examples. Then, explain how including patient preferences and values might impact the trajectory of the situation and how these were reflected in the treatment plan. Finally, explain the value of the patient decision aid you selected and how it might contribute to effective decision making, both in general and in the experience you described. Describe how you might use this decision aid inventory in your professional practice or personal life. 

By Day 6 of Week 11 

Respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days and offer alternative views on the impact of patient preferences on treatment plans or outcomes, or the potential impact of patient decision aids on situations like the one shared.  

A Sample Answer For the Assignment: NURS 6052 Discussion Patient Preferences and Decision Making Walden

Title: NURS 6052 Discussion Patient Preferences and Decision Making Walden

My work as a home hospice case manager has taught me a great deal about respecting patient preferences, even when it’s difficult as a clinician. I oriented to hospice many years ago and was shocked that my first hospice patient was also a full code. I was baffled how a patient could be both admitted into hospice yet still have active orders that ‘everything’ was to be done to save her life, which would inevitably lead to the hospital. It was incongruent. My preceptor whole-heartedly agreed.  

We attempted to clarify what she wanted during our first several visits since the two facts were contradictory. However, we quickly learned that this patient was utterly unwilling to have any conversation that broached her coming death, either with her family or us. My preceptor attempted, several times and in the most skillful ways I’ve ever seen, to start difficult conversations, which included: the patient’s code status; a request from the patient’s daughter for a care conference to address family questions and concerns; and the hospice team’s strong expectation for how this particular patient might die (we anticipated a sudden bleed-out due to her sarcoma rapidly growing near her carotid). We also wanted to provide support, education, and preparation to the family to help answer their questions; support their anticipatory grief, and help prepare them for their loved one’s potentially dramatic death. However, the patient adamantly refused to allow us to discuss anything with them. She was also unwilling to speak about any of these concerns herself with any hospice team member. She would say things like ‘I just want to enjoy the day,’ and ‘You make me sad when you bring these things up.’ After several team members’ attempts, we had to acknowledge and accept that this patient was not ready (and never was prepared) to discuss or prepare for her death with her family or us.  

Our facility had a belief in the shared-decision making model, described by Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt (2019), in which research, clinician knowledge, and patient preferences are equally considered. In this situation, the patient’s preferences overrode the other two. So, we changed our approach at visits, and instead of focusing conversation on her code status or concerns from her family, we instead honored her desire to have pleasant talks, complete wound care, and manage her pain. Her treatment plan encompassed what she wanted, and these goals became what we wanted on her behalf. 

Ultimately, she entered the actively dying phase very quickly (no bleed out), and her husband was able to call us to the home when she became unresponsive. He signed off on the DNR 45 minutes before she died. In the end, as frustrated as her family was that she had refused to allow them to communicate with hospice, they also stated this was precisely her personality in life. They appreciated that we had respected her ‘feisty and independent’ nature (their words), even though it had been difficult for all involved. By including her preferences and values in a shared-decision making approach, this scenario’s trajectory held risk for a potentially traumatic experience for her family had she bled out. It also created the possibility that she wouldn’t die at home, which had been her initial expressed desire on admission to hospice. However, in the end, her wishes for ‘pleasant’ visits from hospice were met by the team, and we also managed her wound care and pain quite well. It was a successful patient care experience that taught me a great deal about respecting patients’ rights and desires.   

The patient decision aid that I found through the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (2019) is called the Plan Well Guide. It helps guide difficult conversations related to planning for severe illness and medical treatment options (Heyland, 2019). I don’t believe that this patient decision aid would have made a difference for the scenario I described above – she knew what she wanted and had no problem relaying that to us. Still, I think this tool could be an excellent option for future patients and even friends and family. The site has short videos showing actual patients and their loved ones discussing their experiences with having hard conversations about care, but realizing that they felt better afterward, having made their wants known to their family. 

The critical point for clinicians to understand when considering patient preferences in the shared decision-making model is that patients may make decisions that we disagree with or that we feel are ill-informed, as in the example I describe. Our team never had a chance to discuss with our patient what our concerns were or explain how we wanted to support her family; she refused it all. Clinicians have to be prepared to present information in several ways (direct conversations, written materials, websites, videos) and then be ready for the patient to reject this information or not use it in the way we expect. We may have strong feelings about how the patient should decide their treatment plan and who they should include in that decision. In the end, it is what the patient decides that guides the treatment plan. It is the most ‘challenging’ patients that can teach providers the most because if they are indeed in control of their treatment, then we must be ready and willing to accept what they decide…even when we disagree.

A Sample Answer 2 For the Assignment: NURS 6052 Discussion Patient Preferences and Decision Making Walden

Title: NURS 6052 Discussion Patient Preferences and Decision Making Walden

Introduction

This paper will provide examples of how incorporating or not incorporating patient preferences and values impact their outcomes. Then, we will explain how including patient preferences and values influence their health situation and are reflected in their plan of care. Finally, we will discuss decision aid support and its impact on patient decision-making and use in professional practice.

The situation related to patient preference and value impacts outcomes in the plan of care.

The National Kidney Foundation (2020) state that, in the United States, 37 million adults are estimated to have chronic kidney disease, and approximately 90 percent don’t know they have it. Risk factors associated with CKD are diabeteshigh blood pressureheart diseaseobesity, and family history. According to Hoffman et al. (2014), evidence-based medicine should begin and end with the patient. For example, when a patient transitions from chronic kidney disease (CKD) to end-stage renal disease (ESRD), the patient is faced with several treatment options that are critical to their survival. These treatments are necessary for the rest of their lives, so patients need to choose the most suitable treatment for them. According to Green et al. (2018) many patients are unprepared for kidney failure treatments—even when they have been under nephrology specialty care for years. Nephrologists are often unable to predict the timing of kidney failure. Sometimes patients with advanced kidney disease experience rapid decline in kidney function, which leaves little time for a nephrologist to help patients prepare in advance (p. 2).

With electronic health records (EHR) and analysis, algorithms predict CKD patient characteristics and laboratory measures. The nephrologist can recognize patient needs or prognosis of kidney transition based on age, gender, eGFR, urine albumin, creatine ration, calcium, phosphorus, albumin, and bicarbonate focus, providing patients with the knowledge, skills, and support in shared decision making (p. 5). Kon et. (2016) note three elements of a shared decision-making (SDM) approach include information exchange, deliberation, and making a treatment decision addressing the patient preference, values, and goals of care (p. 1334). The impact in outcomes is that patients and families who are educated, informed, and supported throughout their diagnosis can better participate in SDM, accommodating their medical needs and preferences, leading to more satisfying outcomes and relationships.

Patient preferences and values

Evidence-based practice requires a patient-centered approach when it comes to decision-making. The Institute of Healthcare Improvement (IHI, 2013) describes “patient-centered” as placing an international focus on patients’ cultural traditions, values, personal preferences, family issues, social circumstances, and lifestyle. This approach leads to better patient engagement and outcomes (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2019, p.227). The evaluation of factors related to home and family life can make or break a successful care plan; for example, a young family of four with two children under the age of four recently found out that the husband/father needed to start dialysis therapy. This family has already been dealing with financial hardship, unstable marital concerns, and the responsibility of raising two small children. The husband reports a lack of support once starting treatment from his wife, who feels burdened and unappreciated. He is afraid of losing her and his children and feels burdened with guilt and worry. The family needs a transdisciplinary care plan that focuses on the patient’s best options for treatment (given his current circumstances), including transplant and home therapies. This care plan would include counseling support to help save their marriage and adjust to this new chronic health diagnosis, care management to help provide support, financial guidance and options, and dietician to ensure the patient has the knowledge needed to optimize his therapy. William Osle’s quote, “It is much more important to know what sort of a patient has a disease than what sort of disease a patient has (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2019, p. 229) embodies the reason why patient preferences and values determine clinical decisions and outcomes.

Decision-Aid Support and Impact on Decision-Making

Decision aids are a valuable tool in helping patients make the right decisions based on their values and needs. The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (2019) provides an A-Z inventory of decision aids. For example, when searching the term, “Kidney”: multiple decision aid tools populate to relating to chronic kidney disease, end of life issues, and kidney failure to include dialysis choice, dialysis; doing the right choice, My life, My dialysis choice, advanced care planning: should I stop kidney dialysis, Kidney Failure: Should I start dialysis? This tool provides patients with treatment options, pathways, and outcomes. Clinicians use it to support patient preference and guide patient and provider decision-making (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2019, p. 228). In the example of the kidney patient who has multiple barriers to achieving optimal care, this information would have provided him with the options needed before starting dialysis. It would give a platform of shared decision between himself, his wife, and his provider. Clinicians should use decision aids in their daily practice with patients newly diagnosed or with patients who are not managing their diagnosis well. These aids will support active engagement by the patient and lead to both an improved patient and provider experience and outcomes.

References

Green, J. A., Ephraim, P. L., Hill-Briggs, F. F., Browne, T., Strigo, T. S., Hauer, C. L., Stametz,

A., Darer, J. D., Patel, U. D., Lang-Lindsey, K., Bankes, B. L., Bolden, S. A., Danielson, P., Ruff, S., Schmidt, L., Swoboda, A., Woods, P., Vinson, B., Littlewood, D., Jackson, G., … Boulware, L. E. (2018). Putting patients at the center of kidney care transitions: PREPARE NOW, a cluster randomized controlled trial. Contemporary clinical trials73, 98–110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2018.09.004

Hoffmann, 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: Executive summary of the American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society policy statement. Critical Care Medicine, 44(1), 188-201. Doi:10.1097/NND.0000000000000483

National Kidney Foundation. (2020) NKF statement on the ESRD treatment choices model

(ETC) and policies to improve kidney patient choice: Kidney disease facts. https://www.kidney.org/news/nkf-statement-esrd-treatment-choices-model-etc-and-policies-to-improve-kidney-patient-choice

The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. (2019). Patient decision aids. Retrieved from

https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/

Rubric Detail  

  Excellent   Good   Fair   Poor  
Main Posting   Points Range: 45 (45%) – 50 (50%)  

Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.  

 

Supported by at least three current, credible sources.  

 

Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 

Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%)  

Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.  

 

At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.  

 

Supported by at least three credible sources.  

 

Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. 

Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%)  

Responds to some of the discussion question(s).  

 

One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.  

 

Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.  

 

Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.  

 

Post is cited with two credible sources.  

 

Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.  

 

Contains some APA formatting errors. 

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 34 (34%)  

Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.  

 

Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.  

 

Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.  

 

Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.  

 

Contains only one or no credible sources.  

 

Not written clearly or concisely.  

 

Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.  

 

Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. 

Main Post: Timeliness   Points Range: 10 (10%) – 10 (10%)  

Posts main post by day 3. 

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)   Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)   Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)  

Does not post by day 3. 

First Response   Points Range: 17 (17%) – 18 (18%)  

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.  

 

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.  

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.  

 

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.  

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.  

 

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.  

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 

Points Range: 15 (15%) – 16 (16%)  

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.  

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.  

 

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.  

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.  

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 

Points Range: 13 (13%) – 14 (14%)  

Response is on topic and may have some depth.  

 

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.  

 

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.  

 

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. 

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 12 (12%)  

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.  

 

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.  

 

Responses to faculty questions are missing.  

 

No credible sources are cited. 

Second Response   Points Range: 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)  

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.  

 

Responds fully to questions posed by faculty.  

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.  

 

Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.  

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.  

 

Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.  

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 

Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%)  

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.  

 

Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.  

 

Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.  

 

Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.  

 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. 

Points Range: 12 (12%) – 13 (13%)  

Response is on topic and may have some depth.  

 

Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.  

 

Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.  

 

Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. 

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 11 (11%)  

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.  

 

Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.  

 

Responses to faculty questions are missing.  

 

No credible sources are cited. 

Participation   Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)  

Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. 

Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)   Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)   Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%)  

Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. 

Total Points: 100  

Name: NURS_6052_Module06_Week11_Discussion_Rubric