An observational study on the process of collaborative deliberation in arranging long-term care: The perception of clients and professionals

Abstract

Background

Clients are invited to play a role in decisions about their care. Collaborative deliberation comprises constructive engagement, recognition of alternative actions, comparative learning, construction and elicitation of preferences and preference integration. Collaborative deliberation between clients and professionals is a process that requires an interest in each other, sharing of views on alternatives and preferences and integrating into decisions. The aim is to gain insight into collaborative deliberation in consultations and the clients’ perception of arranging long-term care.

Design

A descriptive qualitative study to explore collaborative deliberation in consultations between clients and professionals. Six organisations providing long-term care were included. Data collection of nine clients involved observations of consultation with field notes and audio-records, interviews with clients and professionals shortly and 3–6 months after the consultation and questionnaires to collect background information. The data were analysed by deductive content analysis.

Findings

Constructive engagement was visible in all consultations. Clients and professionals showed respect, empathy and curiosity towards each other. In most consultations, two or more alternative actions are recognised and discussed. Comparative learning appears to be two sided, the client and the professional learn from each other's knowledge and experiences. Construction and elicitation of preference, and preference integration, seems to be present, but difficult to recognise in all consultations.

Discussion/conclusion

Although all propositions could be identified, there seems room for improvement in preference elicitation and integration of these preferences in the discussions on courses of action. Assistance seems needed with preference elicitation, both for the clients and for the professional.

Keywords

Shared decision-making collaborative deliberation long-term care patient preferences professional–patient relationship consultations

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Afram

Verbeek

Bleijlevens

, et al. Needs of informal caregivers during transition from home towards institutional care in dementia: a systematic review of qualitative studies. Int Psychogeriatr 2015; 27: 891–902.

Anderson

Funnell

. Patient empowerment: reflections on the challenge of fostering the adoption of a new paradigm. Patient Educ Couns 2005; 57: 153–157.

Carter

van der Steen

Galway

, et al. General practitioners’ perceptions of the barriers and solutions to good-quality palliative care in dementia. Dementia (London) 2015; 16(1): 79–95.

Friesen-Storms

Bours

van der Weijden

, et al. Shared decision making in chronic care in the context of evidence based practice in nursing. Int J Nurs Stud 2015; 52: 393–402.

Witt

Elwyn

Wood

, et al. Decision making and coping in healthcare: the coping in deliberation (CODE) framework. Patient Educ Couns 2012; 88: 256–261.

Elwyn

Frosch

Thomson

, et al. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med 2012; 27: 1361–1367.

Metz

Veerbeek

van der Feltz-Cornelis

, et al. Decisional conflict in mental health care: a cross-sectional study. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2018; 53: 161–169.

Gray

Lie

Murtagh

, et al.

Health state descriptions to elicit stroke values: do they reflect patient experience of stroke?

BMC Health Serv Res 2014; 14: 573.

Petersen

Berlanga

Stuiver

, et al. Improving decision making in larynx cancer by developing a decision aid: a mixed methods approach. Laryngoscope 2019; 129: 2733–2739.

10.

van Leersum

Moser

van Steenkiste

, et al. Getting to grips with the process of decision-making in long-term care. Descriptive cases illustrate the chaotic reality of the construction of preferences. PLoS One 2019; 14: e0217338.

11.

Elwyn

Durand

Song

, et al. A three-talk model for shared decision making: multistage consultation process. Br Med J 2017; 359: j4891.

12.

Elwyn

Lloyd

May

, et al. Collaborative deliberation: a model for patient care. Patient Educ Couns 2014; 97: 158–164.

13.

van Summeren

Haaijer-Ruskamp

Schuling

. Eliciting preferences of multimorbid elderly adults in family practice using an outcome prioritization tool. J Am Geriatr Soc 2016; 64: e143–e1e8.

14.

White

. Uncharted terrain: preference construction at the end of life. J Clin Ethics 2014; 25: 120–130.

15.

Adam

Townsend

, et al. Usability testing of ANSWER: a web-based methotrexate decision aid for patients with rheumatoid arthritis. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013; 13: 131.

16.

Weston

. Informed and shared decision-making: the crux of patient-centered care. Can Med Assoc J 2001; 165: 438–439.

17.

Bernacki

Block

and American College of Physicians High Value Care Task F. Communication about serious illness care goals: a review and synthesis of best practices. J Am Med Assoc Intern Med 2014; 174: 1994–2003.

18.

de Vries

Fagerlin

Witteman

, et al. Combining deliberation and intuition in patient decision support. Patient Educ Couns 2013; 91: 154–160.

19.

Epstein

Peters

. Beyond information: exploring patients’ preferences. J Am Med Assoc 2009; 302: 195–197.

20.

McCall

. Long term care: definition, demand, cost, and finance. In: McCall

(ed) Who Will pay for Long Term Care?: Insights From the Partnership Programs. University of Michigan: Health Administration Press, 2001, pp. 3–31.

21.

Kane

. Long-term care and a good quality of life: Bringing them closer together. Gerontologist 2001; 41: 293–304.

22.

Lincoln

Guba

. Naturalistic Inquiry. Newsbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications, 1985, p. 416.

23.

Kawulich

. Participant observation as a data collection method. Forum Qual Sozialforschung/Forum: Qual Soc Res 2005; 6.

24.

DeWalt

. Participant Observation: A Guide for Fieldworkers. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMire Press, 2002.

25.

Schensul

LeCompte

. Essential Ethnographic Methods: Observations, Interviews, and Questionnaires. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMire Press, 1999.

26.

Adler

. Observational techniques. In: Denzin

Lincoln

(eds) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, London, New Delhi: SAGE Publications Inc., 1994, pp. 377–392.

27.

Merriam

. Qualitative Research and Case Study Applications in Education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1998.

28.

DeMunck

Sobo

. Using Methods in the Field: A Practical Introduction and Casebook. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press, 1998.

29.

Forsyth

Lai

Kielhofner

. The assessment of communication and interaction skills (ACIS): measurement properties. Br J Occup Ther 1999; 62: 69–74.

30.

Lexen

Bejerholm

. Exploring communication and interaction skills at work among participants in individual placement and support. Scand J Occup Ther 2016; 23: 314–319.

31.

Elo

Kyngas

. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs 2008; 62: 107–115.

32.

Henselmans

Van Laarhoven

Van der Vloodt

, et al. Shared decision making about palliative chemotherapy: a qualitative observation of talk about patients’ preferences. Palliat Med 2017; 31: 625–633.

33.

Emanuel

. Four models of the physician-patient relationship. J Am Med Assoc 1992; 267: 2221–2226.