Patient involvement in consultation for atrial fibrillation – the cardiologists' perspective. Issue 4 (13th May 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hellström Muhli, Ulla; Trost, Jan; Siouta, Eleni
• Is Part Of: International journal of health care quality assurance. Volume 32:Issue 4(2019)
• Page Start: 765
• Page End: 776
• Publication Date: 2019-05-13
• Subjects: Decision-making -- Participation -- Atrial fibrillation treatment -- Cardiologists -- Medical consultations -- Patient involvement; Medical care -- Quality control -- Periodicals; 362.1068
• DOI: 10.1108/IJHCQA-10-2017-0194
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0952-6862

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to analyse the accounts of Swedish cardiologists concerning patient involvement in consultations for atrial fibrillation (AF). The questions were: how cardiologists handle and provide scope for patient involvement in medical consultations regarding AF treatment and how cardiologists describe their familiarity with shared decision-making. Design/methodology/approach: A descriptive study was designed. Ten interviews with cardiologists at four Swedish hospitals were held, and a qualitative content analysis was performed on the collected data. Findings: The analysis shows cardiologists' accounts of persuasive practice, protective practice, professional role and medical craftsmanship when it comes to patient involvement and shared decision-making. The term "shared decision-making" implies a concept of not only making one decision but also ensuring that it is finalised with a satisfactory agreement between both parties involved, the patient as well as the cardiologist. In order for the idea of patient involvement to be fulfilled, the two parties involved must have equal power, which can never actually be guaranteed. Research limitations/implications: Methodologically, this paper reflects the special contribution that can be made by the research design of descriptive qualitative content analysis (Krippendorff, 2004) to reveal and understand cardiologists' perspectives on patient involvement and participation in medical consultation and shared decision-making. The utility of this kind of analysis is to find what cardiologists said and how they arrived at their understanding about patient involvement. Accordingly, there is no quantification in this type of research. Practical implications: Cardiologists should prioritise patient involvement and participation in decision-making regarding AF treatment decisions in consultations when trying to meet the request of patient involvement. Originality/value: Theoretically, the authors have learned that the patient involvement and shared decision-making requires the ability to see patients as active participants in the medical consultation process.