Browsing by Author "White, Douglas B."

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A Pilot Study of Neonatologists' Decision-Making Roles in Delivery Room Resuscitation Counseling for Periviable Births
    (Taylor and Francis, 2016-07) Tucker Edmonds, Brownsyne; McKenzie, Fatima; Panoch, Janet E.; White, Douglas B.; Barnato, Amber E.; Obstetrics and Gynecology, School of Medicine
    BACKGROUND: Relatively little is known about neonatologists' roles in helping families navigate the difficult decision to attempt or withhold resuscitation for a neonate delivering at the threshold of viability. Therefore, we aimed to describe the "decision-making role" of neonatologists in simulated periviable counseling sessions. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative content analysis of audio-recorded simulation encounters and post-encounter debriefing interviews collected as part of a single-center simulation study of neonatologists' resuscitation counseling practices in the face of ruptured membranes at 23 weeks gestation. We trained standardized patients to request a recommendation if the physician presented multiple treatment options. We coded each encounter for communication behaviors, applying an adapted, previously developed coding scheme to classify physicians into four decision-making roles (informative, facilitative, collaborative, or directive). We also coded post-simulation debriefing interviews for responses to the open-ended prompt: "During this encounter, what did you feel was your role in the management decision-making process?" RESULTS: Fifteen neonatologists (33% of the division) participated in the study; audio-recorded debriefing interviews were available for 13. We observed 9 (60%) take an informative role, providing medical information only; 2 (13%) take a facilitative role, additionally eliciting the patient's values; 3 (20%) take a collaborative role, additionally engaging the patient in deliberation and providing a recommendation; and 1 (7%) take a directive role, making a treatment decision independent of the patient. Almost all (10/13, 77%) of the neonatologists described their intended role as informative. CONCLUSIONS: Neonatologists did not routinely elicit preferences, engage in deliberation, or provide treatment recommendations-even in response to requests for recommendations. These findings suggest there may be a gap between policy recommendations calling for shared decision making and actual clinical practice.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A Research Agenda for Communication Between Health Care Professionals and Patients Living With Serious Illness
    (AMA, 2017-09) Tulsky, James A.; Beach, Mary Catherine; Butow, Phyllis N.; Hickman, Susan E.; Mack, Jennifer W.; Morrison, R. Sean; Street, Richard L., Jr.; Sudore, Rebecca L.; White, Douglas B.; Pollak, Kathryn I.; School of Nursing
    Importance Poor communication by health care professionals contributes to physical and psychological suffering in patients living with serious illness. Patients may not fully understand their illness, prognosis, and treatment options or may not receive medical care consistent with their goals. Despite considerable research exploring the role of communication in this setting, many questions remain, and a clear agenda for communication research is lacking. Observations Through a consensus conference and subsequent activities, we reviewed the state of the science, identified key evidence gaps in understanding the impact of communication on patient outcomes, and created an agenda for future research. We considered 7 broad topics: shared decision making, advance care planning, communication training, measuring communication, communication about prognosis, emotion and serious illness communication, and cultural issues. We identified 5 areas in which further research could substantially move the field forward and help enhance patient care: measurement and methodology, including how to determine communication quality; mechanisms of communication, such as identifying the specific clinician behaviors that patients experience as both honest and compassionate, or the role of bias in the clinical encounter; alternative approaches to advance care planning that focus on the quality of serious illness communication and not simply completion of forms; teaching and disseminating communication skills; and approaches, such as economic incentives and other clinician motivators, to change communication behavior. Conclusions Our findings highlight the urgent need to improve quality of communication between health care professionals and patients living with serious illness through a broad range of research that covers communication skills, tools, patient education, and models of care.