Background. Shared decision-making is a process by which healthcare professionals (HCPs’) and patients work together to make choices, taking into account the best clinical evidence and the patient's values. Currently, the level of shared decision-making (SDM) is still low. Some reasons were given such as time, knowlight, and skill but most of the reasons were not based on evidence and were often based on misconceptions. Most of the focus of decision-making is on the patient and physician, without involving the role of members. This study aims to analyze the act of involving shared ethical decision-making (SEDM) in nursing services. method. The database is systematically searched for the involvement of SEDM on data search engines, namely SCOPUS, PubMed, Mendeley, Scient Direct, and Google Scholar. Article reviews were by the inclusion criteria and extraction was carried out so that 25 articles were produced. Research studies use descriptive analysis that describes and explains research results that are explained in the literature. The risk of bias from the review results is identified to avoid cross-study bias. Results: Deep study approach SEDM in this systematic review, from 25 articles with qualitative study approaches (56%) and review studies (32%). Articles were written in America, Canada, Princess, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Australia, and Korea. Respondents were family/parents with an average age of 37 years, HCPs respondents with an average age of 31 years with at least 5 years of work experience. The results of the study search were grouped based on two findings, namely the intervention of patient and family involvement and the involvement of health professionals in SEDM. Conclusions. Involving patients and families in SDM is very important, especially involvement in respecting the principle of patient autonomy. Patient autonomy is a benchmark in decision-making. Family or parents are sometimes more dominant in decisions. HCPs’ involvement as an informant in SEDM. The involvement of nurses in interprofessional discussions is very beneficial for patients. The nurse's observation of the patient's condition is important both in clinical and ethical considerations. Research recommendations in SEDM for nurses should dig up a lot of information about patients and discuss it with other health interprofessional. And the use of decision aids can increase the suitability of value treatments and reduce decision conflicts.
| Published in | American Journal of Nursing and Health Sciences (Volume 4, Issue 1) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ajnhs.20230401.11 |
| Page(s) | 1-5 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Shared Decision Making / SDM, Ethics, Nursing Practice
| [1] | J. Haesebaert, R. Adekpedjou, J. Croteau, H. Robitaille, and F. Légaré, “Shared decision-making experienced by Canadians facing health care decisions: a Web-based survey,” CMAJ open, vol. 7, no. 2. pp. E210–E216, 2019, doi: 10.9778/cmajo.20180202. |
| [2] | R. C. Forcino, R. W. Yen, M. Aboumrad, P. J. Barr, and..., “US-based cross-sectional survey of clinicians’ knowledge and attitudes about shared decision-making across healthcare professions and specialties,” BMJ open. bmjopen.bmj.com, 2018, [Online]. Available: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/10/e022730.abstract. |
| [3] | D. Ling, “Truth-telling, decision-making, and ethics among cancer patients in nursing practice in China,” no. 250, pp. 1–9, 2017. |
| [4] | P. N. Laura Anne Brooks, Elizabeth Manias, “Communication and decision -Making about end-Of-Life Car In The Intensive Care Unit,” vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 53–62, 2017, doi: 10.1053/j.soncn.2004.10.008. |
| [5] | B. Berger-Höger, K. Liethmann, I. Mühlhauser, B. Haastert, and A. Steckelberg, “Nurse-led coaching of shared decision-making for women with ductal carcinoma in situ in breast care centers: A cluster randomized controlled trial,” International Journal of Nursing Studies, vol. 93. pp. 141–152, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2019.01.013. |
| [6] | J. W. Ankersmid, C. H. C. Drossaert, Y. E. A. van Riet, and..., “Needs and preferences of breast cancer survivors regarding outcome-based shared decision-making about personalised post-treatment surveillance,” Journal of cancer…. Springer, 2022, [Online]. Available: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11764-022-01178-z. |
| [7] | S. P. McCarter, J. D. Tariman, N. Spawn, and..., “Barriers and promoters to participation in the era of shared treatment decision-making,” … J. Nurs. …, 2016, [Online]. Available: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0193945916650648. |
| [8] | M.-J. O. Shulamit Ramon, Helen Brooks, Sarah Rae, “Key issues in the process of implementing shared decision-making (SDM) in mental health practice.,” Eletronic Libr., vol. 34, no. 1, pp. 1–5, 2017. |
| [9] | A. Aarthun, K. A. Øymar, and K. Akerjordet, “How health professionals facilitate parents’ involvement in decision-making at the hospital: A parental perspective,” J. Child Heal. Care, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 108–121, 2018, doi: 10.1177/1367493517744279. |
| [10] | J. Finderup, J. K. D. Jensen, and K. Lomborg, “Developing and pilot testing a shared decision-making intervention for dialysis choice,” J. Ren. Care, 2018, [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jorc.12241. |
| [11] | R. Astbury, A. Shepherd, and H. Cheyne, “Working in partnership: the application of shared decision-making to health visitor practice,” J. Clin. Nurs., 2017, [Online]. Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jocn.13480. |
| [12] | C. Bartholdson, M. A. Sandeberg, B. Molewijk, and P. Pergert, “Does participation in ethics discussions have an impact on ethics decision-making? A cross-sectional study among healthcare professionals in paediatric oncology,” Eur. J. Oncol. Nurs., vol. 52, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ejon.2021.101950. |
| [13] | S. I. Dunn, B. Cragg, I. D. Graham, J. Medves, and..., “Roles, processes, and outcomes of interprofessional shared decision-making in a neonatal intensive care unit: A qualitative study,” J. …, 2018, [Online]. Available: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13561820.2018.1428186. |
| [14] | Fry, Sara T, Veatch, Robert M, Taylor, and Carol, Case Studies in Nursing Ethics. 2011. |
| [15] | A. Hartono and T. I. Shanti, “Gambaran Komunikasi Suportif Dari Teman Yang Membantu Regulasi Emosi Pada Mahasiswa (Studi Pada Mahasiswa Yang Baru Melewati Tahun Pertama Di Universitas X),” J. Muara Ilmu Sos. Humaniora, dan Seni, vol. 2, no. 1, p. 67, 2018, doi: 10.24912/jmishumsen.v2i1.1616. |
| [16] | T. I. Shanti, A. O. Suryani, and C. R. P. Ajisuksmo, “Some rights reserved Komunikasi Suportif Orang Tua: Konsep, Pengembangan, dan Validasi,” J. Interact, vol. 9, no. 2, 2020, [Online]. Available: http://ojs.atmajaya.ac.id/index.php/fiabikom/index. |
| [17] | B. L. Dinoff, “Ethical treatment of people with chronic pain: an application of Kaldjian’s framework for shared decision-making,” Br. J. Anaesth., vol. 123, no. 2, pp. e179–e182, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.bja.2019.04.042. |
| [18] | G. Lee, “Navigating complex end-of-life decisions in a family-centric society,” Nurs. Ethics, 2020, doi: 10.1177/0969733019876304. |
| [19] | V. A. Miller et al., “The decision making control instrument to assess voluntary consent,” Med. Decis. Mak., vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 730–741, 2011, doi: 10.1177/0272989X11398666. |
| [20] | C. K. McIlvennan et al., “A multicenter trial of a shared decision support intervention for patients and their caregivers offered destination therapy for advanced heart failure: DECIDE-LVAD,” J. Cardiovasc. Nurs., vol. 31, no. 6, pp. E8–E20, 2016, doi: 10.1097/JCN.0000000000000343. |
| [21] | F. Légaré et al., “Validating a conceptual model for an inter-professional approach to shared decision making: A mixed methods study,” J. Eval. Clin. Pract., vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 554–564, 2011, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01515.x. |
| [22] | C. A. Orchard, V. Curran, and S. Kabene, “Creating a Culture for Interdisciplinary Collaborative Professional Practice,” Med. Educ. Online, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 4387, 2005, doi: 10.3402/meo.v10i.4387. |
| [23] | H. Jerpseth, V. Dahl, P. Nortvedt, and K. Halvorsen, “Nurses’ role and care practices in decision-making regarding artificial ventilation in late stage pulmonary disease,” Nurs. Ethics, vol. 24, no. 7, pp. 821–832, 2017, doi: 10.1177/0969733015626600. |
APA Style
Ahmad Farid Rivai, Zaitun. (2023). Shared Ethics Decision Making in Nursing Practice: A Systematic Review. American Journal of Nursing and Health Sciences, 4(1), 1-5. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajnhs.20230401.11
ACS Style
Ahmad Farid Rivai; Zaitun. Shared Ethics Decision Making in Nursing Practice: A Systematic Review. Am. J. Nurs. Health Sci. 2023, 4(1), 1-5. doi: 10.11648/j.ajnhs.20230401.11
AMA Style
Ahmad Farid Rivai, Zaitun. Shared Ethics Decision Making in Nursing Practice: A Systematic Review. Am J Nurs Health Sci. 2023;4(1):1-5. doi: 10.11648/j.ajnhs.20230401.11
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ajnhs.20230401.11,
author = {Ahmad Farid Rivai and Zaitun},
title = {Shared Ethics Decision Making in Nursing Practice: A Systematic Review},
journal = {American Journal of Nursing and Health Sciences},
volume = {4},
number = {1},
pages = {1-5},
doi = {10.11648/j.ajnhs.20230401.11},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajnhs.20230401.11},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ajnhs.20230401.11},
abstract = {Background. Shared decision-making is a process by which healthcare professionals (HCPs’) and patients work together to make choices, taking into account the best clinical evidence and the patient's values. Currently, the level of shared decision-making (SDM) is still low. Some reasons were given such as time, knowlight, and skill but most of the reasons were not based on evidence and were often based on misconceptions. Most of the focus of decision-making is on the patient and physician, without involving the role of members. This study aims to analyze the act of involving shared ethical decision-making (SEDM) in nursing services. method. The database is systematically searched for the involvement of SEDM on data search engines, namely SCOPUS, PubMed, Mendeley, Scient Direct, and Google Scholar. Article reviews were by the inclusion criteria and extraction was carried out so that 25 articles were produced. Research studies use descriptive analysis that describes and explains research results that are explained in the literature. The risk of bias from the review results is identified to avoid cross-study bias. Results: Deep study approach SEDM in this systematic review, from 25 articles with qualitative study approaches (56%) and review studies (32%). Articles were written in America, Canada, Princess, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Australia, and Korea. Respondents were family/parents with an average age of 37 years, HCPs respondents with an average age of 31 years with at least 5 years of work experience. The results of the study search were grouped based on two findings, namely the intervention of patient and family involvement and the involvement of health professionals in SEDM. Conclusions. Involving patients and families in SDM is very important, especially involvement in respecting the principle of patient autonomy. Patient autonomy is a benchmark in decision-making. Family or parents are sometimes more dominant in decisions. HCPs’ involvement as an informant in SEDM. The involvement of nurses in interprofessional discussions is very beneficial for patients. The nurse's observation of the patient's condition is important both in clinical and ethical considerations. Research recommendations in SEDM for nurses should dig up a lot of information about patients and discuss it with other health interprofessional. And the use of decision aids can increase the suitability of value treatments and reduce decision conflicts.},
year = {2023}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Shared Ethics Decision Making in Nursing Practice: A Systematic Review AU - Ahmad Farid Rivai AU - Zaitun Y1 - 2023/02/27 PY - 2023 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajnhs.20230401.11 DO - 10.11648/j.ajnhs.20230401.11 T2 - American Journal of Nursing and Health Sciences JF - American Journal of Nursing and Health Sciences JO - American Journal of Nursing and Health Sciences SP - 1 EP - 5 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2994-7227 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ajnhs.20230401.11 AB - Background. Shared decision-making is a process by which healthcare professionals (HCPs’) and patients work together to make choices, taking into account the best clinical evidence and the patient's values. Currently, the level of shared decision-making (SDM) is still low. Some reasons were given such as time, knowlight, and skill but most of the reasons were not based on evidence and were often based on misconceptions. Most of the focus of decision-making is on the patient and physician, without involving the role of members. This study aims to analyze the act of involving shared ethical decision-making (SEDM) in nursing services. method. The database is systematically searched for the involvement of SEDM on data search engines, namely SCOPUS, PubMed, Mendeley, Scient Direct, and Google Scholar. Article reviews were by the inclusion criteria and extraction was carried out so that 25 articles were produced. Research studies use descriptive analysis that describes and explains research results that are explained in the literature. The risk of bias from the review results is identified to avoid cross-study bias. Results: Deep study approach SEDM in this systematic review, from 25 articles with qualitative study approaches (56%) and review studies (32%). Articles were written in America, Canada, Princess, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Australia, and Korea. Respondents were family/parents with an average age of 37 years, HCPs respondents with an average age of 31 years with at least 5 years of work experience. The results of the study search were grouped based on two findings, namely the intervention of patient and family involvement and the involvement of health professionals in SEDM. Conclusions. Involving patients and families in SDM is very important, especially involvement in respecting the principle of patient autonomy. Patient autonomy is a benchmark in decision-making. Family or parents are sometimes more dominant in decisions. HCPs’ involvement as an informant in SEDM. The involvement of nurses in interprofessional discussions is very beneficial for patients. The nurse's observation of the patient's condition is important both in clinical and ethical considerations. Research recommendations in SEDM for nurses should dig up a lot of information about patients and discuss it with other health interprofessional. And the use of decision aids can increase the suitability of value treatments and reduce decision conflicts. VL - 4 IS - 1 ER -
Information
Email: