• Open Access

‘Managing patient involvement’: provider perspectives on diabetes decision-making

Authors

  • Tim Shortus MBBS MPH PhD FRACGP,

    1. Conjoint Senior Lecturer, Centre for Primary Health Care and Equity (CPHCE), University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, NSW
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Lynn Kemp BHSc PhD,

    1. Associate Professor, Director, Centre for Health Equity Training, Research and Evaluation, Centre for Primary Health Care and Equity (CPHCE), University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, NSW
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Suzanne McKenzie MBBS MMSc FRACGP,

    1. Associate Professor, Head of Discipline, General Practice and Rural Medicine, School of Medicine and Dentistry, James Cook University, Townsville, QLD
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Mark Harris MBBS MD DRACOG FRACGP

    1. Professor, Executive Director, Centre for Primary Health Care and Equity (CPHCE), University of New South Wales (UNSW), Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Search for more papers by this author

Dr Tim Shortus MBBS, MPH, PhD, FRACGP
Centre for Primary Health Care and Equity (CPHCE)
University of New South Wales (UNSW)
31 Ormond Street
Ashfield NSW 2131
Australia
E-mail: tshortus@hotmail.com

Abstract

Background  Most studies of shared decision-making focus on acute treatment or screening decision-making encounters, yet a significant proportion of primary care is concerned with managing patients with chronic disease.

Aim  To investigate provider perspectives on the role of patient involvement in chronic disease decision-making.

Design  A qualitative, grounded theory study of patient involvement in diabetes care planning.

Setting and participants  Interviews were conducted with 29 providers (19 general practitioners, eight allied health providers, and two endocrinologists) who participated in diabetes care planning.

Results  Providers described a conflict between their responsibilities to deliver evidence-based diabetes care and to respect patients’ rights to make decisions. While all were concerned with providing best possible diabetes care, they differed in the emphasis they placed on ‘treating to target’ or practicing ‘personalized care’. Those preferring to ‘treat to target’ were more assertive, while ‘personalized care’ meant being more accepting of the patient’s priorities. Providers sought to manage patient involvement in decision-making according to their objectives. ‘Treating to target’ meant involving patients where necessary to tailor care to their needs and abilities, but limiting patient involvement in decisions about the overall agenda. ‘Personalized care’ meant involving patients to tailor care to patient preference.

Discussion and conclusions  Respecting a patient’s autonomy and delivering high-quality diabetes care are important to providers. At times it may not be possible to do both, so a careful balance is required. Involving patients in decision-making may be a means to this end, rather than an end in itself.

Ancillary