Patient perspectives on the need for implanted device information: Implications for a post‐procedural communication framework

Abstract Background Shared decision making and patient‐centred communication have become part of pre‐procedural decisions and perioperative care across medical specialties. However, gaps exist in patient communication about the implanted device received and the benefits in sharing information about...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Natalia A. Wilson, Amanda J. Reich, Jove Graham, Deepak L. Bhatt, Louis L. Nguyen, Joel S. Weissman
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2021-08-01
Series:Health Expectations
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13273
id doaj-5718ea5c618c4fc1b609584011cafefc
record_format Article
spelling doaj-5718ea5c618c4fc1b609584011cafefc2021-08-17T05:09:01ZengWileyHealth Expectations1369-65131369-76252021-08-012441391140210.1111/hex.13273Patient perspectives on the need for implanted device information: Implications for a post‐procedural communication frameworkNatalia A. Wilson0Amanda J. Reich1Jove Graham2Deepak L. Bhatt3Louis L. Nguyen4Joel S. Weissman5College of Health Solutions Arizona State University Phoenix AZ USACenter for Surgery and Public Health Brigham and Women's Hospital Boston MA USAGeisinger Danville PA USAHeart and Vascular Center Brigham and Women's Hospital Boston MA USADivision of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery Brigham and Women's Hospital Boston MA USACenter for Surgery and Public Health Brigham and Women's Hospital Boston MA USAAbstract Background Shared decision making and patient‐centred communication have become part of pre‐procedural decisions and perioperative care across medical specialties. However, gaps exist in patient communication about the implanted device received and the benefits in sharing information about their procedure and device. Objective To understand the patients' knowledge of identifying information for their implanted devices and perspectives on sharing their implanted device information. Methods Four focus groups were conducted with patients who had received a cardiac or vascular implanted device from one of the study sites within the previous 6 months. Data were transcribed and thematically analysed. Results Five themes emerged: lack of awareness of identifying information on implanted devices; value of information on implanted devices; varying trust with sharing device information; perceived risk with sharing device information; and lack of consensus on a systematic process for tracking implanted devices. Discussion Patients desire post‐procedural information on their implanted device and a designated plan for longitudinal follow‐up, but lack trust and perceive risk with broadly sharing their implanted device information. Conclusion After receiving an implanted device, post‐procedural patient communication needs to be expanded to include identifying information on the device including the unique device identifier, how long‐term tracking will be supported and the process for notification in case of a problem with the device. This communication should also include education on how sharing device information supports patients' long‐term health care, post‐market safety surveillance and research. Patient or Public Contribution The research team included members who were also patients with implanted devices.https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13273implanted devicespatient perspectivepatient‐centered communicationpost‐procedural communicationshared decision makingunique device identifier
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Natalia A. Wilson
Amanda J. Reich
Jove Graham
Deepak L. Bhatt
Louis L. Nguyen
Joel S. Weissman
spellingShingle Natalia A. Wilson
Amanda J. Reich
Jove Graham
Deepak L. Bhatt
Louis L. Nguyen
Joel S. Weissman
Patient perspectives on the need for implanted device information: Implications for a post‐procedural communication framework
Health Expectations
implanted devices
patient perspective
patient‐centered communication
post‐procedural communication
shared decision making
unique device identifier
author_facet Natalia A. Wilson
Amanda J. Reich
Jove Graham
Deepak L. Bhatt
Louis L. Nguyen
Joel S. Weissman
author_sort Natalia A. Wilson
title Patient perspectives on the need for implanted device information: Implications for a post‐procedural communication framework
title_short Patient perspectives on the need for implanted device information: Implications for a post‐procedural communication framework
title_full Patient perspectives on the need for implanted device information: Implications for a post‐procedural communication framework
title_fullStr Patient perspectives on the need for implanted device information: Implications for a post‐procedural communication framework
title_full_unstemmed Patient perspectives on the need for implanted device information: Implications for a post‐procedural communication framework
title_sort patient perspectives on the need for implanted device information: implications for a post‐procedural communication framework
publisher Wiley
series Health Expectations
issn 1369-6513
1369-7625
publishDate 2021-08-01
description Abstract Background Shared decision making and patient‐centred communication have become part of pre‐procedural decisions and perioperative care across medical specialties. However, gaps exist in patient communication about the implanted device received and the benefits in sharing information about their procedure and device. Objective To understand the patients' knowledge of identifying information for their implanted devices and perspectives on sharing their implanted device information. Methods Four focus groups were conducted with patients who had received a cardiac or vascular implanted device from one of the study sites within the previous 6 months. Data were transcribed and thematically analysed. Results Five themes emerged: lack of awareness of identifying information on implanted devices; value of information on implanted devices; varying trust with sharing device information; perceived risk with sharing device information; and lack of consensus on a systematic process for tracking implanted devices. Discussion Patients desire post‐procedural information on their implanted device and a designated plan for longitudinal follow‐up, but lack trust and perceive risk with broadly sharing their implanted device information. Conclusion After receiving an implanted device, post‐procedural patient communication needs to be expanded to include identifying information on the device including the unique device identifier, how long‐term tracking will be supported and the process for notification in case of a problem with the device. This communication should also include education on how sharing device information supports patients' long‐term health care, post‐market safety surveillance and research. Patient or Public Contribution The research team included members who were also patients with implanted devices.
topic implanted devices
patient perspective
patient‐centered communication
post‐procedural communication
shared decision making
unique device identifier
url https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13273
work_keys_str_mv AT nataliaawilson patientperspectivesontheneedforimplanteddeviceinformationimplicationsforapostproceduralcommunicationframework
AT amandajreich patientperspectivesontheneedforimplanteddeviceinformationimplicationsforapostproceduralcommunicationframework
AT jovegraham patientperspectivesontheneedforimplanteddeviceinformationimplicationsforapostproceduralcommunicationframework
AT deepaklbhatt patientperspectivesontheneedforimplanteddeviceinformationimplicationsforapostproceduralcommunicationframework
AT louislnguyen patientperspectivesontheneedforimplanteddeviceinformationimplicationsforapostproceduralcommunicationframework
AT joelsweissman patientperspectivesontheneedforimplanteddeviceinformationimplicationsforapostproceduralcommunicationframework
_version_ 1721205431714447360