Which Benefit Results From Making Informed Healthcare Decisions
Everyone wants improved health care. On Television set, in newspapers and magazines and, of course, on the Net, we can notice a vast amount of information about efforts being made to improve our care. As we listen and read, sure terms keep popping up – terms like wellness outcomes, evidence-based medicine (EBM), and patient-centered care.
In this commodity, we offer explanations of these three key terms and their contributions to improving health care and, more specifically, healthcare every bit practiced through laboratory medicine. Together, these terms describe a range of care that you lot and your wellness practitioner may consider in making decisions near testing and handling options. Understanding these terms, and their sometimes competing priorities, may assist you to discuss your testing options with your health practitioner and brand informed choices to improve your intendance.
Read the sections beneath to review these concepts as well as how they play into making informed decisions most your or a loved one’s wellness care equally well as additional resource.
Wellness Outcomes: “What Makes Yous (Feel) Better” Medicine
While anybody might agree that improving wellness intendance and patient health are worthy goals, there must exist a way to measure out progress in reaching them. Medical science has turned to evaluating wellness outcomes every bit a means for determining the effectiveness of a medical test, procedure or treatment.
Only what practice we actually mean by “health outcomes”? The ultimate objectives of medicine are to help people who are sick to get better and to assist healthy people in preventing illness, while “doing no harm,” as the famous phrase from the Hippocratic Oath cautions. Sickness or health, surviving or dying from a illness are examples of outcomes, merely and then are side furnishings experienced from treatments. “Health outcome” describes the end result or consequence of an action taken to prevent, manage or cure illness. The evaluation of health outcomes asks the basic question: “Are you better off than before medical intervention?”
Improving health outcomes through laboratory medicine is achieved with the appropriate use of testing. Laboratory tests should provide information that tin better a person’s event. Sometimes, withal, the prove isn’t ever conclusive as to which tests or frequency of testing improves health outcomes, especially in the use of screening tests intended to forestall illness. [See example below “When Lack of Testify or Consensus Warrants More Informed Decisionmaking”] Even the almost authoritative organizations don’t ever agree on the elements of preventive care, such as the most appropriate age to begin routine screening or how oftentimes it should exist repeated. In some cases, there is no consensus on whether screening with a detail examination should be washed at all.
Health outcomes rely, at least in role, on ensuring that laboratory tests are as accurate, sensitive and specific as possible, besides as reasonably bachelor. Consider, though, that health outcomes too depend on what the practitioner and patient make up one’s mind to practise with the information supplied by test results. Activeness, or sometimes inaction, prompted by test results can have a substantial affect on a patient’s health and the quality of care received.
Depending on the circumstances, testing decisions based on your preferences may expand the definition of health outcomes from not just “what makes yous meliorate” medicine, but to “what makes yous feel amend” medicine. While what makes y’all feel better may not necessarily amend your health condition, information technology may amend your quality of life past reducing your anxiety, for example, and increasing your power to savor yourself. Thus, patient-centered intendance may meliorate your health as well every bit the way you feel about your care.
Evidence-based Medicine (EBM): Foundation for Best Practices
Medical knowledge is accumulating—and changing—with such dizzying speed that doctors, nurses, dr. assistants, and other healthcare professionals have found they demand new methods to cope with this abundance of data. Novel tests, drugs, procedures, and treatments are ever in development, put through clinical trials, and introduced to marketplace. Studies are frequently published with fresh data that support or modify long-continuing beliefs and sometimes lead to substantial changes in the care yous receive.
Bear witness-based medicine (EBM) is a formalized approach for helping healthcare practitioners harness the cognition that comes with this information explosion and use information technology to their daily practice. EBM helps to decide what scientific data support the best wellness outcomes. This leads to development of practice guidelines aimed at delivering on the promise of improved outcomes in the greatest number of cases. In laboratory medicine, EBM provides guidance that enables healthcare practitioners to optimize the pick of tests for screening for, diagnosing, and managing a diverseness of medical weather condition.
Since show-based medicine primarily relies on research that measures health outcomes for a given population, it is somewhat at odds with individualized or personalized care. EBM-derived best practices are by their nature standardized to apply to every bit many people every bit possible. Complicated analyses of how a specific exam affects the health outcomes of a given population allow scientists to develop guidelines that institute standards of practice that are most likely to result in favorable outcomes for the vast bulk of the general population. Unfortunately, these guidelines aren’t always able to take into account circumstances that are specific to the patient. That is why the skill and feel of the practitioner are needed in interpreting the guidelines, and why information technology is important for yous equally the patient to understand and exist engaged in your intendance.
More recently, medical professionals have recognized that patient considerations impact outcomes. As a consequence, in some sectors of healthcare, there is increasing emphasis on including patient preferences, needs, and values every bit part of the standard of care.
Patient-centered Care: Emphasizing Patient Values
In the showtime half of the 20th century, medicine was so patient-centered that your doctor knew your medical history and sometimes even your parents’ and grandparents’ histories. This is different today; often, you must visit a dispensary or medical do where you are sometimes seen by the commencement available practitioner, regardless of whether the practitioner is familiar with you and your history. Fifty-fifty if y’all are seen by your regular practitioner, there’s no guarantee that he or she is fully current with your health condition.
A lot has inverse in healthcare over the years, and one of the biggest transformations has been the evolving function of the patient in this new patient-medico relationship. While this new relationship provides an opportunity for you lot to exist an active participant in your care, information technology also involves more responsibility on your function, request you to be more knowledgeable nigh your own wellness history, more assertive in request questions, and more vocal in discussing your preferences when it comes to care.
This new part has been characterized in healthcare circles as “patient-centered care.” According to the Constitute of Medicine (IOM), patient-centered care ways “providing care that is respectful of and responsive to individual patient preferences, needs, and values, and ensuring that patient values guide all clinical decisions.” What this means for you as a patient is that when you are fully engaged in your intendance, you lot can have a frank and informative word with your dr. and be more involved in the decisions regarding your care.
You can expect that your practitioner will advise y’all co-ordinate to the latest evidence-based guidelines and will help you empathize what this means for your personal intendance. Yous, in turn, tin be fully engaged when you are prepared to ask questions when you don’t understand something and are willing to discuss your concerns and hopes regarding diagnosis and handling and your quality of life. Together, you and your practitioner can decide the care you lot need to achieve the all-time health outcome by finding the right balance between evidence-based guidelines and your personal values.
The Spectrum of Care
As outlined in the previous sections, diverse factors can influence the decisions made and actions taken by you and your healthcare practitioners regarding testing. No decision can be viewed as entirely clear-cut, and the elements influencing decision-making can be seen as existing along a continuum of possibilities. Balancing these influences according to a given state of affairs tin be central to improving healthcare. The scenarios in the post-obit table illustrate some of these factors and accost just a few examples of means that testing decisions may be considered. They are listed co-ordinate to three full general categories along the spectrum of intendance.
To read more detailed discussions of the examples provided below, aggrandize the sections below.
Scenario 1: When Strong Bear witness Agrees With Patient Preferences
Sometimes the scientific evidence is abundant and the answers are relatively clear as to whether a test is or is not useful and the testing protocol recommended by the medical community is consistent with a patient’s needs and wishes.
|Example i: A1c for monitoring diabetes|
|Example 2: Colon cancer screening|
|Example 3: Pap smears in women younger than 21|
Scenario two: When Patient Choice Outweighs Proven Advantages of Testing
These are testing situations along the spectrum of care in which patient-centered considerations may exist the priority if the patient chooses, regardless of the evidence.
|Example 1: First or second trimester screening for fetal abnormalities|
|Example ii:BRCA1 andBRCA2 testing|
|Case 3: Screening for hepatitis C in baby boomers|
Scenario three: When Lack of Testify or Consensus Warrants More Informed Controlling
These are the areas along the continuum of care where the bachelor prove for utilize of a test is not lucent or the significance of its use is disputed or questioned. In this state of affairs, the patient-centered view may take precedence.
|Example 1: Prostate cancer screening with PSA test|
|Example ii: Breast cancer screening with mammography|
|Example 3: High-sensitivity CRP for cardiovascular risk|
When Strong Show Agrees With Patient Preferences
Sometimes the scientific evidence is abundant and the answers are relatively clear as to whether a test is or is not useful and the testing protocol recommended by the medical community is consistent with a patient’south needs and wishes.
|Case ane||Evidence supports testing; tailoring the exam for the individual patient improves event|
|Examination||A1c for monitoring diabetes|
|Desired outcome||Fewer complications from diabetes|
|Prove||Good glycemic control lowers hazard of complications|
|Standard care||Apply A1c to monitor glucose levels over fourth dimension|
|Patient considerations||Newly diagnosed can tolerate lower target, stricter control; if chronic, or with years of disease, loosen command, higher A1c target; some control better than no command|
|Healthcare improvement||With more realistic glycemic command, avoid side furnishings like hypoglycemia, better compliance|
Scientific evidence collected over years of practice indicates that diabetics who maintain a stable claret glucose level (“glycemic control”) feel fewer complications. Good glycemic command is typically defined every bit an A1c less than vii%. More recently, bear witness has supported individualized A1c targets rather than a i-size-fits all approach. A position statement published jointly past the American Diabetes Clan and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes in 2012 supports this approach. Specifically, these groups accept concluded that diabetics who are newly diagnosed can more often than not tolerate a lower target and stricter control. People who have lived with the disease for years, on the other manus, may crave looser control with a higher A1c target, particularly if they are at take a chance of depression claret carbohydrate (hypoglycemia). Adjusting the targets to fit an individual’s requirement leads to better control and improved compliance. In this case, personalizing the testing, interpretation of results and subsequent adjustments to therapy manifestly improves healthcare based on the evidence too equally from the patient perspective.
|Instance 2||Show is potent for testing; patient preferences matter greatly|
|Test||Colon cancer screening|
|Desired outcome||Lower incidence/fewer deaths from colon cancer|
|Show||Colonoscopy = thorough screen and can remove precancerous polyps; FOBT only detects cancer, requires follow upwardly if positive|
|Standard care||Screen those 50 and older; patient chooses test|
|Patient considerations||Individual preferences for different types of tests|
|Healthcare improvement||More people at risk (>age l) go screened|
Several major healthcare organizations recommend that individuals age 50 and older undergo screening for colon cancer. The American Cancer Gild, the U.South. Preventive Services Chore Strength, and the American Radiology Association, to name just a few, take guidelines supporting colon cancer screening. Though the advice may differ on which exam to use and how often, these groups accept found that screening lowers the incidence of this type of cancer and leads to fewer deaths. Recent technological advances have led to several possible testing options for detecting and/or preventing colon cancer. The choices for patients range from the fecal occult blood test (FOBT), an annual, non-invasive test requiring a sample that can be nerveless at home, to colonoscopy, an invasive imaging procedure that usually requires some level of sedation and may exist performed every v to 10 years. Though the evidence is clear that screening tin can save lives, patient preferences can be the key to more people getting screened.
|Example iii||Evidence is stiff confronting testing; patients willing to comply|
|Test||Pap smear for cervical cancer screen in women under 21|
|Desired outcome||Avoiding harms from testing for those who don’t demand it|
|Testify||Women younger than 21 rarely have cervical cancer|
|Standard care||Unless family/medical history of cervical cancer, discourage testing|
|Patient considerations||Patients are happy to forego unnecessary testing|
|Healthcare comeback||Fewer false positives, less unnecessary testing|
Let’due south face up it, most people would like to avert whatever medical procedures including testing; information technology is homo nature to want to forego any inconvenience or unpleasantness if possible. In this third example, the evidence against testing nicely accommodates this patient preference. Several well-regarded health organizations including the American Higher of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Strength, and the American Cancer Society have evaluated years of evidence and now conclude that screening women younger than 21 for cervical cancer does not improve outcomes. This is because cervical cancer is rare in this age group. In fact, testing could worsen outcomes when testing results in false positives on Pap smears, leading to unnecessary follow-up testing and procedures. For this specific age group, the harms of testing outweigh the benefit, thus testing is discouraged, and patients younger than 21 are probable to comply because of a natural desire to avoid tests. On the other hand, women older than 21 are strongly urged to get tested.
When Patient Pick Outweighs Proven Advantages of Testing
These are testing situations forth the spectrum of care in which patient-centered considerations may be the priority if the patient chooses, regardless of the testify:
|Case one||EBM supports testing, simply simply the patient tin make up one’s mind its usefulness|
|Exam||First or second trimester screening for fetal abnormalities|
|Result goal||Better management of pregnancies|
|Prove||Early detection of abnormalities tin can atomic number 82 to managed pregnancy, better newborn care|
|Standard care||Offering screening to all pregnant women|
|Patient considerations||Some women want testing in society to know about abnormalities; others know results will not brand a difference in their intendance and so choose to forego testing|
|Healthcare comeback||Patient is in command of healthcare decision|
For pregnant women in the U.South., the standard of care is for practitioners to offer screening for fetal chromosomal abnormalities, regardless of personal or medical history. This may be done as function of first trimester and/or second trimester screening tests. Each patient who is confronted with the choice of testing or not will have unlike needs, values, and preferences and these volition override any show that supports testing. While one woman will want the test in club to manage her pregnancy, another woman with different values may choose to forgo testing because the results of the test volition make no departure in the direction of her pregnancy. In this example, the values and needs of the patient override the evidence. Withal, in the patient’s viewpoint, her health intendance needs have been met and her care is appropriate for her.
|Example two||Testing and actions based on results are patient’s choices|
|Exam||BRCA1 and BRCA2 testing|
|Outcome goal||Identify people at increased run a risk for breast and ovarian cancer|
|Evidence||People withBRCA mutations take increased hazard of hereditary breast cancer and ovarian cancer|
|Standard care||Offer test to people who have a strong family unit history of chest or ovarian cancer or have a close family member with aBRCA mutation|
|Patient considerations||Patient may opt to have testing or not; genetic counselor can provide guidance and aid patient decide|
|Healthcare improvement||Patients who are well-informed about their risks can decide whether or non to have testing washed, depending on their take a chance tolerance and preferences regarding interventions they would consider if they accept a mutation|
Testing for mutations in theBRCA gene may exist offered to people who have a family history of breast or ovarian cancer, or close family fellow member with aBRCA mutation. The results of testing can inform women (and some men) about whether they take a meaning greater risk of having breast or ovarian cancer over the general population. It does not, yet, absolutely determine whether or non they volition develop ane of these cancers. This information fromBRCA testing, yet, tin requite them the ability to then brand decisions about their care, depending on their preferences and take a chance tolerances. Options for risk reduction range from greater surveillance (more than frequent screenings) to invasive procedures such as removal of breasts (mastectomy) or ovaries. The selection of these options, and indeed about testing itself, is a personal ane. Some people who are offered testing may not want it because they know the result would not affect their decision-making or cause them to cull a different course of action. Conversely, other individuals might cull testing to gain information about their genetic predisposition so they can decide whether or non to accept action. Opting for predictiveBRCA testing for breast cancer is an example of an important health decision and a good illustration of when a well-informed patient is an empowered one. Moreover, a genetic counselor is often a good resource for understanding genetic test results, but perhaps more importantly, tin can provide guidance when making the decision about whether or not to exist tested.
|Example three||Patients may determine to opt out of testing based on their personal risk tolerance|
|Test||Hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening for “infant boomers,” people born from 1945 through 1965|
|Outcome goal||Subtract number of deaths due to complications of chronic hepatitis C|
|Bear witness||People born from 1945 through 1965 have the highest incidence of chronic hepatitis C; screening anybody in this age group will place more than of those infected and allow for treatment with new, effective drugs, decreasing the number of complications and deaths due to HCV|
|Standard care||Offer testing to all people born from 1945 through 1965 regardless of chance factors|
|Patient considerations||Some people may consider themselves at very depression risk and may see no benefit in undergoing testing|
|Healthcare improvement||Though evidence shows the general population of baby boomers volition benefit from screening, an individual in this age group may choose to opt out of what they may perceive as unnecessary testing considering of very low risk|
More Americans today dice from hepatitis C than from HIV, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the rise in deaths unduly affects people built-in from 1945 through 1965, and so-chosen “baby boomers.” Over iii.2 million Americans are living with chronic HCV infection, which can cause long-term liver damage, and two-thirds were born from 1945 through 1965. Without treatment, it is estimated that as many as half with chronic infection volition develop cirrhosis and/or liver cancer, both of which can be fatal. The virus is commonly spread through sharing needles or other equipment when injecting drugs but may also be transmitted through other ways, including snorting drugs or risky sexual behavior such every bit having multiple sex partners. Earlier 1992, when widespread screening of the blood supply began in the U.South., HCV was likewise commonly spread through blood transfusions and organ transplants. Many people who may have contracted the virus 40 years ago are unaware of their condition as information technology is a slow-progressing disease and tin can be relatively asymptomatic for decades until belatedly, incurable complications develop. Detecting infections early through screening allows for handling with newly-bachelor drugs that are safe and effective. In 2012, the CDC undertook a study to determine whether routine historic period-based screening would raise the rate of cure. The study ended that routine screening of all individuals born from 1945 through 1965, regardless of adventure factors, would significantly reduce deaths. All the same, some individuals in this age grouping may perceive their gamble of having HCV to exist so low that there is no benefit in undergoing screening. Though the evidence shows that this population in full general would benefit from screening, each individual must brand a decision on whether screening would be useful for him or her.
When Lack of Show or Consensus Warrants More than Informed Decision-making
These are the areas along the continuum of intendance where the available testify for use of a test is not clear-cut or the significance of its apply is disputed or questioned. In this situation, the patient-centered view may accept precedence.
|Example i||Evidence for testing is unclear and at that place is no consensus; determination about testing is accomplished through weighing pros and cons with healthcare practitioner (informed determination)|
|Desired outcomes||Fewer deaths from prostate cancer, fewer unneeded biopsies and invasive procedures|
|Evidence||Screening using PSA has non lowered decease rates; false positive results in painful biopsies; when cancer is detected, there is currently no practiced manner to determine if it is slow-growing or aggressive|
|Standard care||No consensus|
|Patient considerations||Some men volition choose screening, others volition not; those who cull screening and have positive result will have to make choices nigh biopsy to diagnose cancer, watchful waiting, and treatment; decisions based on how they view the hazard: which is worse: knowing or not knowing?|
|Healthcare comeback||Patient is in control of decision based on individual credence of risks; research is ongoing to detect examination or procedure that can differentiate between slow-growing and aggressive cancer|
An example of a state of affairs in which there is a lack of consensus on the available evidence is screening asymptomatic men for prostate cancer using the test for prostate-specific antigen (PSA). The show regarding this test consists of information from big, long-term studies that indicate that screening with PSA is no ameliorate than standard care in lowering decease rates from prostate cancer. That, coupled with the possible harms from false-positive results and unnecessary, possibly painful follow-up procedures, have led some in the medical community to advise confronting the utilise of the exam. In contrast, some other health experts say that this population-based prove should not apply to individuals, that each patient, armed with facts on pros and cons of testing, should exist immune to brand an informed decision. In this scenario, the decision to test or not tin balance squarely with the patient. While some patients will welcome the autonomy, others may choose to rely on the advice of their healthcare practitioner and, in each situation, the level of take chances that is adequate to the patient enters into the picture show.
|Example ii||Some consensus on testing; conclusion for testing based on patient need|
|Examination||Chest cancer screening (mammography)|
|Desired outcomes||Fewer deaths from breast cancer; fewer faux positives and unnecessary follow-up procedures, such as biopsies|
|Bear witness||Some experts say, for women younger than 50, harms outweigh the benefits; others propose screening younger than 50 and more often than every two years|
|Standard care||Some consensus; age 50 and older, examination every two years|
|Patient considerations||Some want to be screened regardless of advice in guild to know whether or not they have cancer; others choose to wait until they are older and become screened less frequently to avoid faux positives|
|Healthcare improvement||Women accept admission to testing when they choose to undergo screening|
For women who are considering breast cancer screening through the use of mammography, there is some consensus from healthcare professionals, but in that location are enough differences that women must consider their options carefully. The American Cancer Society and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommend annual screening for those of average risk start at 40 years of age. Yet, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) says that for women at average adventure and who are under age l, the decision when to get-go regular screening mammography should exist an individual one, taking into consideration such factors as a woman’s adventure tolerance. The USPSTF also recommends less frequent screening for women over age 50, advising that mammography be done every other year. While mammography tin detect breast cancer in the earliest stages when it is most treatable, information technology can also atomic number 82 to false-positive results and unnecessary follow-up procedures, including sometimes biopsies. Thus, a woman must decide for herself, with the help of her health practitioner, what her tolerances are for chance if she forgoes testing and possibly misses early cancer or undergoes testing and perchance gets a imitation-positive result.
|Instance three||Evidence is insufficient at this time|
|Exam||High-sensitivity CRP (hs-CRP) for cardiovascular disease risk|
|Desired outcomes||Lower risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD)|
|Evidence||No current consensus exists on when to get tested; studies are ongoing to evaluate the function of hs-CRP in assessing a person’s hazard of CVD|
|Standard care||Measuring blood hs-CRP may be useful in conjunction with other tests that are performed to assess risk of center disease, such as a lipid contour, in plainly healthy people who don’t have any of the traditional factors such as high blood pressure level, high cholesterol level, or smoking|
|Patient considerations||If studies take not nevertheless proven that the test has value, patient may choose to forego testing even if health practitioner recommends it every bit providing additional take a chance information|
|Healthcare improvement||Patients cull whether testing is worth the time and toll|
The high-sensitivity CRP test detects depression levels of inflammation in the body. It is promoted by some as a examination for determining a person’s risk level for CVD, heart attacks, and strokes. This is considering it is now believed that a persistent depression level of inflammation plays a major office in atheroslcerosis, the narrowing of blood vessels associated with cardiovascular disease. A number of risk factors have been linked to the development of CVD, but a significant number of people who accept few or no identified risk factors will too develop CVD. This fact has lead researchers to look for additional risk factors that might be either causing CVD or that could be used to determine lifestyle changes and/or treatments that could reduce a person’south chance of CVD. Studies have shown that measuring CRP with a highly sensitive assay can help identify the risk level for CVD in plainly healthy people. It is thought that normal just relatively high levels of CRP in otherwise healthy individuals can predict the future risk of a heart disease, even when cholesterol levels are within an acceptable range. Clinical trials that involve measuring hs-CRP levels are currently underway in an effort to better empathise its role in cardiovascular events. These studies may eventually pb to guidelines on its employ in screening and treatment decisions. Meanwhile, a healthcare practitioner may advise the exam equally a ways to provide boosted information of an individual’s risk, just a patient may cull to forego information technology until studies provide more than evidence of its usefulness.
Making Sense of it All
Informed decisions and deciding what is right for yous
Most people volition agree that technological innovations accept led to slap-up strides in helping sick people get well and in preventing illness in the first identify. EBM encourages use of those new procedures that accept been shown to be of most benefit to the bulk of patients, and patient-centered care filters these practices in an endeavor to provide the optimal care for each individual.
So, when we say that today’s healthcare is patient-centered, testify-based, and focused on improved health outcomes, information technology kind of makes u.s. want to scratch our heads and say, “Well, hasn’t it always been this way?” In a way of speaking, yes, merely in a much less organized and formalized system of care that was oft limited past the experience of the individual physician and that did not benefit from the scientific analysis of best practices.
It is important to call back that the newest fields of modernistic medicine, which we’ll ascertain hither to include laboratory medicine, radiological medicine (ten-rays, MRIs, etc.), and pharmaceutical medicine, are still young and maturing. Afterward decades of explosive growth and dramatically positive impacts on wellness outcomes, medical scientists have but only begun to effectively manage the explosion of knowledge that they take gained.
As healthcare has become a more routine and, in some cases, costlier office of our daily lives, the medical community has even greater incentive to standardize the lessons learned and how to apply those best practices to the individual patient. EBM and patient-centeredness are 2 of the yardsticks used past the medical community to mensurate the value of medical care, such as testing and treatments, and to verify their effectiveness in improving health outcomes.
In some respects, EBM and patient-centered care represent two ends of a spectrum. You and your healthcare provider must larn to balance EBM with patient-centered intendance. The chat you take with your practitioner should evaluate options based on standardized guidelines and the proven benefits and harms, but also accept into account everything from your personal and medical history to your philosophical and religious views, cultural background, personal gamble tolerance, and the specific circumstances in which you are making your decisions. To assistance illustrate these concepts, we provided several real-world examples of laboratory tests forth this spectrum in the section above,The Spectrum of Care.
Regardless of the particular situation, patients who are well-informed and educated about their ain health and the related decisions they face have an advantage in ensuring that priorities are balanced to ameliorate their personal health outcomes. Though the illustrations presented here vary according to the rigor of testify, in each case the opportunity for involvement of the patient is vital. Moving forwards, medicine will require more from patients in determining the grade of their testing and treatments.
Getting the conversation started: Questions to enquire your healthcare practitioner
When testing is ordered, you lot should feel comfortable in finding out why the test needs to be done, how it will be done, and what the healthcare practitioner expects to larn from information technology. Hither are some examples of questions you lot might wish to enquire your practitioner to become the conversation started:
- What information do y’all expect to proceeds from this test? How could information technology change the form of my care?
- What are the risks and benefits of testing?
- What are the risks and benefits of interim on the results (undergoing treatment)?
- What is the evidence that supports this screening and how does it fit my situation?
- What do I need to know or do before the test?
- What happens during and later the examination?
- What are normal results? What practise abnormal results mean?
- What factors may affect the results?
- What course of action may exist next, after the examination?
- If results are not normal, what are the next steps?
So that y’all don’t forget to ask during your visit, exist sure to write your questions down before you become.
To create a list of questions specific for your situation, see the Bureau for Healthcare Research and Quality’due south Question Builder.
Your wellness care practitioner is the all-time person to await to for answers. No matter how brief the answers may be, request your medico, physician’southward assistant, or nurse is likely to provide y’all with the answer well-nigh specific to your situation. After you lot hear from them, you can decide to follow upward and get more details from a published source of information.
Several leading wellness organizations accept resources on the their websites that tin help you become an informed patient with regard to your particular condition and feel more than comfortable when talking to your health care practitioner:
National Institutes of Wellness: Talking to Your Doctor
American Heart Association: Consumer Health Intendance
American Diabetes Association: Who’southward on Your Health Care Team?
American Cancer Society: Questions To Inquire Your Doctor When You lot Have Cancer
American Cancer Society: Talking With Your Md
NIH, National Center for Costless and Culling Medicine: Be an Informed Consumer
TeensHealth from Nemours: Talking to Your Doc
Sackett D, et al. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn’t.BMJ 1996;312:71.
Bruns D. Laboratory-related Outcomes in Healthcare.Clinical Chemistry August 2001 vol. 47 no. eight, 1547-1552. Bachelor online at http://world wide web.clinchem.org/content/47/8/1547.full. Accessed January 2014.
Madsen J, et al. More Studies on Outcomes Using Biochemical Diagnostic Tests Are Needed: Findings from the Danish Society of Clinical Biochemistry. Clinical Chemical science July 2008 vol. 54 no. 7, 1254-1256. Bachelor online at http://www.clinchem.org/content/54/7/1254.full. Accessed Jan 2014.
Oosterhuis W, et al. Evidence-Based Guidelines in Laboratory Medicine: Principles and Methods.Clinical Chemistry May 2004 vol. fifty no. 5, 806-818. Bachelor online at http://www.clinchem.org/content/50/v/806.full. Accessed January 2014.
Genevra Pittman. Personalized risk info helps with screening decision. Reuters, Wed Feb 27, 2013. Bachelor online at http://www.reuters.com/commodity/2013/02/28/usa-risk-decision-idUSBRE91R04A20130228. Accessed Jan 2014.
Daniel Bereczki. Personalized Medicine: A Competitor or an Upgrade of Evidence-based Medicine?Personalized Medicine. 2012;9(2):211-221. Available online via Medscape at http://world wide web.medscape.com/viewarticle/760001. Accessed Jan 2014.
Epstein R, Street R. The Values and Value of Patient-Centered Care.Ann Fam MedMarch/April 2011 vol. 9 no. two, 100-103. Available online at http://www.annfammed.org/content/ix/2/100.long. Accessed Jan 2014.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. What is Comparative Effectiveness Research? Available online at http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/alphabetize.cfm/what-is-comparative-effectiveness-research1/. Accessed January 2014.
Karen Davis, PhD, Stephen C. Schoenbaum, Dr., Anne-Marie Audet, Doctor. A 2020 Vision of Patient-Centered Master Care.J Gen Intern Med. 2005 October; 20(10): 953–957. Bachelor online at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1490238/. Accessed January 2014.
Keckley P. Show-Based Medicine in Managed Intendance: A Survey of Current and Emerging Strategies. Medscape Full general Medicine. 2004;6(2):56. Available online at http://world wide web.medscape.com/viewarticle/470303_2. Accessed January 2014.
Staub L, et al. Using patient direction every bit a surrogate for patient health outcomes in diagnostic test evaluation.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012; 12: 12. Available online at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/manufactures/PMC3313870/. Accessed January 2014.
Kindig D, Ed. What Is Population Wellness? University of Wisconsin, Population Wellness Sciences. Available online at http://www.improvingpopulationhealth.org/blog/what-is-population-health.html. Accessed January 2014.
Copyright © 2013. American Higher of Emergency Physicians. Clinical and Practice Management, Quality of Care and the Outcomes Direction Movement. Available online at http://www.acep.org/content.aspx?id=30166. Accessed January 2014.
Kathleen Kraft, Wolfgang Hoffmann. Challenge of evidence in individualized medicine.Personalized Medicine Jan 2012, Vol. 9, No. ane, Pp 65-71. Available online at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/756263. Accessed January 2014.
Bergeson South, Dean J. A Systems Approach to Patient-Centered Care.JAMA. 2006;296(23):2848-2851. Available online at http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=204579. Accessed Jan 2014.
Stewart M, et al. The impact of patient-centered care on outcomes.J Fam Pract. 2000 Sep;49(ix):796-804. Available online at http://world wide web.jfponline.com/index.php?id=22143&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=168778. Accessed January 2014.
Manary M, et al. Perspective: The Patient Experience and Health Outcomes.N Engl J Med 2013; 368:201-203. Available online at http://world wide web.nejm.org/doi/full/ten.1056/NEJMp1211775. Accessed January 2014.
(May 2009) Jonathan Belsey. What is evidence-based medicine? Bachelor online at http://www.medicine.ox.air conditioning.britain/bandolier/painres/download/whatis/ebm.pdf. Accessed Jan 2014.
Brandi White. Making Evidence-Based Medicine Doable in Everyday Practice.Fam Pract Manag. 2004 Feb;eleven(2):51-58. Bachelor online at http://www.aafp.org/fpm/2004/0200/p51.html. Accessed Jan 2014.
Romana H. Is Evidence-Based Medicine Patient-Centered and Is Patient-Centered Care Evidence-Based?Health Serv Resv.41(1); Feb 2006 PMC1681528, Available online at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1681528/. Accessed January 2014.
Get the latest lab testing news & updates from our bi-monthly newsletter
Your privacy is important to united states
Which Benefit Results From Making Informed Healthcare Decisions
Originally posted 2022-08-01 02:39:32.