Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32196984›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of older people nursing2020

Strategies to facilitate shared decision-making in long-term care.

Lisa A Cranley, Susan E Slaughter, Sienna Caspar, Melissa Heisey, Mei Huang, Tieghan Killackey, Katherine S McGilton

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of older people nursing, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Relationship-Centered Care for Older Adults in Long-Term Care Homes: A Scoping Review.Journal of applied gerontology : the official journal of the Southern Gerontological Society · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Communication Disparities between Nursing Home Team Members.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Lisa A CranleyLawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3308-7558
Susan E SlaughterFaculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6482-5632
Sienna CasparHealth Sciences, Therapeutic Recreation, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6517-1551
Melissa HeiseyUniversity Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Mei HuangUniversity Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Tieghan KillackeyLawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Katherine S McGiltonLawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2470-9738

Funding

Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, Pilot Research Grant Program, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe aim of this study was to explore shared decision-making among residents, their families and staff to determine relevant strategies to support shared decision-making in long-term care (LTC).

backgroundMeaningful engagement of long-term care home (LTCH) residents and their families in care decisions is key in the provision of quality of care. Shared decision-making is an interprofessional approach to increasing resident and family engagement in care decisions which can lead to higher quality decisions, more relevant care interventions and greater resident, family, and staff satisfaction. Despite these advantages, shared decision-making has not been widely implemented in practice in LTC.

methodsThe study took place in one LTCH in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. A qualitative descriptive design was used to explore how residents, family members and staff described how they collaborate when making decisions concerning resident care, and their perceptions of facilitators and challenges to a collaborative approach to decision-making. Individual interviews were conducted with nine participants: residents, families and staff. Data were analysed using content and thematic analysis.

findingsFour main themes that described resident, family and staff perspectives of shared decision-making were as follows: (a) oral communication pathways for information sharing; (b) supporting resident decision-making autonomy; (c) relational aspects of care facilitate shared decision-making; and (d) lack of effective communication creates barriers to shared decision-making.

conclusionAs the demand for LTC continues to increase, it is crucial that healthcare providers engage in collaborative, relational practices that foster high-quality resident care. While a relational approach to care can facilitate shared decision-making, there are opportunities to further cultivate shared decision-making in LTCHs through more effective communication and collaboration. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Understanding how information is shared and decisions are made can facilitate shared decision-making in LTCHs. The strategies identified from this study could be further co-developed and implemented in LTCHs.

Indexed as

Decision MakingLong-Term CareProfessional-Family RelationsProfessional-Patient RelationsQuality of Health CareAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOntarioPatient Care TeamQualitative Researchinterviewslong-term carenursing homesqualitative researchshared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID32196984
PMCPMC7507187

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.