Implementation of the three good questions—A feasibility study in Dutch hospital departments

Abstract Objectives To determine the feasibility of pragmatic implementation strategies for three good questions (in Dutch: Drie Goede Vragen; 3GV. What are my options; what are the risks and benefits related to these options; and what does this mean for my situation?) to increase shared decision‐ma...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Mirjam M. Garvelink, Marja Jillissen, Anouk Knops, Jan A. M. Kremer, Rosella P.M.G. Hermens, Marjan J. Meinders
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2019-12-01
Series:Health Expectations
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12960
id doaj-738693bd530e462c9926dff8862d202c
record_format Article
spelling doaj-738693bd530e462c9926dff8862d202c2020-11-24T21:11:16ZengWileyHealth Expectations1369-65131369-76252019-12-012261272128410.1111/hex.12960Implementation of the three good questions—A feasibility study in Dutch hospital departmentsMirjam M. Garvelink0Marja Jillissen1Anouk Knops2Jan A. M. Kremer3Rosella P.M.G. Hermens4Marjan J. Meinders5Radboud university medical center Radboud Institute for Health SciencesIQ Healthcare Nijmegen The NetherlandsRadboud university medical center Improvement & Implementation Group Nijmegen The NetherlandsNetherlands Patients Federation Utrecht The NetherlandsRadboud university medical center Radboud Institute for Health SciencesIQ Healthcare Nijmegen The NetherlandsRadboud university medical center Radboud Institute for Health SciencesIQ Healthcare Nijmegen The NetherlandsRadboud university medical center Radboud Institute for Health SciencesIQ Healthcare Nijmegen The NetherlandsAbstract Objectives To determine the feasibility of pragmatic implementation strategies for three good questions (in Dutch: Drie Goede Vragen; 3GV. What are my options; what are the risks and benefits related to these options; and what does this mean for my situation?) to increase shared decision‐making (SDM) efforts in Dutch secondary care, and identify barriers and facilitators of implementation. Methods Convergent mixed‐method design: pre‐post surveys with patients attending one of six clinical departments in a Dutch Hospital, post‐intervention interviews with patients and health‐care professionals. Primary outcomes: feasibility (reach, use of 3GV). Secondary outcomes: SDM, experiences with 3GV and decision making. Interviews focused on barriers and facilitators of 3GV use. Interviews were content coded and categorized into determinants of behaviour change. Results 35% of the respondents who had heard of 3GV (52%) used all three questions. 3GV use did not lead to more SDM (SDMQ9 M = Δ0.3;SE = 2.2) but patients felt empowered to decide (88%) and to SDM (86%). Barriers were as follows: time investment, other SDM projects and perception that the need to use 3GV differs per patient/consultation. Respondents preferred to use 3GV as they saw fit for the consultation, instead of literally asking them. Facilitators: easy, accessible information materials that can be flexibly used. Conclusion Implementation of 3GV seemed feasible, although influenced by contextual characteristics (eg type of decisions, patients, on‐going interventions). 3GV contributed to important elements of SDM, and respondents were willing to apply them in a way that suited their situation. Practice implications We recommend continuation of current and new implementation strategies to enable 3GV implementation in secondary care.https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12960feasibility studypatient communicationsecondary careshared decision making
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Mirjam M. Garvelink
Marja Jillissen
Anouk Knops
Jan A. M. Kremer
Rosella P.M.G. Hermens
Marjan J. Meinders
spellingShingle Mirjam M. Garvelink
Marja Jillissen
Anouk Knops
Jan A. M. Kremer
Rosella P.M.G. Hermens
Marjan J. Meinders
Implementation of the three good questions—A feasibility study in Dutch hospital departments
Health Expectations
feasibility study
patient communication
secondary care
shared decision making
author_facet Mirjam M. Garvelink
Marja Jillissen
Anouk Knops
Jan A. M. Kremer
Rosella P.M.G. Hermens
Marjan J. Meinders
author_sort Mirjam M. Garvelink
title Implementation of the three good questions—A feasibility study in Dutch hospital departments
title_short Implementation of the three good questions—A feasibility study in Dutch hospital departments
title_full Implementation of the three good questions—A feasibility study in Dutch hospital departments
title_fullStr Implementation of the three good questions—A feasibility study in Dutch hospital departments
title_full_unstemmed Implementation of the three good questions—A feasibility study in Dutch hospital departments
title_sort implementation of the three good questions—a feasibility study in dutch hospital departments
publisher Wiley
series Health Expectations
issn 1369-6513
1369-7625
publishDate 2019-12-01
description Abstract Objectives To determine the feasibility of pragmatic implementation strategies for three good questions (in Dutch: Drie Goede Vragen; 3GV. What are my options; what are the risks and benefits related to these options; and what does this mean for my situation?) to increase shared decision‐making (SDM) efforts in Dutch secondary care, and identify barriers and facilitators of implementation. Methods Convergent mixed‐method design: pre‐post surveys with patients attending one of six clinical departments in a Dutch Hospital, post‐intervention interviews with patients and health‐care professionals. Primary outcomes: feasibility (reach, use of 3GV). Secondary outcomes: SDM, experiences with 3GV and decision making. Interviews focused on barriers and facilitators of 3GV use. Interviews were content coded and categorized into determinants of behaviour change. Results 35% of the respondents who had heard of 3GV (52%) used all three questions. 3GV use did not lead to more SDM (SDMQ9 M = Δ0.3;SE = 2.2) but patients felt empowered to decide (88%) and to SDM (86%). Barriers were as follows: time investment, other SDM projects and perception that the need to use 3GV differs per patient/consultation. Respondents preferred to use 3GV as they saw fit for the consultation, instead of literally asking them. Facilitators: easy, accessible information materials that can be flexibly used. Conclusion Implementation of 3GV seemed feasible, although influenced by contextual characteristics (eg type of decisions, patients, on‐going interventions). 3GV contributed to important elements of SDM, and respondents were willing to apply them in a way that suited their situation. Practice implications We recommend continuation of current and new implementation strategies to enable 3GV implementation in secondary care.
topic feasibility study
patient communication
secondary care
shared decision making
url https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12960
work_keys_str_mv AT mirjammgarvelink implementationofthethreegoodquestionsafeasibilitystudyindutchhospitaldepartments
AT marjajillissen implementationofthethreegoodquestionsafeasibilitystudyindutchhospitaldepartments
AT anoukknops implementationofthethreegoodquestionsafeasibilitystudyindutchhospitaldepartments
AT janamkremer implementationofthethreegoodquestionsafeasibilitystudyindutchhospitaldepartments
AT rosellapmghermens implementationofthethreegoodquestionsafeasibilitystudyindutchhospitaldepartments
AT marjanjmeinders implementationofthethreegoodquestionsafeasibilitystudyindutchhospitaldepartments
_version_ 1716753976330813440