Tamhane, Shrikant

AbstractPeople with diabetes often live with other chronic conditions and lead complicated lives. Determining what is the best management decision for a patient requires consideration of each individual's personal, social and biomedical context, what he or she values, the reasons he or she has to value the available options, and the relative contribution of each option in terms of benefits, harms, costs and inconveniences. Empathic conversations between patients and clinicians to diagnose the patient situation that necessitates action and the range of evidence‐based actions that best address the situation, so‐called shared decision‐making, are essential to the personalized care of people with diabetes. The aim of the present review was to present key elements of shared decision‐making and propose three different approaches for its application. The first approach focuses on transferring information to patients so that they can make decisions. The second approach, choice, focuses on cultivating the individual's ability to give voice to which choice is best for them. The third approach, conversation, establishes an empathic conversational environment through which the individual with diabetes and their clinician think and talk through how to address the problems of living with diabetes and related illnesses. These approaches are manifest in the design of evidence‐based decision aids created to support shared decision‐making. In randomized trials, decision aids can efficiently improve patient's knowledge, satisfaction, risk awareness, decisional conflict and involvement. Further research, however, is needed to better understand when and how to promote the empathic conversations, patient, clinician and service and policy contexts necessary to routinely implement shared decision‐making in different at scale healthcare systems. In the interim, sufficient evidence and tools exist for persons with diabetes and their clinicians to gain expertise in making decisions together.

Abstract Background The scheduling of residents for rotation assignments and on-call responsibilities is a time-consuming process that challenges the resources of residency programs. Assignment of schedules is traditionally done by chief residents or program administration with variable input from the residents involved. Intervention We introduced an innovative point-based scheduling system to increase transparency in the scheduling process, foster a sense of fairness and equality in scheduling, and increase resident ownership for making judicious scheduling choices. Methods We devised a point-based system in which each resident in our 40-member program was allocated an equal number of points. The residents assigned these points to their preferred choices of rotations. Residents were then surveyed anonymously on their perceptions of this new scheduling system and were asked to compare it with their traditional scheduling system. Results The schedule was successfully implemented, and it allowed residents to express their scheduling preferences using an innovative point-based approach. Residents were generally satisfied with the new system, would recommend it to other programs, and perceived a greater sense of involvement. However, resident satisfaction with the new system was not significantly greater compared with the previous approach to scheduling (P = .20). Chief residents expressed satisfaction with the new scheduling model. Conclusions Residents were equally satisfied with the traditional preference-based scheduling approach and the new point-based system. Chief residents' feedback on the new system reflected reduced stress and time commitment in the new point-based system.