BackgroundThe information provided in patient-centered care and shared decision-making influences patients’ concerns and adherence to treatment. In the decision-making process, patients experience decisional conflict. The Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) is a 16-item, self-administered questionnaire consisting of 5 subscales developed to assess patients’ decisional conflict. This study aimed to develop the Japanese version of the DCS and to clarify the influence of the information provided by pharmacists’ on decisional conflict among patients with cancer.MethodsWe developed the Japanese version of the DCS by using the forward-backward translation method. One hundred patients who were recommended a new chemotherapy regimen were recruited. The psychometric properties of the Japanese DCS, including internal consistency, convergent validity, discriminant validity, and construct validity, were examined. We assessed the decisional conflict of patients before and after the pharmacists’ provision of information.ResultsNinety-four patients, predominately female, with an average age of 58.1 years were sampled. The scores on the 5 subscales of the DCS showed high internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.84–0.96). Multi-trait scaling analysis and cluster analysis showed strong validity. The mean total DCS score decreased significantly from 40.2 to 31.7 after patients received information from the pharmacists (p < 0.001, paired t-test). Scores on all 5 subscales, namely, uncertainty, informed, values clarity, support, and effective decision, also significantly improved (p < 0.001 for all categories, paired t-test).ConclusionsThe psychometric properties of the Japanese version of the DCS are considered appropriate for it to be administered to patients with cancer. Pharmacists’ provision of information was able to decrease decisional conflict among patients with cancer who were recommended a new chemotherapy regimen.

No abstract

AimInfection control in the emergency department is important for hospital risk management; however, few clinical guidelines have been established. This study aimed to determine whether hospitals in Japan have infection control manuals, and investigate the contents of manuals, consulting systems, and isolation facilities for emergency departments.MethodsA total of 517 hospitals certified as educational institutions for board‐certified acute care physicians in Japan were requested between March and May 2015 to provide a written evaluation of the infection control in the emergency department.ResultsA total of 51 of 303 (16.8%) hospitals had no manuals regarding infection control in the emergency department. Among 250 hospitals having emergency department manuals, 115 (46.0%) did not include contents regarding disinfection and sterilization for imaging examination rooms, and only 44 (17.6%) had criteria for contacting the emergency medical service when patients are suspected of, or diagnosed with, communicable diseases. Of the 303 hospitals, 277 (91.4%) prepared specific manuals for the 2009 pandemic influenza. Of the 303 hospitals, 80 (26.4%) did not prepare manuals for the Ebola virus disease outbreak in West Africa in 2014. Furthermore, 92 (30.4%) of the 303 hospitals did not have any negative‐pressure isolation rooms.ConclusionsPractices and guidelines necessary for infection control in the emergency department were not sufficiently covered in the hospitals studied. Education, information sharing, and a checklist for preparing manuals are needed to establish better infection control systems in emergency departments.

No abstract