Decision-making in community-based paediatric physiotherapy: a qualitative study of children, parents and...

Approaches to practice based on partnership and shared decision-making with patients are now widely recommended in health and social care settings, but less attention has been given to these recommendations in children's services, and to the decision-making experiences of non-medical practitioners and their patients or clients. This study explored children's, parents' and practitioners' accounts of shared decision-making in the context of community-based physiotherapy services for children with cerebral palsy. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 children with cerebral palsy living in an inner city area of northern England, and with 12 of their parents. Two focus groups were conducted with 10 physiotherapy practitioners. Data were analysed using the constant comparative method. When asked explicitly about decision-making, parents, children and practitioners reported little or no involvement, and each party saw the other as having responsibility for decisions. However, when talking in more concrete terms about their experiences, each party did report some involvement in decision-making. Practitioners' accounts focused on their responsibility for making decisions about resource allocation, and thereby, about the usefulness and intensity of interventions. Parents indicated that these practitioner-led decisions were sometimes in conflict with their aspirations for their child. Parents and children appeared to have most involvement in decisions about the acceptability and implementation of interventions. Children's involvement was more limited than parents'. While parents could legitimately curtail unacceptable interventions, children were mostly restricted to negotiating about how interventions were implemented. In these accounts the involvement of each party varied with the type of issue being decided and decision-making appeared more unilateral than shared. In advocating shared decision-making, greater understanding of its weaknesses as well as its strengths, and greater clarity about the domains that are suitable for a shared decision-making approach and the roles of different parties, would seem a helpful step.