Shared decision-making on a 'life-and-care plan' in long-term care facilities: research protocol

Educating for supported decision making and shared decision making: a scoping review of educational design and outcomes for education and training interventions

PURPOSE

To characterise existing knowledge about the design and learning outcomes of education and training programs for supported or shared decision making.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A scoping review was performed to identify academic and grey literature, published between January 2006 and February 2022, that reported on the design and/or learning outcomes of supported or shared decision making education or training programs. Eligible literature was mapped across domains of educational design and Kirkpatrick's hierarchy of learning effectiveness, and then qualitatively synthesised using cross-case analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 33 articles were identified (n = 7 for supported decision making and n = 26 for shared decision making) that provided education or training to supporters of persons with mental illness or substance use disorders (n = 14), dementia or neurocognitive disorders (n = 6), cognitive disability (n = 5), mixed populations (n = 1), and those receiving end-of-life care (n = 7). In their design, most programs sought specific changes in practice (behaviour) via experiential learning. Reported educational outcomes also focused on supporter behaviour, with limited evidence for how changes in learner attitudes, skills, or knowledge might be contributing to changes in supporter behaviour.

CONCLUSIONS

Future education and training would benefit from a closer engagement with theories of teaching and learning, particularly those oriented towards co-design.

Factors influencing shared decision-making in long-term care facilities

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making, a communicative process to reach decisions based on informed preferences, evidence, and co-created goals, improves care satisfaction and patients' quality of life. However, shared decision-making has not been widely implemented in long-term care facilities, and few studies have examined how to promote the shared decision-making practice. This study aimed to identify the influencing factors of shared decision-making based on the Person-centered Practice Framework in long-term care facilities.

METHODS

A total of 300 staff (nursing staff, social workers, and personal care workers) in 13 Korean long-term care facilities participated in this study. Data from 280 respondents were finally analyzed, excluding respondents with missing values. Data were collected using structured questionnaires that included items on shared decision-making, personal factors (e.g., knowledge about dementia, person-centered care education, person-centered attitude, communication behavior, and job tenure), and care environment factors (e.g., person-centered climate, staffing level, effective staff relationships, supportive supervisors, and power-sharing). Multilevel linear regression analyses were performed using Mplus Version 8.8.

RESULTS

The mean shared decision-making score was 35.78 (range 8-45). Staff with experience of person-centered care education (β = 0.198, p = 0.034), a higher person-centered attitude score (β = 0.201, p = 0.007), and a higher communication behavior score (β = 0.242, p < 0.001) were more likely to report a higher shared decision-making score. In addition, staff who viewed their care environment as more person-centered were more likely to report a higher shared decision-making score (β = 0.416, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights that personal (e.g., person-centered care education, person-centered attitude, and communication behavior) and care environment (e.g., person-centered climate) factors could influence shared decision-making for long-term care residents. These findings could be foundational evidence for facilitating shared decision-making practice in long-term care settings.

Shared decision-making interventions for people with mental health conditions

BACKGROUND

One person in every four will suffer from a diagnosable mental health condition during their life. Such conditions can have a devastating impact on the lives of the individual and their family, as well as society.  International healthcare policy makers have increasingly advocated and enshrined partnership models of mental health care. Shared decision-making (SDM) is one such partnership approach. Shared decision-making is a form of service user-provider communication where both parties are acknowledged to bring expertise to the process and work in partnership to make a decision.  This review assesses whether SDM interventions improve a range of outcomes. This is the first update of this Cochrane Review, first published in 2010.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of SDM interventions for people of all ages with mental health conditions, directed at people with mental health conditions, carers, or healthcare professionals, on a range of outcomes including: clinical outcomes, participation/involvement in decision-making process (observations on the process of SDM; user-reported, SDM-specific outcomes of encounters), recovery, satisfaction, knowledge, treatment/medication continuation, health service outcomes, and adverse outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We ran searches in January 2020 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO (2009 to January 2020). We also searched trial registers and the bibliographies of relevant papers, and contacted authors of included studies.  We updated the searches in February 2022. When we identified studies as potentially relevant, we labelled these as studies awaiting classification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including cluster-randomised controlled trials, of SDM interventions in people with mental health conditions (by Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases (ICD) criteria).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This updated review included 13 new studies, for a total of 15 RCTs. Most participants were adults with severe mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, depression, and bipolar disorder, in higher-income countries. None of the studies included children or adolescents.  Primary outcomes We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve clinical outcomes, such as psychiatric symptoms, depression, anxiety, and readmission, compared with control due to very low-certainty evidence. For readmission, we conducted subgroup analysis between studies that used usual care and those that used cognitive training in the control group. There were no subgroup differences. Regarding participation (by the person with the mental health condition) or level of involvement in the decision-making process, we are uncertain if SDM interventions improve observations on the process of SDM compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence. On the other hand, SDM interventions may improve SDM-specific user-reported outcomes from encounters immediately after intervention compared with no intervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 1.01; 3 studies, 534 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, there was insufficient evidence for sustained participation or involvement in the decision-making processes. Secondary outcomes We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve recovery compared with no intervention due to very low-certainty evidence. We are uncertain if SDM interventions improve users' overall satisfaction. However, one study (241 participants) showed that SDM interventions probably improve some aspects of users' satisfaction with received information compared with no intervention: information given was rated as helpful (risk ratio (RR) 1.33, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.65); participants expressed a strong desire to receive information this way for other treatment decisions (RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.68); and strongly recommended the information be shared with others in this way (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.58). The evidence was of moderate certainty for these outcomes. However, this same study reported there may be little or no effect on amount or clarity of information, while another small study reported there may be little or no change in carer satisfaction with the SDM intervention. The effects of healthcare professional satisfaction were mixed: SDM interventions may have little or no effect on healthcare professional satisfaction when measured continuously, but probably improve healthcare professional satisfaction when assessed categorically. We are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve knowledge, treatment continuation assessed through clinic visits, medication continuation, carer participation, and the relationship between users and healthcare professionals because of very low-certainty evidence. Regarding length of consultation, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect compared with no intervention (SDM 0.09, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.41; 2 studies, 282 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). On the other hand, we are uncertain whether SDM interventions improve length of hospital stay due to very low-certainty evidence. There were no adverse effects on health outcomes and no other adverse events reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review update suggests that people exposed to SDM interventions may perceive greater levels of involvement immediately after an encounter compared with those in control groups. Moreover, SDM interventions probably have little or no effect on the length of consultations.  Overall we found that most evidence was of low or very low certainty, meaning there is a generally low level of certainty about the effects of SDM interventions based on the studies assembled thus far. There is a need for further research in this area.

Fractured Care: A Window Into Emergency Transitions in Care for LTC Residents With Complex Health Needs

Objective: For long-term care (LTC) residents, transfers to emergency departments (EDs) can be associated with poor health outcomes. We aimed to describe characteristics of residents transferred, factors related to decisions during transfer, care received in emergency medical services (EMS), ED settings, outcomes on return to LTC, and times of transfer segments along the transition. Method: We prospectively followed 637 transitions to an ED in British Columbia and Alberta, Canada, over a 12-month period. Data were captured through an electronic Transition Tracking Tool and interviews with health care professionals. Results: Common events triggering transfer were falls (26.8%), sudden change in condition (23.5%), and shortness of breath (19.8%). Discrepancies existed between reason for transfer, EMS reported chief complaint, and ED diagnosis. Many transfers resulted in resident return directly to LTC (42.7%). Discussion: Avoidable transfers may put residents at risk of receiving inappropriate care. Standardized communication strategies to highlight changes in resident condition are warranted.

The Impact of a Shared Decision-Making Training Program on Dementia Care Planning in Long-Term Care

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) can be a way for staff to adopt international recommendations advocating the involvement of nursing home residents and their family members in care planning and the development of personalized care plans.

OBJECTIVE

The main aim was to analyze the effects of training nursing home staff in the implementation of SDM on agreement of residents' 'life-and-care plans' with the recommendations (primary outcome) and on family caregivers' quality of life and sense of competence, and staff's job satisfaction (secondary outcomes).

METHODS

In the intervention condition, staff attended a training program on the use of SDM with residents and family caregivers in the care planning process. In the control condition, care planning as usual took place. For the primary outcome, in-depth qualitative and quantitative analyses of the care plans were performed. Multivariate Permutation Tests were applied to assess the impact on secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Forty-nine residents and family caregivers and 34 professionals were involved. Overall, many of the care plans developed during the intervention showed a high level of agreement with the care planning recommendations. Both Italian and Dutch care plans showed improvement in the number of clear problem statements (p < 0.001). In Italy, significant improvements (p < 0.05) were also found regarding specific care objectives, documentation of objectives met, and of residents and families' involvement. No impact was found on secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

The involvement of residents and family caregivers in care planning contributed to an improvement of the residents' care plans, but it did not have an effect on family caregivers and staff outcomes.

Shared decision-making for people living with dementia in extended care settings: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making is recognised as an important element of person-centred dementia care.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this review was to explore how people living with dementia and cognitive impairment can be included in day-to-day decisions about their health and care in extended care settings.

DESIGN

A systematic review including primary research relating to shared decision-making, with cognitively impaired adults in (or transferrable to) extended care settings. Databases searched were: CINAHL, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, NICE Evidence, OpenGrey, Autism Data, Google Scholar, Scopus and Medicines Complete (June to October 2016 and updated 2018) for studies published in the last 20 years.

RESULTS

Of the 19 included studies 15 involved people with living dementia, seven in extended care settings. People living with cognitive impairment often have the desire and ability to participate in decision-making about their everyday care, although this is regularly underestimated by their staff and family care partners. Shared decision-making has the potential to improve quality of life for both the person living with dementia and those who support them. How resources to support shared decision-making are implemented in extended care settings is less well understood.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence suggests that people living with cognitive impairment value opportunities to be involved in everyday decision-making about their care. How these opportunities are created, understood, supported and sustained in extended care settings remains to be determined.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016035919.

Shared decision making in Italy: An updated revision of the current situation

The aim of this paper is to update the previous review on the state of patient and public participation in healthcare in Italy. Policymakers consider patient involvement an important aspect in health care decisions and encourage patients to actively participate in the clinical interaction. Nevertheless, the term shared decision making (SDM) is still not clearly defined. Patient associations promote patient participation in health care decisions. Several experts attended the latest consensus conference about patient engagement to reach a consensus on the definition of SDM. Research regarding SDM in Italy continues to increase with 17 articles published between 2012 and 2017. Researchers have assessed the variables associated with patient involvement and explored the use of the SDM approach in different medical settings. Despite the dedicated SDM initiative, researchers in Italy recognize room for improvement. Work is needed to reach a common language regarding SDM and its mechanisms to implement this approach at the clinical level.

Social health and dementia: a European consensus on the operationalization of the concept and directions for research and practice

BACKGROUND

Because the pattern of illnesses changes in an aging population and many people manage to live well with chronic diseases, a group of health care professionals recently proposed reformulating the static WHO definition of health towards a dynamic one based on the ability to physically, mentally and socially adapt and self-manage. This paper is the result of a collaborative action of the INTERDEM Social Health Taskforce to operationalize this new health concept for people with dementia, more specifically the social domain, and to formulate directions for research and practice to promote social health in dementia.

METHOD

Based on the expertise of the Social Health Taskforce members (N = 54) three groups were formed that worked on operationalizing the three social health dimensions described by Huber et al.: (1) capacity to fulfil potential and obligations; (2) ability to manage life with some degree of independence; (3) participation in social activities. For each dimension also influencing factors, effective interventions and knowledge gaps were inventoried. After a consensus meeting, the operationalizations of the dimensions were reviewed by the European Working Group of People with Dementia (EWGPWD).

RESULTS

The social health dimensions could be well operationalized for people with dementia and are assessed as very relevant according to the Social Health Taskforce and EWGPWD. Personal (e.g. sense of coherence, competencies), disease-related (e.g. severity of cognitive impairments, comorbidity), social (support from network, stigma) and environmental factors (e.g. enabling design, accessibility) that can influence the person with dementia's social health and many interventions promoting social health were identified.

CONCLUSION

A consensus-based operationalization of social health in dementia is proposed, and factors that can influence, and interventions that improve, social health in dementia identified. Recommendations are made for research and practice.

Shared decision-making in dementia care planning: barriers and facilitators in two European countries

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a means of allowing people with dementia to take part in making choices, be autonomous and participate in social activities. Involving them in SDM is an important way of promoting social health. However, including families and dementia residents in decision-making can be challenging for care staff working in nursing homes. The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators regarding the implementation of an SDM framework for care planning in two nursing homes, one in Italy and one in the Netherlands.

METHODS

Focus group interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals who, after being trained, applied the SDM framework. Content analysis was used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

Six months after the feasibility trial, focus group interviews with healthcare professionals (n = 10 in Italy; n = 9 in the Netherlands) were held. We found 6 themes and 15 categories. Within these themes, facilitators and barriers were identified. The categories of team collaboration, communication skills and nursing home policy were found to be facilitators to the implementation process, whereas regulations, lack of funding and of involvement of family caregivers were the main barriers. Family attitudes towards SDM could be both. The main difference between countries concerned the residents' cognitive status that influenced their degree of involvement.

CONCLUSION

Communication skills training for professionals, training of family caregivers, and involvement of the management in the implementation process seem to be crucial factors in successfully implementing SDM in nursing homes, and increasing the involvement of families and dementia residents in decision-making.