The impact and utility of encounter patient decision aids: Systematic review, meta-analysis and narrative synthesis

Perceptions of primary care patients on the use of electronic clinical decision support tools to facilitate health care: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Electronic clinical decision support tools (eCDSTs) are interventions designed to facilitate clinical decision-making using targeted medical knowledge and patient information. While eCDSTs have been demonstrated to improve quality of care, there is a paucity of research relating to the acceptability of eCDSTs in primary care from the patients' perspective. This study aims to summarize current evidence relating to primary care patients' perceptions and experiences on the use of eCDSTs by their clinician to provide care.

METHODS

Four databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Cochrane Library) were searched for qualitative and quantitative studies with outcomes relating to patients' perceptions of the use of clinician-facing or shared-eCDSTs. Data extraction and critical appraisal using the Johanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal checklists were carried out independently by reviewers. Qualitative and quantitative outcomes were synthesized independently. We used Richardson et al. 'Patient Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Healthcare' framework for qualitative analysis.

FINDINGS

20 papers were included for synthesis. eCDSTs were generally well-regarded by patients. The key facilitators for use were promoting informed decision-making, prompting discussions, aiding clinical decision-making, and enabling information sharing. Key barriers for use were lack of holistic care, 'medicalized' language, and confidentiality concerns.

CONCLUSION

Our study identified important aspects to consider in the development of future eCDSTs. Patients were generally positive regarding the use of eCDSTs; however, patient's perspectives should be included from the conception of new eCDSTs to ensure recommendations align with the needs of patients and clinicians.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The study results contribute to ensuring the acceptability of eCDSTs for patients and their unique needs. Encouragement is given for future development to adopt and build upon these findings. Additional research focusing on patients' perceptions of using eCDSTs for specific health conditions is deemed necessary.

Workflow analysis of breast cancer treatment decision-making: challenges and opportunities for informatics to support patient-centered cancer care

Objective

Decision support can improve shared decision-making for breast cancer treatment, but workflow barriers have hindered widespread use of these tools. The goal of this study was to understand the workflow among breast cancer teams of clinicians, patients, and their family caregivers when making treatment decisions and identify design guidelines for informatics tools to better support treatment decision-making.

Materials and Methods

We conducted observations of breast cancer clinicians during routine clinical care from February to August 2022. Guided by the work system model, a human factors engineering model that describes the elements of work, we recorded all aspects of clinician workflow using a tablet and smart pencil. Observation notes were transcribed and uploaded into Dedoose. Two researchers inductively coded the observations. We identified themes relevant to the design of decision support that we classified into the 4 components of workflow (ie, flow of information, tasks, tools and technologies, and people).

Results

We conducted 20 observations of breast cancer clinicians (total: 79 hours). We identified 10 themes related to workflow that present challenges and opportunities for decision support design. We identified approximately 48 different decisions discussed during breast cancer visits. These decisions were often interdependent and involved collaboration across the large cancer treatment team. Numerous patient-specific factors (eg, work, hobbies, family situation) were discussed when making treatment decisions as well as complex risk and clinical information. Patients were frequently asked to remember and relay information across the large cancer team.

Discussion and Conclusion

Based on these findings, we proposed design guidelines for informatics tools to support the complex workflows involved in breast cancer care. These guidelines should inform the design of informatics solutions to better support breast cancer decision-making and improve patient-centered cancer care.

Shared Decision-Making, Sphincter Preservation, and Rectal Cancer Treatment: Identifying and Executing What Matters Most to Patients

Rectal cancer treatment often encompasses multiple steps and options, with benefits and risks that vary based on the individual. Additionally, patients facing rectal cancer often have preferences regarding overall quality of life, which includes bowel function, sphincter preservation, and ostomies. This article reviews these data in the context of shared decision-making approaches in an effort to better inform patients deliberating treatment options for rectal cancer.

Provider Perspectives on Addressing Firearm Safety with Older Adults in Primary Care

OBJECTIVES

Chronic conditions, including mild cognitive impairment and depression, place older adults at high risk of firearm suicide. Approximately 40% of older adults have access to a firearm, and many do not store their firearms safely. However, firearm counseling occurs infrequently in clinical settings. Using by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) to conceptualize the decisional support needed by patients and their providers to facilitate firearm counseling, we explore provider perspectives on desired resources for addressing firearm safety with older adult patients.

METHODS

From March - August 2022, we conducted 21 semi-structured interviews with primary care providers caring for older adults. We report deductive concepts as well as emergent themes.

RESULTS

Major themes were identified from the three components of the ODSF; decisional needs, decision support and decisional outcomes. Themes included: provider self-efficacy to conduct firearm counseling, clinical workflow considerations, stories for change, patient diagnosis implications, and caregiver involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for decision aids in the clinical setting that facilitate firearm counseling and promotes shared decision-making about firearm storage.

CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

Implementing a decision aid in the clinical setting can improve provider self-efficacy to conduct firearm counseling and help reduce risk factors associated with firearm-related harm among older adults.

Explorative observational study of Dutch patient-clinician interactions: operationalisation of personal perspective elicitation as part of shared decision-making in real-life audio-recorded consultations

OBJECTIVES

Patients' preferences, values and contexts are important elements of the shared decision-making (SDM) process. We captured those elements into the concept of 'personal perspective elicitation' (PPE), which reflects the need to elicit patients' preferences, values and contexts in patient-clinician conversations. We defined PPE as: 'the disclosure (either elicited by the clinician or spontaneously expressed by the patient) of information related to the patient's personal preferences, values and/or contexts potentially relevant to decision-making'. Our goal was to operationalise the concept of PPE through the evaluation of preferences, values and contexts and explore how PPE occurs in clinical encounters.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study: observational coding based on a novel coding scheme of audio-recorded outpatient clinical encounters where encounter patient decision aids were applied.

SETTING

We audio-recorded patient-clinician interactions at three Dutch outpatient clinics. PPE was analysed using a novel observational coding scheme, distinguishing preferences, contexts and four Armstrong taxonomy value types (global, decisional, external and situational). We measured SDM using the Observer OPTION5.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty patients who suffered from psoriasis or ovarian cysts; four clinicians.

RESULTS

We included 20 audio-recordings. The mean Observer OPTION5 score was 57.5 (SD:10.1). The audio-recordings gave a rich illustration of preferences, values and contexts that were discussed in the patient-clinician interactions. Examples of identified global values: appearance, beliefs, personality traits. Decisional values were related to the process of decision-making. External values related to asking advice from for example, the clinician or significant others. An identified situational value: a new job ahead. Contexts related to how the illness impacted the life (eg, sexuality, family, sports, work life) of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The operationalisation of PPE, an important aspect of SDM, explores which preferences, values and contexts were discussed during patient-clinician interactions where an ePDA was used. The coding scheme appeared feasible to apply but needs further refinement.

Physicians' and Patients' Expectations From Digital Agents for Consultations: Interview Study Among Physicians and Patients

BACKGROUND

Physicians are currently overwhelmed by administrative tasks and spend very little time in consultations with patients, which hampers health literacy, shared decision-making, and treatment adherence.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to examine whether digital agents constructed using fast-evolving generative artificial intelligence, such as ChatGPT, have the potential to improve consultations, adherence to treatment, and health literacy. We interviewed patients and physicians to obtain their opinions about 3 digital agents-a silent digital expert, a communicative digital expert, and a digital companion (DC).

METHODS

We conducted in-depth interviews with 25 patients and 22 physicians from a purposeful sample, with the patients having a wide age range and coming from different educational backgrounds and the physicians having different medical specialties. Transcripts of the interviews were deductively coded using MAXQDA (VERBI Software GmbH) and then summarized according to code and interview before being clustered for interpretation.

RESULTS

Statements from patients and physicians were categorized according to three consultation phases: (1) silent and communicative digital experts that are part of the consultation, (2) digital experts that hand over to a DC, and (3) DCs that support patients in the period between consultations. Overall, patients and physicians were open to these forms of digital support but had reservations about all 3 agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultimately, we derived 9 requirements for designing digital agents to support consultations, treatment adherence, and health literacy based on the literature and our qualitative findings.

Impact of timing and format of patient decision aids for breast cancer patients on their involvement in and preparedness for decision making - the IMPACTT randomised controlled trial protocol

BACKGROUND

After curative surgery for early-stage breast cancer, patients face a decision on whether to undergo surgery alone or to receive one or more adjuvant treatments, which may lower the risk of recurrence. Variations in survival outcomes are often marginal but there are differences in the side effects and other features of the options that patients may value differently. Hence, the patient's values and preferences are critical in determining what option to choose. It is well-researched that the use of shared decision making and patient decision aids can support this choice in a discussion between patient and clinician. However, it is still to be investigated what impact the timing and format of the patient decision aid have on shared decision making outcomes. In this trial, we aim to investigate the impact of a digital pre-consult compared to a paper-based in-consult patient decision aid on patients' involvement in shared decision making, decisional conflict and preparedness to make a decision.

METHODS

The study is a randomised controlled trial with 204 patients at two Danish oncology outpatient clinics. Eligible patients are newly diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer and offered adjuvant treatments after curative surgery to lower the risk of recurrence. Participants will be randomised to receive either an in-consult paper-based patient decision aid or a pre-consult digital patient decision aid. Data collection includes patient and clinician-reported outcomes as well as observer-reported shared decision making based on audio recordings of the consultation. The primary outcome is the extent to which patients are engaged in a shared decision making process reported by the patient. Secondary aims include the length of consultation, preparation for decision making, preferred role in shared decision making and decisional conflict.

DISCUSSION

This study is the first known randomised, controlled trial comparing a digital, pre-consult patient decision aid to an identical paper-based, in-consult patient decision aid. It will contribute evidence on the impact of patient decision aids in terms of investigating if pre-consult digital patient decisions aids compared to in-consult paper-based decision aids support the cancer patients in being better prepared for decision making.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT05573022).

Value of patient decision aids for shared decision-making in kidney failure

BACKGROUND

It is unknown how often Dutch patient decision aids are used during kidney failure treatment modality education and what their impact is on shared decision-making.

OBJECTIVES

We determined the use of Three Good Questions, 'Overviews of options', and Dutch Kidney Guide by kidney healthcare professionals. Also, we determined patient-experienced shared decision-making. Finally, we determined whether the experience of shared decision-making among patients changed after a training workshop for healthcare professionals.

DESIGN

Quality improvement study.

PARTICIPANTS

Healthcare professionals answered questionnaires regarding education/patient decision aids. Patients with estimated glomerular filtration rate <20 mL/min/1.73 m2 completed shared decision-making questionnaires. Data were analysed with one-way analysis of variance and linear regression.

RESULTS

Of 117 healthcare professionals, 56% applied shared decision-making by discussing Three Good Questions (28%), 'Overviews of options' (31%-33%) and Kidney Guide (51%). Of 182 patients, 61%-85% was satisfied with their education. Of worst scoring hospitals regarding shared decision-making, only 50% used 'Overviews of options'/Kidney Guide. Of best scoring hospitals 100% used them, needed less conversations (p = 0.05), provided information about all treatment options and more often provided information at home. After the workshop, patients' shared decision-making scores remained unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of specifically developed patient decision aids during kidney failure treatment modality education is limited. Hospitals that did use them had higher shared decision-making scores. However, the degree of shared decision-making experienced by patients remained unchanged after healthcare professionals were trained on shared decision-making and the implementation of patient decision aids.

Decision aids for promoting shared decision-making: A review of systematic reviews

In the context of shared decision-making (SDM), experts have advocated the use of validated decision aids (DAs) as valuable tools for facilitating SDM in various healthcare scenarios. This comprehensive review attempts to analyze a vast corpus of DA research by performing thorough searches across four prominent databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science). Independent reviewers selected relevant reviews, extracted data, and assessed review quality using the AMSTAR II tool. A total of 34 systematic reviews were identified and evaluated in this review, encompassing a wide range of outcomes associated with using DAs. These outcomes include patient knowledge, patient involvement in SDM, decision conflict, decision regret, satisfaction, and adherence. In addition, DAs positively affect healthcare provider outcomes by increasing satisfaction, reducing decision conflicts, and lengthening clinical consultations. This review highlights the need for additional research in specific contexts such as long-term care, mental health, and reproductive health to better understand the benefits and challenges of implementing DAs in these settings. Such research can contribute to the improvement of SDM practices and patient-centered care.

Clinician feedback using a shared decision-making tool for the evaluation of patients with thyroid nodules-an observational study

BACKGROUND

We pilot-tested an encounter conversation aid to support shared decision making (SDM) between patients with thyroid nodules and their clinicians.

OBJECTIVE

Characterize the clinician feedback after providing care to patients with thyroid nodules using a tool to promote SDM conversations during the clinical encounter, and evaluate how clinicians used the tool during the visit.

METHODS

Mixed method study in two academic centers in the U.S., including adult patients presenting for evaluation of thyroid nodules and their clinicians. We thematically analyzed interviews with clinicians after they used the SDM tool in at least three visits to characterize their feedback. Additionally, investigators evaluated visits recordings to determine the extent to which clinicians engaged patients in the decision-making process (OPTION score, scale 0 to 100, higher levels indicating higher involvement), the tool's components used (fidelity), and encounter duration. Using a post-visit survey, we evaluated the extent to which clinicians felt the tool was easy to use, helpful, and supportive of the patient-clinician collaboration.

RESULTS

Thirteen clinicians participated in the study and used the SDM tool in the care of 53 patients. Clinicians thought the tool was well-organized and beneficial to patients and clinicians. Clinicians noticed a change in their routine with the use of the conversation aid and suggested it needed to be more flexible to better support varying conversations. The median OPTION score was 34, the fidelity of use 75%, and the median visit duration 17 min. In most encounters, clinicians agreed or strongly agreed the tool was easy to use (86%), helpful (65%), and supported collaboration (62%).

CONCLUSION

Clinicians were able to use a SDM tool in the care of patients with thyroid nodules. Although they wished it were more flexible, they found on the whole that its use in the clinical encounter was beneficial to patients and clinicians.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Implementation of a Decision Aid for Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis in Orthopedics: A Mixed-Methods Process Evaluation

BACKGROUND

In orthopedics, the use of patient decision aids (ptDAs) is limited. With a mixed-method process evaluation, we investigated patient factors associated with accepting versus declining the use of the ptDA, patients' reasons for declining the ptDA, and clinicians' perceived barriers and facilitators for its use.

METHODS

Patients with an indication for joint replacement surgery (N = 153) completed questionnaires measuring demographics, physical functioning, quality of life (EQ-5D-3L), and a visual analog scale (VAS) pain score at 1 time point. Subsequently, their clinician offered them the relevant ptDA. Using a retrospective design, we compared patients who used the ptDA (59%) with patients who declined (41%) on all these measures as well as the chosen treatment. If the use of the ptDA was declined, patients' reasons were recorded by their clinician and analysed (n = 46). To evaluate the experiences of clinicians (n = 5), semistructured interviews were conducted and thematically analyzed. Clinicians who did not use the ptDA substantially (<10 times) were also interviewed (n = 3).

RESULTS

Compared with patients who used the ptDA, patients who declined use had higher VAS pain scores (7.2 v. 6.2, P < .001), reported significantly worse quality of life (on 4 of 6 EQ-5D-3L subscales), and were less likely to receive nonsurgical treatment (4% v. 28%, P < .001). Of the patients who declined to use the ptDA, 46% said they had enough information and felt ready to make a decision without the ptDA. The interviews revealed that clinicians considered the ptDAs most useful for newly diagnosed patients who had not received previous treatment.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that the uptake of a ptDA may be improved if it is introduced in the early disease stages of hip and knee osteoarthritis.

HIGHLIGHTS

Patients who declined the use of a patient decision aid (ptDA) for hip and knee osteoarthritis reported more pain and worse quality of life.Most patients who declined to use a ptDA felt sufficiently well informed to make a treatment decision.Patients who declined the ptDA were more likely to have received prior treatment in primary care.Clinicians found the ptDA to be a helpful addition to the consultation, particularly for newly diagnosed patients.

Integrating Patient Involvement Interventions within Clinical Practice: A Mixed-Methods Study of Health Care Professional Reasoning

Background. Patient involvement interventions are complex interventions that improve patient involvement in treatment and care in health care systems. Studies report several benefits of patient involvement interventions and that health care professionals are positive about using them. However, they have not been explored as a collected group of interventions throughout the continuum of care and treatment. In addition, the relationship between patient involvement interventions and the clinical reasoning process of health care professionals has not been thoroughly studied. Design. This mixed-methods study was conducted at Aarhus University Hospital in Denmark between April and November 2022 using interview data from 12 health care professionals and survey data from 420 health care professionals. Informants were medical doctors, nurses, midwives, dietitians, physiotherapists, and occupational therapists who had direct contact with patients during their daily care and treatment. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics; qualitative data were analyzed via inductive and deductive content analysis. Results. Communication and interaction were seen as overarching aspects of patient involvement, with patient involvement interventions being defined as concrete tools and methods to enhance health care professionals' explicit clinical reasoning process. Limitations. It is unclear if results are representative of all health care professionals at the hospital or only those with a positive view of patient involvement interventions. Conclusions. Patient involvement interventions are viewed as beneficial for patients and fit with the clinical reasoning of health care professionals. Clinical reasoning may be an active ingredient in the development and implementation of patient involvement interventions. Implications. In practice, health care professionals need training in person-centered communication and the ability to articulate their clinical reasoning explicitly. In research, a more in-depth understanding of the interrelations between patient involvement interventions and clinical reasoning is needed.

Highlights

Communication and interaction are the fundamental goals of patient involvement in practice, regardless of which patient involvement intervention is being used.Clinical reasoning is often an unconscious process using tacit knowledge, but the use of patient involvement interventions may be a way for health care professionals (at both individual and group levels) to become more explicit about and aware of their reflections.Clinical reasoning can be viewed as a mechanism of change in the development and implementation of patient involvement interventions.

Clinician Perceptions on Using Decision Tools to Support Prediction-Based Shared Decision Making for Lung Cancer Screening

Background

Considering a patient's full risk factor profile can promote personalized shared decision making (SDM). One way to accomplish this is through encounter tools that incorporate prediction models, but little is known about clinicians' perceptions of the feasibility of using these tools in practice. We examined how clinicians react to using one such encounter tool for personalizing SDM about lung cancer screening (LCS).

Design

We conducted a qualitative study based on field notes from academic detailing visits during a multisite quality improvement program. The detailer engaged one-on-one with 96 primary care clinicians across multiple Veterans Affairs sites (7 medical centers and 6 outlying clinics) to get feedback on 1) the rationale for prediction-based LCS and 2) how to use the DecisionPrecision (DP) encounter tool with eligible patients to personalize LCS discussions.

Results

Thematic content analysis from detailing visit data identified 6 categories of clinician willingness to use the DP tool to personalize SDM for LCS (adoption potential), varying from "Enthusiastic Potential Adopter" (n = 18) to "Definite Non-Adopter" (n = 16). Many clinicians (n = 52) articulated how they found the concept of prediction-based SDM highly appealing. However, to varying degrees, nearly all clinicians identified challenges to incorporating such an approach in routine practice.

Limitations

The results are based on the clinician's initial reactions rather than longitudinal experience.

Conclusions

While many primary care clinicians saw real value in using prediction to personalize LCS decisions, more support is needed to overcome barriers to using encounter tools in practice. Based on these findings, we propose several strategies that may facilitate the adoption of prediction-based SDM in contexts such as LCS.

Highlights

Encounter tools that incorporate prediction models promote personalized shared decision making (SDM), but little is known about clinicians' perceptions of the feasibility of using these tools in practice.We examined how clinicians react to using one such encounter tool for personalizing SDM about lung cancer screening (LCS).While many clinicians found the concept of prediction-based SDM highly appealing, nearly all clinicians identified challenges to incorporating such an approach in routine practice.We propose several strategies to overcome adoption barriers and facilitate the use of prediction-based SDM in contexts such as LCS.

Use of visual aids in general practice consultations: A questionnaire-based survey

Objectives

Visual aids (VAs) seem effective to improve doctor-patient communication. The objective was to describe how VAs are used in consultation and what French general practitioners (GPs) expect of them.

Methods

Cross-sectional study using a self-administered questionnaire among French GPs in 2019. Descriptive and multinominal logistic regression analyses were performed.

Results

Of the 376 respondents, 70% used VAs at least weekly and 34% daily; 94% considered VAs useful/very useful; 77% felt they did not use VAs enough. Sketches were the most used VAs and considered the most useful. Younger age was significantly associated with a higher rate of use of simple digital images. VAs were mainly used to describe anatomy and facilitate patient comprehension. Main reasons for not using VAs more often were time spent searching, lack of habit and poor quality of available VAs. Many GPs requested a database of good quality VAs.

Conclusions

GPs use VAs regularly in consultations but would like to use them more often. Informing GPs of the usefulness of VAs, training them to draw adapted sketches and creating a good quality databank are some possible strategies to increase the use of VAs.

Innovation

This study described in detail the use of VAs as tool for doctor-patient communication.

Transitional Care for Patients with Congenital Colorectal Diseases: An EUPSA Network Office, ERNICA, and eUROGEN Joint Venture

BACKGROUND

Transition of care (TOC; from childhood into adulthood) of patients with anorectal malformations (ARM) and Hirschsprung disease (HD) ensures continuation of care for these patients. The aim of this international study was to assess the current status of TOC and adult care (AC) programs for patients with ARM and HD.

METHODS

A survey was developed by members of EUPSA, ERN eUROGEN, and ERNICA, including patient representatives (ePAGs), comprising of four domains: general information, general questions about transition to adulthood, and disease-specific questions regarding TOC and AC programs. Recruitment of centres was done by the ERNs and EUPSA, using mailing lists and social media accounts. Only descriptive statistics were reported.

RESULTS

In total, 82 centres from 21 different countries entered the survey. Approximately half of them were ERN network members. Seventy-two centres (87.8%) had a self-reported area of expertise for both ARM and HD. Specific TOC programs were installed in 44% of the centres and AC programs in 31% of these centres. When comparing centres, wide variation was observed in the content of the programs.

CONCLUSION

Despite the awareness of the importance of TOC and AC programs, these programs were installed in less than 50% of the participating centres. Various transition and AC programs were applied, with considerable heterogeneity in implementation, content and responsible caregivers involved. Sharing best practice examples and taking into account local and National Health Care Programs might lead to a better continuation of care in the future.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III.

Proactively tailoring implementation: the case of shared decision-making for lung cancer screening across the VA New England Healthcare Network

BACKGROUND

Shared Decision-Making to discuss how the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening align with patient values is required by the US Centers for Medicare and Medicaid and recommended by multiple organizations. Barriers at organizational, clinician, clinical encounter, and patient levels prevent SDM from meeting quality standards in routine practice. We developed an implementation plan, using the socio-ecological model, for Shared Decision-Making for lung cancer screening for the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) New England Healthcare System. Because understanding the local context is critical to implementation success, we sought to proactively tailor our original implementation plan, to address barriers to achieving guideline-concordant lung cancer screening.

METHODS

We conducted a formative evaluation using an ethnographic approach to proactively identify barriers to Shared Decision-Making and tailor our implementation plan. Data consisted of qualitative interviews with leadership and clinicians from seven VA New England medical centers, regional meeting notes, and Shared Decision-Making scripts and documents used by providers. Tailoring was guided by the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications to Evidence-based Implementation Strategies (FRAME-IS).

RESULTS

We tailored the original implementation plan to address barriers we identified at the organizational, clinician, clinical encounter, and patient levels. Overall, we removed two implementation strategies, added five strategies, and modified the content of two strategies. For example, at the clinician level, we learned that past personal and clinical experiences predisposed clinicians to focus on the benefits of lung cancer screening. To address this barrier, we modified the content of our original implementation strategy Make Training Dynamic to prompt providers to self-reflect about their screening beliefs and values, encouraging them to discuss both the benefits and potential harms of lung cancer screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Formative evaluations can be used to proactively tailor implementation strategies to fit local contexts. We tailored our implementation plan to address unique barriers we identified, with the goal of improving implementation success. The FRAME-IS aided our team in thoughtfully addressing and modifying our original implementation plan. Others seeking to maximize the effectiveness of complex interventions may consider using a similar approach.

The decision aid is the easy part: workflow challenges of shared decision making in cancer care

Delivering high-quality, patient-centered cancer care remains a challenge. Both the National Academy of Medicine and the American Society of Clinical Oncology recommend shared decision making to improve patient-centered care, but widespread adoption of shared decision making into clinical care has been limited. Shared decision making is a process in which a patient and the patient's health-care professional weigh the risks and benefits of different options and come to a joint decision on the best course of action for that patient on the basis of their values, preferences, and goals for care. Patients who engage in shared decision making report higher quality of care, whereas patients who are less involved in these decisions have statistically significantly higher decisional regret and are less satisfied. Decision aids can improve shared decision making-for example, by eliciting patient values and preferences that can then be shared with clinicians and by providing patients with information that may influence their decisions. However, integrating decision aids into the workflows of routine care is challenging. In this commentary, we explore 3 workflow-related barriers to shared decision making: the who, when, and how of decision aid implementation in clinical practice. We introduce readers to human factors engineering and demonstrate its potential value to decision aid design through a case study of breast cancer surgical treatment decision making. By better employing the methods and principles of human factors engineering, we can improve decision aid integration, shared decision making, and ultimately patient-centered cancer outcomes.

Assessment of a venous thromboembolism prophylaxis shared decision-making intervention (DASH-TOP) using the decisional conflict scale: a mixed-method study

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnancy is a major cause of maternal morbidity and death. The use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), despite being the standard of care to prevent VTE, comes with some challenges. Shared decision-making (SDM) interventions are recommended to support patients and clinicians in making preference-sensitive decisions. The quality of the SDM process has been widely assessed with the decisional conflict scale (DCS). Our aim is to report participants' perspectives of each of the components of an SDM intervention (DASH-TOP) in relation to the different subscales of the DCS.

METHODS

Design: A convergent, parallel, mixed-methods design.

PARTICIPANTS

The sample consisted of 22 health care professionals, students of an Applied Clinical Research in Health Sciences (ICACS) master program.

INTERVENTION

We randomly divided the participants in three groups: Group 1 received one component (evidence -based information), Group 2 received two components (first component and value elicitation exercises), and Group 3 received all three components (the first two and a decision analysis recommendation) of the SDM intervention.

ANALYSIS

For the quantitative strand, we used a non-parametric test to analyze the differences in the DCS subscales between the three groups. For the qualitative strand, we conducted a content analysis using the decisional conflict domains to deductively categorize the responses.

RESULTS

Groups that received more intervention components experienced less conflict and better decision-making quality, although the differences between groups were not statistically significant. The decision analysis recommendation improved the efficacy with the decision-making process, however there are some challenges when implementing it in clinical practice. The uncertainty subscale showed a high decisional conflict for all three groups; contributing factors included low certainty of the evidence-based information provided and a perceived small effect of the drug to reduce the risk of a VTE event.

CONCLUSIONS

The DASH-TOP intervention reduced decisional conflict in the decision -making process, with decision analysis being the most effective component to improve the quality of the decision. There is a need for more implementation research to improve the delivery of SDM interventions in the clinical encounter.

The impact of eHealth on relationships and trust in primary care: a review of reviews

BACKGROUND

Given the increasing integration of digital health technologies in team-based primary care, this review aimed at understanding the impact of eHealth on patient-provider and provider-provider relationships.

METHODS

A review of reviews was conducted on three databases to identify papers published in English from 2008 onwards. The impact of different types of eHealth on relationships and trust and the factors influencing the impact were thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 79 reviews were included. Patient-provider relationships were discussed more frequently as compared to provider-provider relationships. Communication systems like telemedicine were the most discussed type of technology. eHealth was found to have both positive and negative impacts on relationships and/or trust. This impact was influenced by a range of patient-related, provider-related, technology-related, and organizational factors, such as patient sociodemographics, provider communication skills, technology design, and organizational technology implementation, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations are provided for effective and equitable technology selection, application, and training to optimize the impact of eHealth on relationships and trust. The review findings can inform providers' and policymakers' decision-making around the use of eHealth in primary care delivery to facilitate relationship-building.

The Effect of Decision Aid on Satisfaction With Decision and Anxiety Among Women With Abnormal Cervical Screening Results

BACKGROUND

Most women in the face of stressful situations such as risk of a cancer diagnosis (abnormal Papanicolaou smear results) need guidance to choose the appropriate method to follow the diagnosis process, but few studies have identified appropriate interventions to support these women.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of decision aid on anxiety and satisfaction with decisions (SWD) regarding the type of follow-up method after receiving an abnormal Papanicolaou smear result.

METHODS

This interventional study was conducted on women referred to the oncology clinic in Tabriz, Iran. Women were assigned to the intervention (n = 27) and control groups (n = 27) in a ratio of 1:1 using blocked randomization. The intervention group received a decision aid booklet. Participants in both groups completed questionnaires assessing demographic and obstetric characteristics, anxiety, SWD, and shared decision-making before and after the intervention.

RESULTS

The mean score for SWD in the intervention group was significantly higher than that in the control group after the intervention (median, 6.43 with 95% confidence interval of 3.11-7.76; P = .03). There was no significant difference between groups in the mean score of anxiety after intervention (median, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, -0.5 to 2.70; P = .19).

CONCLUSION

A decision aid can increase SWD among women with abnormal results in their cervical cancer screening.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

It is recommended that healthcare providers use decision aid tools to support and guide patients.

Adaptation and Implementation of Pictorial Conversation Aids for Early-Stage Breast Cancer Surgery and Reconstruction: A Quality Improvement Study

Purpose

After a diagnosis of early-stage breast cancer, women of lower socioeconomic position (SEP) report worse outcomes than women of higher SEP. A pictorial conversation aid was shown to improve decision outcomes in controlled contexts. No such intervention existed in France. In Phase 1, our aim was to adapt, for use in France, two pictorial conversation aids for breast cancer surgery and reconstruction. In Phase 2, our aim was to implement them in a regional cancer center serving a diverse population.

Patients and Methods

In phase 1, we used iterative qualitative methods to adapt the conversation aids with a convenience sample of patients and health professionals. In phase 2, we tested their implementation using PDSA cycles with volunteer surgeons.

Results

In phase 1, we interviewed 10 health professionals and 5 patients to reach thematic data saturation. They found the conversation aids usable and very acceptable (especially patients) and suggested small changes to further simplify the layout and content (including a glossary). In phase 2, three surgeons started the first PDSA cycle, for 4 weeks. Only one additional surgeon agreed to take part in the second cycle. The third cycle was cancelled since no new surgeon agreed to take part. Time was a barrier for 2 out of 4 surgeons, potentially explaining the difficulty recruiting for the third cycle. The evaluation was otherwise positive. The surgeons found the conversation aids very useful during their consultations and all intended to continue using them in the future.

Conclusion

It was possible to adapt, for use in France, pictorial conversation aids proven to be effective elsewhere. While the adapted conversation aids were deemed usable by health professionals and very acceptable to patients, their implementation using PDSA cycles proved slow.

The Costs of Implementing a Conversation Aid for Uterine Fibroids in Multiple Health Care Settings

BACKGROUND

Health care organizations considering adopting a conversation aid (CA), a type of patient decision aid innovation, need information about the costs of implementation.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to: (1) calculate the costs of introducing a CA in a study of supported implementation in 5 gynecologic settings that manage individuals diagnosed with uterine fibroids and (2) estimate the potential costs of future clinical implementation efforts in hypothetical settings.

RESEARCH DESIGN

We used time-driven activity-based costing to estimate the costs of CA implementation at multiple steps: integration with an electronic health record, preimplementation, implementation, and sustainability. We then estimated costs for 2 disparate hypothetical implementation scenarios.

SUBJECTS AND DATA COLLECTION

We conducted semistructured interviews with participants and examined internal documentation.

RESULTS

We interviewed 41 individuals, analyzed 51 documents and 100 emails. Overall total implementation costs over ∼36 months of activities varied significantly across the 5 settings, ranging from $14,157 to $69,134. Factors influencing costs included size/complexity of the setting, urban/rural location, practice culture, and capacity to automate patient identification. Initial investments were substantial, comprising mostly personnel time. Settings that embedded CA use into standard workflows and automated identification of appropriate patients had the lowest initial investment and sustainability costs. Our estimates of the costs of sustaining implementation were much lower than initial investments and mostly attributable to CA subscription fees.

CONCLUSION

Initiation and implementation of the interventions require significant personnel effort. Ongoing costs to maintain use are much lower and are a small fraction of overall organizational operating costs.

The Practice of Shared Decision-Making Among Physiotherapists and Patients with Musculoskeletal Conditions

Purpose

Shared decision-making (SDM) may be interpreted as a set of core values rather than as a consensus definition. This study aimed to explore how SDM between patients and physiotherapists may lead to patient satisfaction.

Patients and Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted to examine the relationship between SDM and patient satisfaction. The study targeted physiotherapists and patients with musculoskeletal pain or disorders. A structured questionnaire (the nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire) was developed to show the extent to which patients felt involved in the process by scoring nine items from 0 to 5 on a six-point scale. t-tests were performed to estimate differences in SDM perceptions between patients and physiotherapists, and regression analyses were performed to estimate the best predictors of SDM.

Results

The questionnaire was completed by a total of 106 patients and nine physiotherapists. The demographic information of the samples was presented with frequency analysis. This study's findings demonstrate no variations in the final SDM perceptions between patients and physiotherapists, but when SDM was contrasted step-by-step (as items), many variances were discovered. These distinctions reinforce the notion that regardless of the end outcome, the process of reaching a consensus has a distinct profile depending on the type of medical care. Therapists emphasize the first steps, possibly because there is sufficient evidence to make a therapeutic decision. However, patients highlight the final steps, perhaps because the moment for a decision based on the consultation's nature is approaching.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that SDM is a complex process that must be examined in multiple stages. However, in physiotherapy contexts, this process exhibits extremely different patterns, reflecting a significantly different perspective of the decision-making process.

Decision aids to assist patients and professionals in choosing the right treatment for kidney failure

Background

Kidney services vary in the way they involve people with kidney failure (PwKF) in treatment decisions as management needs change. We discuss how decision-science applications support proactively PwKF to make informed decisions between treatment options with kidney professionals.

Methods

A conceptual review of findings about decision making and use of decision aids in kidney services, synthesized with reference to: the Making Informed Decisions-Individually and Together (MIND-IT) multiple stakeholder decision makers framework; and the Medical Research Council-Complex Intervention Development and Evaluation research framework.

Results

This schema represents the different types of decision aids that support PwKF and professional reasoning as they manage kidney disease individually and together; adjustments at micro, meso and macro levels supports integration in practice.

Conclusion

Innovating services to meet clinical guidelines on enhancing shared decision making processes means enabling all stakeholders to use decision aids to meet their goals within kidney pathways at individual, service and organizational levels.

Advances in Technology Promote Patient-Centered Care in Cardiac Rehabilitation

Patient-centered health care (PCC) is a framework of clinical care focused on the patient's individual health care needs. In particular, it emphasizes the development of a partnership between the patient, physician, and healthcare workers to actively involve and empower the patient in their health care decisions. Additionally, PCC goals include ensuring access to care, emotional support, engaging patient support systems, physical comfort, and continuity of care. Technology also provides a platform to engage patients and their families in their care and can be a useful tool to gauge their level of interest, knowledge, and motivations to adequately educate them on the many factors that contribute to their disease, including diet, exercise, medication adherence, psychological support, and early symptom detection. In this article, we summarize the importance of technology in promoting PCC in cardiac rehabilitation and the impact technology may have on the different aspects of patient and physician relationships. Modern technological devices including smartphones, tablets, wearables, and other internet-enabled devices have been shown to help patient-staff communication, cater to patients' individual needs, increase access to health care, and implement aspects of PCC domains.

Implementing shared decision making for early-stage breast cancer treatment using a coproduction learning collaborative: the SHAIR Collaborative protocol

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) in breast cancer care improves outcomes, but it is not routinely implemented. Results from the What Matters Most trial demonstrated that early-stage breast cancer surgery conversation aids, when used by surgeons after brief training, improved SDM and patient-reported outcomes. Trial surgeons and patients both encouraged using the conversation aids in routine care. We will develop and evaluate an online learning collaborative, called the SHared decision making Adoption Implementation Resource (SHAIR) Collaborative, to promote early-stage breast cancer surgery SDM by implementing the conversation aids into routine preoperative care. Learning collaboratives are known to be effective for quality improvement in clinical care, but no breast cancer learning collaborative currently exists. Our specific aims are to (1) provide the SHAIR Collaborative resources to clinical sites to use with eligible patients, (2) examine the relationship between the use of the SHAIR Collaborative resources and patient reach, and (3) promote the emergence of a sustained learning collaborative in this clinical field, building on a partnership with the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS).

METHODS

We will conduct a two-phased implementation project: phase 1 pilot at five sites and phase 2 scale up at up to an additional 32 clinical sites across North America. The SHAIR Collaborative online platform will offer free access to conversation aids, training videos, electronic health record and patient portal integration guidance, a feedback dashboard, webinars, support center, and forum. We will use RE-AIM for data collection and evaluation. Our primary outcome is patient reach. Secondary data will include (1) patient-reported data from an optional, anonymous online survey, (2) number of active sites and interviews with site champions, (3) Normalization MeAsure Development questionnaire data from phase 1 sites, adaptations data utilizing the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Extended/-Implementation Strategies, and tracking implementation facilitating factors, and (4) progress on sustainability strategy and plans with ASBrS.

DISCUSSION

The SHAIR Collaborative will reach early-stage breast cancer patients across North America, evaluate patient-reported outcomes, engage up to 37 active sites, and potentially inform engagement factors affecting implementation success and may be sustained by ASBrS.

Digital encounter decision aids linked to clinical practice guidelines: results from user testing SHARE-IT decision aids in primary care

BACKGROUND

Encounter decision aids (EDAs) are tools that can support shared decision making (SDM), up to the clinical encounter. However, adoption of these tools has been limited, as they are hard to produce, to keep up-to-date, and are not available for many decisions. The MAGIC Evidence Ecosystem Foundation has created a new generation of decision aids that are generically produced along digitally structured guidelines and evidence summaries, in an electronic authoring and publication platform (MAGICapp). We explored general practitioners' (GPs) and patients' experiences with five selected decision aids linked to BMJ Rapid Recommendations in primary care.

METHODS

We applied a qualitative user testing design to evaluate user experiences for both GPs and patients. We translated five EDAs relevant to primary care, and observed the clinical encounters of 11 GPs when they used the EDA with their patients. We conducted a semi-structured interview with each patient after the consultation and a think-aloud interview with each GPs after multiple consultations. We used the Qualitative Analysis Guide (QUAGOL) for data analysis.

RESULTS

Direct observations and user testing analysis of 31 clinical encounters showed an overall positive experience. The EDAs created better involvement in decision making and resulted in meaningful insights for patients and clinicians. The design and its interactive, multilayered structure made the tool enjoyable and well-organized. Difficult terminology, scales and numbers hindered understanding of certain information, which was sometimes perceived as too specialized or even intimidating. GPs thought the EDA was not suitable for every patient. They perceived a learning curve was required and the need for time investment was a concern. The EDAs were considered trustworthy as they were provided by a credible source.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that EDAs can be useful tools in primary care by supporting actual shared decision making and enhancing patient involvement. The graphical approach and clear representation help patients better understand their options. To overcome barriers such as health literacy and GPs attitudes, effort is still needed to make the EDAs as accessible, intuitive and inclusive as possible through use of plain language, uniform design, rapid access and training.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study protocol was approved by the The Research Ethics Committee UZ/KU Leuven (Belgium) on 31-10-2019 with reference number MP011977.

Teaching strategies for shared decision-making within the context of evidence-based healthcare practice: A scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To describe the nature of teaching Shared Decision Making (SDM) within the context of Evidence Based Practice (EBP) to support development of contemporaneous EBP education programmes for healthcare learners.

METHODS

A scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidance was conducted with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) used to guide reporting.

RESULTS

The narrative overview of 23 studies provides insight into the 'what' and 'how' of teaching SDM within the context of EBP education. A minority of studies explicitly and concurrently incorporated EBP and SDM in terms of how programme content was organised. Teaching strategies most often used regardless of learner cohort or setting included didactic, face-to-face lectures, together with role-play/modelling, small group workshops and video recordings. Programme evaluation outcomes predominantly focused on participant reactions to training and participant learning.

CONCLUSION

While a disconnect between EBP and SDM remains evident in healthcare programmes, increased recognition by educators to actively facilitate this interdependent relationship is emerging.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Intentionally structuring learning activities in a manner which demonstrates the relevance and interdependence of SDM and EBP may mitigate 'learning silos' and enhance learners' abilities to make connections required in practice.

Patient feedback receiving care using a shared decision making tool for thyroid nodule evaluation-an observational study

PURPOSE

To characterize the feedback of patients with thyroid nodules receiving care using a shared decision making (SDM) tool designed to improve conversations with their clinicians related to diagnostic options (e.g. thyroid biopsy, ultrasound surveillance).

METHODS

Investigators qualitatively analyzed post-encounter interviews with patients to characterize their feedback of a SDM tool used during their clinical visits. Additionally, investigators counted instances of diagnostic choice awareness and of patients' expression of a diagnostic management preference in recordings of clinical encounters of adult patients presenting for evaluation of thyroid nodules in which the SDM tool was used.

RESULTS

In total, 53 patients (42 (79%) women); median age 62 years were enrolled and had consultations supported by the SDM tool. Patients were favorable about the design of the SDM tool and its ability to convey information about options and support patient-clinician interactions. Patients identified opportunities to improve the tool through adding more content and improve its use in practice through training of clinicians in its use. There was evidence of diagnostic choice awareness in 52 (98%) of these visits and patients expressed a diagnostic management preference in 40 (76%).

CONCLUSION

User centered design including feedback from patients and real life observation supports the use of the SDM tool to facilitate collaboration between patients and clinicians.

Feasibility of implementing a surgical patient safety checklist: prospective cross-sectional evaluation

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization's Global Patient Safety Action Plan 2021-2030 call for attention to patient and family involvement to reduce preventable patient harm. Existing evidence indicates that patients' involvement in their own safety has positive effects on reducing hospitalisation time and readmissions. One intervention reported in the literature is the use of checklists designed for patients' completion. Studies on such checklists are small scale, but they are linked to reduction in length of hospital stay and readmissions. We have previously developed and validated a two-part surgical patient safety checklist (PASC). This study aims to investigate the feasibility of the PASC usage and implementation prior to its use in a large-scale clinical trial.

METHODS

This is a prospective cross-sectional feasibility study, set up as part of the design of a larger stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial (SW-CRCT). Descriptive statistics were used to investigate patient demographics, reasons for not completing the PASC and percentage of PASC item usage. Qualitative patient interviews were used to identify barriers and drivers for implementation. Interview was analysed through content analysis.

RESULTS

Out of 428 recruited patients, 50.2% (215/428) used both parts of PASC. A total of 24.1% (103/428) of the patients did not use it at all due to surgical or COVID-19-related cancellations. A total of 19.9% (85/428) did not consent to participate, 5.1% (22/428) lost the checklist and 0.7% (3/428) of the patients died during the study. A total of 86.5% (186/215) patients used ≥ 80% of the checklist items. Barriers and drivers for PASC implementation were grouped into the following categories: Time frame for completing the checklist, patient safety checklist design, impetus to communicate with healthcare professionals and support throughout the surgical pathway.

CONCLUSIONS

Elective surgical patients were willing and able to use PASC. The study further revealed a set of barriers and drivers to the implementation. A large-scale definitive clinical-implementation hybrid trial is being launched to ascertain the clinical effectiveness and scalability of PASC in improving surgical patient safety.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03105713. Registered 10.04.2017.

Shared decision-making and the duration of medical consultations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

1) determine whether increased levels of Shared Decision-Making (SDM) affect consultation duration, 2) investigate the intervention characteristics involved.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane library were systematically searched for experimental and cross-sectional studies up to December 2021. A best-evidence synthesis was performed, and interventions characteristics that increased at least one SDM-outcome, were pooled and descriptively analyzed.

RESULTS

Sixty-three studies were selected: 28 randomized clinical trials, 8 quasi-experimental studies, and 27 cross-sectional studies. Overall, pooling of data was not possible due to substantial heterogeneity. No differences in consultation duration were found more often than increased or decreased durations. . Consultation times (minutes:seconds) were significantly increased only among interventions that: 1) targeted clinicians only (Mean Difference [MD] 1:30, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0:24-2:37); 2) were performed in primary care (MD 2:05, 95%CI 0:11-3:59; 3) used a group format (MD 2:25, 95%CI 0:45-4:05); 4) were not theory-based (MD 4:01, 95%CI 0:38-7:23).

CONCLUSION

Applying SDM does not necessarily require longer consultation durations. Theory-based, multilevel implementation approaches possibly lower the risk of increasing consultation durations.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The commonly heard concern that time hinders SDM implementation can be contradicted, but implementation demands multifaceted approaches and space for training and adapting work processes.

Patients and Families' Participation in Multidisciplinary Tumor Conferences Improves Patient and Family-Focused Cancer Care: Lessons Learned From a Debate on the Role of Radiation Therapy in Primary Mediastinal Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma

Incorporation of patients' preferences often leads to improved outcomes when included in the multidisciplinary tumor conference/board (MTC). However, patients' wishes are not included or considered in the MTC decision-making. We need better strategies and approaches for patient-inclusive, shared decision-making. When finding ourselves at a crossroads regarding the next step in a patient's treatment, we saw a unique opportunity for an MTC with the patient and her husband in attendance. The results of a full literature review regarding the role of consolidative radiation therapy (RT) in a patient with primary (thymic) B-cell lymphoma after completion of chemotherapy and fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography-computed tomography (FDG-PET/CT) scan with a Deauville score of 4 were presented in a creative, engaging debate-style forum with visual aids. The patient and her husband were able to follow the discussion and, in the end, a consensus recommendation, heavily focused on the patient's preferences, was offered and adopted, which ultimately resulted in the avoidance of excess treatment and likely improved her long-term quality of life outcome. These collaborative and innovative interactions benefit not only our patients but enrich our lives too as healthcare providers and strengthen us as a cancer care team in terms of understanding diversity in decision-making processes.

A structured approach to Shared Decision Making training and assessment of knowledge, attitudes and perception of second year medical students

Shared decision making (SDM) has been acknowledged in the last decade. Literature has shown that when physicians are engaged in SDM and form a relationship with their patients, there is higher patient satisfaction of care. Moreover, SDM has been reported to improve patient outcomes and clinical measures. Despite this clear benefit of implementing SDM into clinical practice, there is little evidence for including SDM learning into preclinical medical education. We integrated an exercise for second year medical students to practice the steps of shared decision making. In this paper, the quantitative and qualitative results from a survey of medical students following the SDM learning exercise will be discussed. Students were more educated regarding SDM after this exercise and were motivated to use it in their future clinical careers. They also expressed overall positive attitudes towards SDM tools such as decision aids. Feedback to improve this SDM learning experience included the use of standardized patients, and to expand such education to the clinical environment training. This research provides a model of SDM practice integration into medical education. Similar programs can be beneficial for the development of SDM and other interpersonal skills.

What helps the successful implementation of digital decision aids supporting shared decision-making in cardiovascular diseases? A systematic review

Aims

Although digital decision aids (DAs) have been developed to improve shared decision-making (SDM), also in the cardiovascular realm, its implementation seems challenging. This study aims to systematically review the predictors of successful implementation of digital DAs for cardiovascular diseases.

Methods and results

Searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library from inception to November 2021. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias. Data were extracted by using a predefined list of variables. Five good-quality studies were included, involving data of 215 patients and 235 clinicians. Studies focused on DAs for coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, and end-stage heart failure patients. Clinicians reported DA content, its effectivity, and a lack of knowledge on SDM and DA use as implementation barriers. Patients reported preference for another format, the way clinicians used the DA and anxiety for the upcoming intervention as barriers. In addition, barriers were related to the timing and Information and Communication Technology (ICT) integration of the DA, the limited duration of a consultation, a lack of communication among the team members, and maintaining the hospital's number of treatments. Clinicians' positive attitude towards preference elicitation and implementation of DAs in existing structures were reported as facilitators.

Conclusion

To improve digital DA use in cardiovascular diseases, the optimum timing of the DA, training healthcare professionals in SDM and DA usage, and integrating DAs into existing ICT structures need special effort. Current evidence, albeit limited, already offers advice on how to improve DA implementation in cardiovascular medicine.

Pilot Study of an Encounter Decision Aid for Lung Cancer Screening

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has mandated in-person shared decision-making (SDM) counseling with the use of one or more decision aids (DAs) prior to lung cancer screening. We developed a single-page, paper-based, encounter DA (EDA) to be used within a clinician-patient encounter for lung cancer screening and conducted a pre-post pilot intervention study to evaluate its feasibility and effects on patient decisional conflict. Patients referred to a pulmonary practice-based lung cancer screening program were surveyed before and after an SDM visit with a pulmonologist, who used the EDA to counsel the patient. Patient knowledge of the mortality benefit from screening and the frequency of abnormal screening test results was evaluated after the visit, while decisional conflict was measured before and after the visit using the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). Twenty-three patients participated (mean age = 65.8 years; 43% female; mean smoking history = 57.8 pack-years; 48% currently smoking). Following the visit, 28% of participants correctly understood the mortality benefit of lung cancer screening, while 82% understood the frequency of abnormal screening tests. The mean total DCS score decreased from 35.0 to 0.2 after the visit (p < 0.001). These data suggest that a single-page, paper-based EDA is feasible and potentially effective in reducing decision conflict when used within a SDM visit, although more research is needed to establish the independent effects of the EDA, and future efforts to promote SDM may need to devote greater attention to improving patient understanding of the mortality benefit of screening.

Antidepressant decision aid for major depressive disorder patients (ADAM): Development and pilot testing

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to develop and assess the effectiveness of an encounter decision aid for Malaysian patients with MDD to support treatment decision-making during the consultation.

METHODS

The decision aid prototype was developed following a literature review and six focus groups. Alpha testing assessed its comprehensibility, acceptability, usability and desirability through user-centered cognitive interviews. Beta-testing evaluated preliminary evidence on its efficacy using the SDM Scale and PDMS. Feasibility was assessed by timing the consultation.

RESULTS

The alpha testing demonstrated that the decision aid was patient-oriented, comprehensible, comprehensive, concise and objective with an appealing design. Beta-testing indicated that PtDA significantly increased patients satisfaction with SDM from patients' [83.32 (13.92) vs 85.76 (13.80); p < 0.05] and physicians' [81.07 (10.09) vs 86.36 (10.10); p < 0.05] perspectives and prepared the patients for decision making from the patients' [PDMS patients: 84.10 (12.69)] and physicians' [PDMS physicians: 83.78 (16.62)] perspectives as well. There was no change in the consultation time between the control and the intervention groups.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed an antidepressant PtDA for Malaysian patients with MDD that increases patients' involvement in shared decision making and enhances their preparedness for decision making.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Using the PtDA can support collaborative decision-making in routine clinical practice without extending the consultation time.

Patient coaching: What do patients want? A mixed methods study in waiting rooms of outpatient clinics

Introduction

Effective communication in specialist consultations is difficult for some patients. These patients could benefit from support from a coach who accompanies them to and during medical specialist consultations to improve communication in the consultation room. This study aims to investigate patients’ perspective on interest in support from a patient coach, what kind of support they would like to receive and what characterizes an ideal patient coach.

Methods

We applied a mixed method design to obtain a realistic understanding of patients’ perspectives on a patient coach. Patients in the waiting rooms of outpatient clinics were asked to fill out a short questionnaire which included questions about demographic characteristics, perceived efficacy in patient-provider interaction and patients’ interest in support from a patient coach. Subsequently, patients interested in a patient coach were asked to participate in a semi-structured interview. The quantitative data were examined using univariate analysis and the qualitative interview data were analysed using content analysis.

Results

The survey was completed by 154 patients and eight of them were interviewed. Perceived efficacy in patient-physician interactions was the only variable that showed a significant difference between patients with and without an interest in support from a patient coach. The interviews revealed that a bad communication experience was the main reason for having an interest in support from a patient coach. Before the consultation, a patient coach should take the time to get to know the patient, build trust, and help the patient create an agenda, so take the patient seriously and recognize the patient as a whole person. During the consultation, a patient coach should support the patient by intervening and mediating when necessary to elicit the patient’s agenda. After the consultation, a patient coach should be able to explain and discuss medical information and treatment consequences. An ideal patient coach should have medical knowledge, a strong personality and good communication skills.

Conclusion

Especially patients who had a bad communication experience in a specialist consultation would like support from a patient coach. The kind of support they valued most was intervening and mediating during the consultation. To build the necessary trust, patient coaches should take time to get to know the patient and take the patient seriously. Medical knowledge, good communication skills and a strong personality were considered prerequisites for patient coaches to be capable to intervene in specialist consultations.

Leveraging the timing and frequency of patient decision aids in longitudinal shared decision-making: A narrative review and applied model

Introduction

Shared decision‐making (SDM) is intended to increase patient‐centredness of medical decision‐making for patients with acute and chronic conditions. Concurrently, patient decision aids (PtDAs) can supplement SDM by providing information to guide communication between patients and healthcare providers. Because of the prevalence of chronic conditions, where decisions may be extended or recurring, we sought to explore how effectively these tools have been leveraged in this context.

Methods

We conducted a narrative review of the literature on both SDM and PtDAs, searching PubMed and Boston University's library database search tool for English‐language articles published from January 2005 until March 2021. Additional search terms focused on temporality. Drawing from our findings, we developed a combined framework to highlight areas for future research using the discussion of end‐of‐life decisions as an exemplar to illustrate its relevance to chronic care contexts.

Results

After screening 57 articles, we identified 25 articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria on SDM, PtDA use and temporality for chronic care. The literature on SDM highlighted time outside of the medical visit and opportunity to include outside decision partners as important elements of the process. PtDAs were commonly evaluated for process‐related and proximal outcomes, but less often for distal outcomes. Early evidence points to the value of comparative outcome evaluation based on the timing of PtDA distribution.

Conclusion

Our review of the literature on SDM and PtDAs reveals less attention to the timing of PtDAs relative to that of SDM. We highlight the need for further study of timing in PtDA use to improve longitudinal SDM for chronic care. The model that we propose in our discussion provides a starting point for future research on PtDA efficacy.

Patient or Public Contribution

Five patient consultants provided input and feedback on the development and utility of our model.

Shared Decision Making with Acutely Hospitalized, Older Poly-Medicated Patients: A Mixed-Methods Study in an Emergency Department

Shared decision making (SDM) about medicine with older poly-medicated patients is vital to improving adherence and preventing medication-related hospital admissions, but it is difficult to achieve in practice. This study’s primary aim was to provide insight into the extent of SDM in medication decisions in the Emergency Department (ED) and to compare how it aligns with older poly-medicated patients’ preferences and needs. We applied a mixed-methods design to investigate SDM in medication decisions from two perspectives: (1) observational measurements with the observing patient involvement (OPTION 5) instrument of healthcare professionals’ SDM behavior in medication decisions and (2) semi-structured interviews with older poly-medicated patients. A convergent parallel analysis was performed. Sixty-five observations and fourteen interviews revealed four overall themes: (1) a low degree of SDM about medication, (2) a variation in the pro-active and non-active patients approach to conversations about medicine, (3) no information on side effects, and (4) a preference for medication reduction. The lack of SDM with older patients in the ED may increase inequality in health. Patients with low health literacy are at risk of safety threats, nonadherence, and preventable re-admissions. Therefore, healthcare professionals should systematically investigate older poly-medicated patients’ preferences and discuss the side effects and the possibility of reducing harmful medicine.

Effect of patient decision aids on decisional conflict and regret associated with breast cancer surgery: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with breast cancer encounter difficulties in making surgical treatment decisions. Shared decision-making (SDM) with patient decision aids (PDAs) can minimize patients' decisional conflicts. However, the effect of PDAs in Asia remains inconclusive. This study investigated the effect of SDM assisted by PDAs on the decisional conflict of patients with breast cancer.

METHODS

In this two-group, outcome assessor-blind, randomized controlled trial, 151 patients diagnosed as having breast cancer were assigned to the PDA (SDM with PDA) group or the standard (SDM without PDA) group. Demographic and clinical variables were analyzed to identify variables affecting the treatment choice. The patients' decision-making difficulties were evaluated using the four-item SURE scale during preoperative hospitalization, and decisional conflicts were examined using the five-item Decision Regret scale and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) 1 month after surgery.

RESULTS

The choice of breast conservation therapy and mastectomy did not significantly differ between the PDA and standard groups. The PDA group had a higher level of depression after making decisions (P = 0.029) than did the standard group. No significant difference in the total scores of the SURE scale and Decision Regret scale were noted between the groups.

CONCLUSION

PDAs did not assist the patients with breast cancer in making breast surgery-related decisions. Clinicians should focus on SDM grounded in evidence-based medicine with care and help patients consider their individual preferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrial.gov, NCT03105076; April 7, 2017 ( http://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov ).

Improving shared decision-making in vascular surgery: a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial

BACKGROUND

For various vascular surgical disorders different treatment options are available and feasible. Hence, vascular surgery seems an area par excellence for shared decision-making (SDM), in which clinicians incorporate patients' preferences into the final treatment decision. However, current SDM-levels in vascular surgical outpatient clinics is below expectations. To improve this, different decision support tools (DSTs) were developed: online patient decision aids, consultation cards and decision cards.

METHODS

This stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial was conducted in 13 Dutch hospitals. Besides the developed DSTs, a training on how to apply SDM during the clinician-patient encounter was used in this study. Data were obtained via questionnaires and audio-recordings. Primary outcome was the OPTION-5 score, an objective tool to assess the level of SDM, expressed as a percentage of exemplary performance. Main secondary outcomes were: patients' disease-specific knowledge, consultation duration, and treatment choice. Factors influencing OPTION-5 scores were studied using linear regression analysis.

RESULTS

We included 342 patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA); n=87, intermittent claudication (IC); n=143, or varicose veins (VV); n=112. Audiotapes of 395 consultations were analysed. Overall mean OPTION-5 score significantly improved from 28.7% to 37.8% (mean difference 9.1%, 95%CI: 6.5-11.8%) after implementation of the DSTs. Also patient knowledge increased significantly (median increase: 13%, effect size: 0.13, p=.025). The number of patients choosing non-surgical treatment choices increased with 21.4% to 28.8% for AAA-patients and doubled (16.0% to 32.0%) among IC-patients. For surgeons, the SDM-training and for patients the decision aid significantly and independently increased OPTION-5 scores (p<.001 and p=.047, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Introducing DSTs improves the level of shared decision-making in vascular surgery, improves patient knowledge, and shifts their preference towards more non-surgical treatments. The SDM-training for clinicians and the decision aid for patients appeared the most effective means for improving SDM.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NTR6487.

Deep Brain Stimulation for Parkinson’s Disease: Why Earlier Use Makes Shared Decision Making Important

Introduction

As deep brain stimulation (DBS) has shifted to being used earlier during Parkinson’s disease (PD), data is lacking regarding patient specific attitudes, preferences, and factors which may influence the timing of and decision to proceed with DBS in the United States. This study aims to identify and compare attitudes and preferences regarding the earlier use of DBS in Parkinson’s patients who have and have not undergone DBS.

Methods

We developed an online survey concerning attitudes about DBS and its timing in PD. The survey was distributed nationally in the United States via the Michael J. Fox Foundation Trial Finder, the American Parkinson Disease Association flyers, and as a link on the Parkinson Alliance website. Differences in responses between PD DBS and non-DBS patients were assessed.

Results

A total of 445 patients with PD met eligibility criteria for the survey of which 160 self-identified as having undergone DBS. Fifty-five percent (n = 124) of non-DBS patients believed that DBS for PD should only be considered after all medication options have been tried. Patients favoring early DBS had fewer concerns regarding the surgery than those favoring later DBS.

Conclusion

Our findings highlight a variety of important considerations and concerns patients have regarding DBS and its timing. These viewpoints are important aspects of shared decision-making, as they help to identify patients’ preferences, values, and goals, which should enable providers to better navigate, with their patients, the decision path for therapeutic options to consider.

Shared decision-making interventions: An overview and a meta-analysis of their impact on vaccine uptake

BACKGROUND

The interest in shared decision making (SDM) and the use of patient decision aids have increased significantly. Research indicates that this approach has benefits, and yet, implementation remains a challenge. To illustrate this development, we focus on vaccine hesitancy which has become a serious public health challenge during the COVID-19 pandemic. Various strategies have been used in healthcare, with limited success, to help patients overcome vaccine hesitancy. It is unclear whether SDM interventions can increase vaccination rates.

AIMS

Our aim was two-fold: to provide an overview of SDM and the use of patient decision aids and to determine the effect of SDM interventions on vaccine uptake.

METHODS

To provide an overview, we drew on our knowledge of the field and summarized the most recent systematic reviews. We examined the impact on vaccine hesitancy by searching for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SDM interventions, conducted a meta-analysis and calculated a pooled odds ratio. Additional outcomes were reported in a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

SDM is viewed as the pinnacle of patient-centred care, supported by an ethical imperative and by empirical evidence of benefits. We found 10 RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. SDM interventions significantly increased vaccine uptake compared to control groups (odds ratio = 1.45; 95% confidence interval [1.17-1.80]; p < 0.01). Some RCTs also reported significantly decreased decisional conflict and increased decision confidence.

CONCLUSION

Future healthcare delivery systems will need to consider how to support the implementation of SDM. Interventions designed to facilitate this approach can represent a helpful, ethically defensible, strategy to increase vaccination rates.

Treatment decisions after interdisciplinary evaluation for nonarthritic hip pain: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Physical therapy and hip arthroscopy are two viable treatment options for patients with nonarthritic hip pain (NAHP); however, patients may experience considerable decisional conflict when making a treatment decision. Interdisciplinary evaluation with a physical therapist and surgeon may better inform the decision-making process and reduce decisional conflict.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the extent to which an interdisciplinary evaluation between a surgeon, physical therapist, and patient influences treatment plans and decisional conflict of persons with NAHP.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Hip preservation clinic.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with primary NAHP.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomized to receive a standard (surgeon) or interdisciplinary (surgeon+physical therapist) evaluation. Surgeon evaluations included patient interview, strength and range-of-motion examination, palpation, gross motor observation, and special testing. Interdisciplinary evaluations started with the surgeon evaluation, then a physical therapist evaluated movement impairments during sitting, sit-to-stand, standing, single-leg stance, single-leg squat, and walking. All evaluations concluded with treatment planning with the respective provider(s).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Treatment plan and decisional conflict were collected pre- and postevaluation. Inclusion of physical therapy in participants' postevaluation treatment plans and postevaluation decisional conflict were compared between groups using chi-square tests and Mann-Whitney U tests, respectively.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight participants (39 in each group) met all eligibility criteria and were included in all analyses. Sixty-six percent of participants who received an interdisciplinary evaluation included physical therapy in their postevaluation treatment plan, compared to 48% of participants who received a standard evaluation (p = .10). Participants who received an interdisciplinary evaluation reported 6.3 points lower decisional conflict regarding their postevaluation plan (100-point scale; p = .04). The interdisciplinary and standard groups reduced decisional conflict on average 24.8 ± 18.9 and 23.6 ± 14.6 points, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding a physical therapist to a surgical clinic increased interest in physical therapy treatment, but this increase was not statistically significant. The interdisciplinary group displayed lower postevaluation decisional conflict; however, both groups displayed similar reductions in decisional conflict from pre- to postevaluation. This study also demonstrated the feasibility of an interdisciplinary evaluation in a hip preservation clinic.

Feasibility of a primary care patient decision aid for smoking cessation with information about e-cigarettes

•

Patients had higher confidence and readiness to quit after the decision aids.

•

The decision aid helped prepare patients to make a decision about quitting smoking.

•

Patients expressed satisfaction with the decision aid and clinician consultation.

•

Smoking cessation decision aids are acceptable and may promote behavior change.

Decision aids can promote shared decision making and behavior change and may be effective in helping patients quit smoking. Patients are increasingly using e-cigarettes for smoking cessation; however, little is known about the impact of including e-cigarette information in smoking cessation decision aids. Our objective was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a smoking cessation decision aid including e-cigarette information. This study was conducted at one family medicine clinic in the United States. We used a pre-post design. In Phase I, the decision aid presented information about approved cessation methods. In Phase II, current e-cigarette users and patients with no intention of quitting received additional information on switching to e-cigarettes. We assessed the impact of the decision aids on quit attempts and abstinence, confidence and readiness to quit, confidence and readiness to switch to e-cigarettes, and patient satisfaction. We enrolled 60 patients in each phase (N = 120). Patients reported higher confidence and readiness to quit after viewing the decision aids and consulting with their physician (p < 0.01). Patients reported the decision aid helped prepare them to make a decision about quitting smoking and expressed satisfaction with the decision aid and clinician consultation. We did not observe an impact of including e-cigarette information. Smoking cessation decision aids are acceptable to patients and may promote behavior change. Future studies should explore the impact of providing patients e-cigarette information using larger sample sizes and rigorous designs. Further research is needed to identify strategies to promote shared decision-making regarding e-cigarettes.

The Tell me tool: The development and feasibility of a tool for person-centred infertility care

Background

An important—and often missing—element of person‐centred care is the inclusion of individual patients' values and preferences. This is challenging but especially important for high‐burden fertility treatments. We describe the development of a clinical tool that aims to facilitate the delivery of person‐centred fertility care by giving insight into the patients' values and preferences.

Methods

We developed the Tell me tool following the three principles of user‐centred design: (1) early and continual focus on users; (2) iterative design; (3) measurement of user behaviour. Accordingly, our methods consisted of three phases: (1) conducting semi‐structured interviews with 18 couples undergoing fertility treatment, followed by a consensus meeting with relevant stakeholders; (2) performing seven iterative improvement rounds; (3) testing the feasibility of the tool in 10 couples.

Results

The Tell me tool consists of a ranking assignment of 13 themes and two open‐ended questions. These themes relate to the couples' wellbeing and experience of the treatment, such as mental health and shared decision making. The open‐ended questions ask them to write down what matters most to them. The field test showed variation between the individual patients' answers. The tool proved to highlight what is important to the individual patient and gives insight into patients' personal contexts.

Conclusions

We developed a tool that gives insight into the values and preferences of the individual patient. The tool seems feasible for facilitating person‐centred fertility care.

Patient or Public Contribution

The tool was developed with a user‐centred design that strongly involved patients.

Potential impact of encounter patient decision aids on the patient-clinician dialogue: a qualitative study on Dutch and American medical specialists' experiences

OBJECTIVES

To examine the experiences among Dutch and American clinicians on the impact of using encounter patient decision aids (ePDAs) on their clinical practice, and subsequently to formulate recommendations for sustained ePDA use in clinical practice.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with clinicians who used 11 different ePDAs (applicable to their specialty) for 3 months after a short training. The verbatim transcribed interviews were coded with thematic analysis by six researchers via ATLAS.ti.

SETTING

Nine hospitals in the Netherlands and two hospitals in the USA.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-five clinicians were interviewed: 16 Dutch medical specialists from four different disciplines (gynaecologists, ear-nose-throat specialists, neurologists and orthopaedic surgeon), 5 American gynaecologists and 4 American gynaecology medical trainees.

RESULTS

The interviews showed that the ePDA potentially impacted the patient-clinician dialogue in several ways. We identified six themes that illustrate this: that is, (1) communication style, for example, structuring the conversation; (2) the patient's role, for example, encouraging patients to ask more questions; (3) the clinician's role, for example, prompting clinicians to discuss more information; (4) workflow, for example, familiarity with the ePDA's content helped to integrate it into practice; (5) shared decision-making (SDM), for example, mixed experiences whether the ePDA contributed to SDM; and (6) content of the ePDA. Recommendations to possibly improve ePDA use based on the clinician's experiences: (1) add pictorial health information to the ePDA instead of text only and (2) instruct clinicians how to use the ePDA in a flexible (depending on their discipline and setting) and personalised way adapting the ePDA to the patients' needs (e.g., mark off irrelevant options).

CONCLUSIONS

ePDAs contributed to the patient-clinician dialogue in several ways according to medical specialists. A flexible and personalised approach appeared appropriate to integrate the use of ePDAs into the clinician's workflow, and customise their use to individual patients' needs.

Early fluid bolus in adults with sepsis in the emergency department: a systematic review, meta-analysis and narrative synthesis

Background

Early intravenous fluids for patients with sepsis presenting with hypoperfusion or shock in the emergency department remains one of the key recommendations of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines to reduce mortality. However, compliance with the recommendation remains poor. While several interventions have been implemented to improve early fluid administration as part of sepsis protocols, the extent to which they have improved compliance with fluid resuscitation is unknown. The factors associated with the lack of compliance are also poorly understood.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review, meta-analysis and narrative review to investigate the effectiveness of interventions in emergency departments in improving compliance with early fluid administration and examine the non-interventional facilitators and barriers that may influence appropriate fluid administration in adults with sepsis. We searched MEDLINE Ovid/PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, CINAHL, and SCOPUS databases for studies of any design to April 2021. We synthesised results from the studies reporting effectiveness of interventions in a meta-analysis and conducted a narrative synthesis of studies reporting non-interventional factors.

Results

We included 31 studies out of the 825 unique articles identified in the systematic review of which 21 were included in the meta-analysis and 11 in the narrative synthesis. In meta-analysis, interventions were associated with a 47% improvement in the rate of compliance [(Random Effects (RE) Relative Risk (RR) = 1.47, 95% Confidence Interval (CI), 1.25–1.74, p-value < 0.01)]; an average 24 min reduction in the time to fluids [RE mean difference = − 24.11(95% CI − 14.09 to − 34.14 min, p value < 0.01)], and patients receiving an additional 575 mL fluids [RE mean difference = 575.40 (95% CI 202.28–1353.08, p value < 0.01)]. The compliance rate of early fluid administration reported in the studies included in the narrative synthesis is 48% [RR = 0.48 (95% CI 0.24–0.72)].

Conclusion

Performance improvement interventions improve compliance and time and volume of fluids administered to patients with sepsis in the emergency department. While patient-related factors such as advanced age, co-morbidities, cryptic shock were associated with poor compliance, important organisational factors such as inexperience of clinicians, overcrowding and inter-hospital transfers were also identified. A comprehensive understanding of the facilitators and barriers to early fluid administration is essential to design quality improvement projects.

PROSPERO Registration ID

CRD42021225417.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12873-021-00558-5.

Is Shared Decision-making Associated with Better Patient-reported Outcomes? A Longitudinal Study of Patients Undergoing Total Joint Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Although shared decision-making (SDM) has knowledge and satisfaction benefits for patients and is promising, we lack data demonstrating that SDM is associated with better patient-reported functional outcomes. Such data would support the integration and prioritization of SDM into all aspects of orthopaedic care.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

(1) Is a measure of SDM before total joint arthroplasty associated with better patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) 1 year postoperatively? (2) What is the relationship between the measure of SDM and two measures of patient experience (patient rating of the provider and patient likelihood of recommending the provider) at 1 year postoperatively?

METHODS

In this observational longitudinal survey-based study, patients receiving an initial THA or TKA from a large, multispecialty medical group in the Midwestern United States were surveyed after they were scheduled for surgery and again at 12 months after their procedure. The three-item collaboRATE measure of SDM was added to existing patient surveys of PROMs. However, the surgeons and their department had no organized approach to SDM during this time. The surveys also included the Oxford knee or hip score and two validated measures of patient experience (patient rating of the provider and whether a patient would recommend the provider). Of the 2779 eligible primary joint arthroplasties that occurred from April 23, 2018 to May 1, 2019, 48% (1334 procedures; 859 TKAs and 485 THAs) of the patients responded to both the preoperative and 12-month postoperative surveys. Most of the patients who were included in the analytic sample were white (93%; 1255 of 1344), with only 3% (37) using Medicaid benefits at the time of surgery. Differences between responders and nonresponders were present and explored in an analysis. Patient responses were analyzed in regression models to estimate the association between preoperative collaboRATE scores and the Oxford knee or hip scores, and patient experience measures 12 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

There was a moderate, positive association between preoperative collaboRATE scores and the Oxford scores at 12 months, after adjustment for potential confounders such as patient age and preoperative functional score (β = 0.58; 95% CI 0.14-1.02; p = 0.01). Similarly, patients with preoperative collaboRATE scores had marginally higher patient experience scores at 12 months postoperatively (β = 0.14; 95% CI 0.05-0.24; p = 0.003) and were more likely to recommend their surgeon (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.11-1.84; p = 0.005). The patient experience measures were also modestly correlated with collaboRATE scores in cross-sectional associations, both preoperatively and at 12 months postoperatively (0.29 ≤ r ≤ 0.54; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The association between preoperative collaboRATE scores and Oxford hip or knee scores suggests that SDM could be one tool to encourage better outcomes. Although previous studies have shown that SDM can improve patient experience, the lack of a strong correlation in our study suggests that PROMs and experience measures are separate domains, at least partly. Improving preoperative SDM between the surgeon and patient might help improve surgical outcomes for patients undergoing TKA and THA.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, therapeutic study.