Generalized shared decision making approaches and patient problems. Adapting AHRQ's SHARE Approach for Purposeful SDM

Decisions With Patients, Not for Patients: Shared Decision-Making in Allergy and Immunology

Shared decision-making (SDM) is an increasingly implemented patient-centered approach to navigating patient preferences regarding diagnostic and treatment options and supported decision-making. This therapeutic approach prioritizes the patient's perspectives, considering current medical evidence to provide a balanced approach to clinical scenarios. In light of numerous recent guideline recommendations that are conditional in nature and are clinical scenarios defined by preference-sensitive care options, there is a tremendous opportunity for SDM and validated decision aids. Despite the expansion of the literature on SDM, formal acceptance among clinicians remains inconsistent. Surprisingly, a significant disparity exists between clinicians' self-reported adherence to SDM principles and patients' perceptions of its implementation during clinical encounters. This discrepancy underscores a fundamental issue in the delivery of health care, where clinicians may overestimate their integration of SDM, while patients' experiences suggest otherwise. This review critically examines the factors contributing to this inconsistency, including barriers within the health care system, clinician attitudes and behaviors, and patient expectations and preferences. By elucidating these factors in the fields of food allergy, asthma, eosinophilic esophagitis, and other allergic diseases, this review aims to provide insights into bridging the gap between clinician perception and patient experience in SDM. Addressing this discordance is crucial for advancing patient-centered care and ensuring that SDM is not merely a theoretical concept but a tangible reality in the.

"But I'm not a professional" - How women with high-risk pregnancies voice the experiences of home-based telemonitoring; a qualitative interview study

OBJECTIVES

Telemonitoring of high-risk pregnancy complications is a new approach that offers remote obstetric caregiving using mobile and wireless technologies. New evidence shows that home-based obstetric telemonitoring is not only feasible but also a safe alternative to inpatient or frequent outpatient care. As little is known how performing obstetric telemonitoring is perceived, this study examined how women with pregnancy complications experienced performing home-based telemonitoring.

METHODS

A qualitative, semi-structured interview study was conducted with women with ongoing experience in performing home-based telemonitoring procedures for high-risk pregnancy complications. Purposeful sampling strategy and data saturation were applied followed by verbatim transcription. The data were analyzed using systematic text condensation.

RESULTS

Fifteen informants participated in the study and four major themes emerged. The study revealed that performing telemonitoring was overall positively experienced as an 'Empowering yet challenging responsibility' as well as an 'Extended patient-clinician partnership.' There were pros and cons as to the influence of telemonitoring in everyday life; 'Tele-comfort yet ambivalence' and that it could be accompanied by annoying practical issues; 'Accompanying remote issues.'

CONCLUSIONS

Performing obstetric telemonitoring was experienced as an empowering yet challenging responsibility as well as an extended partnership between the clinician and the pregnant woman. Pros and cons were voiced as to the influence and ambivalence of telemonitoring in everyday life, and that it could be accompanied by annoying practical issues. Patient aspects and experiences of telemonitoring are important clinical knowledge that must be considered when a telemonitoring plan is tailored preferably in a shared decision-making process.

Health Numeracy Is Associated With a Patient's Ability to Interpret Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Data

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were originally developed as research tools; however, there is increasing interest in using PROMs to inform clinical care. Prior work has shown the benefits of implementing PROMs at the point of care, but a patient's health numeracy (their ability to understand and work with numbers) may affect their ability to interpret PROM results.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We recruited patients presenting to an outpatient orthopedic clinic. Forty-nine patients completed a survey that included demographic information, the short-form General Health Numeracy Test, and accuracy questions about four PROM displays (bar graph, table, line graph, pictograph) that indicated the same PROM results.

RESULTS

Patients with higher health numeracy answered all display accuracy questions correctly (P=.016). Patients who preferred using the table were more likely to answer display accuracy questions incorrectly (odds ratio, 0.013, P=.024). The two most frequently preferred PROM formats were bar graphs and tables, and most patients preferred to learn about their PROM function scores via a combination of displays and verbal discussions.

CONCLUSION

Patient health numeracy is associated with the ability to correctly interpret visual displays of PROMs. Implementation of PROMs at point of care currently does not account for health numeracy. Efforts to account for health numeracy when using PROMs at point of care may improve the efficacy of using PROMs to improve outcomes in orthopedic surgery. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(5):e255-e260.].

The role of the purposeful shared decision making model in vascularized composite allotransplantation

For some patients who have lost the lower part of an arm, hand transplant offers the possibility of receiving a new limb with varying degrees of sensation and function. This procedure, Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation (VCA), is demanding for patients and their care community and comes with significant risks. As a high-stakes decision, patients interested in VCA are subject to extensive clinical evaluation and eligibility decision making. Patients and their care community must also decide if hand transplant (versus other approaches including rehabilitative therapies with or without prosthesis) is right for them. This decision making is often confusing and practically and emotionally fraught. It is complicated in four ways: by the numerous beneficial and harmful potential effects of hand transplant or other options, the number of people affected by VCA and the diverse or conflicting positions that they may hold, the practical demands and limitations of the patient's life situation, and the existential significance of limb loss and transplant for the patient's being. Patients need support in working through these treatment determining issues. Evaluation does not provide this support. Shared decision making (SDM) is a method of care that helps patients think, talk, and feel their way through to the right course of action for them. However, traditional models of SDM that focus on weighing possible beneficial and harmful effects of treatments are ill-equipped to tackle the heterogeneous issues of VCA. A recent model, Purposeful SDM extends the range of troubling issues that SDM can help support beyond opposing effects, to include conflicting positions, life situations, and existential being. In this paper we explore the pertinence of these issues in VCA, methods of SDM that each require of clinicians, the benefits of supporting patients with the breadth of issues in their unique problematic situations, implications for outcomes and practice, and extend the theory of the Purposeful SDM model itself based on the issues present in hand transplant decision making.

JACC: Advances Expert Panel Perspective: Shared Decision-Making in Multidisciplinary Team-Based Cardiovascular Care

Shared decision-making (SDM) and multidisciplinary team-based care delivery are recommended across several cardiology clinical practice guidelines. However, evidence for benefit and guidance on implementation are limited. Informed consent, the use of patient decision aids, or the documentation of these elements for governmental or societal agencies may be conflated as SDM. SDM is a bidirectional exchange between experts: patients are the experts on their goals, values, and preferences, and clinicians provide their expertise on clinical factors. In this Expert Panel perspective, we review the current state of SDM in team-based cardiovascular care and propose best practice recommendations for multidisciplinary team implementation of SDM.

Design, implementation and usability analysis of patient empowerment in ADLIFE project via patient reported outcome measures and shared decision making

INTRODUCTION

This paper outlines the design, implementation, and usability study results of the patient empowerment process for chronic disease management, using Patient Reported Outcome Measurements and Shared Decision-Making Processes.

BACKGROUND

The ADLIFE project aims to develop innovative, digital health solutions to support personalized, integrated care for patients with severe long-term conditions such as Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, and/or Chronic Heart Failure. Successful long-term management of patients with chronic conditions requires active patient self-management and a proactive involvement of patients in their healthcare and treatment. This calls for a patient-provider partnership within an integrated system of collaborative care, supporting self-management, shared-decision making, collection of patient reported outcome measures, education, and follow-up.

METHODS

ADLIFE follows an outcome-based and patient-centered approach where PROMs represent an especially valuable tool to evaluate the outcomes of the care delivered. We have selected 11 standardized PROMs for evaluating the most recent patients' clinical context, enabling the decision-making process, and personalized care planning. The ADLIFE project implements the "SHARE approach' for enabling shared decision-making via two digital platforms for healthcare professionals and patients. We have successfully integrated PROMs and shared decision-making processes into our digital toolbox, based on an international interoperability standard, namely HL7 FHIR. A usability study was conducted with 3 clinical sites with 20 users in total to gather feedback and to subsequently prioritize updates to the ADLIFE toolbox.

RESULTS

User satisfaction is measured in the QUIS7 questionnaire on a 9-point scale in the following aspects: overall reaction, screen, terminology and tool feedback, learning, multimedia, training material and system capabilities. With all the average scores above 6 in all categories, most respondents have a positive reaction to the ADLIFE PEP platform and find it easy to use. We have identified shortcomings and have prioritized updates to the platform before clinical pilot studies are initiated.

CONCLUSIONS

Having finalized design, implementation, and pre-deployment usability studies, and updated the tool based on further feedback, our patient empowerment mechanisms enabled via PROMs and shared decision-making processes are ready to be piloted in clinal settings. Clinical studies will be conducted based at six healthcare settings across Spain, UK, Germany, Denmark, and Israel.

Patient-driven decisions and perceptions of the 'safest possible choice': insights from patient-provider conversations about how some breast cancer patients choose contralateral prophylactic mastectomy

OBJECTIVE

Observe patient-clinician communication to gain insight about the reasons underlying the choice of patients with unilateral breast cancer to undergo contralateral prophylactic mastectomy (CPM), despite lack of survival benefit, risk of harms, and cautions expressed by surgical guidelines and clinicians.

METHODS & MEASURES

WORDS is a prospective study that explored patient-clinician communication and patient decision making. Participants recorded clinical visits through a downloadable mobile application. We analyzed 44 recordings from 22 patients: 9 who chose CPM, 8 who considered CPM but decided against it, and 5 who never considered CPM. We used abductive analysis combined with constructivist grounded theory methods.

RESULTS

Decisions to undergo CPM are patient-driven and motivated by perceptions that CPM is the most aggressive, and therefore safest, treatment option available. These decisions are shaped not primarily by the content of conversations with clinicians, but by the history of cancer in patients' families, their own first-hand experiences with cancers among loved ones, fear for their children, and anxiety about cancer recurrence.

CONCLUSION

The perception that CPM is the safest, most aggressive option strongly influences patients, despite scientific evidence to the contrary. Future efforts to address high CPM rates should focus on patient-driven decision making and cancer-related fears.

Using Patient Decision Aids for Cardiology Care in Diverse Populations

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patient decision aids (PDAs) are tools that help guide treatment decisions and support shared decision-making when there is equipoise between treatment options. This review focuses on decision aids that are available to support cardiac treatment options for underrepresented groups.

RECENT FINDINGS

PDAs have been developed to support multiple treatment decisions in cardiology related to coronary artery disease, valvular heart disease, cardiac arrhythmias, heart failure, and cholesterol management. By considering the unique needs and preferences of diverse populations, PDAs can enhance patient engagement and promote equitable healthcare delivery in cardiology. In this review, we examine the benefits, challenges, and current trends in implementing PDAs, with a focus on improving decision-making processes and outcomes for patients from underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. In addition, the article highlights key considerations when implementing PDAs and potential future directions in the field.

Toward an operational definition of shared decision making: A conceptual analysis

RATIONALE

Shared decision making has been widely advocated and evaluated in diverse ways for 4 decades.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

But there is scant evidence that it is commonly accepted by or has influence on practitioners' behaviour or that it positively affects patient health outcomes. This situation may be due in part to the absence of a commonly agreed operational definition of the construct. This is admitted in the literature and has led to multiple approaches to evaluation.

METHOD

An operational definition is proposed based on ethical parity among parties, sharing of mutually interacting expectations and analysis of decisions as commitment to action rather than information.

RESULTS

Shared decision making occurs when two autonomous and uncoerced agents both commit to actions that neither has reason to want to change based on their understanding of anticipated outcomes given the situation at hand and of the intended actions of the other party.

CONCLUSION

It is a broader concept than providing information regarding treatment alternatives in the office.

Interventions to Support Engagement in Addiction Care Postpartum: Principles and Pitfalls

There is a fundamental disconnect between the optimal management of addiction in general and care delivery in pregnancy and postpartum. Addiction is a chronic condition requiring some degree of management across the life course. Yet, in the US, reproductive care is episodic and centers more on pregnancy than at other stages of the reproductive life course. Pregnancy is prioritized in access to insurance as almost all pregnant people are Medicaid eligible but access ends at varying points postpartum. This results in a structural mismatch: the episodic management of the chronic condition of addiction only within gestational periods. Though people with substance use disorder (SUD) may access care in pregnancy, treatment attrition is common postpartum. Postpartum is a time of increased vulnerabilities where insurance churn and newborn caretaking responsibilities collide in a context of care withdrawal from the health system and health providers. In part in consequence, return to use, SUD recurrence, overdose, and overdose death are more common postpartum than in pregnancy, and drug deaths have become a leading cause of maternal deaths in the US. This review addresses interventions to support engagement in addiction care postpartum. We begin with a scoping review of model programs and evidence-informed interventions that have been shown to increase continuation of care postpartum. We then explore the realities of contemporary care through a review of clinical and ethical principles, with particular attention to harm reduction. We conclude with suggestions of strategies (clinical, research, and policy) to improve care postpartum and highlight potential pitfalls in the uptake of evidence-based and person-centered services.

Shared Decision-Making in Acute Pain Services

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The implementation of shared decision-making (SDM) in acute pain services (APS) is still in its infancies especially when compared to other medical fields.

RECENT FINDINGS

Emerging evidence fosters the value of SDM in various acute care settings. We provide an overview of general SDM practices and possible advantages of incorporating such concepts in APS, point out barriers to SDM in this setting, present common patient decisions aids developed for APS and discuss opportunities for further development. Especially in the APS setting, patient-centred care is a key component for optimal patient outcome. SDM could be included into everyday clinical practice by using structured approaches such as the "seek, help, assess, reach, evaluate" (SHARE) approach, the 3 "MAking Good decisions In Collaboration"(MAGIC) questions, the "Benefits, Risks, Alternatives and doing Nothing"(BRAN) tool or the "the multifocal approach to sharing in shared decision-making"(MAPPIN'SDM) as guidance for participatory decision-making. Such tools aid in the development of a patient-clinician relationship beyond discharge after immediate relief of acute pain has been accomplished. Research addressing patient decision aids and their impact on patient-reported outcomes regarding shared decision-making, organizational barriers and new developments such as remote shared decision-making is needed to advance participatory decision-making in acute pain services.

Physician-reported characteristics, representations, and ethical justifications of shared decision-making practices in the care of paediatric patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness

BACKGROUND

Despite consensus about the importance of implementing shared decision-making (SDM) in clinical practice, this ideal is inconsistently enacted today. Evidence shows that SDM practices differ in the degree of involvement of patients or family members, or in the amount of medical information disclosed to patients in order to "share" meaningfully in treatment decisions. Little is known on which representations and moral justifications physicians hold when realizing SDM. This study explored physicians' experiences of SDM in the management of paediatric patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness (PDOC). Specifically, we focused on physicians' SDM approaches, representations, and ethical justifications for engaging in SDM.

METHODS

We used a qualitative approach to explore the SDM experiences of 13 ICU physicians, paediatricians, and neurologists based in Switzerland who have been or were involved in the care of paediatric patients living with PDOC. A semi-structured interview format was used and interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed through thematic analysis.

RESULTS

We found that participants followed three main decision-making approaches: the "brakes" approach, characterized by maximized family's decisional freedom, though conditional to physician's judgment regarding the medical appropriateness of a treatment; the "orchestra director" approach, characterized by a multi-step decision-making process led by the main physician aimed at eliciting the voices of the care team members and of the family; and the "sunbeams" approach, characterized by a process oriented to reach consensus with family members through dialogue, where the virtues of the physician are key to guide the process. We also found that participants differed in the moral justifications sustaining each approach, citing the duty to respect parental autonomy, to invest in an ethics of care, and to employ physicians' virtues to guide the decision-making process.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that physicians come to perform SDM in different ways, with several representations, and distinct ethical justifications. SDM training among health care providers should clarify the ductility of SDM and the several ethical motivations underpinning it, rather than insisting on the principle of respect for patient's autonomy as its only moral foundation.

Problem-based shared decision-making in diabetes care: a secondary analysis of video-recorded encounters

OBJECTIVES

To describe the range of collaborative approaches to shared decision-making (SDM) observed in clinical encounters of patients with diabetes and their clinicians.

DESIGN

A secondary analysis of videorecordings obtained in a randomised trial comparing usual diabetes primary care with or without using a within-encounter conversation SDM tool.

SETTING

Using the purposeful SDM framework, we classified the forms of SDM observed in a random sample of 100 video-recorded clinical encounters of patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We assessed the correlation between the extent to which each form of SDM was used and patient involvement (OPTION12-scale).

RESULTS

We observed at least one instance of SDM in 86 of 100 encounters. In 31 (36%) of these 86 encounters, we found only one form of SDM, in 25 (29%) two forms, and in 30 (35%), we found ≥3 forms of SDM. In these encounters, 196 instances of SDM were identified, with weighing alternatives (n=64 of 196, 33%), negotiating conflicting desires (n=59, 30%) and problemsolving (n=70, 36%) being similarly prevalent and developing existential insight accounting for only 1% (n=3) of instances. Only the form of SDM focused on weighing alternatives was correlated with a higher OPTION12-score. More forms of SDM were used when medications were changed (2.4 SDM forms (SD 1.48) vs 1.8 (SD 1.46); p=0.050).

CONCLUSIONS

After considering forms of SDM beyond weighing alternatives, SDM was present in most encounters. Clinicians and patients often used different forms of SDM within the same encounter. Recognising a range of SDM forms that clinicians and patients use to respond to problematic situations, as demonstrated in this study, opens new lines of research, education and practice that may advance patient-centred, evidence-based care.

For which decisions is Shared Decision Making considered appropriate? - A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To identify decision characteristics for which SDM authors deem SDM appropriate or not, and what arguments are used.

METHODS

We applied two search strategies: we included SDM models from an earlier review (strategy 1) and conducted a new search in eight databases to include papers other than describing an SDM model, such as original research, opinion papers and reviews (strategy 2).

RESULTS

From the 92 included papers, we identified 18 decision characteristics for which authors deemed SDM appropriate, including preference-sensitive, equipoise and decisions where patient commitment is needed in implementing the decision. SDM authors indicated limits to SDM, especially when there are immediate life-saving measures needed. We identified four decision characteristics on which authors of different papers disagreed on whether or not SDM is appropriate.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this review show the broad range of decision characteristics for which authors deem SDM appropriate, the ambiguity of some, and potential limits of SDM.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The findings can stimulate clinicians to (re)consider pursuing SDM in situations in which they did not before. Additionally, it can inform SDM campaigns and educational programs as it shows for which decision situations SDM might be more or less challenging to practice.

Scoping Review to Inform the Future Development of a Measure for Team-Based Care in Oncology

PURPOSE

Team-based care is the delivery of health services to an individual by at least two health care providers working collaboratively to achieve optimal care. Participants on the National Cancer Institute and the ASCO Teams in the Cancer Care Delivery Project have defined 13 key principles to serve as the foundation for a successful team; however, it is unclear whether there exist measures of these key principles.

METHODS

A scoping literature search was conducted for each key principle on PubMed and Embase to identify existing measures for key principles. Articles of interest were exported to a citation manager, Sciwheel, cataloged by the key principle. Existing measures were extracted via a two-stage screening process, with an abstract review followed by a full-text review.

RESULTS

Fifteen unique measures were identified, with items extrapolated for 12 of the 13 key principles. Measures were not exclusive and could represent more than one key principle. The number of measures varied per principle from zero to five, with Team Composition and Diversity yielding no existing measure.

CONCLUSION

The long-term goal is to compile and edit these measures, to create a comprehensive measure to be used in various team-based oncology care settings, and to address areas for improvement, ultimately optimizing patient care.

Positive patient-provider relationships among transgender and nonbinary individuals in New York City

Background: Transgender and nonbinary (TGNB) individuals have diverse health needs and may face disproportionate barriers to healthcare, including developing positive patient-provider relationships. While there is mounting evidence of gender-based stigma and discrimination in healthcare, little is known about how TGNB individuals develop positive patient-provider relationships. Aims: To examine TGNB individuals' interactions with healthcare providers and identify main characteristics of positive patient-providers relationships. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 13 TGNB individuals in New York, NY. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed inductively for themes related to characteristics of positive and trusting relationships with healthcare providers. Results: Participants' mean age was 30 years (IQR = 13 years) and most participants were nonwhite (n = 12, 92%). Receiving peer referrals to specific clinics or providers helped many participants find providers perceived to be competent and created initial grounds for positive patient-provider relationships. Providers with whom participants had positive relationships commonly managed primary care and gender-affirming care and relied on a network of interdisciplinary providers for other specialized care. Providers who were positively evaluated were perceived to possess in-depth clinical knowledge on the issues they were responsible for managing, including gender-affirming interventions, particularly for TGNB patients who perceived themselves to be knowledgeable about TGNB-specific care. Provider and staff cultural competence and a TGNB-affirming clinic environment were also important, particularly early in the patient-provider relationship, and if combined with TGNB clinical competence. Discussion: Provider-focused training and education programs should combine components of TGNB clinical and cultural competence to facilitate development of positive relationships between TGNB patients and providers, thereby improving the health and wellbeing of TGNB people.

Determining the Development Strategy and Suited Adoption Paths for the Core Competence of Shared Decision-Making Tasks through the SAA-NRM Approach

Shared decision making (SDM) is an interactive process that involves patients and their healthcare professionals reaching joint decisions about medical care through negotiation. As the initiators of medical decision-making in daily routine, physicians should be aware of and concerned about the SDM process. Thus, professional competency development for SDM has become increasingly critical for physicians' training. Therefore, this study investigates the professional competency and the important competency development aspects/criteria of SDM tasks through expert interviews and literature research. The study adopts the SAA (satisfaction-attention analysis) method to assess the status of competency development aspects/criteria and determine the NRM (network relation map) based on the DEMATEL (decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory) technique. The results demonstrate that the CE (concept and evaluation) aspect is the dominant aspect, and the CR (communication and relationship) aspect is the aspect being dominated. The CE aspect influences the aspects of SP (skill and practice), JM (joint information and decision making) and CR, and the SP aspect affects the aspects of JM and CR. Then, the JM aspect affects the CR aspect. The study also suggests suitable adoption paths of competency development for SDM tasks using the NRM approach. It provides recommendations and strategic directions for SDM competency development and sustainable training programs.

Establishing the Competency Development and Talent Cultivation Strategies for Physician-Patient Shared Decision-Making Competency Based on the IAA-NRM Approach

Shared decision making (SDM) is a collaborative process involving patients and their healthcare workers negotiating to reach a shared decision about medical care. However, various physician stakeholders (attending physicians, medical residents, and doctors in post-graduate years) may have different viewpoints on SDM processes. The purpose of this study is to explore the core competence of physicians in performing SDM tasks and to investigate the significant competency development aspects/criteria by applying the literature research and expert interviews. We adopt the IAA (importance awareness analysis) technique for different stakeholders to evaluate the status of competency development aspects/criteria and to determine the NRM (network relation map) based on the DEMATEL (decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory) technique. The study combines the IAA and NRM methods and suggests using the IAA-NRM approach to evaluate the adoption strategies and common suitable paths for different levels of physicians. Our findings reveal that SDM perception and practice is the primary influencer of SDM competence development for all stakeholders. The current model can help hospital administrators and directors of medical education understand the diverse stakeholders’ perspectives on the core competence of SDM tasks and determine common development plans. It provides strategic directions for SDM competency development and talent cultivation programs.

Shared decision-making for the treatment of proximal femoral fractures in frail institutionalised older patients: healthcare providers' perceived barriers and facilitators

INTRODUCTION

Proximal femoral fractures are common in frail institutionalised older patients. No convincing evidence exists regarding the optimal treatment strategy for those with a limited pre-fracture life expectancy, underpinning the importance of shared decision-making (SDM). This study investigated healthcare providers' barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of SDM.

METHODS

Dutch healthcare providers completed an adapted version of the Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovations questionnaire to identify barriers and facilitators. If ≥20% of participants responded with 'totally disagree/disagree', items were considered barriers and, if ≥80% responded with 'agree/totally agree', items were considered facilitators.

RESULTS

A total of 271 healthcare providers participated. Five barriers and 23 facilitators were identified. Barriers included the time required to both prepare for and hold SDM conversations, in addition to the reflective period required to allow patients/relatives to make their final decision, and the number of parties required to ensure optimal SDM. Facilitators were related to patients' values, wishes and satisfaction, the importance of SDM for patients/relatives and the fact that SDM is not considered complex by healthcare providers, is considered to be part of routine care and is believed to be associated with positive patient outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Awareness of identified facilitators and barriers is an important step in expanding the use of SDM. Implementation strategies should be aimed at managing time constraints. High-quality evidence on outcomes of non-operative and operative management can enhance implementation of SDM to address current concerns around the outcomes.

Twelve Tips for teaching shared decision making

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process in which preference-sensitive decisions are discussed with patients in a collaborative and accessible format so that patients can select an option that integrates their values and preferences into the context of evidence-based medicine. While SDM has been shown to improve some metrics of quality of care and is now included in many competencies developed by accreditation bodies, it can be challenging to successfully incorporate competencies in SDM into clinical teaching. Multiple interventions and curricula that build competency in SDM have been published, but here we aim to suggest ways to integrate teaching competencies in SDM into all forms of clinical teaching. These twelve tips provide strategies to foster trainee development of the relational and risk-benefit communication competencies that are required for successful shared decision making.

Shared decision making process measures and patient problems

OBJECTIVES

Purposeful SDM posits four modes of shared decision making (SDM). The use of each mode depends on the type of problem of care that is being addressed. We sought to identify how current observer-based SDM measures apply to each mode of Purposeful SDM.

METHODS

Four coders, working independently, evaluated 192 items pertaining to 12 observer-based SDM process measures. They classified the items into 6 themes that vary across Purposeful SDM modes and then into one of the four modes (weighing, negotiating, problem-solving, developing insight). Disagreements were resolved by consensus.

RESULTS

The items were classified as pertaining to the following themes: problem (28), roles/participation (84), options (62), preferences (21), decision (15), and evaluation (6). They were then classified as pertaining particularly to the SDM modes of weighing (54), negotiating (5), problem-solving (0), and developing insight (0) modes, with 191 items applying broadly to all modes of Purposeful SDM.

CONCLUSIONS

Observer-based SDM measures describe behaviors pertinent to all modes but lack items sensitive to behaviors particular to some modes of SDM.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

New or revised observer-based measures of the SDM process could help estimate the extent to which the appropriate SDM mode is being used to address the patient's problem.

Development of a scale to measure shared problem-solving and decision-making in mental healthcare

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to create a measure of collaborative processes between healthcare team members, patients, and carers.

METHODS

A shared decision-making scale was developed using a qualitative research derived model and refined using Rasch and factor analysis. The scale was used by staff in the hospital for four consecutive years (n = 152, 121, 119 and 121) and by two independent patients' and carers' samples (n = 223 and 236).

RESULTS

Respondents had difficulty determining what constituted a decision and the scale was redeveloped after first use in patients and carers. The initial focus on shared decision-making was changed to shared problem-solving. Two factors were found in the first staff sample: shared problem-solving and shared decision-making. The structure was confirmed on the second patients' and carers' sample and an independent staff sample consisting of the first data-points for the last three years. The shared problem-solving and decision-making scale (SPSDM) demonstrated evidence of convergent and divergent validity, internal consistency, measurement invariance on longitudinal data and sensitivity to change.

CONCLUSIONS

Shared problem-solving was easier to measure than shared decision-making in this context.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Shared problem-solving is an important component of collaboration, as well as shared decision-making.

Decision-making following identification of an infant's unilateral hearing loss: Parent and professional perspectives

BACKGROUND

Parents of infants identified with unilateral hearing loss (UHL) make decisions about managing their infant's hearing loss based on limited evidence and before knowing whether their infant will require additional support.

OBJECTIVES

The decision-making processes of parents and clinicians regarding the management of UHL following newborn hearing screening were examined.

PROCEDURE

Two convenience samples were recruited: 15 parents of children with permanent UHL aged under 4 years, and 14 clinicians. Applied thematic analysis of the semi-structured interviews elicited insight into the complexities surrounding decision-making from a parent and clinician perspective.

RESULTS

Three main themes captured the decision-making process: motivation for decision-making, limited evidence creates uncertainty, and available evidence builds certainty. The diverse experiences and opinions of parents and clinicians highlight the complexity of decision-making when there are contested opinions and no clear best management option.

CONCLUSIONS

The choices parents make about the management of their child's UHL can have lifelong implications for their child. Many questions need answering before parents can effectively evaluate the short- and long-term consequences of their options and whether the advantages outweigh the disadvantages in the long-term. This uncertainty is challenging for professionals and parents and risks cognitive biases influencing clinical and parental decision-making.

Doctors' Attitudes to Patient Question Asking, Patient-Generated Question Lists, and Question Prompt Lists: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Participation by patients in their own health care improves quality and safety. Question prompt lists (QPLs) can improve participation, particularly with doctors' endorsement. Few data have explored doctors' attitudes on these tools. We sought the experiences and attitudes of general practitioners and other specialists toward patient question asking and QPLs in their practice.

METHODS

In-depth, semistructured interviews and focus groups with purposively selected Australian doctors were conducted. Interview guides were used to explore doctors' experiences of patient question asking, patients' lists, and a sample QPL created using an Australian government-funded online tool, "Question Builder." Recordings were transcribed verbatim and data analyzed thematically using the method by Braun and Clarke.

RESULTS

Focus groups with 3 to 9 participants and a further 17 individual interviews were conducted. There was a total of 40 participants, 23 general practitioners and 17 other specialists (e.g., physicians, surgeons, pediatricians). Our analysis was summarized into several themes. 1) The doctors expected, encouraged, and had significant experience of patient question asking and patients' lists. They described many barriers for patients and their efforts to ensure patients had the information they needed. 2) The doctors felt responsible for creating an environment conducive to patient question asking, the delivery of answers, having strategies for unanswered questions, and balancing the agendas of both parties in the consultation. 3) Structured QPLs that prepared patients and facilitated the consultation agenda were viewed positively. The degree of time pressures participating doctors experienced in their context had a strong influence on how they responded to the sample QPL.

CONCLUSION

Doctors in this study expected patients to ask questions and endorsed the benefits of QPLs. However, there were more diverse views about the feasibility of implementing them in practice. Designing QPLs to fit within current workflows, via more succinct and tailored designs, may result in wider doctor acceptance and endorsement, hence maximizing the benefits of QPLs with improved patient participation and patient safety.

Aspirin, Statins, and Primary Prevention: Opportunities for Shared Decision Making in the Face of Uncertainty

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The utility of aspirin and statins for primary prevention of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease remains ambiguous in older adults. Current guidelines and recent data are vague and inconclusive. This review seeks to summarize the landscape of primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in older adults and explore the role of shared decision making.

RECENT FINDINGS

Observational data suggest potential benefit of statin therapy in older adults. Aspirin is presently not recommended for primary prevention based on evidence from recent clinical trials. The implementation of shared decision making and decision aids in routine clinical practice remains challenging but may rise in coming years. Clinical trial data on the horizon may aid in solidifying guideline therapy for statin use. However, in the face of uncertainty, shared decision making between provider and patient should be utilized to determine whether pharmacotherapy may benefit older adults. Decision aids are an effective tool to guide this process.

Beyond rationality: Expanding the practice of shared decision making in modern medicine

The contemporary healthcare field operates according to an autonomy model of medical decision-making. This model stipulates that patients have the right to make informed choices about their care. Shared decision making (SDM) has arisen as the dominant approach for clinicians and patients to collaborate in care planning and implementation. This approach relies heavily on normative (rational) decision-making processes, and often leaves out descriptive influences that stem from personal, social, and environmental factors and explain how decisions are typically made in the real world. The lack of attention to descriptive decision-making limits SDM in many ways. A multi-level approach to expanding the practice of SDM is proposed, including tailoring the decision encounter based on patients' social, cultural, and environmental context; using relational elements strategically as part of the SDM process; and modifying incentive models to promote greater attention to descriptive impacts on decision-making. These modifications are expected to make SDM, and thus patient care, more inclusive, effective, and acceptable to diverse patients.

Envisioning Shared Decision Making: A Reflection for the Next Decade

Despite the evolving evidence in favor of shared decision making (SDM) and of decades-long calls for its adoption, SDM remains uncommon in routine care. Reflecting on this lack of progress, we sought to reimagine the future of SDM and the path to take us there. In late 2017, a multidisciplinary and international group of six researchers were challenged by a senior SDM scholar to envision the future and, based on a provocatively critical view of the present, to write letters to themselves from the year 2028. Letters were exchanged and discussed electronically. The group then met in person to discuss the letters. Since the letters painted a dystopian picture, they triggered questions about the nature of SDM, who should benefit from SDM, how to measure its contribution to care, and what new ways can be invented to design and test interventions to implement SDM in routine care. Through contrasting the purposefully generated dystopias with an ideal future for SDM, we generated reflections on a research agenda for SDM. These reflections hinged on recognizing SDM's contributing to care, that is, as a way to advance the problematic human situation of patients. These focused on three distinct yet complimentary contributors to SDM: 1) the process of making decisions, 2) humanistic communication, and 3) fit-to-care of the resulting decision. The group then concluded that to move SDM from envisioned to routine practice, and to ensure it reaches all, particularly persons rendered vulnerable by current forms of health care, a substantial investment in implementation research is necessary. Perhaps the discussion of these reflections can contribute to a path forward that will improve the likelihood of the future we dream for SDM.