Shared decision making in Australia in 2011

Shared decision-making with adults transitioning to long-term care: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Transitions to long-term care are challenging for individuals and often associated with a loss of autonomy. Positive experiences are noted, especially when decisions involve the individual in a person-centred way which are respectful of the person's human rights. One approach which facilitates self-determination during a transitional period is shared decision-making, but there is a lack of clarity on the nature and extent of research evidence in this area.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this scoping review is to identify and document research related to shared decision-making and transitioning to long-term care.

METHODS

A comprehensive search in CINAHL, Medline and Psych-info identified papers which included evidence of shared decision-making during transitions to a long-term care setting. The review following the JBI and PAGER framework for scoping reviews. Data were extracted, charted and analysed according to patterns, advances, gaps, research recommendations and evidence for practice.

RESULTS

Eighteen papers met the inclusion criteria. A body of knowledge was identified encompassing the pattern advancements in shared decision-making during transitions to long-term care, representing developments in both the evidence base and methodological approaches. Further patterns offer evidence of the facilitators and barriers experienced by the person, their families and the professional's involved.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence identified the complexity of such decision-making with efforts to engage in shared decision-making often constrained by the availability of resources, the skills of professionals and time. The findings recognise the need for partnership and person-centred approaches to optimise transitions. The review demonstrates evidence of approaches that can inform future practice and research to support all adult populations who may be faced with a transitional decision to actively participate in decision-making.

Patient decision aids in clinical practice for people with diabetes: a scoping review

Background

People with diabetes need to make regular choices that influence their long-term morbidity and mortality. Patient decision aids are validated tools and when used collaboratively between healthcare professionals, patients and carers, can help guide value-based discussions which encourage choices that are well informed and personally relevant.

Objective

To explore the use and effect of patient decision aids in the management of diabetes.

Method

A scoping review design was used. Medline, ProQuest, PsycINFO, Scopus, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles published between January 1998 and December 2018.

Results

Patient decision aids are not commonly or widely used in diabetes management. They offer a suitable adjunct to practice within the domains of healthcare knowledge, active participation, and communication, and shared decision-making between patients and healthcare professionals.

Conclusion

Patient decision aids can offer a simple and easy-to-use method to potentially improve diabetes health literacy, through the process of shared decision-making and two-way conversations. However, there are current limitations on using them to positively influence clinical outcomes or long-term changes in self-care behaviors within the management of diabetes. Further research to explore the validity of using patient decision aids long term in these areas is required.

Therapeutic tape use for lateral elbow tendinopathy: A survey of Australian healthcare practitioners

BACKGROUND

Lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET) is a common musculoskeletal condition that can be treated with therapeutic tape. However, little is known of taping practices for LET in a clinical setting.

OBJECTIVES

To examine Australian healthcare practitioners' taping techniques, clinical reasoning, and information sources regarding therapeutic tape use for LET.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

METHODS

An anonymous online survey was distributed between September 2018 and February 2019. Respondents answered questions about demographics, frequency of tape use, techniques, reasons for application, factors influencing clinical decision-making, and information sources, related to tape for LET.

RESULTS/FINDINGS

188 Australian healthcare practitioners completed the survey. The majority of respondents were physiotherapists (n = 132, 70%) with the remainder of respondents being chiropractors (21%), myotherapists (3%), exercise physiologists (3%), or osteopaths (3%). 51% of respondents use tape as part of their management for LET at least half the time. The most popular taping technique used is a transverse band of rigid tape across the forearm (n = 78, 55% of respondents who use tape). The most common reasons for tape application are to reduce pain during occupational tasks (n = 123, 65%), and during sport/hobbies (n = 101, 54%). Respondents predominately rely on experience and patient preference to guide tape use. 63% of all respondents (n = 118) sought information about tape from professional development courses.

CONCLUSION

A wide range of tape techniques are used to treat LET, despite limited evidence for efficacy. Justification for tape is largely based on experience and patient preference; with information mostly gained from professional development courses. More research is required to understand the relationship between the evidence and clinical use of tape to treat LET.

Shared decision aids in pregnancy care: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making in pregnancy, labour, and birth is vital to woman-centred care and despite strong evidence for the effectiveness of shared decision making in pregnancy care, practical uptake has been slow.

DESIGN AND AIM

This scoping review aimed to identify and describe effective and appropriate shared decision aids designed to be provided to women in the antenatal period to assist them in making informed decisions for both pregnancy and birth. Two questions guided the enquiry: (i) what shared decision aids for pregnancy and perinatal care are of appropriate quality and feasibility for application in Australia? (ii) which of these decision aids have been shown to be effective and appropriate for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, culturally diverse women, or those with low literacy?

METHODS

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) was used to conduct the review. Five key databases and selected grey literature sources were examined. English language evidence from Australia, Europe, Canada, United Kingdom, New Zealand, and United States of America produced from 2009 was eligible for inclusion, checked against apriori inclusion criteria, and assessed for quality and usability using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards.

RESULTS

From a total of 5,209 search results, 35 sources of evidence reporting on 27 decision aids were included following title/abstract and full-text review. Most of the decision aids concerned decisions around birth (52%, n = 14) or antenatal screening 37% (n = 10). The quality of the decision aids was moderate to high, with most communicating risks, benefits, and choice pathways via a mix of Likert-style scales, quizzes, and pictures or graphs. Use of decision aids resulted in significant reductions in decisional conflict and increased knowledge. The format of decision aids appeared to have no effect on these outcomes, indicating that paper-based are as effective as video- or audio-based decision aids. Eleven decision aids were suitable for low literacy or low health literacy women, and six were either developed for culturally diverse groups or have been translated into other languages. No decision aids found were specific to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The 27 decision aids are readily adoptable into westernised healthcare settings and can be used by midwives or multidisciplinary teams in conjunction with women. Decision aids are designed to support women, and families to arrive at informed choices and supplement the decision-making process rather than to replace consumer-healthcare professional interaction. If given before an appointment, high quality decision aids can increase a woman's familiarity with medical terminology, options for care, and an insight into personal values, thereby decreasing decisional conflict and increasing knowledge.

The Dutch chaos case: A scoping review of knowledge and decision support tools available to clinicians in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

To keep clinicians up-to-date with the latest evidence, clinical practice and patient preferences, more and more knowledge tools - aiming to synthesise knowledge and support (shared) decision-making - are being developed. Unfortunately, it seems that in the Netherlands, and possibly elsewhere, the amount of different knowledge tool types makes it difficult to see the forest through the trees.

METHODS

A scoping review, exploring types of knowledge tools available to Dutch clinicians (and patients) and how these tools are described. The search terms were collected from thesauri and textbooks, and used to search the websites and documents of selected national tool developing organisations.

RESULTS

The review yielded 126 tool types. We included 67 different tool types, such as guidelines, protocols, standards and clinical pathways. Half of those tool types were aimed at clinicians, 14 at patients and 18 at both. In general, descriptions of the tool types were hard to find or incomplete.

CONCLUSIONS

There exists a myriad of knowledge tool types and their descriptions are mostly unclear. The information overload experienced by clinicians is not addressed effectively by developing numerous unclearly defined knowledge tools. We recommend limiting the number of tool types and making a greater effort in clearly defining them. This abundance of poorly defined tools does not seem to be restricted to the Netherlands.

Shared decision making in Taiwan

The paper aims to introduce the current status of shared decision making (SDM) in Taiwan under its mixed health care system and single-payer health insurance system. With experiences in promoting both evidence based medicine and patient safety, the Joint Commission of Taiwan has implemented a nationwide SDM program under the aegis of the Ministry of Health and Welfare since 2016, incorporating multiple approaches such as developing patient decision aids (PDAs), executing the Medical Decision Aids Campaign, establishing a SDM platform, and integrating SDM in clinical practice. In this article, we share the positive and negative responses to the SDM program from hospitals, health care providers, and patients.

Are care plans suitable for the management of multiple conditions?

BACKGROUND

Care plans have been part of the primary care landscape in Australia for almost two decades. With an increasing number of patients presenting with multiple chronic conditions, it is timely to consider whether care plans meet the needs of patients and clinicians.

OBJECTIVES

To review and benchmark existing care plan templates that include recommendations for comorbid conditions, against four key criteria: (i) patient preferences, (ii) setting priorities, (iii) identifying conflicts and synergies between conditions, and (iv) setting dates for reviewing the care plan.

DESIGN

Document analysis of Australian care plan templates published from 2006 to 2014 that incorporated recommendations for managing comorbid conditions in primary care.

RESULTS

Sixteen templates were reviewed. All of the care plan templates addressed patient preference, but this was not done comprehensively. Only three templates included setting priorities. None assisted in identifying conflicts and synergies between conditions. Fifteen templates included setting a date for reviewing the care plan.

CONCLUSIONS

Care plans are a well-used tool in primary care practice, but their current format perpetuates a single-disease approach to care, which works contrary to their intended purpose. Restructuring care plans to incorporate shared decision-making and attention to patient preferences may assist in shifting the focus back to the patient and their care needs.

Implementing strategies in consumer and community engagement in health care: results of a large-scale, scoping meta-review

BACKGROUND

There is growing recognition of the importance of the active involvement of consumers and community members in health care. Despite the long history of consumer and community engagement (CCE) research and practice, there is no consensus on the best strategies for CCE. In this paper, we identify various dimensions of CCE-related strategies and offer a practical model to assist policy-makers, practitioners and researchers.

METHODS

We undertook a large-scale, scoping meta-review and searched six databases using a list of nine medical subject headings (MeSH) and a comprehensive list of 47 phrases. We identified and examined a total of 90 relevant systematic reviews.

RESULTS

Identified reviews show that although there is a significant body of research on CCE, the development of the field is hindered by a lack of evidence relating to specific elements of CCE. They also indicate a diverse and growing enterprise, drawing on a wide range of disciplinary, political and philosophical perspectives and a mix of definitions, targets, approaches, strategies and mechanisms. CCE interventions and strategies aim to involve consumers, community members and the public in general, as well as specific sub-groups, including children and people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Strategies for CCE vary in terms of their aim and type of proposed activity, as do the methods and tools which have been developed to support them. Methods and tools include shared decision making, use of decision aids, consumer representation, application of electronic and internet-based facilities, and peer support. The success of CCE is dependent on both the approach taken and contextual factors, including structural facilitators such as governmental support, as well as barriers such as costs, organisational culture and population-specific limitations.

CONCLUSIONS

The diversity of the field indicates the need to measure each component of CCE. This meta-review provides the basis for development of a new eight stage model of consumer and community engagement. This model emphasises the importance of clarity and focus, as well as an extensive evaluation of contextual factors within specific settings, before the implementation of CCE strategies, enabling those involved in CCE to determine potential facilitators and barriers to the process.

Shared decision making: what do clinicians need to know and why should they bother?

Shared decision making enables a clinician and patient to participate jointly in making a health decision, having discussed the options and their benefits and harms, and having considered the patient's values, preferences and circumstances. It is not a single step to be added into a consultation, but a process that can be used to guide decisions about screening, investigations and treatments. The benefits of shared decision making include enabling evidence and patients' preferences to be incorporated into a consultation; improving patient knowledge, risk perception accuracy and patient-clinician communication; and reducing decisional conflict, feeling uninformed and inappropriate use of tests and treatments. Various approaches can be used to guide clinicians through the process. We elaborate on five simple questions that can be used: What will happen if the patient waits and watches? What are the test or treatment options? What are the benefits and harms of each option? How do the benefits and harms weigh up for the patient? Does the patient have enough information to make a choice? Although shared decision making can occur without tools, various types of decision support tools now exist to facilitate it. Misconceptions about shared decision making are hampering its implementation. We address the barriers, as perceived by clinicians. Despite numerous international initiatives to advance shared decision making, very little has occurred in Australia. Consequently, we are lagging behind many other countries and should act urgently.