Milestones, barriers and beacons: Shared decision making in Canada inches ahead

"To Be or Not to Be"-Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Hospitalized People Who Have a Low Probability of Benefit: Qualitative Analysis of Semi-structured Interviews

Purpose

Our aim was to understand the decision making of patients in hospital who wanted cardiopulmonary resuscitation despite low probability of benefit.

Methods

We included patients admitted to general medical wards who had a low chance of surviving in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and had an order in the chart to administer CPR. We developed an interview guide to explore participants' decision-making process, sources of information, and emotions associated with this decision.

Results

We developed 3 themes from the data. 1) "Life is worth living . . . for now": Participants describe their enjoyment of life and desire to carry on in their current state. 2) "Making sense of CPR outcomes": Participants saw CPR outcomes as binary, either they live, or they die; deciding not to receive CPR means choosing death. Participants were optimistic they would survive CPR and cited personal experience and TV as information sources. 3) "Decision process": Participants did not engage in shared decision making. Instead, they were asked a binary yes/no question with no reflection on their values or discussion about harms or benefits.

Limitations

The probability of successful CPR in our sample is unknown. Findings may be different in a population who is imminently dying but still requesting CPR.

Conclusions

Participants chose CPR because they perceived life as worth living and CPR as a chance worth taking. Participants did not want to be left in a severely debilitated state but did not have accurate information about this risk.

Implications

Decision making about CPR in-hospital can be improved if it is grounded in accurate risk understanding and the patient's values and wishes.

Shared decision-making in advanced kidney disease: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

To provide a comprehensive overview of interventions that support shared decision-making (SDM) for treatment modality decisions in advanced kidney disease (AKD). To provide summarised information on their content, use and reported results. To provide an overview of interventions currently under development or investigation.

DESIGN

The JBI methodology for scoping reviews was followed. This review conforms to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) checklist.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Emcare, PsycINFO, PROSPERO and Academic Search Premier for peer-reviewed literature. Other online databases (eg, clinicaltrials.gov, OpenGrey) for grey literature.

ELIGIBILITY FOR INCLUSION

Records in English with a study population of patients >18 years of age with an estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 mL/min/1.73 m². Records had to be on the subject of SDM, or explicitly mention that the intervention reported on could be used to support SDM for treatment modality decisions in AKD.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two reviewers independently screened and selected records for data extraction. Interventions were categorised as prognostic tools (PTs), educational programmes (EPs), patient decision aids (PtDAs) or multicomponent initiatives (MIs). Interventions were subsequently categorised based on the decisions they were developed to support.

RESULTS

One hundred forty-five interventions were identified in a total of 158 included records: 52 PTs, 51 EPs, 29 PtDAs and 13 MIs. Sixteen (n=16, 11%) were novel interventions currently under investigation. Forty-six (n=46, 35.7%) were reported to have been implemented in clinical practice. Sixty-seven (n=67, 51.9%) were evaluated for their effects on outcomes in the intended users.

CONCLUSION

There is no conclusive evidence on which intervention is the most efficacious in supporting SDM for treatment modality decisions in AKD. There is a lot of variation in selected outcomes, and the body of evidence is largely based on observational research. In addition, the effects of these interventions on SDM are under-reported.

User participation in decision-making – a qualitative intervention study on mental health professionals’ experiences

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to describe mental health professionals’ experiences of changes in attitudes towards, and knowledge about, users of mental health-care recovery and decisional participation in clinical practice after an educational intervention.

Design/methodology/approach

Users of mental health care want to participate in decisions regarding their own mental health care. Shared decision-making as a method is coherent with recovery orientation in mental health services and results in better-informed patients and fewer conflicts regarding decisions. A qualitative intervention study was designed to evaluate changes in attitudes and knowledge about mental health recovery in Sweden. Nine participants were interviewed, and the data were analysed by content analysis.

Findings

Three categories were generated from the analysis: Increased theoretical knowledge, changing attitudes about practical approaches and the significance of social factors in recovery.

Originality/value

When shared decision-making is to be implemented in mental health, professionals need to gain knowledge about recovery and need to adopt changed roles as health professionals. Educational interventions therefore seem necessary if such changes are to happen.

Shared decision-making in Canada: Update on integration of evidence in health decisions and patient-centred care government mandates

In Canada, government mandates for patient-centred care (PCC) vary across the 10 provinces and three territories. Although basic medical and hospital services are provided for all, health care options for patients also depend on having private insurance. Thus, the current design of the Canadian healthcare system has several implications for PCC and shared decision-making (SDM). Since 2007, this is our fourth update on SDM in Canada. The aim of this paper is to provide an update on the current state of SDM and patient and public involvement in Canada. Overall, we still observed the difficulty of implementing any sort of national strategy partly because of the decentralized nature of the healthcare system. Second, national professional education programs are complicated by licensure and scope of practice variations across jurisdictions. Third, there are variations in the availability of different options covered by universal healthcare. Canada has experienced some favorable development as PCC is now explicitly articulated in the policies of most provinces and territories and there are increased efforts to give patients more access to their electronic health records. However, patient and public engagement (PPE) reform in health programs and governance remains an exception, and continuing centralization of governance structures may reduce their responsiveness to patient priorities. In a 2018 survey, 47.2% of respondents reported that they were not told by their health professional that they had a choice about treatment. Nonetheless, decision aids and decision coaching are increasingly available for health-related decisions and the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute's decision aid inventory has ensured continued leadership in this area. Diverse jurisdictions are starting to embed decision aids into care pathways, with some decision aids being included in clinical practice guidelines. The COVID-19 pandemic may have had a negative impact on SDM by removing decision choices due to emergency public health mandates, but stimulated new research and decision aids. Canada continues to assign health research funding to SDM and PCC, and a program dedicated to patient-oriented research is central to this effort. Guides and frameworks are increasingly available for planning and evaluating PPE. Finally, various initiatives are attempting to involve and empower Indigenous peoples through PPE and SDM.

Medical Students' Knowledge and Attitudes Toward Shared Decision Making: Results From a Multinational, Cross-Sectional Survey

Introduction. We aimed to conduct a multinational cross-sectional online survey of medical students' attitudes toward, knowledge of, and experience with shared decision making (SDM). Methods. We conducted the survey from September 2016 until May 2017 using the following: 1) a convenience sample of students from four medical schools each in Canada, the United States, and the Netherlands (n = 12), and 2) all medical schools in the United Kingdom through the British Medical School Council (n = 32). We also distributed the survey through social media. Results. A total of 765 students read the information sheet and 619 completed the survey. Average age was 24, 69% were female. Mean SDM knowledge score was 83.6% (range = 18.8% to 100%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 82.8% to 84.5%). US students had the highest knowledge scores (86.2%, 95% CI = 84.8% to 87.6%). The mean risk communication score was 57.4% (range = 0% to 100%; 95% CI = 57.4% to 60.1%). Knowledge did not vary with age, race, gender, school, or school year. Attitudes were positive, except 46% believed SDM could only be done with higher educated patients, and 80.9% disagreed that physician payment should be linked to SDM performance (increased with years in training, P < 0.05). Attitudes did not vary due to any tested variable. Students indicated they were more likely than experienced clinicians to practice SDM (72.1% v. 48.8%). A total of 74.7% reported prior SDM training and 82.8% were interested in learning more about SDM. Discussion. SDM knowledge is high among medical students in all four countries. Risk communication is less well understood. Attitudes indicate that further research is needed to understand how medical schools deliver and integrate SDM training into existing curricula.

A Learning Loop Model of Collaborative Decision-Making in Chronic Illness

Shared decision-making is a core attribute of quality health care that has proved challenging to implement and assess in pediatric practice. Current models of shared decision-making are limited, including their capacity to incorporate multiple stakeholders; to integrate downstream effects of subacute or minor decisions; and to account for the context(s) in which such decisions are being made and enacted. Based on a review of literature from organizational psychology, cognitive sciences, business, and medicine, we propose an iterative decision-making model of care planning and identify targets at several levels of influence warranting measurement in future studies. Our learning loop model posits the relationship between pediatric patients, their parents, and their clinicians as central to the collaborative decision-making process in the setting of chronic illness. The model incorporates the evolution of both context and developmental capacity over time. It suggests that "meta-learning" from the experience of and outcomes from iterative decision is a key factor that may influence relationships and thus continued engagement in collaboration by patients, their parents, and their clinicians. We consider the model in light of the needs of children with special health care needs, for whom understanding the ongoing iterative effects of decision making and clinician-parent-child dynamics are likely to be particularly important in influencing outcomes.

Shared decision-making experienced by Canadians facing health care decisions: a Web-based survey

BACKGROUND

Despite health policy that promotes shared decision-making, it is not yet the norm in clinical practice. We aimed to assess how much shared decision-making Canadians experienced in health-related decisions in 2017.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional online survey in January 2018 with a Web-based panel of Canadians representing all 10 provinces. We assessed their involvement in health-related decisions made with a health care professional over the previous year by asking about 1) discussion of choice of treatment or care plan, 2) presentation of advantages and disadvantages, 3) exploration of ideas and preferences, 4) discussion of preferred option and 5) match between preferred and actual level of participation. We computed an average shared decision-making score (range 1 [never] to 5 [always]). We presented characteristics of participants and responses using descriptive statistics and explored variations across sociodemographic factors, jurisdictions, geographical areas and care settings (home care or not) using multivariate weighted regressions.

RESULTS

Of the 1591 participants surveyed, 1010 (63.5%) reported receiving health care in the previous 12 months. The mean of the average shared decision-making score was 2.25/5 (standard deviation [SD] 1.16). After weighting, 42.8% of respondents reported that their health care professional often or always mentioned that they had a choice of treatment or care plan, 45.4% reported that advantages and disadvantages were often or always presented, 38.8% reported that they were often or always asked for their ideas or preferences, 40.2% reported that they were often or always asked about their preferred option, and 54.1% stated that their level of participation in decision-making often or always matched their preferred level of participation. Increasing age, rural setting, living in the province of Quebec and not being white significantly decreased the level of shared decision-making experienced. Older respondents (age ≥ 65 yr) receiving home care reported the least shared decision-making (mean score 1.7 [SD 0.5]).

INTERPRETATION

Canadians in all 10 provinces experienced a low degree of shared decision-making in 2017, with variations across sociodemographic factors, jurisdictions, care settings and geographical areas. Further efforts to foster implementation of shared decision-making are needed and should take these variations into account.

Are lateral ankle injuries in children fractures or sprains?

Clinical question

What is the prevalence of Salter-Harris type I distal fibula fractures in children with lateral ankle injuries?

Article chosen

Boutis K, Plint A, Stimec J, et al. Radiograph-negative lateral ankle injuries in children occult growth plate fracture or sprain? JAMA Pediatr 2016;170(1):e154114.