Shared decision-making in the Netherlands: Progress is made, but not for all. Time to become inclusive to patients

Improving sustainability of a patient decision aid for systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: A qualitative study

Objective

To improve sustainability of a patient decision aid for systemic treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer, we evaluated real-world experiences and identified ways to optimize decision aid content and future implementation.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews with patients and medical oncologists addressed two main subjects: user experience and decision aid content. Content analysis was applied. Fifteen experts discussed the results and devised improvements based on experience and literature review.

Results

Thirteen users were interviewed. They confirmed the relevance of the decision aid for shared decision making. Areas for improvement of content concerned; 1) outdated and missing information, 2) an imbalance in presentation of treatment benefits and harms, and 3) medical oncologists' expressed preference for a more center-specific or patient individualized decision aid, presenting a selection of the guideline recommended treatment options. Key points for improvement of implementation were better alignment within the care pathway, and clear instruction to users.

Conclusion

We identified relevant opportunities for improvement of an existing decision aid and developed an updated version and accompanying implementation strategy accordingly.

Innovation

This paper outlines an approach for continued decision aid and implementation strategy development which will add to sustainability. Implementation success of the improved decision aid is currently being studied in a multi-center mixed-methods implementation study.

Patients' experiences of shared decision-making in nursing care: A qualitative study

AIM

To explore patients' experiences of shared decision-making, in nursing care during their stay in a healthcare institution.

DESIGN

This study employed a qualitative descriptive design.

METHODS

Twenty participants were interviewed from two rehabilitation centres, a nephrology ward of a hospital, and a rehabilitation ward of a long-term care facility. A constant comparative method was used for the inductive analysis.

RESULTS

The main theme was 'feeling seen and understood', in the context of person-centred care, which served as the unifying thread across five themes. The five themes included the importance of a positive nurse-patient relationship as a foundation for shared decision-making. Next, patients experienced collaboration, and this was influenced by verbal and non-verbal communication. Another theme was that patients often felt overwhelmed during their stay, affecting shared decision-making. The fourth theme was that many decisions were not made through the shared decision-making process but were still perceived as satisfactory. The final theme highlighted patients' perspectives on their role in decision-making and influencing factors.

CONCLUSION

Patients describe how feeling seen and understood is a prerequisite for shared decision-making as a part of person-centred care. For nurses, this implies that they should focus on aspects such as building a good relationship and acknowledgement of patients' feelings and circumstances, next to empowering patients to feel knowledgeable and valued. This way patient's motivation to participate in shared decision-making will be enhanced.

REPORTING METHOD

Following the EQUATOR guidelines, reporting was guided by the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ).

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients were involved in the study through interviews during the research process and member checks during analysis.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE

Before initiating shared decision-making processes, prioritise making the patient feel seen and understood. Be mindful that patients often feel overwhelmed during their stay. Use a person-centred approach to make patients feel knowledgeable-this empowers them for shared decision-making.

IMPACT

Research on patients' experiences of shared decision-making in nursing care is limited, yet crucial for understanding patients' needs in shared decision-making. This study highlights patients' perceptions that shared decision-making is best facilitated within the nurse-patient relationship by nurses who primarily focus on ensuring that patients feel acknowledged and understood.

Experiences and perspectives related to shared decision-making among outpatients with degenerative joint disease in Taiwan: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Various treatment options are available for degenerative joint disease (DJD). During clinical visits, patients and clinicians collaboratively make decisions regarding the optimal treatment for DJD; this is the essence of shared decision-making (SDM). Here, we collated and assessed the SDM-related experiences and perspectives of outpatients with DJD in Taiwan.

DESIGN

In-depth interviews and thematic analysis.

SETTING

Primary care clinics of a regional teaching hospital in Taiwan, October 2021-May 2022.

PARTICIPANTS

21 outpatients with at least three visits for DJD and who were aware of SDM.

RESULTS

Four main themes emerged in this study: first, equipping themselves with knowledge: outpatients obtained disease-related and treatment-related knowledge in various ways-seeking relevant information online, discussing with family and friends, learning from their own experiences or learning from professionals. Second, shared or not shared: physicians had different patterns for communicating with patients, particularly when demonstrating authority, performing mutual discussion, respecting patient preferences or responding perfunctorily. Third, seldom saying no to physician-prescribed treatment plans during clinical visits: most patients respected physicians' professionalism; however, some patients rejected physicians' recommendations indirectly, whereas some responded depending on their disease prognosis. Fourth, whose call?-participants decided to accept or reject a treatment plan independently or by discussing it with their families or by obeying their physicians' recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, patients with DJD sought reliable medical information from various sources before visiting doctors; however, when having a conversation with patients, physicians dominated the discussion on treatment options. The patient-physician interaction dynamics during the SDM process determined the final medical decision, which was in accordance with either patients' original autonomy or physicians' recommendations. To alleviate medical paternalism and physician dominance, patients should be empowered to engage in medical decision-making and share their opinions or concerns with their physicians. Family members should also be included in SDM.

Roles and competencies of nurses and physicians in shared decision-making in cardiac surgery: A scoping review

AIM

Identification and synthesis of research data related to the roles and competencies of physicians and nurses that are prerequisites for careful shared decision-making with patients potentially undergoing cardiac surgery.

DESIGN

A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology for scoping reviews and the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched from inception dates up to March 2022, to identify primary studies published in a peer-reviewed journal. Study selection, assessment of the methodological quality and data extracting of the included studies were done by at least two independent researchers. To describe the findings of the studies, an emergent synthesis approach was used to visualize a descriptive representation of professional roles and competencies in shared decision-making, in an overview.

RESULTS

The systematic search revealed 10,055 potential papers, 8873 articles were screened on title and abstract and 76 full texts were retrieved. Eight articles were included for final evaluation. For nurses and physicians, 26 different skills were identified in the literature to practice shared decision-making in cardiac surgery. The skills that emerged were divided into five professional roles: moderator; health educator; data collector; psychological supporter and translator.

CONCLUSIONS

This review specifies the professional roles and required competencies related to shared decision-making in cardiac surgery. Further research is needed to compare our findings with other clinical areas and from there to arrive at a professional division of roles between the different clinical disciplines involved.

IMPACT

The visualization of generic shared decision-making competencies and roles should establish the professional division of positions between various clinical physician and nurse disciplines in order to create a treatment plan based on evidence, values, preferences and the patient's personal situation.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution.

Shared decision-making between paediatric haematologists, children with sickle cell disease and their parents: an exploratory study

Children with sickle cell disease (SCD) face various healthcare choices to be made during the disease process that may impact their lives. Shared decision-making (SDM) could improve their health outcomes. We assessed if, and to what extent, paediatricians engage children with SCD and/or their parents in the decision-making process. In this observational cross-sectional study, paediatric SCD patients and their parents visiting the outpatient paediatrics clinic of a university hospital participated in a SDM baseline measurement. Two evaluators independently and objectively analysed the level of patient involvement in decision-making from the audio-recordings of the consultations using the OPTION-5 instrument, a 0-20-point scale from which scores are usually expressed as a percentage of ideal SDM. The level of SDM, as perceived by patients, parents and paediatricians, was appreciated using the SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc questionnaires, respectively. Scores could range from 0% (no SDM) to 100% (exemplary SDM). Twenty-four consultations in which a decision needed to be made about SCD treatment were audiotaped and analysed; six were from each paediatrician. The group consisted of 17 male and 7 female patients from various cultural backgrounds between 2 and 17 years old, with a mean age of 9.4 years (SD 4.2). Median OPTION-5 scores were 25.0% [IQR] 20.0-40.0%; range 0-55%). Median SDM-Q-9 and SDM-Q-Doc scores were 56.7% (IQR 39.4-88.9%) and 68.9% (IQR 57.8-77.8%), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Although subjective scores of SDM were fair, the objectively scored level of SDM among children suffering from SCD leaves room for improvement. This may be realized by increasing knowledge about the benefits of SDM, child-centred SDM interventions and SDM-training for paediatricians that takes into account the complexity of intercultural challenges and risk communication between stakeholders.

WHAT IS KNOWN

• Children that suffer from sickle cell disease (SCD) are more vulnerable to factors that negatively impact the care that they receive as well as suboptimal health outcomes. • Shared decision-making (SDM) can help children participate in a collaborative decision-making process about their preferred treatment options and improve their health outcomes.

WHAT IS NEW

• The level of participation in the decision-making process for patients suffering from SCD and the families that they belong to leaves room for improvement. The impact of intercultural challenges and the quality and consistency of risk-communication between stakeholders in paediatric SDM needs further exploration. • Paediatricians are more confident about their ability to involve the child and parents compared to how children and their parents experience their level of involvement in a shared decision-making process.

Shared decision making and medication adherence in patients with COPD and/or asthma: the ANANAS study

Background: Medication adherence to inhalation medication is suboptimal in patients with COPD and asthma. Shared decision making (SDM) is proposed as an intervention to improve medication adherence. Despite its wide promotion, evidence of SDM's association with greater medication adherence is scarce. Also, it is unknown to what degree patients presently experience SDM and how it is associated with medication adherence. Objective: To (i) assess the level of SDM and (ii) medication adherence, (iii) explore the relation between SDM and medication adherence and iv) investigate possible underlying mechanisms. Methods: Cross-sectional observational study. A survey was distributed among Dutch patients with COPD and/or asthma using inhaled medication. Medication adherence was measured using the Test of Adherence to Inhalers (TAI-10), and SDM by the 9-item Shared Decision-Making questionnaire (SMD-Q-9). Feeling of competence, relatedness and feeling of autonomy from the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) were considered as possible mechanisms. The primary outcome was adherence. Results: A total of 396 patients with complete information on relevant covariates were included. Mean SDM-Q-9 score was 26.7 (SD 12.1, range 0-45) and complete adherence was 41.2%. The odds ratio for the association of SDM with adherence was 1.01 (95% CI: 0.99, 1.02). This only changed minimally when adjusted for mediators (mediating effect <3%). Conclusion: The patient experienced level of SDM in daily practice and medication adherence have room for improvement. No association between SDM and medication adherence was observed. Factors related to feeling of competence, relatedness and feeling of autonomy did not meaningfully explain this finding.

Prevalence and predictors of shared decision-making in goals-of-care clinician-family meetings for critically ill neurologic patients: a multi-center mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making is a joint process where patients, or their surrogates, and clinicians make health choices based on evidence and preferences. We aimed to determine the extent and predictors of shared decision-making for goals-of-care discussions for critically ill neurological patients, which is crucial for patient-goal-concordant care but currently unknown.

METHODS

We analyzed 72 audio-recorded routine clinician-family meetings during which goals-of-care were discussed from seven US hospitals. These occurred for 67 patients with 72 surrogates and 29 clinicians; one hospital provided 49/72 (68%) of the recordings. Using a previously validated 10-element shared decision-making instrument, we quantified the extent of shared decision-making in each meeting. We measured clinicians' and surrogates' characteristics and prognostic estimates for the patient's hospital survival and 6-month independent function using post-meeting questionnaires. We calculated clinician-family prognostic discordance, defined as ≥ 20% absolute difference between the clinician's and surrogate's estimates. We applied mixed-effects regression to identify independent associations with greater shared decision-making.

RESULTS

The median shared decision-making score was 7 (IQR 5-8). Only 6% of meetings contained all 10 shared decision-making elements. The most common elements were "discussing uncertainty"(89%) and "assessing family understanding"(86%); least frequent elements were "assessing the need for input from others"(36%) and "eliciting the context of the decision"(33%). Clinician-family prognostic discordance was present in 60% for hospital survival and 45% for 6-month independent function. Univariate analyses indicated associations between greater shared decision-making and younger clinician age, fewer years in practice, specialty (medical-surgical critical care > internal medicine > neurocritical care > other > trauma surgery), and higher clinician-family prognostic discordance for hospital survival. After adjustment, only higher clinician-family prognostic discordance for hospital survival remained independently associated with greater shared decision-making (p = 0.029).

CONCLUSION

Fewer than 1 in 10 goals-of-care clinician-family meetings for critically ill neurological patients contained all shared decision-making elements. Our findings highlight gaps in shared decision-making. Interventions promoting shared decision-making for high-stakes decisions in these patients may increase patient-value congruent care; future studies should also examine whether they will affect decision quality and surrogates' health outcomes.

Health literate-sensitive shared decision-making in maternity care: needs for support among maternity care professionals in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) in maternity care is challenging when clients have insufficient health literacy (HL) skills. This study gained insight in how professionals apply HL-sensitive SDM in Dutch maternity care and their needs for support therein.

METHODS

Maternity care professionals (n = 30) completed a survey on SDM and the role of HL. Midwives (n = 13) were observed during simulated conversations discussing pain relief options and interviewed afterwards. The client-actors were instructed to portrait specific inadequate HL skills. Observation items focused on adapting communication to HL, and SDM (OPTION-5).

RESULTS

In the survey, professionals indicated experiencing most challenges when estimating clients' information comprehension. Observations showed that most midwives created choice awareness and informed clients about options, whereas exploring preferences and actual decision-making together with clients were observed less frequently. Their perceived HL-related obstacles and needs for support related to clients' information comprehension. In the interviews, midwives reported putting much effort into explaining available options in maternity care, but also that decisions about pain relief are often postponed until the moment of labour.

CONCLUSION

Professionals' self-reported needs focus on clients' information comprehension. However, observations indicate that it is not the stage of informing, but rather value clarification and actual decision-making that need improvement in HL-sensitive SDM.

Patient-related characteristics considered to affect patient involvement in shared decision making about treatment: A scoping review of the qualitative literature

OBJECTIVE

To identify patient-related characteristics considered to affect patient involvement in shared decision making (SDM) about treatment.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of qualitative studies. We searched for literature across seven databases until March 2022, and included qualitative studies that focused on associations between patient-related characteristics and SDM about treatment in adults. We analyzed studies using an inductive thematic approach.

RESULTS

The search yielded 5948 articles, of which 70 were included. We identified many different patient-related characteristics, which we grouped into four categories related to: (1) the individual who is facing the decision, (2) the decision, (3) the relationship between the patient and the clinician and others involved in the decision, and (4) the healthcare context.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies report a variety of patient-related characteristics that may affect patient involvement in SDM. Amongst others, patients may need to feel informed, to understand their role in SDM, and be able to communicate. Involvement may be challenging with characteristics such as perceived time pressure, poor patient-clinician relationships, emotional distress, and severe illness.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

In order to truly involve patients in SDM, we might need to focus on characteristics such as patient emotions and relationship building, besides information provision and values clarification.

A Crisis in the Health System and Quality of Healthcare in Economically Developed Countries

A health crisis caused by a pandemic tested the effectiveness of national healthcare systems by testing both financing and organizational and technical performance of patient care. At that time, the structural flaws in healthcare systems and inequalities in the level of healthcare in its different dimensions and countries due to resource constraints were highlighted. Therefore, the paper concentrates on investigating how the crisis in the health system affects the quality of healthcare services as a result of changes in the availability of financial, material, and human resources belonging to this system. The quantitative data, in terms of healthcare characterizing the OECD countries and selected non-member economies, treated as an example of economically developed regions, were chosen for the analysis. The study included five areas of resources, i.e., demographic, financial, human, technical, and the delivery of basic services in healthcare. T-test method for dependent samples, supplemented with Hedge's g statistics, was applied to test the differences between the mean values of individual indicators. The results indicate the occurrence of changes in some areas of the healthcare system due to a crisis. Identifying areas that are particularly vulnerable to sudden changes in the healthcare system helps to understand which resource areas need to be strategically managed first, as shifts in levels respond to deteriorating healthcare quality outcomes.

Effects and Working Mechanisms of a Multilevel Implementation Program for Applying Shared Decision-Making while Discussing Systemic Treatment in Breast Cancer

Background: Enhancing the application of shared decision-making (SDM) is critical for integrating patient preferences in breast cancer treatment choices. We investigated the effect of an adapted multilevel SDM implementation program in breast cancer care. Methods: Breast cancer patients qualifying for (neo)adjuvant systemic treatment were included in a multicenter before−after study. Consultations were audio recorded between June 2018 and July 2019 and analyzed using the five-item Observing Patient Involvement in Decision-Making (OPTION-5) instrument to score SDM application by clinicians. The Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) was used to rate patients’ perceived SDM level. Consultation duration, decision types, number of options discussed and consultations per patient were monitored. Regression analysis was used to investigate the correlated variables and program components. Results: Mean OPTION-5 scores increased from 33.9 (n = 63) before implementation to 54.3 (n = 49) after implementation (p < 0.001). The SDM-Q-9 scores did not change: 91.1 (n = 51) at baseline versus 88.9 (n = 23) after implementation (p = 0.81). Without increasing consultation time, clinicians discussed more options after implementation. The regression analysis showed that exposure to the implementation program, redistribution of tasks and discussing feedback from consultations was associated with a higher level of SDM. Conclusion: The multilevel program helped clinicians achieve clinically relevant improvement in SDM, especially when it is tailored to (individuals in) teams and includes (e-)training, discussing feedback on consultations and redistribution of tasks.

Shared decision-making in patients with multiple sclerosis

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic and progressive neurological disorder impacting physical, cognitive, and psychosocial health. The disease course, severity, and presence of symptoms differ within and between persons over time and are unpredictable. Given the preference-sensitive nature of many key decisions to be made, and the increasing numbers of disease-modifying therapies, shared decision-making (SDM) with patients seems to be key in offering optimum care and outcomes for people suffering from MS. In this paper, we describe our perspective on how to achieve SDM in patients with MS, following key SDM-elements from established SDM-frameworks. As for deliberation in the clinical encounter, SDM communication training of professionals and feedback on their current performance are key aspects, as well as encouraging patients to participate. Concerning information for patients, it is important to provide balanced, evidence-based information about the benefits and the harms of different treatment options, including the option of surveillance only. At the same time, attention is needed for the optimal dosage of that information, given the symptoms of cognitive dysfunction and fatigue among MS-patients, and the uncertainties they have to cope with. Finally, for broader communication, a system is required that assures patient preferences are actually implemented by multidisciplinary MS-teams. As SDM is also being implemented in many countries within the context of value-based health care, we consider the systematic use of outcome information, such as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and Patient Decision Aids, as an opportunity to achieve SDM.