"We will be the ones bearing the consequences": A qualitative study of barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making in hospital-based maternity care

BACKGROUND

Pregnant women involved in decisions about their care report better health outcomes for themselves and their children. Shared decision-making (SDM) is a priority for health services; however, there is limited research on factors that help and hinder SDM in hospital-based maternity settings. The purpose of this study was to explore barriers and facilitators to SDM in a large tertiary maternity care service from the perspectives of multiple stakeholders.

METHODS

Qualitative semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 39 participants including women, clinicians, health service administrators and decision-makers, and government policymakers. The interview guide and thematic analysis were based on the Theoretical Domains Framework to identify barriers and facilitators to SDM.

RESULTS

Women expect to be included in decisions about their care. Health service administrators and decision-makers, government policymakers, and most clinicians want to include them in decisions. Key barriers to SDM included lack of care continuity, knowledge, and clinician skills, as well as professional role and decision-making factors. Key facilitators pertained to policy and guideline changes, increased knowledge, professional role factors, and social influences.

CONCLUSION

This study revealed common barriers and facilitators to SDM and highlighted the need to consider perspectives outside the patient-clinician dyad. It adds to the limited literature on barriers and facilitators to SDM in hospital care settings. Organizational- and system-wide changes to service delivery are necessary to facilitate SDM. These changes may be enabled by education and training, changes to policies and guidelines to include and support SDM, and adequately timed information provision to enable SDM conversations.

Experiences and learnings from developing and implementing a co-designed value-based healthcare framework within Victorian public oral health sector

Objective This study aimed to describe the development and implementation of a co-designed value-based healthcare (VBHC) framework within the public dental sector in Victoria. Methods A mixed-method study was employed. Explorative qualitative design was used to examine patient, workforce and stakeholder perspectives of implementing VBHC. Participatory action research was used to bring together qualitative narrative-based research and service design methods. An experience-based co-design approach was used to enable staff and patients to co-design services. Quantitative data was sourced from Titanium (online patient management system). Results Building a case for VBHC implementation required intensive work. It included co-designing, collaborating, planning and designing services based on patient needs. Evidence reviews, value-stream mapping and development of patient reported outcomes (PROMs) and patient reported experience measures (PREMs) were fundamental to VBHC implementation. Following VBHC implementation, a 44% lower failure to attend rate and 60% increase in preventive interventions was reported. A higher proportion of clinicians worked across their top scope of practice within a multi-disciplinary team. Approximately 80% of services previously provided by dentists were shifted to oral health therapists and dental assistants, thereby releasing the capacity of dentists to undertake complex treatments. Patients completed baseline International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement PROMs (n  = 44,408), which have been used for social/clinical triaging, determining urgency of care based on risk, segmentation and tracking health outcomes. Following their care, patients completed a PREMs questionnaire (n  = 15,402). Patients agreed or strongly agreed that: the care they received met their needs (87%); they received clear answers to their questions (93%); they left their visit knowing what is next (91%); they felt taken care of during their visit (94%); and they felt involved in their treatment and care (94%). Conclusion The potential for health system transformation through implementation of VBHC is significant, however, its implementation needs to extend beyond organisational approaches and focus on sustaining the principles of VBHC across healthcare systems, policy and practice.

Finding Your Way - A shared decision making resource developed by and for Aboriginal people in Australia: Perceived acceptability, usability, and feasibility

BACKGROUND

Finding Your Way is a culturally adapted shared decision making (SDM) resource for Aboriginal (First Nations) people of Australia. It integrates the Eight Ways of Aboriginal Learning (8 Ways) and was created by Aboriginal health workers and community members in New South Wales (NSW), Australia.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the perceived acceptability, usability, and feasibility of Finding Your Way as a SDM resource for Aboriginal people making health and wellbeing decisions.

METHODS

The web-based resources were disseminated using social media, professional networks, publications, and the 'Koori grapevine'. Thirteen 'champions' also promoted the resources. An online questionnaire was available on the website for three months. Framework analysis determined early indications of its acceptability, usability, and feasibility. Web and social media analytics were also analysed. Partnership with and leadership by Aboriginal people was integrated at all phases of the project.

RESULTS

The main landing page was accessed 5219 times by 4259 users. 132 users completed the questionnaire. The non-linear and visual aspects of the resources 'speak to mob' and identified with Aboriginal culture. The inclusion of social and emotional well-being, and the holistic approach were well received by the small number of users who opted to provide feedback. They suggested that non-digital formats and guidance on the resources are required to support use in clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

The 8 Ways enabled the development of a culturally safe SDM resource for Aboriginal people, which was well received by users who took the time to provide feedback after a brief dissemination process. Additional accessible formats, practice guides and training are required to support uptake in clinical practice.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Finding Your Way could be used to help improve experiences, health literacy, decision making quality and outcomes of healthcare for Aboriginal Australians.

Assessing the impact of patient-involvement healthcare strategies on patients, providers, and the healthcare system: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient involvement has become an important and lively field of research, yet existing findings are fragmented and often contested. Without a synthesis of the research field, these findings are of limited use to scholars, healthcare providers, or policy-makers.

OBJECTIVE

Examine the body of knowledge on patient involvement to determine what is known, contested, and unknown about benefits, risks, and effective implementation strategies.

PATIENT INVOLVEMENT

Patients were not involved.

METHODS

Systematic literature review of 99 journal articles using a conceptual model integrating three levels: health systems, health providers, and patients. We extracted individual research findings and organized them into the structure of our model to provide a holistic picture of patient involvement.

RESULTS

The review highlights overlaps and conflicts between various patient involvement approaches. Our results show benefits for individual patients and the health system as a whole. At the provider level, however, we identified clear barriers to patient involvement.

DISCUSSION

Patient involvement requires collaboration among health systems, healthcare providers, and patients. We showed that increasing patient responsibility and health literacy requires policy-maker interventions. This includes incentives for patient education by providers, adapting medical education curricula, and building a database of reliable health information and decision support for patients. Furthermore, policies supporting a common infrastructure for digital health data and managed patient data exchange will foster provider collaboration.

PRACTICAL VALUE

Our review shows how an approach integrating health systems, healthcare providers, and patients can make patient involvement more effective than isolated interventions. Such systematic patient involvement is likely to improve population health literacy and healthcare quality.

"Listen to me, learn from me": a priority setting partnership for shaping interdisciplinary pain training to strengthen chronic pain care

ABSTRACT

What are the care-seeking priorities of people living with chronic pain and carers and how can these shape interdisciplinary workforce training to improve high-value pain care? Phase 1: Australian people living with chronic pain (n = 206; 90% female) and carers (n = 10; 40% female) described their pain care priorities (eDelphi, round 1). A coding framework was inductively derived from 842 pain care priorities (9 categories, 52 priorities), including validation; communication; multidisciplinary approaches; holistic care; partnerships; practitioner knowledge; self-management; medicines; and diagnosis. Phase 2: In eDelphi round 2, panellists (n = 170; valid responses) rated the importance (1 = less important; 9 = more important) of the represented framework. In parallel, cross-discipline health professionals (n = 267; 75% female) rated the importance of these same priorities. Applying the RAND-UCLA method (panel medians: 1-3: "not important," 4-6: "equivocal," or 7-9: "important"), "important" items were retained where the panel median score was >7 with panel agreement ≥70%, with 44 items (84.6%) retained. Specific workforce training targets included the following: empathic validation; effective, respectful, safe communication; and ensuring genuine partnerships in coplanning personalised care. Panellists and health professionals agreed or strongly agreed (95.7% and 95.2%, respectively) that this framework meaningfully reflected the importance in care seeking for pain. More than 74% of health professionals were fairly or extremely confident in their ability to support care priorities for 6 of 9 categories (66.7%). Phase 3: An interdisciplinary panel (n = 5) mapped an existing foundation-level workforce training program against the framework, identifying gaps and training targets. Recommendations were determined for framework adoption to genuinely shape, from a partnership perspective, Australian interdisciplinary pain training.

Implementing shared decision-making in Australia

Person-centred care (PCC) and shared decision-making (SDM) are part of national clinical standards for an increasing number of areas of health care delivery. In addition to existing standards for accrediting hospitals, day surgery facilities, public dental services and medical education in Australia, new standards governing primary health care and digital mental health services have been added. Implementation and measurement of PCC and SDM to comply with standards, and training of health professionals, remain challenges for the Australian health sector. Consumer involvement in health research, policy and clinical service governance continues to increase and the National Health and Medical Research Council has begun to encourage consumer and community involvement in health and medical research. This increased consumer engagement and moves towards more PCC provision is reflected in a focus on encouraging patients to ask questions during their clinical care and supports improvements in consumer health literacy. SDM support tools are now being culturally adapted whilst a need for more systemic approaches to their development and implementation persists. With increasing resources and tools for all aspects of PCC and SDM challenges to find sustainable solutions to ensure tools are kept up to date with the best available evidence remain.

Shared decision-making among non-physician healthcare professionals: Enhancing patient involvement in women's reproductive health in community healthcare settings

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision-making (SDM) is an important approach to patient-centered care in women's reproductive healthcare. This study explored SDM experiences and perceptions among non-physician healthcare professionals.

METHODS

We completed 20 key-informant interviews with non-physician healthcare professionals (i.e., NP, RN, CNM, doula, pharmacist, chiropractor) living in Indiana (September 2019-May 2020) who provided community-based women's reproductive healthcare. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using an expanded grounded theory framework. Constant comparative analysis identified emergent themes.

RESULTS

Professionals noted community-based healthcare required contextualized decision-making approaches. Results identified listening, decisional ownership, and engagement strategies that enhanced SDM involvement. Findings suggested outcome-oriented SDM concepts, including decisional ownership and investigative listening to enhance SDM. Providers redefined 'challenging' patients as engaged in their healthcare and discussed ways SDM improved healthcare experience beyond one visit.

CONCLUSION

Findings offered insight into actionable and practical strategies for enhancing SDM in community-based women's reproductive healthcare. The findings offer strategies to improve SDM by addressing barriers and facilitators among professionals. This extends SDM beyond the patient-physician dyad and supports broader application of SDM.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Incorporating professionals' experiences into SDM concepts can enhance SDM in community-based women's healthcare practice, offering opportunities to support a culture of SDM across settings.

Barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making in hospitals from policy to practice: a systematic review

Background

Involving patients in their healthcare using shared decision-making (SDM) is promoted through policy and research, yet its implementation in routine practice remains slow. Research into SDM has stemmed from primary and secondary care contexts, and research into the implementation of SDM in tertiary care settings has not been systematically reviewed. Furthermore, perspectives on SDM beyond those of patients and their treating clinicians may add insights into the implementation of SDM. This systematic review aimed to review literature exploring barriers and facilitators to implementing SDM in hospital settings from multiple stakeholder perspectives.

Methods

The search strategy focused on peer-reviewed qualitative studies with the primary aim of identifying barriers and facilitators to implementing SDM in hospital (tertiary care) settings. Studies from the perspective of patients, clinicians, health service administrators, and decision makers, government policy makers, and other stakeholders (for example researchers) were eligible for inclusion. Reported qualitative results were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify behavioural barriers and facilitators to SDM.

Results

Titles and abstracts of 8724 articles were screened and 520 were reviewed in full text. Fourteen articles met inclusion criteria. Most studies (n = 12) were conducted in the last four years; only four reported perspectives in addition to the patient-clinician dyad. In mapping results to the TDF, the dominant themes were Environmental Context and Resources, Social/Professional Role and Identity, Knowledge and Skills, and Beliefs about Capabilities. A wide range of barriers and facilitators across individual, organisational, and system levels were reported. Barriers specific to the hospital setting included noisy and busy ward environments and a lack of private spaces in which to conduct SDM conversations.

Conclusions

SDM implementation research in hospital settings appears to be a young field. Future research should build on studies examining perspectives beyond the clinician-patient dyad and further consider the role of organisational- and system-level factors. Organisations wishing to implement SDM in hospital settings should also consider factors specific to tertiary care settings in addition to addressing their organisational and individual SDM needs.

Trial Registration

The protocol for the review is registered on the Open Science Framework and can be found at https://osf.io/da645/, DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/DA645.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-021-01142-y.

Shared decision making in Australian physiotherapy practice: A survey of knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported use

Objective

To assess Australian physiotherapists’ knowledge about, attitudes towards, and self-reported use of shared decision making, as well as perceived barriers to its implementation in practice.

Methods

Physiotherapists registered for a national Australian physiotherapy conference were invited via email and the conference app to complete a self-administered online questionnaire about shared decision making, including: a) knowledge, b) attitude to and reported approach in practice, c) behaviours used, d) barriers, e) previous training and future training interest. Responses were analysed descriptively and open-ended questions synthesised narratively.

Results

372 physiotherapists (71% female, mean age 45 years, mean experience 23 years) completed the survey. Respondents had a good level of knowledge on most questions, with correct responses ranging from 39.5% to 98.5% of participants, and a generally positive attitude towards shared decision making, believing it useful to most practice areas. Sixty percent indicated they make decisions with their patients and there was general agreement between how decisions should be made and how they are actually made. The behaviour with the lowest reported occurrence was explaining the relevant research evidence about the benefits and harms of the options. The main perceived barriers were patient knowledge and confidence, consequent fewer physiotherapy sessions, and time constraints. Most (79%) were keen to learn more about shared decision making.

Conclusions

Shared decision making is of growing importance to all health professions and rarely studied in physical therapy. This sample of Australian physiotherapists had a generally positive attitude to shared decision making and learning more about it. Opportunities for providing such skills training at the undergraduate level and in continuing professional development should be explored. This training should ensure that the communicating evidence component of shared decision making is addressed as well as debunking myths about perceived barriers to its implementation.

Improving Health for People Living With Heart Failure: Focus Group Study of Preconditions for Co-Production of Health and Care

Background

Co-production of health and care involving patients, families of patients, and professionals in care processes can create joint learning about how to meet patients’ needs. Although barriers and facilitators to co-production have been examined previously in various health care contexts, the preconditions in Swedish chronic cardiac care contexts are yet to be explored. This study is set in the health system of the Swedish region of Jönköping County and is part of system-wide efforts to promote better health for persons with heart failure (HF).

Objective

The objective of this study was to test the usefulness of the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation Behavior (COM-B) model when assessing the barriers to and facilitators of co-production of health and care perceived by patients with HF, family members of patients with HF, and professionals in a Swedish chronic cardiac care context as a guide for subsequent initiatives.

Methods

Data collection involved 1 focus group interview (FGI) with patients with HF (n=5), 1 FGI with family members of patients with HF (n=5), 1 FGI with professionals in primary care (n=7), and 1 FGI with professionals in cardiac care (n=4). In addition, patients with HF kept diaries of their thoughts regarding co-production. Using a deductive approach to content analysis, underpinned by the COM-B model, barriers and facilitators were categorized into capabilities, opportunities, and motivations to co-produce health and care.

Results

The participants showed limited understanding of co-production as a practice. They appeared to view it as a privilege to be offered to patients on top of traditional care and rarely as an approach for improving health care processes. The interviews revealed the limited health literacy among patients and the struggle of professionals to convey health information to these patients. Co-production was considered to be more resource-intensive than traditional care. Different expectations of stakeholders’ roles were revealed: professionals expected older patients not to want to co-produce health and care, and all participants expected professionals to be in charge of health care services. The family members’ position involved trying to balance their desire to support their relatives with understanding when, how, and with whom to co-produce. Presumed benefits motivated stakeholders: co-production was recognized to motivate patients to improve self-care. However, the participants recognized that motivation to get involved in health and care decisions varies over time among stakeholders.

Conclusions

Co-production can be facilitated by the stakeholders’ motivation. However, varying levels of understanding of co-production, patients’ limited health literacy, unease with power sharing between patients and professionals, and resource constraints are barriers that need to be managed to promote co-produced care and better health for persons living with HF. Further research is warranted to explore how to co-produce health care services with patients with HF and how leaders can facilitate the inevitable cultural change it requires and represents.

Exploring unwarranted clinical variation: The attitudes of midwives and obstetric medical staff regarding induction of labour and planned caesarean section

BACKGROUND

Unexplained clinical variation is a major issue in planned birth i.e. induction of labour and planned caesarean section.

AIM

To map attitudes and knowledge of maternity care professionals regarding indications for planned birth, and assess inter-professional (midwifery versus medical) and intra-professional variation.

METHODS

A custom-created survey of medical and midwifery staff at eight Sydney hospitals. Staff were asked to rate their level of agreement with 45 "evidence-based" statements regarding caesareans and inductions on a five-point Likert scale. Responses were grouped by profession, and comparisons made of inter- and intra-professional responses.

FINDINGS

Total 275 respondents, 78% midwifery and 21% medical. Considerable inter- and intra-professional variation was noted, with midwives generally less likely to consider any of the planned birth indications "valid" compared to medical staff. Indications for induction with most variation in midwifery responses included maternal characteristics (age≥40, obesity, ethnicity) and fetal macrosomia; and for medical personnel in-vitro fertilisation, maternal request, and routine induction at 39 weeks gestation. Indications for caesarean with most variation in midwifery responses included previous lower segment caesarean section, previous shoulder dystocia, and uncomplicated breech; and for medical personnel uncomplicated dichorionic twins. Indications with most inter-professional variation were induction at 41+ weeks versus 42+ weeks and cesarean for previous lower segment caesarean section.

DISCUSSION

Both inter- and intra-professional variation in what were considered valid indications reflected inconsistency in underlying evidence and/or guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Greater focus on interdisciplinary education and consensus, as well as on shared decision-making with women, may be helpful in resolving these tensions.

Making shared decisions in relation to planned caesarean sections: What are we up to?

OBJECTIVE

To map the literature in relation to shared decision making (SDM) for planned caesarean section (CS), particularly women's experiences in receiving the information they need to make informed decisions, their knowledge of the risks and benefits of CS, the experiences and attitudes of clinicians in relation to SDM, and interventions that support women to make informed decisions.

METHODS

Using a scoping review methodology, quantitative and qualitative evidence was systematically considered. To identify studies, PubMed, Maternity and Infant Care, MEDLINE, and Web of Science were searched for the period from 2008 to 2018.

RESULTS

34 studies were included, with 9750 women and 3313 clinicians. Overall women reported limited SDM, and many did not have the information required to make informed decisions. Clinicians generally agreed with SDM, while recognising it often does not occur. Decision aids and educational interventions were viewed positively by women.

CONCLUSION

Many women were not actively involved in decision-making. Decision aids show promise as a SDM-enhancing tool. Studies that included clinicians suggest uncertainty regarding SDM, although willingness to engage.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Moving from clinician-led decision-making to SDM for CS has potential to improve patient experiences, however this will require considerable clinician training, and implementation of SDM interventions.

A systematic scoping review of clinical indications for induction of labour

BACKGROUND

The proportion of women undergoing induction of labour (IOL) has risen in recent decades, with significant variation within countries and between hospitals. The aim of this study was to review research supporting indications for IOL and determine which indications are supported by evidence and where knowledge gaps exist.

METHODS

A systematic scoping review of quantitative studies of common indications for IOL. For each indication, we included systematic reviews/meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies and case control studies that compared maternal and neonatal outcomes for different modes or timing of birth. Studies were identified via the databases PubMed, Maternity and Infant Care, CINAHL, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrials.gov from between April 2008 and November 2019, and also from reference lists of included studies. We identified 2554 abstracts and reviewed 300 full text articles. The quality of included studies was assessed using the RoB 2.0, the ROBINS-I and the ROBIN tool.

RESULTS

68 studies were included which related to post-term pregnancy (15), hypertension/pre-eclampsia (15), diabetes (9), prelabour rupture of membranes (5), twin pregnancy (5), suspected fetal compromise (4), maternal elevated body mass index (BMI) (4), intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (3), suspected macrosomia (3), fetal gastroschisis (2), maternal age (2), and maternal cardiac disease (1). Available evidence supports IOL for women with post-term pregnancy, although the evidence is weak regarding the timing (41 versus 42 weeks), and for women with hypertension/preeclampsia in terms of improved maternal outcomes. For women with preterm premature rupture of membranes (24-37 weeks), high-quality evidence supports expectant management rather than IOL/early birth. Evidence is weakly supportive for IOL in women with term rupture of membranes. For all other indications, there were conflicting findings and/or insufficient power to provide definitive evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

While for some indications, IOL is clearly recommended, a number of common indications for IOL do not have strong supporting evidence. Overall, few RCTs have evaluated the various indications for IOL. For conditions where clinical equipoise regarding timing of birth may still exist, such as suspected macrosomia and elevated BMI, researchers and funding agencies should prioritise studies of sufficient power that can provide quality evidence to guide care in these situations.

Indications for, and timing of, planned caesarean section: A systematic analysis of clinical guidelines

BACKGROUND

There has been a worldwide rise in planned caesarean sections over recent decades, with significant variations in practice between hospitals and countries. Guidelines are known to influence clinical decision-making and, potentially, unwarranted clinical variation. The aim of this study was to review guidelines for recommendations in relation to the timing and indications for planned caesarean section as well as recommendations around the process of decision-making.

METHOD

A systematic search of national and international English-language guidelines published between 2008 and 2018 was undertaken. Guidelines were reviewed, assessed in terms of quality and extracted independently by two reviewers.

FINDINGS

In total, 49 guidelines of varying quality were included. There was consistency between the guidelines in potential indications for caesarean section, although guidelines vary in terms of the level of detail. There was substantial variation in timing of birth, for example recommended timing of caesarean section for women with uncomplicated placenta praevia is between 36 and 39weeks depending on the guideline. Only 11 guidelines provided detailed guidance on shared decision-making. In general, national-level guidelines from Australia, and overseas, received higher quality ratings than regional guidelines.

CONCLUSION

The majority of guidelines, regardless of their quality, provide very limited information to guide shared decision-making or the timing of planned caesarean section, two of the most vital aspects of guidance. National guidelines were generally of better quality than regional ones, suggesting these should be used as a template where possible and emphasis placed on improving national guidelines and minimising intra-country, regional, variability of guidelines.

Induction of labour: Experiences of care and decision-making of women and clinicians

BACKGROUND

There has been a rise in induction of labour over recent decades. There is some tension in the literature in relation to when induction is warranted and when not, with variability between guidelines and practice. Given these tensions, the importance of shared decision-making between clinicians and women is increasingly highlighted as paramount, but it remains unclear to what extent this occurs in routine care.

METHOD

Using a scoping review methodology, quantitative and qualitative evidence were considered to answer the research question "What are the views, preferences and experiences of women and clinicians in relation to induction of labour more broadly, and practices of decision-making specifically?" To identify studies, the databases PubMed, Maternity and Infant Care, CINAHL and EMBASE were searched from 2008 to 2018, and reference lists of included studies were examined.

FINDINGS

20 papers met inclusion criteria, in relation to (a) women's preferences, experiences and satisfaction with IOL; (b) women's experience of shared-decision making in relation to induction; (c) interventions that improve shared decision-making and (d) factors that influence decision-making from the perspective of clinicians. Synthesis of the included studies indicates that decision-making in relation to induction of labour is largely informed by medical considerations. Women are not routinely engaged in the decision making process with expectations and preferences largely unmet.

CONCLUSION

There is a need to develop strategies such as decision aids, the redesign of antenatal classes, and clinician communication training to improve the quality of information available to women and their capacity for informed decision-making.