A Personalized Shared Decision-Making Tool for Osteoarthritis Management of the Knee

Shared decision-making in advanced physiotherapy and first contact physiotherapy management of adults with musculoskeletal disorders in the United Kingdom: An online cross-sectional survey

RATIONALE

Advanced practice physiotherapy roles (Advanced Physiotherapy Practitioners [APPs] and First Contact Physiotherapists [FCPs]) are pivotal in supporting patients to manage their musculoskeletal (MSK) conditions. Having a greater understanding of how decisions are made by these practitioners will inform competency frameworks and improve the provision of patient-centred care.

AIM

To evaluate the current knowledge, views and use of shared decision-making in MSK advanced physiotherapy practice in the United Kingdom.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey using an online questionnaire was used to collect demographic information, knowledge, views and self-reported use of shared decision-making (SDM) of APPs and FCPs who work with adults with MSK disorders in the United Kingdom.

RESULTS

Responses from 49 participants (25 APPs and 24 FCPs) were included in the study. In total, 80% of participants had received SDM training and overall high levels of knowledge were shown. Only 12% of participants used a communication model to facilitate SDM. In total, 80% of participants reported making decisions together with the patient either always or most of the time. FCPs favoured a more patient-led approach to decision-making compared to APPs who favoured collaborative decision-making. The most commonly reported barriers to SDM included lack of time, lack of patient education resources, lack of access to patient decision aids and treatment pathway restrictions.

CONCLUSIONS

The responses in this study showed that overall APPs and FCPs have good knowledge of SDM and report routine use of collaborative and patient-led decision-making approaches.

Knee osteoarthritis: disease burden, available treatments, and emerging options

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a prevalent condition that affects nearly 528 million people worldwide, including 23% of the global population aged ⩾40, and is characterized by progressive damage to articular cartilage, which often leads to substantial pain, stiffness, and reduced mobility for affected patients. Pain related to OA is a barrier to maintaining physical activity and a leading cause of disability, accounting for 2.4% of all years lived with disability globally, reducing the ability to work in 66% of US patients with OA and increasing absenteeism in 21% of US patients with OA. The joint most commonly involved in OA is the knee, which is affected in about 60%-85% of all OA cases. The aging population and longer life expectancy, coupled with earlier and younger diagnoses, translate into a growing cohort of symptomatic patients in need of alternatives to surgery. Despite the large number of patients with knee OA (OAK) worldwide, the high degree of variability in patient presentation can lead to challenges in diagnosis and treatment. Multiple society guidelines recommend therapies for OAK, but departures from guidelines by healthcare professionals in clinical settings reflect a discordance between evidence-based treatment algorithms and routine clinical practice. Furthermore, disease-modifying pharmacotherapies are limited, and treatment for OAK often focuses solely on symptom relief, rather than underlying causes. In this narrative review, we summarize the patient journey, analyze current disease burden and nonsurgical therapy recommendations for OAK, and highlight emerging and promising therapies-such as cryoneurolysis, long-acting corticosteroids, and gene therapies-for this debilitating condition.

Development and evaluation of shared decision-making tools in rheumatology: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Shared decision-making (SDM) tools are facilitators of decision-making through a collaborative process between patients/caregivers and clinicians. These tools help clinicians understand patient's perspectives and help patients in making informed decisions based on their preferences. Despite their usefulness for both patients and clinicians, SDM tools are not widely implemented in everyday practice. One barrier is the lack of clarity on the development and evaluation processes of these tools. Such processes have not been previously described in the field of rheumatology.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the development and evaluation processes of shared decision-making (SDM) tools used in rheumatology.

METHODS

Bibliographic databases (e.g., EMBASE and CINAHL) were searched for relevant articles. Guidelines for the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews were followed. Studies included were: addressing SDM among adults in rheumatology, focusing on development and/or evaluation of SDM tool, full texts, empirical research, and in the English language.

RESULTS

Of the 2030 records screened, forty-six reports addressing 36 SDM tools were included. Development basis and evaluation measures varied across the studies. The most commonly reported development basis was the International Patient Decision Aids Standards (IPDAS) criteria (19/36, 53 %). Other developmental foundations reported were: The Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) (6/36, 16 %), Informed Medical Decision Foundation elements (3/36, 8 %), edutainment principles (2/36, 5.5 %), and others (e.g. DISCERN and MARKOV Model) (9/31,29 %). The most commonly used evaluation measures were the Decisional Conflict Scale (18/46, 39 %), acceptability and knowledge (7/46, 15 %), and the preparation for decision-making scale (5/46,11 %).

CONCLUSION

For better quality and wider implementation of such tools, there is a need for detailed, transparent, systematic, and consistent reporting of development methods and evaluation measures. Using established checklists for reporting development and evaluation is encouraged.

Nonpharmacological approaches for pain and symptoms of depression in people with osteoarthritis: systematic review and meta-analyses

People with osteoarthritis often experience pain and depression. These meta-analyses examined and compared nonpharmacological randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for pain and symptoms of depression in people living with osteoarthritis. RCTs published up until April 2022 were sourced by searching electronic databases EMBASE, PUBMED & MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL and PEDro. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to calculate pooled effect sizes (ES) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for pain and depression. Subgroup analyses examined intervention subtypes. For pain, 29 interventions (n = 4382; 65 ± 6.9 years; 70% female), revealed a significant effect on reducing pain (ES = 0.43, 95% CI [0.25, 0.61], p < 0.001). Effect sizes were significant (p < 0.001) for movement meditation (ES = 0.52; 95% CI [0.35, 0.69]), multimodal approaches (ES = 0.37; 95% CI [0.22, 0.51]), and psychological therapy (ES = 0.21; 95% CI [0.11, 0.31]), and significant (p = 0.046) for resistance exercise (ES = 0.43, 95% CI [- 0.07, 0.94]. Aerobic exercise alone did not improve pain. For depression, 28 interventions (n = 3377; 63 ± 7.0 years; 69% female), revealed a significant effect on reducing depressive symptoms (ES = 0.29, 95% CI [0.08, 0.49], p < 0.001). Effect sizes were significant for movement meditation (ES = 0.30; 95% CI [0.06, 0.55], p = 0.008) and multimodal interventions (ES = 0.12; 95% CI [0.07, 0.18], p < 0.001). Resistance/aerobic exercise or therapy alone did not improve depressive symptoms. Mind-body approaches were more effective than aerobic/resistance exercise or therapy alone for reducing pain and depression in people with osteoarthritis.Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42022338051.

Barriers to Inter-Organisational Collaboration in the Preoperative Management of Patients with Osteoarthritis of the Hip or Knee

Introduction:

Integrated clinical pathways should provide the best and most efficient treatment. As no study on barriers to inter-organisational collaboration has investigated the barriers to unimplemented integrated clinical care in a country with less efficiently organised health system, the study aimed to identify these barriers in the preoperative management of patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis in Slovenia.

Methods:

A cross-sectional study was conducted using multiple methods, including a quantitative survey with participants involved in target patient groups, and in-depth interviews with involved key actors at micro, meso and macro levels in Slovenia.

Results:

Respondents predominantly expressed a lack of inter-organisational collaboration. The exposed barriers are individualistic culture, the level of development of the health system, financing, administration, and regulatory frame at the macro level, shortage of staff at the meso level, and the lack of technological standards, trust, communication, and perception of pressures at the micro level.

Discussion and conclusion:

In addition to the barriers identified in previous studies, our study shows that individualistic culture and the level of development of the health system at the macro level, manifested as a pressure on health professionals and other actors at the micro level, are important barriers to inter-organisational collaboration.

Does Value-Based Care Threaten Joint Arthroplasty Access for Vulnerable Patient Populations?: AOA Critical Issues

Health-care expenses have been projected to increase from 17.7% of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) in 2014 to 19.6% in 2024. The unsustainable increase in health-care costs has contributed toward support for value-based health care (VBHC) reform. Contemporary VBHC reform programs relevant to orthopaedic surgery include the voluntary Bundled Payments for Care Improvement initiatives (BPCI and BPCI-Advanced) and the Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement (CJR) program, a mandatory bundled payment program.The purported benefits of transitioning from volume-based reimbursement to value-based reimbursement include moving from a fragmented provider-centered care model to a patient-centered model, with greater care coordination and alignment among providers focused on improving value. VBHC models allow innovative strategies to proactively invest resources to promote value (e.g., the use of nurse navigators) while eliminating unnecessary resources that do not promote value. However, major concerns regarding VBHC include the absence of medical and socioeconomic risk stratification as well as decreased access for higher-risk patients.This article identifies the benefits and potential unintended consequences of VBHC reform, with a focus on joint arthroplasty. We also discuss some potential strategies to promote innovation and improve value without compromising access for vulnerable patients.

Using hybrid consistent fuzzy preference relations-importance-performance analysis model to improve shared decision-making quality based on orthopaedic nurses' perceptions

PURPOSE

To understand key factors for shared decision-making (SDM) and the quality improvement of nursing decisions in the orthopaedic clinical environment.

METHOD

This study applied the consistent consistent fuzzy preference relations (CFPRs) and importance-performance analysis (IPA) methods to explore the attribute weights and SDM performance, respectively. The dataset was collected from 16 orthopaedic clinical nurses' experiences in a third-grade and first-level general hospital in Taizhou, China. This study was performed according to the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines.

RESULTS

The results showed that "I made clear to my patient or patient's family that a nursing care decision needs to be made", "I explained the advantages and disadvantages of the nursing care options to my patient or patient's family" and "I told my patient or patient's family that there are different nursing care options for caring his/her medical condition" were key factors for affecting SDM. The statistical significance confidence and difference error of weight results were 98.321% and 1.679%, respectively. In addition, "I asked my patient or patient's family which nursing care option he/she prefers" was the key factor for improving orthopaedic clinical nursing in the case hospital.

CONCLUSION

The hybrid CFPRs-IPA model can help hospital managers effectively understand the key factors of SDM quality and improve the orthopaedic clinical nursing performance from nurses' perspectives.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

A quantitative decision-making model can help nurses understand the key factors affecting the quality of SDM in nursing decision-making and promote nursing decision-making and patient-centred nursing service quality. A series of corresponding SDM training courses (i.e. concepts, knowledge and skills) can be provided for hospital and nursing department managers to maximise the potentially available resources.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The clinical care process should be committed to involving patients in their care decisions and also provide an opportunity for patients to gain a comprehensive understanding of the care decision-making process in order to inform future patient contributions to care decisions.

Exploring the Key Factors of Shared Decision-Making Through an Influential Network Relation Map: The Orthopedic Nurse's Perspective

BACKGROUND

Few studies have used quantitative methods to explore the key factors affecting shared decision-making (SDM) in nursing decision-making from the perspective of orthopedic nurses.

PURPOSE

To understand the intercorrelations among shared decision-making questionnaire-nurse (SDM-Q-NUR) factors and identify key factors for clinical nursing care decisions in orthopedics.

METHODS

In May 2021, this study investigated the interdependence of the SDM-Q-NUR scale and developed an influential network-relation map (INRM) from the clinical experience of 13 trained orthopedic nurses using the Decision-making Trial and Evaluation Laboratory method.

RESULTS

The INRM results showed that the nine criteria corresponded to three stages: preparation, discussion, and decision. "I helped my patient or patient's family understand all the information" (C 5) and "I wanted to know from my patient or patient's family how they want to be involved in making the nursing care decision" (C 2) are the main key factors for the beginning of nursing decision. In the discussion and decision stages, the corresponding key factors are "I made it clear to my patient or patient's family that a nursing care decision needs to be made" (C 1) and "I asked my patient or patient's family which nursing care option they prefer" (C 6). The result's statistical significance confidence and gap error were 98.106% and 1.894%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

When making nursing decisions with patients, orthopedic nurses need to have detailed information about how patients are involved in SDM and all relevant information. Nurses should also inform patients and their families regarding the purpose of the discussion, namely, to help one understand the content, advantages, and disadvantages of the nursing care options, and finally, make a decision.