Shared decision-making in older children and parents considering elective adenotonsillectomy

Facilitators and barriers to implementing shared decision making: A cross-sectional study of physicians in Japan

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision making (SDM) is a collaborative process in which patients and healthcare providers jointly make a medical decision. This cross-sectional study aimed to identify the facilitators and barriers to self-reported implementation of SDM in Japan, and to explore if there is effect modification by hospital types.

METHODS

A total of 129 physicians in Japan completed a questionnaire that asked about their perception of SDM based on SDM-Q-Doc and its facilitators and barriers, which corresponded to each construct of the integrated behavioral model (IBM). The association between facilitators and barriers and SDM-Q-doc score was assessed using linear regression analysis. Stratified analysis by hospital types was also performed.

RESULTS

Significant facilitators included physicians' attitude, injunctive norm, intention and habit. Significant barriers included physicians' unfavorable attitude, lack of self-efficacy, knowledge, salience and experience. Moreover, experiential attitude (concerning patient characteristics), injunctive norm (concerning patient preferences), and physician's habit were significant facilitators for physicians working in university hospitals when compared to those working in municipal hospitals.

CONCLUSION

The facilitators and barriers to implementing SDM in Japan were identified.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

More opportunities for training on SDM are needed to provide knowledge and skills, which will enhance salience and contribute their habitual practice.

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.

Assessing the extent of shared decision making in Pediatrics: Preliminary psychometric evaluation of the German CollaboRATEpediatric scales for patients aged 7-18 years, parents and parent-proxy reports

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a preliminary evaluation of psychometric properties of CollaboRATE^pediatric, a set of three scales to assess shared decision making (SDM) with pediatric patients, parents and parents on behalf of their children (parent-proxy reports). As secondary objectives we examined the scales' distributional characteristics, acceptability, and agreement between scales.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥ 7 years and parents were recruited in two outpatient facilities providing healthcare services for children with neurological and behavioral health conditions. We collected 46, 169 and 227 pediatric patient, parent-proxy and parent reports, respectively. Convergent, divergent and discriminative validity were investigated. Acceptability of the scales and agreement between patient and parent-proxy reports were explored by assessing item nonresponse and Bland-Altman plots.

RESULTS

While convergent and divergent validity were established for the parent scale, discriminative validity was not demonstrated for any of the scales. The scales showed good to excellent acceptability. Parent-proxy reports agreed to a moderate extent with patients' self-reports of SDM.

CONCLUSION

CollaboRATE^pediatric offers a starting point for parsimoniously assessing SDM in Pediatrics, however further psychometric testing is warranted.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Given limited psychometric support for the pediatric patient scale, we recommend using both the pediatric patient and parent-proxy report scales to assess SDM in pediatric patients until further psychometric testing is concluded.

Decision aid and preference assessment of topical anesthesia for otolaryngology procedures

OBJECTIVES

To determine preference patterns for topical anesthesia in patients undergoing endoscopy pre-coronavirus (2019 coronavirus disease [COVID-19]) pandemic and analyze outcomes based on preference, using a decision aid format.

METHODS

A decision aid was developed with expert and patient input. New patients presenting to subspecialty clinics over a 2-month pre-COVID-19 period completed a pre-procedure survey about their priorities, then were asked to choose between topical oxymetazoline/lidocaine spray or none. A post-procedure outcome survey followed.

RESULTS

Of 151 patients, 90.1% patients elected to have topical anesthesia. Top patient priorities were "I want the scope to be easy for the doctor" and "I want to be as comfortable as possible." Patients who strongly wanted to avoid medication (P = .002) and bad taste (P = .003) were more likely to select no spray, whereas those who wanted to avoid pain received anesthetic (P = .011). According to the post-procedure assessment, 95.4% of patients were satisfied or strongly satisfied their choice, and this did not correlate with anesthetic vs none.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient preferences are easily elicited and correlate with treatment choices. Most patients chose to have topical anesthetic and were willing to tolerate side effects; however, both patients with and without topical anesthetic were satisfied with their choices. This decision aid can be used to optimize shared decision making in the otolaryngology clinic. Given the aerosolizing potential of both spray and no spray conditions, this insight may be consequential when devising office protocols for post-COVID-19 practice.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

II.