Shared decision-making across the specialties: Much potential but many challenges

Professionals' views on providing personalized recurrence risks for de novo mutations: Implications for genetic counseling

When an apparent de novo (new) genetic change has been identified as the cause of a serious genetic condition in a child, many couples would like to know the risk of this happening again in a future pregnancy. Current practice provides families with a population average risk of 1%-2%. However, this figure is not accurate for any specific couple, and yet, they are asked to make decisions about having another child and/or whether to have prenatal testing. The PREcision Genetic Counseling And REproduction (PREGCARE) study is a new personalized assessment strategy that refines a couple's recurrence risk prior to a new pregnancy, by analyzing several samples from the parent-child trio (blood, saliva, swabs, and father's sperm) using deep sequencing and haplotyping. Overall, this approach can reassure ~2/3 of couples who have a negligible (<0.1%) recurrence risk and focus support on those at higher risk (i.e. when mosaicism is identified in one of the parents). Here we present a qualitative interview study with UK clinical genetics professionals (n = 20), which investigate the potential implications of introducing such a strategy in genetics clinics. While thematic analysis of the interviews indicated perceived clinical utility, it also indicates a need to prepare couples for the psychosocial implications of parent-of-origin information and to support their understanding of the assessment being offered. When dealing with personalized reproductive risk, a traditional non-directive approach may not meet the needs of practitioner and client(s) and shared decision-making provides an additional framework that may relieve some patient burden. Further qualitative investigation with couples is planned.

Decision aids for promoting shared decision-making: A review of systematic reviews

In the context of shared decision-making (SDM), experts have advocated the use of validated decision aids (DAs) as valuable tools for facilitating SDM in various healthcare scenarios. This comprehensive review attempts to analyze a vast corpus of DA research by performing thorough searches across four prominent databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science). Independent reviewers selected relevant reviews, extracted data, and assessed review quality using the AMSTAR II tool. A total of 34 systematic reviews were identified and evaluated in this review, encompassing a wide range of outcomes associated with using DAs. These outcomes include patient knowledge, patient involvement in SDM, decision conflict, decision regret, satisfaction, and adherence. In addition, DAs positively affect healthcare provider outcomes by increasing satisfaction, reducing decision conflicts, and lengthening clinical consultations. This review highlights the need for additional research in specific contexts such as long-term care, mental health, and reproductive health to better understand the benefits and challenges of implementing DAs in these settings. Such research can contribute to the improvement of SDM practices and patient-centered care.

Shifting Perspectives on the Challenges of Shared Decision Making in Mental Health Care

Although shared decision making (SDM) has become the most preferable way in doctor-patient communication, it is not fully implemented in mental health care likely due to the complex nature of psychiatric syndromes and treatments. In this review we provide a systematic overview of all perceived and reported barriers to SDM in the literature, acknowledging field-specific challenges, and offering perspectives to promote its wider use. We conducted a systematic search of the wider literature in different databases and included all publications mentioning specified barriers to SDM in psychiatric care. Relevant data and opinions were categorised into micro-, meso- and macro-level themes and put into clinical perspective. We derived 20 barriers to SDM from 100 studies and reports. Eight were on micro-level care delivery, seven involved meso-level issues, five concerned macro-level themes. The multitude of perceived and actual barriers to SDM underline the challenges its implementation poses in mental health care, some of which can be resolved while others are inherent to the nature of the care, with its long-term relationships, complex dynamics, and social consequences, all requiring a flexible approach. We present four perspectives to help change views on the potential of SDM in mental health care.

Barriers to and facilitators of successful implementation of a palliative approach to care in primary care practices: a mixed methods study

OBJECTIVE

Integrating a palliative approach to care into primary care is an emerging evidence-based practice. Despite the evidence, this type of care has not been widely adopted into primary care settings. The objective of this study was to examine the barriers to and facilitators of successful implementation of a palliative approach to care in primary care practices by applying an implementation science framework.

DESIGN

This convergent mixed methods study analysed semistructured interviews and expression of interest forms to evaluate the implementation of a protocol, linked to implementation strategies, for a palliative approach to care called Early Palliation through Integrated Care (EPIC) in three primary care practices. This study assessed barriers to and facilitators of implementation of EPIC and was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). A framework analysis approach was used during the study to determine the applicability of CFIR constructs and domains.

SETTING

Primary care practices in Canada. Interviews were conducted between September 2020 and November 2021.

PARTICIPANTS

10 individuals were interviewed, who were involved in implementing EPIC. Three individuals from each practice were reinterviewed to clarify emerging themes.

RESULTS

Overall, there were implementation barriers at multiple levels that caused some practices to struggle. However, barriers were mitigated when practices had the following facilitators: (1) a high level of intra-practice collaboration, (2) established practices with organisational structures that enhanced communications, (3) effective leveraging of EPIC project supports to transition care, (4) perceptions that EPIC was an opportunity to make a long-term change in their approach to care as opposed to a limited term project and (5) strong practice champions.

CONCLUSIONS

Future implementation work should consider assessing facilitators identified in our results to better gauge primary care pre-implementation readiness. In addition, providing primary care practices with support to help offset the additional work of implementing innovations and networking opportunities where they can share strategies may improve implementation success.

A shared decision-making model in pediatric palliative care: a qualitative study of healthcare providers

BACKGROUND

Pediatric shared decision-making (SDM) is a fundamental part of family-centered care. Pediatric palliative care (PPC) is one of the more difficult fields for healthcare providers when choosing to utilize SDM. However, to our knowledge, there are still few structured approaches of SDM in PPC. We aimed to build a model of SDM in PPC that achieves better care and outcomes for children and their family members.

METHODS

This study is a descriptive phenomenology study. Participants included physicians, nurses, and social workers in the PPC team. Participants were individually interviewed face-to-face or via an online meeting software. Data were collected in semi-structured interviews and analyzed using a thematic framework analysis.

RESULTS

In total, 27 healthcare providers were interviewed. The model of SDM in PPC identified three themes, including the participants, the principle and the process of SDM. Decision participants involved the children, parents, the PPC team and others. The decision principle had three sub-themes including type, standard and precondition. The decision process describes the fundamental process of SDM and provides suggestions for mobilizing patients and parents to engage in decision-making and seeking conflict resolution.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study to develop a SDM model in PPC. This model can provide guidance to PPC teams on SDM practices. In addition, the model contributes to the existing body of knowledge by providing a conceptual model for SDM in the context of PPC.

The dignity of terminally ill children in pediatric palliative care: perspectives of parents and healthcare providers

BACKGROUND

The Chochinov Dignity Model was developed based on a cohort of adult patients with advanced cancer, but its role among dying children is not clear. This study aims to develop a model of dignity for children receiving pediatric palliative care based on the Chochinov Dignity Model.

METHODS

This is a descriptive qualitative study. Participants included a total of 11 parents and 14 healthcare providers who were recruited from a tertiary children's hospital in Beijing and the Pediatric Palliative Care Subspecialty Group of the Pediatrics Society of the Chinese Medical Association using purposive sampling. Thematic framework analysis was used to analyze data.

RESULTS

The themes of the empirical Dignity Model were broadly supported in this study, but some themes were interpreted differently in the child population. Compared with the original model, some child-specific themes were identified including acknowledging regret, a sense of security, the company of important loved ones, realizing unfinished wishes, decent and dignified death, resolving family disputes, and fairness.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first study on Dignity Model for terminal children. Knowledge of children's dignity can promote reflection of healthcare providers and caregivers regarding the values underlying their performance in pediatric palliative care, and develop certain practical interventions to strengthen children and their families' sense of dignity at end of life.

Understanding the Family Context: A Qualitative Descriptive Study of Parent and NICU Clinician Experiences and Perspectives

Enabling individualized decision-making for patients requires an understanding of the family context (FC) by healthcare providers. The FC is everything that makes the family unique, from their names, preferred pronouns, family structure, cultural or religious beliefs, and family values. While there is an array of approaches for individual clinicians to incorporate the FC into practice, there is a paucity of literature guiding the process of collecting and integrating the FC into clinical care by multidisciplinary interprofessional teams. The purpose of this qualitative study is to explore the experience of families and Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) clinicians with information sharing around the FC. Our findings illustrate that there are parallel and overlapping experiences of sharing the FC for families and clinicians. Both groups describe the positive impact of sharing the FC on building and sustaining relationships and on personalization of care and personhood. The experience by families of revolving clinicians and the risks of miscommunication about the FC were noted as challenges to sharing the FC. Parents described the desire to control the narrative about their FC, while clinicians described seeking equal access to the FC to support the family in the best way possible related to their clinical role. Our study highlights how the quality of care is positively impacted by clinicians' appreciation of the FC and the complex relationship between a large multidisciplinary interprofessional team and the family in an intensive care unit, while also highlighting the difficulties in its practical application. Knowledge learned can be utilized to inform the development of processes to improve communication between families and clinicians.

Shared decision-making with adults transitioning to long-term care: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Transitions to long-term care are challenging for individuals and often associated with a loss of autonomy. Positive experiences are noted, especially when decisions involve the individual in a person-centred way which are respectful of the person's human rights. One approach which facilitates self-determination during a transitional period is shared decision-making, but there is a lack of clarity on the nature and extent of research evidence in this area.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this scoping review is to identify and document research related to shared decision-making and transitioning to long-term care.

METHODS

A comprehensive search in CINAHL, Medline and Psych-info identified papers which included evidence of shared decision-making during transitions to a long-term care setting. The review following the JBI and PAGER framework for scoping reviews. Data were extracted, charted and analysed according to patterns, advances, gaps, research recommendations and evidence for practice.

RESULTS

Eighteen papers met the inclusion criteria. A body of knowledge was identified encompassing the pattern advancements in shared decision-making during transitions to long-term care, representing developments in both the evidence base and methodological approaches. Further patterns offer evidence of the facilitators and barriers experienced by the person, their families and the professional's involved.

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence identified the complexity of such decision-making with efforts to engage in shared decision-making often constrained by the availability of resources, the skills of professionals and time. The findings recognise the need for partnership and person-centred approaches to optimise transitions. The review demonstrates evidence of approaches that can inform future practice and research to support all adult populations who may be faced with a transitional decision to actively participate in decision-making.

Shared decision-making in Poland: State of the art, challenges and opportunities

The purpose of the present paper is to review the progress in recognition and implementation of shared decision-making (SDM) practice in the Polish health care system. In Poland, equal access to health care is a constitutional right. The foundations for SDM practice within the Polish health care system are laid in legislation regulating the professions of doctors and dentists, as well as patients' rights, which assert the duty of physicians to provide clear and patient-adjusted information on diagnostic and treatment options, health status and prognosis before obtaining consent. Over recent years, patient organizations have gained voice in the institutional setting. At the same time participatory decision-making at the individual patient level remains uneven, with a considerable variety between health care settings or even physicians. The challenges related to the implementation of SDM practices include low health care funding and staff shortages, which limit both the scope of available choices and consultation time. Fragmentation of care and inadequate standardization constitute additional barriers to the elaboration and sharing of good SDM practices.

Use of a risk communication survey to prioritize family-valued outcomes and communication preferences for children undergoing outpatient surgical procedures

BACKGROUND

Effective shared decision-making in pediatric surgery requires clarity regarding which surgical outcomes are most important to patients and their families, and how they prefer to receive the information. Despite how essential this is for effective risk communication, little is known about the communication needs and preferences of patients and their families in elective pediatric surgery.

METHODS

We administered a mailed and online cross-sectional survey in English and French to 548 families before or after surgery for hernia/hydrocele repair or tonsillectomy/adenoidectomy between July 2019 and February 2021. The survey consisted of 22 questions eliciting most valued patient-reported outcomes (PROs) across 4 domains: health-related quality of life (5), functional status (5), symptoms and symptom burden (5), health behaviours and patient experience (7), as well as overall impressions (3), surgical risks (5), communication preferences (4), and demographic questions (16).

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 368 patient families (60 preoperative, 308 postoperative, response rate 67.2%). Most respondents (72%) indicated a significant desire to be informed on all listed PROs alongside surgical complications, and highly valued all functional and quality of life outcomes (92.9% & 89.8%, respectively). Preoperatively, patient families preferred to receive information in the form of pamphlets and websites, whereas postoperatively they preferred direct communication.

CONCLUSION

Families value functional and quality of life PROs as much as clinical outcomes, and increasingly seek more contemporary (electronic) means of risk communication than we currently offer. This data will inform the development of mobile tools for personalized communication in pediatric surgery.

Shared Decision Making in the Psychiatric Inpatient Setting: An Ethnographic Study about Interprofessional Psychiatric Consultations

Shared decision making is increasingly receiving attention in health care and might improve both the quality of care and patient outcomes. Nevertheless, due to its complexity, implementation of shared decision making in clinical practice seems challenging. This ethnographic study aimed to gain a better understanding of how psychiatric inpatients and the interprofessional care team interact during regular interprofessional psychiatric consultations. Data were collected through participant observation on two different psychiatric wards in a large psychiatric hospital in Switzerland. The observation focused on the contextual aspects of interprofessional patient consultations, the communication and interaction as well as the extent to which patients were involved in decision making. Participants included patients, psychiatrists, junior physicians, nurses, psychologists, social workers and therapists. We observed 71 interprofessional psychiatric consultations and they differed substantially in both wards in terms of context (place and form) and culture (way of interacting). On the contrary, results showed that the level of patient involvement in decision making was comparable and depended on individual factors, such as the health care professionals’ communication style as well as the patients’ personal initiative to be engaged. The main topics discussed with the patients related to pharmacotherapy and patient reported symptoms. Health care professionals in both wards used a rather unidirectional communication style. Therefore, in order to promote patient involvement in the psychiatric inpatient setting, rather than to focus on contextual factors, consultations should follow a specific agenda and promoting a bidirectional communication style for all parties involved is strongly recommended.

The Recovering Quality of Life 10-item (ReQoL-10) scale in a first-episode psychosis population: Validation and implications for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)

AIM

This study aimed to examine the psychometric performance of the Recovering Quality of Life scale 10-item version (ReQoL-10) using a sample from a Singapore first-episode psychosis intervention program, to explore its clinical and sociodemographic correlates, and to discuss its utility as a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM).

METHODS

Sociodemographic data, duration of untreated psychosis (DUP), and diagnosis were collected from 300 participants. Clinical data, which included baseline and current scores on the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item version, EuroQoL-5 Dimension 3-level version, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, and Global Assessment of Functioning scale, were extracted. The ReQoL-10 was tested for structural validity, internal consistency, and construct validity, and a multiple linear regression determined if any of the baseline factors were statistically significant predictors of the total ReQoL-10 scores.

RESULTS

The mean (SD) total ReQoL-10 score of the sample was 27.8 (7.8). Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the bifactor model structure of the ReQoL-10. The instrument demonstrated good internal consistency and adequate construct validity. Being older was associated with higher total ReQoL-10 scores, while being married, having a highest educational level of vocational/diploma, longer DUP, and a diagnosis of affective psychosis were associated with lower total ReQoL-10 scores.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has validated the ReQoL-10 as suitable for routine use to measure recovery-specific quality of life in a psychiatric setting among patients with first-episode psychosis, and is a potential tool to initiate recovery conversations. As a PROM, it can facilitate shared decision making, in line with efforts to evaluate and improve quality of care.

Assessment of shared decision-making in community mental health care: Validation of the CollaboRATE

Background/Objective

CollaboRATE is a 3-item self-report measure of the patient experience of shared decision-making (SDM) process. The objective of this study is to assess the psychometric properties of CollaboRATE in community mental health care.

Method

A cross-sectional study was conducted at a Community Mental Health Center of the Canary Islands Health Service. Two hundred and fifty consecutive psychiatric outpatients were invited to participate. Of those, 191 accepted (76.40% of response rate) and completed the CollaboRATE, the Control Preferences Scale (CPS), and a form with sociodemographic and clinical variables.

Results

Exploratory factor analysis ratified the unidimensionality of the measure. High internal consistency was found (α Cronbach = .95, Guttman's λ = .93, and ω = .95). Strong positive correlations (p < .0001) were found between the CollaboRATE and the CPS. Only 39.80% of respondents gave the best possible score on CollaboRATE.

Conclusions

This study provides evidence for the reliability and validity of the Spanish version of the CollaboRATE as a measure of SDM. The measure is quick to complete and feasible for use in outpatient mental health care. At present, a significative number of psychiatric outpatients are not involved in SDM. The use of this measure in psychiatric routine care can be a key tool in assessing and implementing SDM.

Complementary medicine visits by palliative care patients: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

The paucity of empirical research examining complementary medicine (CM) use in palliative care in France compared with other countries results in a gap in scientific knowledge. This study aims to describe the frequency and the cause of palliative care patients consulting with a CM clinician along with the conventional physicians.

METHODS

This study is an observational cross-sectional survey conducted in three palliative care centres in Lyon, France, between July 2017 and May 2018: two tertiary hospitals and one palliative care unit in a private hospital. Inpatients and outpatients visiting the palliative care clinics with a primary diagnosis of cancer were invited to participate in the study. Using a 19-item paper-based survey instrument, we collected data on the participants' personal characteristics, health service utilisation and attitudes towards CM.

RESULTS

From the 138 participants meeting the inclusion criteria, 100 (72.4%) were included in the study. On average, they were 62.9 years old (SD 12.4) and the majority were women (60%). The primary cancer site was mostly colorectal (29.0%), breast (15.0%) and gynaecological (11.0%). The most commonly visited CM clinician was the aromatherapist (72.7%), recording more than six consultations (78.1%) for symptom management (21.9%). Visits to an osteopath were reported by 28.6% of patients, and 45.8% of osteopathy users reported visiting an osteopath more than six times for symptom management (62.5%). Participants visiting a naturopath (15.3%) reported less than four visits and indicated symptom management as the most common reason (76.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings show a substantial proportion of palliative care patients visit CM clinicians and primarily seek symptom management from CM clinical care.

Interventions to facilitate shared decision-making using decision aids with patients in Primary Health Care: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process within the physician-patient relationship applicable to any clinical action, whether diagnostic, therapeutic, or preventive in nature. It has been defined as a process of mutual respect and participation between the doctor and the patient. The aim of this study is to determine the effectiveness of decision aids (DA) in primary care based on changes in adherence to treatments, knowledge, and awareness of the disease, conflict with decisions, and patients' and health professionals' satisfaction with the intervention.

METHODS

A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was conducted in Medline, CINAHL, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database. The inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials as study design; use of SDM with DA as an intervention; primary care as clinical context; written in English, Spanish, and Portuguese; and published between January 2007 and January 2019. The risk of bias of the included studies in this review was assessed according to the Cochrane Collaboration's tool.

RESULTS

Twenty four studies were selected out of the 201 references initially identified. With the use of DA, the use of antibiotics was reduced in cases of acute respiratory infection and decisional conflict was decreased when dealing with the treatment choice for atrial fibrillation and osteoporosis. The rate of determination of prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in the prostate cancer screening decreased and colorectal cancer screening increased. Both professionals and patients increased their knowledge about depression, type 2 diabetes, and the perception of risk of acute myocardial infarction at 10 years without statins and with statins. The satisfaction was greater with the use of DA in choosing the treatment for depression, in cardiovascular risk management, in the treatment of low back pain, and in the use of statin therapy in diabetes. Blinding of outcomes assessment was the most common bias.

CONCLUSIONS

DA used in primary care are effective to reduce decisional conflict and improve knowledge on the disease and treatment options, awareness of risk, and satisfaction with the decisions made. More studies are needed to assess the impact of shared decision making in primary care.

Shared decision making and consent post-Montgomery, UK Supreme Court judgement supporting best practice

The UK Supreme Court Montgomery judgement marks a decisive shift in the legal test of duty of care in the context of consent to treatment from the perspective of the clinician (as represented by Bolam rules) to that of the patient. This has important implications in the surgical field worldwide, where informed consent is critical. This paper aims to explain the ruling and how it impacts the consent process. The case and ruling are outlined and summarised as pertaining to consent and requirements for validity; a shift from the clinician's interpretation about what would be best for patients to the values of the particular patient concerned in the decision in question. A sample of recent commentaries is reviewed. Four examples illustrate some of the practical applications of the Montgomery ruling on consent and how the ruling can empower doctors and patients to make mutually beneficial shared decisions. Future consent should be obtained using a Montgomery compliant strategy in accordance with the principles of shared decision making.

[Not Available]

There is now broad agreement that ideas like person-centred care, patient expertise and shared decision-making are no longer peripheral to health discourse, fine ideals or merely desirable additions to sound, scientific clinical practice. Rather, their incorporation into our thinking and planning of health and social care is essential if we are to respond adequately to the problems that confront us: they need to be seen not as "ethical add-ons" but core components of any genuinely integrated, realistic and conceptually sound account of healthcare practice. This, the tenth philosophy thematic edition of the journal, presents papers conducting urgent research into the social context of scientific knowledge and the significance of viewing clinical knowledge not as something that "sits within the minds" of researchers and practitioners, but as a relational concept, the product of social interactions. It includes papers on the nature of reasoning and evidence, the on-going problems of how to 'integrate' different forms of scientific knowledge with broader, humanistic understandings of reasoning and judgement, patient and community perspectives. Discussions of the epistemological contribution of patient perspectives to the nature of care, and the crucial and still under-developed role of phenomenology in medical epistemology, are followed by a broad range of papers focussing on shared decision-making, analysing its proper meaning, its role in policy, methods for realising it and its limitations in real-world contexts.