What are the decision-making preferences of patients in vascular surgery? A mixed-methods study

Creation of a Shared Medical Decision Support Tool for the Management of Abdominal Aortic Aneurysms

BACKGROUND

Patients with unruptured abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) at the surgical threshold may benefit from aneurysmal exclusion either by open surgery or endovascular repair. A patient decision aid (PtDA) could be useful to help patients and their surgeons choose between the 2 techniques. The aim of this study was to develop a shared medical decision support tool, in french language, for the surgical treatment of AAA.

METHODS

Following the steps recommended by the International Patient Decision Aids Standards, we carried out a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with patients and vascular surgeons and focus group with patients to identify their main points of interest. After analyzing the interviews using grounded theory with independent double coding, the verbatims were discussed at a steering committee, at the end of which a prototype of the tool was created.

RESULTS

Four surgeons and 14 patients were interviewed. No new codes emerged from the last 2 interviews. At the end of the steering committee meeting, the information selected for inclusion in the PtDA tool were the definition of an AAA, a description of the 2 surgical techniques (approach, duration of operation), the main complications, the peri-operative mortality rate, and postoperative follow-up (length of hospital stay, monitoring frequency, and risk of re-intervention). It had to be produced on a synthetic paper format, with 6 illustrations and a simple vocabulary.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed a PtDA tool for use in a sharing decision making process with the patient during consultation with the vascular surgeon and the general practitioner. Further studies are needed to validate the tool and to test it in clinical practice.

Health Literacy and Disease Knowledge of Patients With Peripheral Arterial Disease or Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review summarises health literacy and disease knowledge in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) or peripheral arterial disease (PAD) and the influencing factors.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, PsychINFO, and CINAHL covering the period January 2012 to October 2022.

REVIEW METHODS

This scoping review was undertaken in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Inclusion criteria encompassed studies addressing health literacy, knowledge, perception, or awareness in patients with AAA or PAD. Two authors independently reviewed abstracts and full texts, resolving any discrepancies through discussion or by consulting a third author for consensus. All article types were included except letters, editorials, study protocols, reviews, and guidelines. No language restrictions were applied. Primary outcomes were health literacy and disease knowledge. Secondary outcomes were factors that could influence this. Quality assessment was done using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).

RESULTS

The review included 32 articles involving a total of 5 268 patients. Four articles reported health literacy and the rest disease knowledge. Ten studies (31%) met all quality criteria. Twenty studies were quantitative, eight were qualitative, and four were mixed methods studies. The review revealed inadequate health literacy in the majority of patients, and disease knowledge was relatively low among patients with AAA and PAD, with disparities in measures and assessment tools across studies. Factors influencing health literacy and disease knowledge included socioeconomic status, education, income, and employment.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review revealed low health literacy and low disease knowledge in patients with AAA and PAD. Standardised health literacy assessment may contribute to improve communication strategies and decision aids to enhance patients' understanding and engagement in healthcare decisions, however further research is needed to prove its merits.

Editor's Choice -- European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) 2024 Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Management of Abdominal Aorto-Iliac Artery Aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

The European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS) has developed clinical practice guidelines for the care of patients with aneurysms of the abdominal aorta and iliac arteries in succession to the 2011 and 2019 versions, with the aim of assisting physicians and patients in selecting the best management strategy.

METHODS

The guideline is based on scientific evidence completed with expert opinion on the matter. By summarising and evaluating the best available evidence, recommendations for the evaluation and treatment of patients have been formulated. The recommendations are graded according to a modified European Society of Cardiology grading system, where the strength (class) of each recommendation is graded from I to III and the letters A to C mark the level of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 160 recommendations have been issued on the following topics: Service standards, including surgical volume and training; Epidemiology, diagnosis, and screening; Management of patients with small abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), including surveillance, cardiovascular risk reduction, and indication for repair; Elective AAA repair, including operative risk assessment, open and endovascular repair, and early complications; Ruptured and symptomatic AAA, including peri-operative management, such as permissive hypotension and use of aortic occlusion balloon, open and endovascular repair, and early complications, such as abdominal compartment syndrome and colonic ischaemia; Long term outcome and follow up after AAA repair, including graft infection, endoleaks and follow up routines; Management of complex AAA, including open and endovascular repair; Management of iliac artery aneurysm, including indication for repair and open and endovascular repair; and Miscellaneous aortic problems, including mycotic, inflammatory, and saccular aortic aneurysm. In addition, Shared decision making is being addressed, with supporting information for patients, and Unresolved issues are discussed.

CONCLUSION

The ESVS Clinical Practice Guidelines provide the most comprehensive, up to date, and unbiased advice to clinicians and patients on the management of abdominal aorto-iliac artery aneurysms.

Perspectives of Patients and Professionals on Patient Education in Complex Endovascular Aortic Repair

BACKGROUND

Misinterpretation of patient preferences in perioperative education can lead to an undesired treatment decision. This explorative interview study presents differences in perspectives of patients and professionals on patient education in complex endovascular aortic aneurysm management.

METHODS

Using convenience sampling, a cross-sectional interview study was performed among patients who were in various stages of the decision-making process for complex endovascular aortic repair. Five physicians were interviewed, representing the main providers of clinical information. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed inductively.

RESULTS

Twelve patients (mean age 76.6 [standard deviation: 6.4], 83% male) were interviewed. Ten (83%) felt like they had no other realistic option besides undergoing surgery, whereas all professionals (5/5) stressed the importance of delicate patient selection. Five patients out of 10 (50%) who commented on their preferred decisional role considered the professional's advice as decisive. All but 1 patient (11/12) reported that the information was easy to understand, whereas 4 out of 5 professionals (80%) doubted whether patients could fully comprehend everything. Patients experienced a lack of information on the recovery process, although professionals stated that this was addressed during consultation.

CONCLUSIONS

Several differences were found in the perspectives of patients and professionals on education in complex aortic aneurysm management. In order to optimize patient involvement in decision-making, professionals should be aware of these possible discrepancies and address them during consultation. Future research could focus on these differences in more detail by including more patients depending on their treatment and decision stages.

A scoping review into the explanations for differences in the degrees of shared decision making experienced by patients

OBJECTIVES

In order to improve the degree of shared decision making (SDM) experienced by patients, it is necessary to gain insight into the explanations for the differences in these degrees.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature on the explanations for differences in the degree of SDM experienced by patients was conducted. We assessed 21,329 references. Ultimately, 308 studies were included. The explanations were divided into micro, meso, and macro levels.

RESULTS

The explanations are mainly related to the micro level. They include explanations related to the patient and healthcare professionals, the relationship between the patient and the physician, and the involvement of the patient's relatives. On the macro level, explanations are related to restrictions within the healthcare system such as time constraints, and adequate information about treatment options. On the meso level, explanations are related to the continuity of care and the involvement of other healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

SDM is not an isolated process between the physician and patient. Explanations are connected to the macro, meso, and micro levels.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This scoping review suggests that there could be more focus on explanations related to the macro and meso levels, and on how explanations at different levels are interrelated.

Information provision and decision-making in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm: A qualitative study of patient experience

INTRODUCTION

Shared decision making (SDM) refers to patients and health care professionals working together to reach a decision about treatment/care. In abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) treatment options are influenced by patients' clinical characteristics, their preferences, and potential trade-offs between alternative interventions. This is a prime example of where SDM is essential to ensure the right decision is made for the right patient, yet we have little understanding of what happens in practice. This study explored patient experiences to understand SDM practice in AAA surgery.

METHODS

We used a qualitative approach to describe, and identify improvements to, current treatment decision making in abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) surgery. Two groups of patients were interviewed: those at the point of discussing treatment options (with corresponding digitally recorded consultation data) and following surgical intervention from one hospital. Framework analysis was used.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients were interviewed, seven at the point of discussing treatment options and eight following surgical intervention. Timing, format and sources of information, verbal framing of interventions and level of patient engagement were key themes. Four areas for improvement were identified: earlier provision and more detailed written information along with signposting to quality on-line information; both intervention options, risks, benefits, and consequences, were not always discussed; some clinicians were somewhat directive in the decision-making process; and patients' treatment values/preferences were not explored-the only example was in one of the eight recorded consultations. Patients could feel overwhelmed by the information and decision and fearful of the impending surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

More emphasis should be placed on the provision of full information and the exploration of patient values and preferences for treatment. Clinician training and support for patients, including decision aids, could facilitate the decision-making process. Providing written information earlier and guidance on reliable on-line resources would benefits patients and their families.

Patient knowledge and preferences for peripheral artery disease treatment

BACKGROUND

Shared medical decision making requires patients' understanding of their disease and its treatment options. Peripheral artery disease (PAD) is a condition for which preference-sensitive treatments are available, but for which little is known about patients' knowledge and treatment preferences as it relates to specific treatment goals.

METHODS

In a prospective, multicenter registry that involved patients with PAD experiencing claudication, the PORTRAIT Knowledge and Preferences Survey was administered at 1 year. It asks questions about PAD treatment choices, symptom relief options, disease management, and secondary prevention. PAD treatment preferences were also queried, and patients ranked 10 PAD treatment goals (1-10 Likert scale; 10 being most important).

RESULTS

Among 281 participants completing the survey (44.8% women, mean age 69.6 ± 9.0 years), 54.1% knew that there was more than one way to treat PAD symptoms and 47.1% were offered more than one treatment option. Most (82.4%) acknowledged that they had to manage their PAD for the rest of their life. 'Avoid loss of toes or legs,' 'decreased risk of heart attack/stroke,' 'long-lasting treatment benefit,' 'living longer,' 'improved quality of life,' and 'doing what the doctor thinks I should do' had mean ratings > 9.0 (SD ranging between 1.21 and 2.00). More variability occurred for 'avoiding surgery.' 'cost of treatment,' 'timeline of pain relief,' and 'return to work' (SD ranging between 2.76 and 3.58). The single most important treatment goal was 'improving quality of life' (31.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

Gaps exist in knowledge for patients with PAD who experience claudication, and there is a need for increased efforts to improve support for shared decision-making frameworks for symptomatic PAD.(ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01419080).

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.

Shared Decision Making and the Management of Intact Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm: A Scoping Review of the Literature

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to summarise the current knowledge of shared decision making (SDM) in patients facing a treatment decision about an intact abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), and to identify where further evidence is needed.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched on 18 July 2021. An updated search was run on 31 May 2022 for relevant studies published from 1 January 2000 to 31 May 2022.

REVIEW METHODS

This scoping review was undertaken in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines following a pre-defined protocol, retrieving studies reporting on aspects of SDM in those with intact AAAs. Qualitative synthesis of the articles was performed, and the results grouped according to theme.

RESULTS

Fifteen articles reporting on a total of 1 344 participants (age range 62-74 years) from hospital vascular surgery clinics with intact AAAs were included. Studies were observational (n = 9), non-randomised studies of an intervention (n = 3), and randomised clinical trials (n = 3). The first theme was the preferences and practice of SDM. The proportion of patients preferring SDM ranged from 58% to 95% (three studies), although objective rating of SDM practice was consistently < 50% (three studies). Clinician training improved SDM practice. The second theme was poor provision of information. Fewer than half of patients (0 - 46%) surveyed were informed about all available treatment options (three studies). Publicly available information sources were rated as poor. The third theme concerned the utility of decision making support tools (DSTs). Two randomised trials demonstrated that the provision of DSTs improves patient knowledge and agreement between patient preference and repair type received but not objective measures of SDM for patients with AAAs.

CONCLUSION

SDM for patients with an intact AAA appears to be in its infancy. Most patients with an AAA want SDM, but this is not commonly applied. Most patients with an AAA do not receive adequate information for SDM, although the use of bespoke DSTs leaves patients better informed to facilitate SDM.

Patient involvement in medical decisions: a survey of shared decision making during physical therapy consultations

INTRODUCTION

Shared decision making (SDM) is widely affirmed as an ethical principle in healthcare; underpinned by both evidence of its positive outcomes among patients and strong inducements for its adoption by health professionals. This study investigated patients' involvement in SDM, determined its association with their personal characteristics and identified factors influencing their participation.

METHOD

A cross-sectional survey was executed among 148 consenting patients, who were recruited using convenience sampling technique and invited to complete self-report questionnaires on SDM. Data were analyzed via descriptive and inferential statistics.

RESULTS

Only 14 patients (9.5%) were involved in SDM whilst most patients (88.5%) had passive roles during consultation. SDM involvement had significant associations with age (p = .006) and educational status (p = .021). Most patients (67.6%) identified 'Doubt towards SDM,' as a factor that could hinder this collaborative process. Similarly, majority of the patients acknowledged the relevance of the influential factors: 'Physiotherapist's support' (83.7%) and 'Adequate health Information' (75%), toward promoting involvement in SDM.

CONCLUSION

Patient involvement in SDM was low in this study. Older and less/uneducated patients exhibited an increased tendency of noninvolvement. Key influential factors that either facilitate or hinder patients' involvement in SDM were revealed. There is a need to curtail drawbacks to SDM and promote its execution in physical therapy as well as general clinical practice.

Shared decision making, patient-centered communication and patient satisfaction - A cross-sectional analysis

OBJECTIVES

The integration of shared decision making (SDM) and patient-centered communication (PCC) is needed to actively involve patients in decision making. This study examined the relationship between shared decision making and patient-centered communication.

METHODS

In 82 videotaped hospital outpatient consultations by 41 medical specialists from 18 disciplines, we assessed the extent of shared decision making by the OPTION⁵ score and patient-centered communication by the Four Habits Coding Scheme (4HCS), and analyzed the occurrence of a high versus low degree (above or below median) of SDM and/or PCC, and its relation to patient satisfaction scores.

RESULTS

In comparison to earlier studies, we observed comparable 4HCS scores and relatively low OPTION⁵ scores. The correlation between the two was weak (r = 0.29, p = 0.009). In 38% of consultations, we observed a combination of high SDM and low PCC scores or vice versa. The combination of a high SDM and high PCC, which was observed in 23% of consultations, was associated with significantly higher patient satisfaction scores.

CONCLUSION

Shared decision making and patient-centered communication are not synonymous and do not always co-exist.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The value of integrated training of shared decision making and patient-centered communication should be further explored.

Strategies for the Management of Solitary Pulmonary Nodules. A Survey of Patient Preferences

BACKGROUND

Guideline-based strategies for evaluation of solitary pulmonary nodules are tailored to the likelihood of malignancy. Surveillance, biopsy or resection are all reasonable approaches in fit individuals when the likelihood of malignancy is intermediate. Given the paucity of data demonstrating superior outcomes and important trade-offs between strategies, guidelines emphasize the importance of eliciting patient preferences and engaging in shared decision-making, however there is little literature on what patient preferences actually are.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional, interview-administered questionnaire in 100 adults recruited from a metropolitan teaching hospital, using a hypothetical scenario designed to elicit patient preferences for different management strategies of solitary pulmonary nodules with probability of malignancy between 10% and 70%.

RESULTS

The mean age of participants was 62 years (range 45 to 80), 56% were male, 94% were current or ex-smokers. Ninety-four percent completed all questions. At 10% probability of malignancy, 36.3% preferred surveillance, 42.4% preferred needle biopsy and 21.2% preferred surgical resection. Preference for surgical resection increased to 53.5% and 86.2% when the probability of malignancy was 30% and 70% respectively. Changes in the diagnostic yield of CT biopsy significantly altered preferences when probability of malignancy was 10% or 30%.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of participants surveyed expressed a preference for some type of biopsy over observation at all levels of solitary pulmonary nodule probability of malignancy evaluated. In an era of increasing solitary pulmonary nodule detection and patient-centered care, if confirmed in broader studies, these findings have considerable implications for processes of care and resource allocation.

A randomized clinical trial of an eHealth intervention on anxiety in patients undergoing abdominal aortic aneurysm surgery

BACKGROUND

The potential benefit of eHealth interventions in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is uncertain. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the effect of an eHealth intervention on anxiety in patients with AAA undergoing surgery.

METHODS

A single-centre randomized clinical trial of patients with AAA scheduled for surgical repair was undertaken. The intervention group received an eHealth tool and psychosocial support besides standard care. The control group received standard care. The analysis of treatment effects was performed as intention-to-treat and per protocol analysis. The primary outcome measure was anxiety mean score (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale Anxiety (HADS)-A). Secondary outcomes measures were HADS Depression and short-form 12-item health survey mean scores.

RESULTS

Some 120 participants were randomized. No effect on anxiety mean scores was found in the intention-to-treat analysis (-1.21 versus -0.54, P = 0.330). Among those randomized to the intervention, only 30 of 60 participants used the eHealth tool (application (app) users). The app users were younger and had a higher educational level. A decrease in anxiety mean scores was noted in those who used the app in the per protocol analysis (-2.00 versus -0.54, P = 0.028). The intervention group stated a lower physical-component health-related quality of life (HRQoL) (-4.32 versus -1.16, P = 0.042) but mental-component HRQoL and depressive symptoms were unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS

Delivery of an eHealth intervention in this RCT did not result in an improvement in anxiety scores in patients awaiting AAA surgery. Uptake of the eHealth tool was low, although it resulted in lower anxiety scores in those participants who actually used it.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03157973 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Perceptions of patients with wounds due to chronic limb-threatening ischemia

Patients with chronic limb-threatening ischemia (CLTI) face numerous barriers to caring for lower extremity wounds. We explored the perceptions of CLTI patients to their wound/management and sought to determine attitudes towards their vascular provider as well as willingness for management through telemedicine. Patients admitted to hospital for treatment of Rutherford Grade 5 and 6 CLTI were asked complete a wound evaluation survey and took part in a semi-structured interview. Semi-structured interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using an inductive coding strategy. Codes were grouped for thematic analysis and aggregated into assertions. Eleven patients with a mean age of 60 years (35-79 years) were interviewed. All patients had peripheral artery disease (PAD) and eight patients had diabetes as well. Three overarching themes were identified. First, patients appear to have limited coping mechanisms and are overwhelmed by the care of their wounds. Second, in this cohort of patients, many had become passive observers of their care as demonstrated by a limited understanding of their disease processes and detachment from wound management. The third theme was how strong the desire to do everything to prevent limb loss was, but patients acknowledged this is hard to translate into real life with limited resources. Patients with CLTI have concerns that vascular providers must recognize and address to build strong patient-provider relationships and increase activation for management of their wounds and other medical conditions. Patients who have access to technology and with guidance may be able to understand getting care through remote medicine.

Stakeholder Values and Preferences in Lower Limb Amputation for No-Option Chronic Limb Threatening Ischemia

PURPOSE

This study focusses on identifying values and preferences of patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals who have dealt with lower limb amputation for no-option chronic limb threatening ischemia. No-option chronic limb threatening ischemia is defined as limb ischemia for which no treatment options exist and where lower limb amputation is necessary in the short term. The values and preferences identified in this study can help improve decision-making processes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a qualitative study, using semi-structured interviews to gather data from patients, caregivers and healthcare professionals. Participants were selected from the patient and employee population of an academic medical center in The Netherlands. Nine patients and seven caregivers who dealt with lower limb amputation for no-option chronic limb threatening ischemia six to twelve months prior to the interview and were not cognitively impaired were selected. Nine healthcare professionals dealing with patients with no-option chronic limb threatening ischemia and lower limb amputation were selected.

RESULTS

Lower limb amputation was explicitly discussed late in the disease process, sometimes during an emergency setting. Patients stated goals were never discussed, healthcare professionals stated they were. The most important goal for patients was to live independently after lower limb amputation. Patients and caregivers feel healthcare professionals should be upfront about the possible necessity of lower limb amputation. Reasons to undergo lower limb amputation were absence of treatment options, pain and wanting to enjoy life again. Participants indicated accelerating lower limb amputation was not a viable option.

CONCLUSION

All stakeholders reported overlapping values and preferences regarding main reasons for lower limb amputation, the primary goals after lower limb amputation, and the absence of a desire to accelerate lower limb amputation. The main difference in values and preferences is the preferred timing of discussing lower limb amputation.

The impact of a physician's recommendation and gender on informed decision making: A randomized controlled study in a simulated decision situation

Objective

This study examined the influence of physicians’ recommendations and gender on the decision‐making process in a preference‐sensitive situation.

Methods

N = 201 participants were put in a hypothetical scenario in which they suffered from a rupture of the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). They received general information on two equally successful treatment options for this injury (surgery vs physiotherapy) and answered questions regarding their treatment preference, certainty and satisfaction regarding their decision and attitude towards the treatment options. Then, participants watched a video that differed regarding physician's recommendation (surgery vs physiotherapy) and physician's gender (female vs male voice and picture). Afterwards, they indicated again their treatment preference, certainty, satisfaction and attitude, as well as the physician's professional and social competence.

Results

Participants changed their treatment preferences in the direction of the physician's recommendation (P < .001). Decision certainty (P < .001) and satisfaction (P < .001) increased more strongly if the physician's recommendation was congruent with the participant's prior attitude than if the recommendation was contrary to the participant's prior attitude. Finally, participants’ attitudes towards the recommended treatment became more positive (surgery recommendation: P < .001; physiotherapy recommendation: P < .001). We found no influence of the physician's gender on participants’ decisions, attitudes, or competence assessments.

Conclusion

This research indicates that physicians should be careful with recommendations when aiming for shared decisions, as they might influence patients even if the patients have been made aware that they should take their personal preferences into account. This could be particularly problematic if the recommendation is not in line with the patient's preferences.

Envisioning Shared Decision Making: A Reflection for the Next Decade

Despite the evolving evidence in favor of shared decision making (SDM) and of decades-long calls for its adoption, SDM remains uncommon in routine care. Reflecting on this lack of progress, we sought to reimagine the future of SDM and the path to take us there. In late 2017, a multidisciplinary and international group of six researchers were challenged by a senior SDM scholar to envision the future and, based on a provocatively critical view of the present, to write letters to themselves from the year 2028. Letters were exchanged and discussed electronically. The group then met in person to discuss the letters. Since the letters painted a dystopian picture, they triggered questions about the nature of SDM, who should benefit from SDM, how to measure its contribution to care, and what new ways can be invented to design and test interventions to implement SDM in routine care. Through contrasting the purposefully generated dystopias with an ideal future for SDM, we generated reflections on a research agenda for SDM. These reflections hinged on recognizing SDM's contributing to care, that is, as a way to advance the problematic human situation of patients. These focused on three distinct yet complimentary contributors to SDM: 1) the process of making decisions, 2) humanistic communication, and 3) fit-to-care of the resulting decision. The group then concluded that to move SDM from envisioned to routine practice, and to ensure it reaches all, particularly persons rendered vulnerable by current forms of health care, a substantial investment in implementation research is necessary. Perhaps the discussion of these reflections can contribute to a path forward that will improve the likelihood of the future we dream for SDM.

Representativeness of personality and involvement preferences in a web-based survey on healthcare decision-making

Background

Obtaining a sample that is representative of the group of interest is of utmost importance in questionnaire studies. In a survey using a state authorized web-portal for citizen communication with authorities, we wanted to investigate the view of adult men on patient involvement in health care decision-making regarding Prostate-Specific Antigen test for prostatic cancer. In this paper, we report on sample characteristics and representativeness of our sample in terms of personality and baseline involvement preferences.

Methods

We compared personality profiles (BFI-10) and baseline healthcare decision-making preferences (CPS) in our sample (n = 6756) to internationally available datasets. Pooled data from a) US, UK, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (n = 1512), b) Germany, Netherlands, Switzerland, and Belgium (n = 1136), and c) Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Denmark (n = 1313) were used for BFI-10 comparisons. Regarding CPS, we compared our sample with three previous datasets relating to decision-making in cancer (n = 425, 387, and 199).

Results

Although statistically significant differences particularly appeared in large dataset comparisons, sample BFI-10 and CPS profiles mostly were within the range of those previously reported. Similarity was greatest in BFI-10 comparisons with group a) where no statistically significant difference could be established in factors ‘agreeableness’ and ‘neuroticism’ (p = .095 and .578, respectively).

Conclusion

Despite some variation, our sample displays personality and baseline preference profiles that are generally similar to those described in previous international studies. For example, this was the case with the BFI-10 ‘agreeableness’ measure (incl. trust and fault-finding items), an important factor in healthcare decision-making.

Shared decision making in surgery: a scoping review of patient and surgeon preferences

Background

Many suggest that shared decision-making (SDM) is the most effective approach to clinical counseling. It is unclear if this applies to surgical decision-making-especially regarding urgent, highly-morbid operations. In this scoping review, we identify articles that address patient and surgeon preferences toward SDM in surgery.

Methods

We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) to develop our protocol. Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception through 11.2017. Title/abstract review identified peer-reviewed, empirical articles that addressed patient/surgeon preferences toward SDM in surgery. Identified articles underwent full review by two independent investigators. We addressed the following questions: (1) What is known from existing empirical evidence about patients’ and/or surgeons’ surgical decision-making preferences? (2) Why might patients and/or surgeons prefer SDM? (3) Does acuity of intervention impact surgical decision-making preferences? Outcome measures included study methods, surgical specialty, diagnosis, study location/setting, type/number of subjects, acuity of intervention, surgeon/patient decision-making preferences, and factors associated with favoring SDM. Data was analyzed in Microsoft Excel.

Results

20,359 articles were identified with 4988 duplicates, yielding 15,371 articles for title/abstract review. 74 articles were included in final analysis. 68% of articles discussed oncologic decision-making. 46% of these focused on breast cancer. 92% of articles included patients, 22% included surgeons. 75% of articles found surgeons favored SDM, 25% demonstrated surgeons favored surgeon guidance. 54% of articles demonstrated patients favored SDM, 35% showed patients favored surgeon guidance, 11% showed patients preferred independent decision-making. The most common factors for patients favoring SDM included female gender, higher education, and younger age. For surgeons, the most common factors for favoring SDM included limited evidence for a given treatment plan, multiple treatment options, and impact on patient lifestyle. No articles evaluated decision-making preferences in an emergent setting.

Conclusions

There has been limited evaluation of patient and surgeon preferences toward SDM in surgical decision-making. Generally, patients and surgeons expressed preference toward SDM. None of the articles evaluated decision-making preferences in an emergent setting, so assessment of the impact of acuity on decision-making preferences is limited. Extension of research to complex, emergent clinical settings is needed.

Secondary Interventions and Long-term Follow-up after Endovascular Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair

BACKGROUND

Early morbidity and mortality are low after endovascular abdominal aneurysm repair (EVAR), but secondary interventions and late complications are common. The aim of the present multicenter cohort study is to detail the frequency and indication for interventions after EVAR and the impact on long-term survival.

METHODS

A retrospective multicenter cohort study of secondary interventions after elective EVAR for an infrarenal abdominal aortic aneurysm was conducted. Consecutive patients (n = 349) undergoing EVAR between January 2007 and January 2012 were analyzed, with long-term follow-up until December 2018. Those requiring intervention were classified in accordance with the indications and specific nature of the intervention and treatment. The primary study end point was overall survival classified for patients with and without intervention. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate overall survival for those who did and who did not undergo secondary interventions. Univariable and multivariable Cox regression were performed to identify independent variables associated with mortality.

RESULTS

Some 56 patients (16%) underwent 72 secondary interventions after EVAR during a median (interquartile range) follow-up period of 53.2 months (60.1). Some 45 patients (80.4%) underwent one intervention. Indications for intervention included mainly endograft kinking/outflow obstruction and type II endoleak. An endovascular technique was used in 40.3% of interventions. Median time to secondary intervention was 24.1 months. In 93 patients with abnormalities on imaging, no intervention was performed mainly because the abnormality had disappeared on follow-up imaging (43%). Kaplan-Meier curves showed no difference in survival for patients with and without secondary interventions (P = 0.153). Age (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.089, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.063-1.116), ASA classification (ASA III, IV HR: 1.517, 95% CI: 1.056-2.178) were significantly related to mortality.

CONCLUSIONS

Secondary intervention rates are still considerable after EVAR. Endograft kinking/outflow obstruction and endoleak type II are the most common indications for a secondary intervention. Secondary interventions did not adversely affect long-term overall survival after EVAR.

Achieving good-quality consent: review of literature, case law and guidance

Background

Informed consent is an integral part of clinical practice. There is widespread agreement amongst health professionals that obtaining procedural consent needs to move away from a unidirectional transfer of information to a process of supporting patients in making informed, self‐determined decisions. This review aimed to identify processes and measures that warrant consideration when engaging in consent‐based discussions with competent patients undergoing elective procedures.

Methods

Formal written guidance from the General Medical Council and Royal College of Surgeons of England, in addition to peer‐reviewed literature and case law, was considered in the formulation of this review.

Results

A framework for obtaining consent is presented that is informed by the key tenets of shared decision‐making (SDM), a model that advocates the contribution of both the clinician and patient to the decision‐making process through emphasis on patient participation, analysis of empirical evidence, and effective information exchange. Moreover, areas of contention are highlighted in which further guidance and research are necessary for improved enhancement of the consent process.

Conclusion

This SDM‐centric framework provides structure, detail and suggestions for achieving meaningful consent.

Reflecting on shared decision making: A reflection-quantification study

BACKGROUND

Reflecting ("stop-and-think") before rating may help patients consider the quality of shared decision making (SDM) and mitigate ceiling/halo effects that limit the performance of self-reported SDM measures.

METHODS

We asked a diverse patient sample from the United States to reflect on their care before completing the 3-item CollaboRATE SDM measure. Study 1 focused on rephrasing CollaboRATE items to promote reflection before each item. Study 2 used 5 open-ended questions (about what went well and what could be improved upon, signs that the clinician understood the patient's situation, how the situation will be addressed, and why this treatment plan makes sense) to invite reflection before using the whole scale. A linear analogue scale assessed the extent to which the plan of care made sense to the patient.

RESULTS

In Study 1, 107 participants completed surveys (84% response rate), 43 (40%) rated a clinical decision of which 27 (63%) after responding to reflection questions. Adding reflection lowered CollaboRATE scores ("less" SDM) and reduced the proportion of patients giving maximum (ceiling) scores (not statistically significant). In Study 2, 103 of 212 responders (49%) fully completed the version containing reflection questions. Reflection did not significantly change the distribution of CollaboRATE scores or of top scores. Participants indicated high scores on the sense of their care plan (mean 9.7 out of 10, SD 0.79). This rating was weakly correlated with total CollaboRATE scores (rho = .4, P = .0001).

CONCLUSION

Reflection-before-quantification interventions may not improve the performance of patient-reported measures of SDM with substantial ceiling/halo effects.

Virtual patient educational intervention for the development of shared decision-making skills: a pilot study

Background

Shared decision-making (SDM) involves a healthcare professional and a patient forming a congruent partnership, within which information is shared and decisions are made which align with the patient's values. SDM does not occur to the extent it ought to; SDM requires practice. Virtual reality could help facilitate this practice.

Objective

To pilot an interactive, high-fidelity virtual patient (VP) who simulates SDM within a primary care consultation.

Method

Academic pharmacists and doctors were recruited from the Keele University. Participants completed prequestionnaires and postquestionnaires.

Results

18 participants (14 pharmacists and 4 medical doctors) completed the study. 89% (n=16) suggested the VP was 'enjoyable' or 'highly enjoyable' to use and 72% (n=13) suggested it was 'very accessible'. There were diverse views about the way in which the user made their reply to the VP with ratings ranging from 'very poor' (n=2) to 'very good' (n=5); the modal rating was indifference (n=7). It seemed the multiple choice system caused the participants to feel restricted but it was unclear why those who liked the system did so.

Conclusions

The VP was found to be enjoyable and thought-provoking. The data suggest that this type of intervention could be useful at many different stages of a professional's career although the multiple-choice conversation style may be too restrictive for more experienced consulters.

Shared decision-making in vascular surgery

BACKGROUND

Ideally, patients' decision-making regarding surgical options should reflect myriad implicit values. The informed consent process is meant to ensure that patients' values mirror clinical decisions regarding expectations for outcomes, such as quality of life, life expectancy, and subsequent pain and suffering. However, surgeons are not always equipped to discuss patients' values.

METHODS

Shared decision-making is a method that could help surgeons elicit patients' values and subsequently improve the patient's knowledge and satisfaction, among other important outcomes. Yet, several barriers hinder implementation of shared decision-making in the clinic, such as time, interpersonal characteristics, and trust. To address concerns, several tools and approaches have been developed to increase shared decision-making in the clinic. This article highlights two strategies: the three-talk model and decision aids.

CONCLUSIONS

Shared decision-making is a tool that could be especially valuable in discussions regarding elective surgery. Further research is needed to determine how best to implement shared decision-making in the surgical setting. Without full integration of patients' values into discussions of surgical options, there will continue to be a disconnect between the surgical procedures, outcomes, and patients' values.

Humanistic communication in the evaluation of shared decision making: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To assess the extent to which evaluations of shared decision making (SDM) assess the extent and quality of humanistic communication (i.e., respect, compassion, empathy).

METHODS

We systematically searched Web of Science and Scopus for prospective studies published between 2012 and February 2018 that evaluated SDM in actual clinical decisions using validated SDM measures. Two reviewers working independently and in duplicate extracted all statements from eligible studies and all items from SDM measurement instruments that referred to humanistic patient-clinician communication.

RESULTS

Of the 154 eligible studies, 14 (9%) included ≥1 statements regarding humanistic communication, either in framing the study (N = 2), measuring impact (e.g., empathy, respect, interpersonal skills; N = 9), as patients'/clinicians' accounts of SDM (N = 2), in interpreting study results (N = 3), and in discussing implications of study findings (N = 3). Of the 192 items within the 11 SDM measurement instruments deployed in the included studies, 7 (3.6%) items assessed humanistic communication.

CONCLUSION

Assessments of the quality of SDM focus narrowly on SDM technique and rarely assess humanistic aspects of patient-clinician communication.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Considering SDM as merely a technique may reduce SDM's patient-centeredness and undermine its' contribution to patient care.

Creating a Pathway for Multidisciplinary Shared Decision-Making to Improve Communication During Preoperative Assessment

Shared decision-making (SDM) is essential for high-quality surgical care. Barriers to SDM exist in clinical practice but there is evidence these obstacles can be overcome. SDM requires clinician and patient engagement. Though patients may indicate understanding, deficits in decision making may persist based on language, age, or educational barriers. Multidisciplinary decision-making before surgery is an opportunity for anesthesiologists and other perioperative professionals to improve surgical care. The authors present an example of a successfully implemented pathway for high-risk surgical patients at a tertiary care center, leveraging the preoperative anesthesia evaluation.

Treatment of varicose veins, international consensus on which major complications to discuss with the patient: A Delphi study

Objective

To reach consensus on which complications of varicose vein treatments physicians consider major or minor, in order to standardize the informed consent procedure and improve shared decision-making.

Methods

Using the e-Delphi method, expert physicians from 10 countries were asked to rate complications as “major” or “minor” on a 5-point Likert scale. Reference articles from a Cochrane review on varicose veins were used to compose the list of complications.

Results

Participating experts reached consensus on 12 major complications: allergic reaction, cellulitis requiring intravenous antibiotics/intensive care, wound infection requiring debridement, hemorrhage requiring blood transfusion/surgical intervention, pulmonary embolism, skin necrosis requiring surgery, arteriovenous fistula requiring repair, deep venous thrombosis, lymphocele, thermal injury, transient ischemic attack/stroke, and permanent discoloration.

Conclusion

An international consensus was reached about what physicians consider to be major complications of varicose vein treatments. This consensus may assist in standardizing the information physicians discuss with patients prior to varicose vein treatment.