Choice architecture in physician-patient communication: a mixed-methods assessments of physicians' competency

Clinicians' Use of Choice Framing in ICU Family Meetings

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the frequency and patterns of clinicians' use of choice frames when discussing preference-sensitive care with surrogate decision-makers in the ICU.

DESIGN

Secondary sequential content analysis.

SETTING

One hundred one audio-recorded and transcribed conferences between surrogates and clinicians of incapacitated, critically ill adults from a prospective, multicenter cohort study.

SUBJECTS

Surrogate decision-makers and clinicians.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Four coders identified preference-sensitive decision episodes addressed in the meetings, including topics such as mechanical ventilation, renal replacement, and overall goals of care. Prior critical care literature provided specific topics identified as preference-sensitive specific to the critical care context. Coders then examined each decision episode for the types of choice frames used by clinicians. The choice frames were selected a priori based on decision science literature. In total, there were 202 decision episodes across the 101 transcripts, with 20.3% of the decision episodes discussing mechanical ventilation, 19.3% overall goals of care, 14.4% renal replacement therapy, 14.4% post-discharge care (i.e., discharge location such as a skilled nursing facility), and the remaining 32.1% other topics. Clinicians used default framing, in which an option is presented that will be carried out if another option is not actively chosen, more frequently than any other choice frame (127 or 62.9% of decision episodes). Clinicians presented a polar interrogative, or a "yes or no question" to accept or reject a specific care choice, in 43 (21.3%) decision episodes. Clinicians more frequently presented options emphasizing both potential losses and gains rather than either in isolation.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians frequently use default framing and polar questions when discussing preference-sensitive choices with surrogate decision-makers, which are known to be powerful nudges. Future work should focus on designing interventions promoting the informed use of these and the other most common choice frames used by practicing clinicians.

Examining how goals of care communication are conducted between doctors and patients with severe acute illness in hospital settings: A realist systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient involvement in goals of care decision-making has shown to enhance satisfaction, affective-cognitive outcomes, allocative efficiency, and reduce unwarranted clinical variation. However, the involvement of patients in goals of care planning within hospitals remains limited, particularly where mismatches in shared understanding between doctors and patients are present.

AIM

To identify and critically examine factors influencing goals of care conversations between doctors and patients during acute hospital illness.

DESIGN

Realist systematic review following the RAMESES standards. A protocol has been published in PROSPERO (CRD42021297410). The review utilised realist synthesis methodology, including a scoping literature search to generate initial theories, theory refinement through stakeholder consultation, and a systematic literature search to support program theory.

DATA SOURCES

Data were collected from Medline, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Scopus databases (1946 to 14 July 2023), citation tracking, and Google Scholar. Open-Grey was utilized to identify relevant grey literature. Studies were selected based on relevance and rigor to support theory development.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 52 papers, supporting seven context-mechanism-output (CMO) hypotheses. Findings suggest that shared doctor-patient understanding relies on doctors being confident, competent, and personable to foster trusting relationships with patients. Low doctor confidence often leads to avoidance of discussions. Moreover, information provided to patients is often inconsistent, biased, procedure-focused, and lacks personalisation. Acute illness, medical jargon, poor health literacy, and high emotional states further hinder patient understanding.

CONCLUSIONS

Goals of care conversations in hospitals are nuanced and often suboptimal. To improve patient experiences and outcome of care interventions should be personalised and tailored to individual needs, emphasizing effective communication and trusting relationships among patients, families, doctors, and healthcare teams. Inclusion of caregivers and acknowledgment at the service level are crucial for achieving desired outcomes. Implications for policy, research, and clinical practice, including further training and skills development for doctors, are discussed.

How clinicians discuss patients' donor registrations of consent and presumed consent in donor conversations in an opt-out system: a qualitative embedded multiple-case study

BACKGROUND

The Netherlands introduced an opt-out donor system in 2020. While the default in (presumed) consent cases is donation, family involvement adds a crucial layer of influence when applying this default in clinical practice. We explored how clinicians discuss patients' donor registrations of (presumed) consent in donor conversations in the first years of the opt-out system.

METHODS

A qualitative embedded multiple-case study in eight Dutch hospitals. We performed a thematic analysis based on audio recordings and direct observations of donor conversations (n = 15, 7 consent and 8 presumed consent) and interviews with the clinicians involved (n = 16).

RESULTS

Clinicians' personal considerations, their prior experiences with the family and contextual factors in the clinicians' profession defined their points of departure for the conversations. Four routes to discuss patients' donor registrations were constructed. In the Consent route (A), clinicians followed patients' explicit donation wishes. With presumed consent, increased uncertainty in interpreting the donation wish appeared and prompted clinicians to refer to "the law" as a conversation starter and verify patients' wishes multiple times with the family. In the Presumed consent route (B), clinicians followed the law intending to effectuate donation, which was more easily achieved when families recognised and agreed with the registration. In the Consensus route (C), clinicians provided families some participation in decision-making, while in the Family consent route (D), families were given full decisional capacity to pursue optimal grief processing.

CONCLUSION

Donor conversations in an opt-out system are a complex interplay between seemingly straightforward donor registrations and clinician-family interactions. When clinicians are left with concerns regarding patients' consent or families' coping, families are given a larger role in the decision. A strict uniform application of the opt-out system is unfeasible. We suggest incorporating the four previously described routes in clinical training, stimulating discussions across cases, and encouraging public conversations about donation.

Development of a Pulmonary Rehabilitation Patient Decision Aid for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Mixed Methods Study

Background

Pulmonary rehabilitation is an important part of the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but the participation rate of pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD patients is low. Patient decision aids can facilitate patient participation in pulmonary rehabilitation decisions by providing information and incorporating patient values. The aim of this study was to develop a pulmonary rehabilitation decision aid for patients with COPD.

Objective

The aim of this study was to develop a WeChat-based pulmonary rehabilitation patient decision aid to help older patients with COPD participate in pulmonary rehabilitation decision-making.

Methods

We developed the decision aid in 3 stages: (1) a literature review was performed to determine the evidence for pulmonary rehabilitation options and outcomes for patients with COPD. (2) a semi-structured interview study was conducted to develop and iterate patient decision aids. (3) usability, acceptability and language expression testing in patients and healthcare professionals.

Results

A total of 16 randomized controlled studies were included in the literature review. Thirty-six participants received semi-structured interviews. The results of interview include four themes: key points of age-friendly design, content of the tool, presentation requirements of contents and study evidence of the tool and other views and suggestions. The resultant goals-of-care decision aid achieved good usability and acceptability. The frequency of language expression increased in both patients and healthcare professionals.

Conclusion

This study uses a systematic development process to develop the first pulmonary rehabilitation decision aid for patients with COPD. It has good usability, acceptability and increased communication between patients and healthcare professionals in the pulmonary rehabilitation decision-making process.

Trial Registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR): ChiCTR1900028563; http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/default.aspx.

Bridging the gap between attitudes and action: A qualitative exploration of clinician and exercise professional's perceptions to increase opportunities for exercise counselling and referral in cancer care

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to 1) understand factors impacting the implementation of exercise communication and referral, and 2) explore integrated clinical approaches to exercise communication and referral in cancer care.

METHODS

Seven focus groups (N = 53) were conducted with clinicians and exercise professionals throughout Sydney, Australia. A sub-sample of participants (n = 9) attended a half-day workshop to identifying best practice approaches for moving forward. Data were analysed using thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

Two themes emerged: 1) Factors impacting the knowledge-to-action gap, inclusive of limited exercise specific knowledge and training opportunities, funding structure, and current referral process, and 2) Recommendations for a consistent and efficient way forward, detailing the need for oncologist-initiated communication, distribution of cancer-exercise resources, and access to exercise professionals with cancer expertise.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified factors (e.g., cancer-exercise specific training, integration of exercise physiologists) influencing exercise counselling and referral. A potential implementation-referral approach accounting for these factors and how to incorporate exercise into a standard model of cancer care, is described. Future testing is required to determine feasibility and practicality of these approaches.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

A pragmatic model is provided to guide implementation-referral, inclusive of oncologist-initiated communication exchange, relevant resources, and access to exercise professionals with cancer expertise.