Direct-Observation Cohort Study of Shared Decision Making in a Primary Care Clinic

Shared decision-making performance of general practice residents: an observational study combining observer, resident, and patient perspectives

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is considered fundamental to person-centred care. However, applying SDM may be a challenge for residents in general practice, since it is a complex competence that requires the integration of knowledge and skills from several competency domains.

OBJECTIVE

To support learning of SDM during medical residency, we aimed to gain insight in Dutch residents' observed and perceived SDM performance in general practice.

METHODS

We evaluated residents' SDM performance from an observer, resident, and patient perspective. Consultations of first- and third-year residents were recorded. Trained observers used the validated Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION5) scale to assess observed SDM performance of residents in 98 actual recorded consultations. Perceived SDM performance was evaluated by residents and patients completing validated SDM questionnaires, supplemented with questions about (the context of) the consultation and perceived relevance of SDM immediately after the consultation. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics (mean, SD, minimums, and maximums) and explorative bivariate analyses.

RESULTS

The residents' observed mean SDM performance was 19.1 (range, 0-100, SD = 10.9), mean resident self-reported SDM performance was 56.9 (range, 0-100, SD = 18.5), and mean patient-reported SDM performance was 73.3 (range, 0-100, SD = 26.8). We found a significant and positive correlation between observed SDM performance and residents' perceived relevance of SDM for the consultation (t = 4.571, P ≤ 0.001) and the duration of the consultation (r = 0.390, P ≤ 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that there is room for increasing awareness of the potential incongruence between observed and perceived SDM performance during medical residency, in order to facilitate the implementation of SDM in clinical practice.

Perceptions of shared decision making in gastroenterology and inflammatory bowel disease: A qualitative analysis

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision-making (SDM) is the partnership and discussion between clinicians and patients to make an appropriate decision based on scientific evidence and patient preferences. Many benefits are associated with SDM; however, little is known about its awareness or use by inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) clinicians in gastroenterology departments across Israel. This study aims to identify barriers and facilitators in implementing SDM as standard practice to achieve optimal disease management and personalized care for patients with IBD.

METHODS

Sixteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with IBD clinicians across Israel to identify the barriers and facilitators for SDM use. An interview guide was developed, based on the systematic approach of the Theoretical Domain Framework (TDF). Interview transcripts were coded into theoretical domains to identify factors that may impact SDM.

RESULTS

Sixteen gastroenterologists from nine different hospitals were interviewed. Common TDF domains that presented as barriers were: knowledge, skills, social/professional role and identity, environmental context and resources, and reinforcement. Most participants had never heard the precise term "shared decision making" and lacked formal training on SDM.

CONCLUSION

This study identified key barriers and facilitators to SDM in IBD clinics across Israel. Main barriers of SDM include limited or nonexistent training; clinicians were unaware of SDM guidelines or techniques. The main facilitators of SDM were clinicians' social and professional role and identity and their beliefs about the influence of IBD and/or CD.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

These influencing factors and TDF domains identified provide a basis for developing future interventions to improve the implementation of SDM within IBD management.

Design of a real-world, prospective, longitudinal, observational study to compare vortioxetine with other standard of care antidepressant treatments in patients with major depressive disorder: a PatientsLikeMe survey

BACKGROUND

Major depressive disorder (MDD) is a recurrent psychiatric condition that presents challenges in responding to treatment and achieving long-term remission. To improve outcomes, a shared decision-making treatment approach with patient and healthcare practitioner (HCP) engagement is vital. PatientsLikeMe (PLM), a peer community of patients, provides information on MDD, symptoms, and treatment through forums and resources, helping patients stay engaged in their treatment journey. Data on PLM can be harnessed to gain insights into patient perspectives on MDD symptom management, medication switches, and treatment goals and measures.

METHODS

This ongoing, decentralized, longitudinal, observational, prospective study is being conducted using the PLM platform in two parts, enrolling up to 500 patients with MDD in the United States aged ≥ 18 years to compare vortioxetine with other monotherapy antidepressants. The first qualitative component consists of a webinar and discussion forum with PLM community members with MDD, followed by a pilot for functionality testing to improve the study flow and questions in the quantitative survey. The quantitative component follows on the PLM platform, utilizing patient-reported assessments, over a 24-week period. Three surveys will be conducted at baseline and weeks 12 and 24 to collect data on patient global impression of improvement, depression severity, cognitive function, quality of life (QoL) and well-being, medication satisfaction, emotional blunting, symptoms of anhedonia and resilience, as well as goal attainment. Quantitative results will be compared between groups. The qualitative component is complete; patient recruitment is underway for the quantitative component, with results expected in late 2023.

DISCUSSION

These results will help HCPs understand patient perspectives on the effectiveness of vortioxetine versus other monotherapy antidepressants in alleviating symptoms of MDD and improvements in QoL. Data from the PLM platform will support a patient goal-based treatment approach, as results can be shared by patients with their HCPs, providing them with insights on patient-centric goals, treatment management and adherence, as well as allowing them to observe changes in patient-related outcomes scores. Findings from the study will also help to optimize the PLM platform to build scalable solutions and connectivity within the community to better serve patients with MDD.

Identifying Patterns in Preoperative Communication about High-Risk Surgical Intervention: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

Surgeons are entrusted with providing patients with information necessary for deliberation about surgical intervention. Ideally, surgical consultations generate a shared understanding of the treatment experience and determine whether surgery aligns with a patient's overall health goals. In-depth assessment of communication patterns might reveal opportunities to better achieve these objectives.

METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis of audio-recorded consultations between surgeons and patients considering high-risk surgery. For 43 surgeons, we randomly selected 4 transcripts each of consultations with patients aged ≥60 y with at least 1 comorbidity. We developed a coding taxonomy, based on principles of informed consent and shared decision making, to categorize surgeon speech. We grouped transcripts by treatment plan and recorded the treatment goal. We used box plots, Sankey diagrams, and flow diagrams to characterize communication patterns.

RESULTS

We included 169 transcripts, of which 136 discussed an oncologic problem and 33 considered a vascular (including cardiac and neurovascular) problem. At the median, surgeons devoted an estimated 8 min (interquartile range 5-13 min) to content specifically about intervention including surgery. In 85.5% of conversations, more than 40% of surgeon speech was consumed by technical descriptions of the disease or treatment. "Fix-it" language was used in 91.7% of conversations. In 79.9% of conversations, no overall goal of treatment was established or only a desire to cure or control cancer was expressed. Most conversations (68.6%) began with an explanation of the disease, followed by explanation of the treatment in 53.3%, and then options in 16.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

Explanation of disease and treatment dominate surgical consultations, with limited time spent on patient goals. Changing the focus of these conversations may better support patients' deliberation about the value of surgery.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02623335.

HIGHLIGHTS

In decision-making conversations about high-risk surgical intervention, surgeons emphasize description of the patient's disease and potential treatment, and the use of "fix-it" language is common.Surgeons dedicated limited time to eliciting patient preferences and goals, and 79.9% of conversations resulted in no explicit goal of treatment.Current communication practices may be inadequate to support deliberation about the value of surgery for individual patients and their families.

Shared decision-making and the duration of medical consultations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

1) determine whether increased levels of Shared Decision-Making (SDM) affect consultation duration, 2) investigate the intervention characteristics involved.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane library were systematically searched for experimental and cross-sectional studies up to December 2021. A best-evidence synthesis was performed, and interventions characteristics that increased at least one SDM-outcome, were pooled and descriptively analyzed.

RESULTS

Sixty-three studies were selected: 28 randomized clinical trials, 8 quasi-experimental studies, and 27 cross-sectional studies. Overall, pooling of data was not possible due to substantial heterogeneity. No differences in consultation duration were found more often than increased or decreased durations. . Consultation times (minutes:seconds) were significantly increased only among interventions that: 1) targeted clinicians only (Mean Difference [MD] 1:30, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] 0:24-2:37); 2) were performed in primary care (MD 2:05, 95%CI 0:11-3:59; 3) used a group format (MD 2:25, 95%CI 0:45-4:05); 4) were not theory-based (MD 4:01, 95%CI 0:38-7:23).

CONCLUSION

Applying SDM does not necessarily require longer consultation durations. Theory-based, multilevel implementation approaches possibly lower the risk of increasing consultation durations.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The commonly heard concern that time hinders SDM implementation can be contradicted, but implementation demands multifaceted approaches and space for training and adapting work processes.

Patients' preferred and perceived decision-making roles, and observed patient involvement in videotaped encounters with medical specialists

OBJECTIVE

To assess how patients prefer and perceive medical decision making, which factors are associated with their preferred and perceived decision-making roles, and whether observed involvement reflects patients' perceived role.

METHODS

We asked 781 patients visiting a medical specialist from 18 different disciplines to indicate their preferred and perceived decision-making roles. Patient involvement in videotaped consultations was assessed with the OPTION5 instrument.

RESULTS

Most patients preferred and perceived decision making as shared (SDM; 58% and 43%, respectively), followed by paternalistic (26% and 38%), and informative (16% and 15%). A large minority (n = 103, 21%) of patients preferring shared or informative decision making (n = 482) experienced paternalistic decision making. Mean (SD) OPTION5 scores were highest in consultations which patients perceived as informative (26.0 (19.7)), followed by shared (19.1 (17.2)) and lowest in paternalistic decision making (11.8 (13.4) p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Most patients want to be involved in decision making. Patients perceive that the physician makes the decision more often than they prefer, and perceive more involvement in the decision than objective assessment by an independent researcher shows.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

A clearer understanding of patients' medical decision-making experiences is needed to optimize physician SDM training programmes and patient awareness campaigns.

Surgeon Use of Shared Decision-making for Older Adults Considering Major Surgery: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Because major surgery carries significant risks for older adults with comorbid conditions, shared decision-making is recommended to ensure patients receive care consistent with their goals. However, it is unknown how often shared decision-making is used for these patients.

Objective

To describe the use of shared decision-making during discussions about major surgery with older adults.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This study is a secondary analysis of conversations audio recorded during a randomized clinical trial of a question prompt list. Data were collected from June 1, 2016, to November 31, 2018, from 43 surgeons and 446 patients 60 years or older with at least 1 comorbidity at outpatient surgical clinics at 5 academic centers.

Interventions

Patients received a question prompt list brochure that contained questions they could ask a surgeon.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The 5-domain Observing Patient Involvement in Decision-making (OPTION5) score (range, 0-100, with higher scores indicating greater shared decision-making) was used to measure shared decision-making.

Results

A total of 378 surgical consultations were analyzed (mean [SD] patient age, 71.9 [7.2] years; 206 [55%] male; 312 [83%] White). The mean (SD) OPTION5 score was 34.7 (20.6) and was not affected by the intervention. The mean (SD) score in the group receiving the question prompt list was 36.7 (21.2); in the control group, the mean (SD) score was 32.9 (19.9) (effect estimate, 3.80; 95% CI, -0.30 to 8.00; P = .07). Individual surgeon use of shared decision-making varied greatly, with a lowest median score of 10 (IQR, 10-20) to a high of 65 (IQR, 55-80). Lower-performing surgeons had little variation in OPTION5 scores, whereas high-performing surgeons had wide variation. Use of shared decision-making increased when surgeons appeared reluctant to operate (effect estimate, 7.40; 95% CI, 2.60-12.20; P = .003). Although longer conversations were associated with slightly higher OPTION5 scores (effect estimate, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52-0.88; P < .001), 57% of high-scoring transcripts were 26 minutes long or less. On multivariable analysis, patient age and gender, patient education, surgeon age, and surgeon gender were not significantly associated with OPTION5 scores.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that although shared decision-making is important to support the preferences of older adults considering major surgery, surgeon use of shared decision-making is highly variable. Skillful shared decision-making can be done in less than 30 minutes; however, surgeons who engage in high-scoring shared decision-making are more likely to do so when surgical intervention is less obviously beneficial for the patient.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02623335.

Do consultants do what they say they do? Observational study of the extent to which clinicians involve their patients in the decision-making process

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether consultants do what they say they do in reaching decisions with their patients.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis of hospital outpatient encounters, comparing consultants' self-reported usual decision-making style to their actual observed decision-making behaviour in video-recorded encounters.

SETTING

Large secondary care teaching hospital in the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

41 consultants from 18 disciplines and 781 patients.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURE

With the Control Preference Scale, the self-reported usual decision-making style was assessed (paternalistic, informative or shared decision making). Two independent raters assessed decision-making behaviour for each decision using the Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION)5 instrument ranging from 0 (no shared decision making (SDM)) to 100 (optimal SDM).

RESULTS

Consultants reported their usual decision-making style as informative (n=11), shared (n=16) and paternalistic (n=14). Overall, patient involvement was low, with mean (SD) OPTION5 scores of 16.8 (17.1). In an unadjusted multilevel analysis, the reported usual decision-making style was not related to the OPTION5 score (p>0.156). After adjusting for patient, consultant and consultation characteristics, higher OPTION5 scores were only significantly related to the category of decisions (treatment vs the other categories) and to longer consultation duration (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The limited patient involvement that we observed was not associated with the consultants' self-reported usual decision-making style. Consultants appear to be unconsciously incompetent in shared decision making. This can hinder the transfer of this crucial communication skill to students and junior doctors.

Observer Ratings of Shared Decision Making Do Not Match Patient Reports: An Observational Study in 5 Family Medicine Practices

BACKGROUND

Measuring shared decision making (SDM) in clinical practice is important to improve the quality of health care. Measurement can be done by trained observers and by people participating in the clinical encounter, namely, patients. This study aimed to describe the correlations between patients' and observers' ratings of SDM using 2 validated and 2 nonvalidated SDM measures in clinical consultations.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we recruited 238 complete dyads of health professionals and patients in 5 university-affiliated family medicine clinics in Canada. Participants completed self-administered questionnaires before and after audio-recorded medical consultations. Observers rated the occurrence of SDM during medical consultations using both the validated OPTION-5 (the 5-item "observing patient involvement" score) and binary questions on risk communication and values clarification (RCVC-observer). Patients rated SDM using both the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q9) and binary questions on risk communication and values clarification (RCVC-patient).

RESULTS

Agreement was low between observers' and patients' ratings of SDM using validated OPTION-5 and SDM-Q9, respectively (ρ = 0.07; P = 0.38). Observers' ratings using RCVC-observer were correlated to patients' ratings using either SDM-Q9 (r_pb = -0.16; P = 0.01) or RCVC-patients (r_pb = 0.24; P = 0.03). Observers' OPTION-5 scores and patients' ratings using RCVC-questions were moderately correlated (r_φ = 0.33; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

There was moderate to no alignment between observers' and patients' ratings of SDM using both validated and nonvalidated measures. This lack of strong correlation emphasizes that observer and patient perspectives are not interchangeable. When assessing the presence, absence, or extent of SDM, it is important to clearly state whose perspectives are reflected.