Goal-Based Shared Decision-Making: Developing an Integrated Model

Pragmatic approach to mobilizing individuals with critical illness due to COVID-19: clinical perspective

PURPOSE

To provide pragmatic guidance for acute rehabilitation management and implementation of early mobility for individuals with critical illness due to COVID-19.

METHODS

Clinical perspective developed through reflective clinical practice and narrative review of best available evidence.

RESULTS

Current clinical practice guidelines do not provide guidance for implementation of early mobility interventions for individuals with critical illness due to COVID-19 who require enhanced ventilatory support or support of inhaled pulmonary artery vasodilators. Many individuals who may benefit from implementation of early mobility interventions are excluded by strict interpretation of current guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

Risk vs benefit of implementing early mobility interventions in individuals with critical illness due to COVID-19 can be mitigated through coordinated efforts of interdisciplinary teams to promote shared decision-making through therapeutic alliances with patients and their families. Clinicians must clearly define the goals of care, understand the limitations of monitoring equipment in the intensive care unit, prepare to titrate levels of oxygen based on an individual's physiologic response to mobility interventions, and help individuals maintain external goal-directed focus of attention to optimize outcomes of early mobility interventions.

JACC: Advances Expert Panel Perspective: Shared Decision-Making in Multidisciplinary Team-Based Cardiovascular Care

Shared decision-making (SDM) and multidisciplinary team-based care delivery are recommended across several cardiology clinical practice guidelines. However, evidence for benefit and guidance on implementation are limited. Informed consent, the use of patient decision aids, or the documentation of these elements for governmental or societal agencies may be conflated as SDM. SDM is a bidirectional exchange between experts: patients are the experts on their goals, values, and preferences, and clinicians provide their expertise on clinical factors. In this Expert Panel perspective, we review the current state of SDM in team-based cardiovascular care and propose best practice recommendations for multidisciplinary team implementation of SDM.

Using value-focused thinking to elicit oncologic inpatients' life and treatment objectives: a qualitative interview study

OBJECTIVE

Value-focused thinking (VFT) is a decision-making method that places the qualitative elicitation of decisionmakers' objectives at the beginning of the decision-making process. A potential healthcare application of VFT is to elicit patients' objectives to better understand what matters to them. Only then can treatments be tailored accordingly. This is particularly important for patients with life-threatening diseases such as cancer. Thus, this interview study used VFT to elicit the life and treatment objectives of non-terminal oncologic inpatients.

METHODS

Fifteen cancer inpatients (median age 66 years) were sampled in a German university hospital in September 2019. The participants completed questionnaires, the data of which were used to semi-structure the subsequent interviews. Data were analysed using inductive category formation to identify objectives in the transcribed interviews.

RESULTS

Sixteen objectives in five life domains (optimising physical wellbeing, optimising mental wellbeing, optimising personal life, optimising family life and optimising financial life) were identified.

CONCLUSION

Comparison of the findings with previous research indicated that VFT is a reliable approach to elicit patients' objectives. The identified objectives could increase understanding of the outcomes that cancer inpatients care about.

What value structure underlies shared decision making? A qualitative synthesis of models of shared decision making

OBJECTIVE

To construct the underlying value structure of shared decision making (SDM) models.

METHOD

We included previously identified SDM models (n = 40) and 15 additional ones. Using a thematic analysis, we coded the data using Schwartz's value theory to define values in SDM and to investigate value relations.

RESULTS

We identified and defined eight values and developed three themes based on their relations: shared control, a safe and supportive environment, and decisions tailored to patients. We constructed a value structure based on the value relations and themes: the interplay of healthcare professionals' (HCPs) and patients' skills [Achievement], support for a patient [Benevolence], and a good relationship between HCP and patient [Security] all facilitate patients' autonomy [Self-Direction]. These values enable a more balanced relationship between HCP and patient and tailored decision making [Universalism].

CONCLUSION

SDM can be realized by an interplay of values. The values Benevolence and Security deserve more explicit attention, and may especially increase vulnerable patients' Self-Direction.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This value structure enables a comparison of values underlying SDM with those of specific populations, facilitating the incorporation of patients' values into treatment decision making. It may also inform the development of SDM measures, interventions, education programs, and HCPs when practicing.

Nephrology-tailored geriatric assessment as decision-making tool in kidney failure

BACKGROUND

Dialysis might not benefit all older patients with kidney failure, particularly those with multimorbid conditions and frailty. Patients' and healthcare professionals' awareness of the presence of geriatric impairments could improve outcomes by tailoring treatment plans and decisions for individual patients.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to explore the perspectives of patients and healthcare professionals on nephrology-tailored geriatric assessment to fuel decision-making for treatment choices in older patients with kidney failure.

DESIGN

In an exploratory qualitative study using focus groups, participants discussed perspectives on the use and value of nephrology-tailored geriatric assessment for the decision-making process to start or forego dialysis.

PARTICIPANTS AND MEASUREMENTS

Patients (n = 18) with kidney failure, caregivers (n = 4), and professionals (n = 25) were purposively sampled from 10 hospitals. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and inductively analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Three main themes emerged that supported or impeded decision-making in kidney failure: (1) patient psycho-social situation; (2) patient-related factors on modality choice; (3) organisation of health care. Patients reported feeling vulnerable due to multiple chronic conditions, old age, experienced losses in life and their willingness to trade longevity for quality of life. Professionals recognised the added value of nephrology-tailored geriatric assessment in three major themes: (i) facilitating continual holistic assessment, (ii) filling the knowledge gap, and (iii) uncovering important patient characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

nephrology-tailored geriatric assessment was perceived as a valuable tool to identify geriatric impairments in older patients with kidney failure. Integration of its outcomes can facilitate a more holistic approach to inform choices and decisions about kidney replacement therapy.

Nurses' perspectives on shared decision-making in the daily care of hospitalized patients with dementia: An exploratory qualitative study

AIM

Gain insight into the process of shared decision-making (SDM) in daily hospital care for patients with dementia from nurses' perspectives.

DESIGN

Explorative qualitative design.

METHODS

In-depth digital interviews were conducted with 14 registered nurses between June and November 2022. A phenomenological approach was applied using Colaizzi's seven-step method.

RESULTS

Five themes were identified in the data: (1) SDM in daily care: How shared decision-making is applied; (2) Nurses' perceptions and competence: How nurses perceive and manage SDM; (3) Nurses' roles and advocacy: The evolving roles of nurses and their advocacy efforts, (4) Recognition of dementia and its impact: How nurses recognize and manage dementia; and (5) Interventions to support SDM: Strategies and interventions to facilitate SDM.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the complexity of SDM in patients with dementia. It demonstrates the importance of the involvement of relatives, omission of patient goals in discussions and perceived deficiencies of nurses. The early identification of dementia, evaluation of nuanced capacity and targeted communication are essential. Further research and enhanced training are required to improve care in this context.

IMPACT

Potential areas for further research on SDM in nurses involving patients with dementia include investigating the effects of integrating goal discussions into SDM training for nurses, overcoming barriers to SDM competence, and challenging the idea that SDM is solely the responsibility of physicians. These findings highlight the need for policies that encourage interdisciplinary collaboration, address misconceptions and recommend training programmes that focus on applying SDM to the daily care of patients with dementia, thereby improving the overall quality of patient care.

REPORTING METHOD

The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) checklist was used for reporting.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution.

A joint venture: patients' experiences with goal setting in rheumatology rehabilitation - a qualitative study

PURPOSE

To explore how patients with rheumatic musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) perceive participation in the goal setting process prior to interdisciplinary rehabilitation.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 22 participants admitted to an interdisciplinary rehabilitation stay for patients with RMDs at two Danish rehabilitation centres. Qualitative content analysis was applied.

RESULTS

The participants perceived goal setting as a joint venture between two parties: the health professionals and the participant. Three categories were formed, which described both facilitators and barriers in the process. Responsibility for goal setting described the importance of shared responsibility, or health professionals as experts, taking full responsibility for goal setting. Equipped for goal setting included perceptions of being well prepared for the process, or considerations that goal setting was difficult because of a lack of information. An equal member of the team entailed both the feeling of being recognised as one in the team, or feeling like an outsider.

CONCLUSION

Goal setting is perceived as a challenge by some patients. Participation in goal setting depends on both the capacity and the opportunity to participate which are factors linked to patients' level of health literacy.

Co-designing care for multimorbidity: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The co-design of health care enables patient-centredness by partnering patients, clinicians and other stakeholders together to create services.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of co-designed health interventions for people living with multimorbidity and assessed (a) their effectiveness in improving health outcomes, (b) the co-design approaches used and (c) barriers and facilitators to the co-design process with people living with multimorbidity. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus and PsycINFO between 2000 and March 2022. Included experimental studies were quality assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB-2 and ROBINS-I).

RESULTS

We screened 14,376 reports, with 13 reports meeting the eligibility criteria. Two reported health and well-being outcomes: one randomised clinical trial (n = 134) and one controlled cohort (n = 1933). Outcome measures included quality of life, self-efficacy, well-being, anxiety, depression, functional status, healthcare utilisation and mortality. Outcomes favouring the co-design interventions compared to control were minimal, with only 4 of 17 outcomes considered beneficial. Co-design approaches included needs assessment/ideation (12 of 13), prototype (11 of 13), pilot testing (5 of 13) (i.e. focus on usability) and health and well-being evaluations (2 of 13). Common challenges to the co-design process include poor stakeholder interest, passive participation, power imbalances and a lack of representativeness in the design group. Enablers include flexibility in approach, smaller group work, advocating for stakeholders' views and commitment to the process or decisions made.

CONCLUSIONS

In this systematic review of co-design health interventions, we found that few projects assessed health and well-being outcomes, and the observed health and well-being benefits were minimal. The intensity and variability in the co-design approaches were substantial, and challenges were evident. Co-design aided the design of novel services and interventions for those with multimorbidity, improving their relevance, usability and acceptability. However, the clinical benefits of co-designed interventions for those with multimorbidity are unclear.

Experiences and perspectives related to shared decision-making among outpatients with degenerative joint disease in Taiwan: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Various treatment options are available for degenerative joint disease (DJD). During clinical visits, patients and clinicians collaboratively make decisions regarding the optimal treatment for DJD; this is the essence of shared decision-making (SDM). Here, we collated and assessed the SDM-related experiences and perspectives of outpatients with DJD in Taiwan.

DESIGN

In-depth interviews and thematic analysis.

SETTING

Primary care clinics of a regional teaching hospital in Taiwan, October 2021-May 2022.

PARTICIPANTS

21 outpatients with at least three visits for DJD and who were aware of SDM.

RESULTS

Four main themes emerged in this study: first, equipping themselves with knowledge: outpatients obtained disease-related and treatment-related knowledge in various ways-seeking relevant information online, discussing with family and friends, learning from their own experiences or learning from professionals. Second, shared or not shared: physicians had different patterns for communicating with patients, particularly when demonstrating authority, performing mutual discussion, respecting patient preferences or responding perfunctorily. Third, seldom saying no to physician-prescribed treatment plans during clinical visits: most patients respected physicians' professionalism; however, some patients rejected physicians' recommendations indirectly, whereas some responded depending on their disease prognosis. Fourth, whose call?-participants decided to accept or reject a treatment plan independently or by discussing it with their families or by obeying their physicians' recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, patients with DJD sought reliable medical information from various sources before visiting doctors; however, when having a conversation with patients, physicians dominated the discussion on treatment options. The patient-physician interaction dynamics during the SDM process determined the final medical decision, which was in accordance with either patients' original autonomy or physicians' recommendations. To alleviate medical paternalism and physician dominance, patients should be empowered to engage in medical decision-making and share their opinions or concerns with their physicians. Family members should also be included in SDM.

Shared decision-making with older adults with cancer: Adaptation of a model through literature review and expert opinion

OBJECTIVE

To provide a literature overview of characteristics of Shared Decision Making (SDM) with specific importance to the older adult population with cancer and to tailor an existing model of SDM in patients with cancer to the needs of older adults.

METHODS

A systematic search of several databases was conducted. Eligible studies described factors influencing SDM concerning cancer treatment with adults aged 65 years or above, with any type of cancer. We included qualitative or mixed-methods studies. Themes were identified and discussed in an expert panel, including a patient-representative, until consensus was reached on an adjusted model.

RESULTS

Overall 29 studies were included and nine themes were identified from the literature. The themes related to the importance of goal setting, need for tailored information provision, the role of significant others, uncertainty of evidence, the importance of time during and outside of consultations, the possible ill-informed preconceptions that health care professionals (HCPs) might have about older adults and the specific competencies they need to engage in the SDM process with older adults. No new themes emerged from discussion with expert panel. This study presents a visual model of SDM with older patients with cancer based on the identified themes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our model shows key elements that are specific to SDM with older adults. Further research needs to focus on how to educate HCPs on the competencies needed to engage in SDM with older patients, and how to implement the model into everyday practice.

Feasibility study of the Digital Patient Benefit Assessment Scale (P-BAS): A Digital Tool to Assess Individual Patient Goals

The study objective was to assess the feasibility of the Patient Benefit Assessment Scale (P-BAS), a digital tool designed to enable older outpatients (≥70 years) to elucidate at home their individual goals regarding their current medical issue. Several digital tools are developed to assist older people in identifying their goals, thereby facilitating the process of shared decision making. However, studies on the feasibility of these digital tools, especially in older patients, are limited. Data were collected from 36 older patients. The study comprised three stages. In stage I and II, cognitive interviews were conducted to strengthen the feasibility of the P-BAS. In stage III, 80% of the patients completed the P-BAS independently at home. The cognitive interviews provided insight into patients' interpretation and individual understanding of the digital visual P-BAS and associated opportunities for improvement, which were subsequently implemented. One conclusion is that the digital visual P-BAS might be of added value for patients and contributes to the process of shared decision making, assuring that the goals of the patient will be into account in treatment options. Findings are useful for researchers interested in technological tools that contribute to shared decision making.

Prioritizing Treatment Goals of People Diagnosed with Bipolar I Disorder in the US: Best-Worst Scaling Results

Purpose

Bipolar I disorder (BP-I) is associated with significant disease burden, but evidence on treatment goals in people diagnosed with BP-I is scarce. This study sought to quantify treatment goals related to the pharmacological management of BP-I in adults in the US and to identify if subgroups of people with similar treatment goals exist.

Patients and Methods

A best-worst scaling (BWS) of treatment goals was developed based on available literature and input from experts and patients and was distributed as part of a survey between August and September 2021. Survey participants were adults with a self-reported diagnosis of BP-I who were recruited via an online panel in the US. Participants were asked to prioritize the importance of 16 treatment goals using BWS. BWS scores were computed using multinomial logistic regression, with the scores across all goals summing to 100 for each participant. Subgroups of people with similar preferences were identified using latent class analysis.

Results

The most important treatment goals for people diagnosed with BP-I (N=255) were "being less impulsive, angry, or irritable" (score: 9.73), or being "able to feel pleasure or happiness" (score: 9.54). Goals related to reducing the incidence of various potential adverse events of medication (scores: ≤4.51) or "reducing dependence on others" (score: 3.04) were less important. Two subgroups were identified. One subgroup (n=111) prioritized symptom-focused goals, considering "reducing frequency of mania, depression, and mixed episodes" and "being less impulsive, angry or irritable" the most important (scores: 12.46 and 11.85, respectively). The other subgroup (n=144) placed significantly more importance on social functioning-focused goals, including beginning or maintaining a relationship with a partner/significant other, and with family and/or friends (scores: 8.45 and 7.70, respectively).

Conclusion

People diagnosed with BP-I prioritized emotional improvements. Subgroups of people with BP-I prioritized either symptom-focused or social functioning-focused treatment goals.

Perspective; recommendations for improved patient participation in decision-making for geriatric patients in acute surgical settings

Geriatric patients often present to the hospital in acute surgical settings. In these settings, shared decision-making as equal partners can be challenging. Surgeons should recognize that geriatric patients, and frail patients in particular, may sometimes benefit from de-escalation of care in a palliative setting rather than curative treatment. To provide more person-centred care, better strategies for improved shared decision-making need to be developed and implemented in clinical practice. A shift in thinking from a disease-oriented paradigm to a patient-goal-oriented paradigm is required to provide better person-centred care for older patients. We may greatly improve the collaboration with patients if we move parts of the decision-making process to the pre-acute phase. In the pre-acute phase appointing legal representatives, having goals of care conversations, and advance care planning can help give physicians an idea of what is important to the patient in acute settings. When making decisions as equal partners is not possible, a greater degree of physician responsibility may be appropriate. Physicians should tailor the "sharedness" of the decision-making process to the needs of the patient and their family.

Shared decision making and advance care planning: a systematic literature review and novel decision-making model

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Shared decision making (SDM) and advance care planning (ACP) are important evidence and ethics based concepts that can be translated in communication tools to aid the treatment decision-making process. Although both have been recommended in the care of patients with risks of complications, they have not yet been described as two components of one single process. In this paper we aim to (1) assess how SDM and ACP is being applied, choosing patients with aortic stenosis with high and moderate treatment complication risks such as bleeding or stroke as an example, and (2) propose a model to best combine the two concepts and integrate them in the care process.

METHODS

In order to assess how SDM and ACP is applied in usual care, we have performed a systematic literature review. The included studies have been analysed by means of thematic analysis as well as abductive reasoning to determine which SDM and ACP steps are applied as well as to propose a model of combining the two concepts into one process.

RESULTS

The search in Medline, Cinahl, Embase, Scopus, Web of science, Psychinfo and Cochrane revealed 15 studies. Eleven describe various steps of SDM while four studies discuss the documentation of goals of care. Based on the review results and existing evidence we propose a model that combines SDM and ACP in one process for a complete patient informed choice.

CONCLUSION

To be able to make informed choices about immediate and future care, patients should be engaged in both SDM and ACP decision-making processes. This allows for an iterative process in which each important decision-maker can share their expertise and concerns regarding the care planning and advance care planning. This would help to better structure and prioritize information while creating a trustful and respectful relationship between the participants. PROSPERO 2019. CRD42019124575.

Person-centered care for musculoskeletal pain: Putting principles into practice

Person-centered care specifically focuses on the whole person and is an important component of contemporary care for people with musculoskeletal pain conditions. Evidence suggests however, that some clinicians experience difficulties with integrating person-centered care principles into their clinical practice. Therefore, the purpose of this masterclass is to provide a framework that enables clinicians to incorporate person-centered principles in their management of people with musculoskeletal pain conditions. To support clinicians in overcoming some of the reported obstacles, we provide practical recommendations aimed at putting principles of person-centered care into practice. The framework supporting clinicians' delivery of person-centered care in practice consists of three key-principles: A) a biopsychosocial understanding of the person's experience; B) person-focused communication; and C) supported self-management. The framework includes three phases: 1) identification and goal setting, 2) coaching to self-management, and 3) evaluation. Building a therapeutic relationship underpins these phases and is an overarching element that weaves through the key-principles and phases of the framework. We use a clinical case to illustrate the practical implementation of these recommendations.

Using co-design to develop a tool for shared goal-setting with parents in speech and language therapy

BACKGROUND

Despite the compelling case for engaging parents in speech and language therapy, research indicates that speech and language therapists (SLTs) currently have a leading role in the goal-setting process of therapy for children with developmental language disorder (DLD). Therefore, we set out to develop a tool that aims to support the dialogue between SLTs and parents and enhance shared decision-making about children's communicative participation goals. We used co-design techniques with SLT-practitioners to include their perspectives throughout the design process. Although co-design has been used for some years in healthcare research, it is still a relatively new research methodology in the field of speech and language therapy.

AIMS

To provide a detailed description of the co-design process that led to the development of a physical artefact that can support SLTs to engage parents of children with DLD in collaborative goal-setting.

METHODS & PROCEDURES

The Design Council's Double Diamond model was used to develop a tool in co-design, together with eight SLTs, who participated in all stages of the development process. Usability was tested in actual goal-setting conversations between four SLTs and 11 parents of a child with DLD resulting in stepwise improvements. In addition, usability of the first and final prototypes was tested with five usability criteria that were rated on a 10-point scale by 64 SLTs.

OUTCOMES & RESULTS

The co-design process resulted in the development of a physical prototype of the tool called 'ENGAGE', consisting of a metal 'tree trunk' on which parents can stick magnetic 'leaves' containing potential participation goals for their child. The 'tree' shape represents a child's development and opportunities for growth. This first prototype received marks between 7.0 and 8.0 out of 10 on attractiveness, user-friendliness, safety, functionality and affordability. After several iterations, there were significantly higher marks for attractiveness, user-friendliness and safety in favour for the final prototype. Marks for functionality and affordability did not change significantly.

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

As researchers we usually develop pen-and-paper tools, interview protocols, apps or questionnaires to support clinical practice. Including the SLTs' perspectives in the design process resulted in a tree-shaped physical artefact that, according to the SLTs, helps to order information and encourages and guides their dialogue with parents. We strongly advocate the inclusion of end-users in developing innovative user-centred tools for speech and language therapy and we hope that this will become widespread practice.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on the subject Collaborative goal-setting is at the heart of family-centred speech and language therapy. However, research indicates that goal-setting processes for children with DLD are currently predominantly therapist-led, instead of family-centred. Reasons for the lack of parental engagement are that effective communication with parents throughout the goal-setting process appears to be complex, and parents are not always invited and supported to engage in this. We used co-design to develop a tool that aims to support SLTs in their dialogue about therapy goals with parents. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This paper provides an example of applying a co-design approach for the development of a shared goal-setting tool for SLTs and parents of young children with DLD. The co-design approach enabled us to incorporate needs, experiences and ideas of SLTs in the design process. We report the four stages in the co-design process from (1) discovering the needs, wants and desires of the people involved, (2) defining the problem that SLTs experience, (3) developing several solutions and selecting the best solution, and (4) developing and testing the prototype. The detailed description of this process can add to an understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of a design process that includes the perspective of end-users. The result is a physical artefact representing a tree, which aims to support the conversation between SLTs and parents about a child's communicative participation. Items describing facets of communicative participation are printed on 'leaves' that can be hung on a tree trunk by parents. The tree shape is a positive metaphor for the growth and development of a child. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? This study describes how SLTs can be meaningfully involved as partners in a co-design research approach. Incorporating experience from clinical practice was highly relevant since our study aimed to create a solution that would support goal-setting and service delivery by SLTs. We want to show that it is inspiring and beneficial for SLTs to partner with researchers in innovation of their own clinical practice and provide examples of co-design activities that illustrate the involvement and influence of end-users in a design process. Including the perspective of SLTs in the development of a new tool to facilitate the dialogue between SLTs and parents of children with DLD regarding therapy goal-setting is expected to add value and enhance its implementation in clinical practice.

Supporting Shared Decision-Making and Home Dialysis in End-Stage Kidney Disease

It has been widely demonstrated that patient education and empowerment, especially involving shared treatment decisions, improve patient outcomes in chronic medical conditions, including chronic kidney disease requiring kidney replacement therapies. Accordingly, regulatory agencies in the US and worldwide recommend shared decision-making for finalizing one's choice of kidney replacement therapy. It is also recognized that the US needs to substantially increase home dialysis utilization to leverage its positive impacts on patient and healthcare cost-related outcomes. This perspective highlights how the routine clinical use of the recommended practice of shared decision-making can exist in synergy with the system's goal for increased home dialysis use. It introduces a pragmatic provider checklist, The Nephrologist's Shared Decision-Making Checklist, grounded in the relevant theories of shared decision-making, and, unlike some research assessments and extant tools, is easy to understand and implement in clinical practice. This qualitative Checklist can help providers ensure that they have co-constructed an SDM experience with the patient and involved caretakers, helping them benefit from the improved outcomes associated with SDM.

Outcomes as experienced by older patients after hospitalisation: satisfaction, acceptance, frustration and hope-a grounded theory study

Background

outcomes of hospitalisation are often described in quantitative terms. It is unknown how older frail patients describe their own outcomes.

Objective

to discover how older frail persons describe their own hospitalisation outcomes and the meaning of these outcomes for their daily lives.

Design

Constructivist Grounded Theory approach.

Participants

frail older people discharged from hospital.

Methods

Open interviews in the participant’s home. Transcripts were coded inductively according to the Constructivist Grounded Theory approach.

Results

Twenty-four interviews were conducted involving 20 unique participants. Although for some participants hospitalisation was just a ripple, for others, it was a turning point. It could have positive or negative impacts on outcomes, including remaining alive, disease, fatigue/condition, complaints, daily functioning, social activities and intimate relationships, hobbies, living situation and mental well-being. Few participants were completely satisfied, but for many, a discrepancy between expectation and reality existed. Some participants could accept this, others remained hopeful and some were frustrated. Factors associated with these categories were research and treatment options, (un)clarity about the situation, setting the bar too high or pushing boundaries, confidence in physicians, character traits and social factors.

Conclusions

of the persons whose outcomes did not meet their expectations, some were frustrated, others hopeful and others accepted the situation. The following interventions can help patients to accept: clear communication about options and expectations before, during and after hospitalisation; giving room for emotions; help finding social support, encouragement to engage in pleasant activities and find meaning in small things. For some patients, psychological treatment may be needed.

Asking the right questions: towards a person-centered conception of shared decision-making regarding treatment of advanced chronic kidney disease in older patients

An increasing number of older patients have to decide on a treatment plan for advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD), involving dialysis or conservative care. Shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended as the model for decision-making in such preference-sensitive decisions. The aim of SDM is to come to decisions that are consistent with the patient’s values and preferences and made by the patient and healthcare professional working together. In clinical practice, however, SDM appears to be not yet routine and needs further implementation. A shift from a biomedical to a person-centered conception might help to make the process more shared. Shared should, therefore, be interpreted as two persons bringing two perspectives to the table, that both need to be explored during the decision-making process. Starting from the patient’s perspective will enable to determine the mutual goals of care first and, subsequently, determine the best way for achieving those goals. To perform such SDM, the healthcare professional needs to become a skilled companion, being part of the patient’s relational context, and start asking the right questions about what matters to the patient as person. In this article, we describe the need for a person-centered conception of SDM for the setting of older patients with advanced CKD.

Improving shared decision-making for osteoporosis pharmacologic therapy in nursing homes: a qualitative analysis

Decisions on whether to use pharmacologic osteoporosis therapy in skilled nursing facility residents are complex and require shared decision-making. Residents, proxies, and staff desire individualized fracture risk estimates that consider advanced age, dementia, and mobility. They want options for reducing administration burden, monitoring instructions, and periodic reassessment of risk vs. benefit.

PURPOSE

Decisions about pharmacologic osteoporosis treatment in nursing home (NH) residents with advanced age and multimorbidity are complex and should occur using shared decision-making. Our objective was to identify processes and tools to improve shared decision-making about pharmacologic osteoporosis treatment in NHs.

METHODS

Qualitative analysis of data collected in three NHs from residents at high fracture risk, their proxies, nursing assistants, nurses, and one nurse practitioner (n = 28). Interviews explored participants' stories, attitudes, and experiences with oral osteoporosis medication management. Framework analysis was used to identify barriers to shared decision-making regarding osteoporosis treatment in this setting.

RESULTS

Participants wanted individualized fracture risk estimates that consider immobility, advanced age, and comorbid dementia. Residents and proxies expected nursing staff to be involved in the decision-making; nursing staff wished to be informed on the relative risks vs. benefits of medications and given monitoring instructions. Two important competing demands to address during the shared decision-making process were burdensome administration requirements and polypharmacy. Participants wanted to reassess pharmacologic treatment appropriateness over time as clinical status or goals of care change.

CONCLUSIONS

Shared decision-making using strategies and tools identified in this analysis may move osteoporosis pharmacologic treatment in NHs and for other older adults with multimorbidity from inappropriate inertia to appropriate prescribing or appropriate inaction.

Characteristics and Service Utilization by Complex Chronic and Advanced Chronic Patients in Catalonia: A Retrospective Seven-Year Cohort-Based Study of an Implemented Chronic Care Program

The Chronic Care Program introduced in Catalonia in 2011 focuses on improving the identification and management of complex chronic (CCPs) and advanced chronic patients (ACPs) by implementing an individualized care model. Its first stage is their identification based on chronicity, difficult clinical management (i.e., complexity), and, in ACPs, limited life prognosis. Subsequent stages are individual evaluation and implementation of a shared personalized care plan. This retrospective study, including all CCPs and ACPs identified in Catalonia between 2013 and 2019, was aimed at describing the characteristics and healthcare service utilization among these patients. Data were obtained from an administrative database and included sociodemographic, clinical, and service utilization variables and morbidity-associated risk according to the Adjusted Morbidity Groups (GMA) stratification. During the study period, CCPs’ and ACPs’ prevalence increased and was higher in lower-income populations; most cases were women. CCPs and ACPs had all comorbidities at higher frequencies, higher utilization of healthcare services, and were more frequently at high risk (63% and 71%, respectively) than age-, sex-, and income level-adjusted non-CCP (23%) and non-ACP populations (30%). These results show effective identification of the program’s target population and demonstrate that CCPs and ACPs have a higher burden of multimorbidity and healthcare needs.

GPs' use and understanding of the benefits and harms of treatments for long-term conditions: a qualitative interview study

Background

To support shared decision making and improve the management of polypharmacy, it is recommended that GPs take into account quantitative information on the benefits and harms of treatments (QIRx). Quantitative evidence shows GPs’ knowledge of this is low.

Aim

To explore GPs’ attitudes to and understanding of QIRx for long-term conditions.

Design and setting

Qualitative interview study in UK general practice.

Method

Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 15 GPs. Audiorecordings were transcribed verbatim and a framework approach was used for analysis.

Results

Participants described knowing or using QIRx for only a few treatments. There was awareness of this knowledge deficit coupled with low confidence in statistical terminology. Some GPs perceived an absence of this information as an important barrier to optimal care, while others were content to follow guidelines. In the absence of this knowledge, other strategies were described to individualise treatment decisions. The idea of increasing the use of QIRx appealed to most participants, with imagined benefits for patients and themselves. However, potential barriers were described: a need for accessible information that can be understood and integrated into real-world practice, system factors, and communication challenges.

Conclusion

GPs were aware of their knowledge deficit with regard to an understanding of QIRx. Most participants were positive about the idea of increasing their use of QIRx in practice but described important challenges, which need to be considered when designing solutions.

Development of a new tool for the assessment of patient-defined benefit in hospitalised older patients: the Patient Benefit Assessment Scale for Hospitalised Older Patients (P-BAS HOP)

OBJECTIVES

To support the shift from disease-oriented towards goal-oriented care, we aimed to develop a tool which is capable both to identify priorities of an individual older hospitalised patient and to measure the outcomes relevant to him.

DESIGN

Mixed-methods design with open interviews, three step test interviews (TSTIs) and a quantitative field test.

SETTING

University teaching hospital and a regional teaching hospital.

PARTICIPANTS

Hospitalised patients ages 70 years and older.

RESULTS

The Patient Benefit Assessment Scale for Hospitalised Older Patients (P-BAS HOP) consists of a baseline questionnaire and an evaluation questionnaire. Items were based on 15 qualitative interviews with hospitalised older patients. Feedback from a panel of four community-dwelling older persons resulted in some adaptations to wording and one additional item. Twenty-six hospitalised older patients participated in TSTIs with Version 1 of the baseline questionnaire, revealing indications for a good content validity and barriers in completion behaviour, global understanding and understanding of individual items, which were solved with several adaptations. Four additions were made by participants. After TSTIs with ten patients with the evaluation questionnaire, one adaptation was made. A field test with 91 hospitalised older patients revealed a small number of missing values.To enhance the feasibility, the number of items was reduced from 32 to 22, based on correlations and mean impact score. The field test was repeated with 104 other patients in a regional teaching hospital. To enhance the understanding, the tool was split into two phases. This version was tested with TSTIs with eight patients and appeared to be understandable. The final version was an interview-based tool and took about 11 min to complete.

CONCLUSIONS

The P-BAS HOP is a potentially suitable tool to identify priorities and relevant outcomes of the individual patient. Further research is needed to investigate its validity, reliability and responsiveness.