Barriers and facilitators to implement shared decision making in multidisciplinary sciatica care: a qualitative study

A Decision Aid for Patients Considering Surgery for Sciatica: Codesign and User-Testing With Patients and Clinicians

BACKGROUND

Surgery can help patients with leg pain caused by sciatica recover faster, but by 12 months outcomes are similar to nonsurgical management. For many the decision to have surgery may require reflection, and patient decision aids are an evidence-based clinical tool that can help guide patients through this decision.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to develop and refine a decision aid for patients with sciatica who are deciding whether to have surgery or 'wait and see' (i.e., try nonsurgical management first).

DESIGN

Semistructured interviews with think-aloud user-testing protocol.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty clinicians and 20 patients with lived experience of low back pain or sciatica.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Items from Technology Acceptance Model, Preparation for Decision Making Scale and Decision Quality Instrument for Herniated Disc 2.0 (knowledge instrument).

METHODS

The prototype integrated relevant research with working group perspectives, decision aid standards and health literacy guidelines. The research team refined the prototype through seven rounds of user-testing, which involved discussing user-testing feedback and implementing changes before progressing to the next round.

RESULTS

As a result of working group feedback, the decision aid was divided into sections: before, during and after a visit to the surgeon. Across all rounds of user-testing, clinicians rated the resource 5.9/7 (SD = 1.0) for perceived usefulness, and 6.0/7 for perceived ease of use (SD = 0.8). Patients reported the decision aid was easy to understand, on average correctly answering 3.4/5 knowledge questions (SD = 1.2) about surgery for sciatica. The grade reading score for the website was 9.0. Patients scored highly on preparation for decision-making (4.4/5, SD = 0.7), suggesting strong potential to empower patients. Interview feedback showed that patients and clinicians felt the decision aid would encourage question-asking and help patients reflect on personal values.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians found the decision aid acceptable, patients found it was easy to understand and both groups felt it would empower patients to actively engage in their care and come to an informed decision that aligned with personal values. Input from the working group and user-testing was crucial for ensuring that the decision aid met patient and clinician needs.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients and clinicians contributed to prototype development via the working group.

Understanding How Patients With Lumbar Radiculopathy Make Sense of and Cope With Their Symptoms

Lumbar radiculopathy, characterized by pain radiating along a nerve root, significantly diminishes the quality of life due to its neuropathic nature. Patients' understanding of their illness and the coping strategies they employ directly influence how they manage their condition. Understanding these illness representations from the patient's perspective is crucial for healthcare providers seeking to optimize treatment outcomes. This study adopted a qualitative interpretive/constructive paradigm to explore this dynamic. A qualitative evidence synthesis approach, utilizing best-fit framework synthesis for data extraction, was applied to analyze primary qualitative studies focused on patient experiences with lumbar radiculopathy. Using SPiDER (Sample, Phenomenon of interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type) to guide the search strategy, extracted data was mapped against the Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation (CSM) framework. Sixteen studies, with moderate to minor methodological quality concerns, were included in the analysis. Data mapping across CSM domains generated 14 key review findings. Results suggest that patients with high-threat illness representations often exhibit maladaptive coping behaviors (e.g., activity avoidance) driven by emotional responses. In contrast, problem-solving techniques appear to contribute to positive outcomes (e.g., exercise adherence and effective self-management) in patients who perceive their condition as less threatening. These findings highlight the potential benefits of interventions designed to reduce perceived threat levels and enhance self-efficacy in patients with lumbar radiculopathy, leading to improved self-management and ultimately better health outcomes.

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.

Impact of Active Disinvestment on Decision-Making for Surgery in Patients With Subacromial Pain Syndrome: A Qualitative Semi-structured Interview Study Among Hospital Sales Managers and Orthopedic Surgeons

BACKGROUND

Withdrawal of reimbursement for low-value care through a policy change, ie, active disinvestment, is considered a potentially effective de-implementation strategy. However, previous studies have shown conflicting results and the mechanism through which active disinvestment may be effective is unclear. This study explored how the active disinvestment initiative regarding subacromial decompression (SAD) surgery for subacromial pain syndrome (SAPS) in the Netherlands influenced clinical decision-making around surgery, including the perspectives of orthopedic surgeons and hospital sales managers.

METHODS

We performed 20 semi-structured interviews from November 2020 to October 2021 with ten hospital sales managers and ten orthopedic surgeons from twelve hospitals across the Netherlands as relevant stakeholders in the active disinvestment process. The interviews were video-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyse interview transcripts independently by two authors and discrepancies were resolved through discussion.

RESULTS

Two overarching themes were identified that negatively influenced the effect of the active disinvestment initiative for SAPS. The first theme was that the active disinvestment represented a "Too small piece of the pie" indicating little financial consequences for the hospital as it was merely used in negotiations with healthcare insurers to reduce costs, required a disproportionate amount of effort from hospital staff given the small saving-potential, and was not clearly defined nor enforced in the overall healthcare insurer agreements. The second theme was "They [healthcare insurer] got it wrong," as the evidence and guidelines had been incorrectly interpreted, the active disinvestment was at odds with clinician experiences and beliefs and was perceived as a reduction in their professional autonomy.

CONCLUSION

The two overarching themes and their underlying factors highlight the complexity for active disinvestment initiatives to be effective. Future de-implementation initiatives including active disinvestment should engage relevant stakeholders at an early stage to incorporate their different perspectives, gain support and increase the probability of success.

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.

The influence of the environment on the patient-centered therapeutic relationship in physical therapy: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Currently, in the scientific literature there is a great interest on the study of strategies to implement patient-centered care. One of the main tools for this is the therapeutic relationship. Some studies suggest that the perception of the environment in which the treatment takes place can influence the perception of its quality, but this is not explored in physical therapy. For all these reasons, the aim of this study was to understand the influence of the environment in which physical therapy treatment takes place on the patients' perception of the quality of the patient-centered therapeutic relationship in public health centers in Spain.

METHODS

A qualitative study analysed thematically using a modified grounded theory approach. Data collection used semistructured interviewing during focus groups.

RESULTS

We conducted four focus groups. The size of the focus groups ranged from six to nine participants. In total, 31 patients participated in these focus groups. Participants described a series of specific experiences and perceptions relating to the environment, which they felt were influential in the establishment of therapeutic patient-centered relationships, including six physical factors (Architectural barriers, Furniture, Use of the computer, Physical space, Ambiet conditions, and Privacy) and six organizational factors (Patient-physical therapist ratio, Treatment interruptions, Social factors, Continuity with the professional, Lack of professional autonomy, and Coordination or communication among team members).

CONCLUSION

The results of this study highlight environmental factors that affect the quality of the therapeutic patient-centered relationship in physical therapy from the patient's point of view, and emphasize the need for physical therapists and administrators to underline the need to review these factors and take them into account in their service delivery.

Cascade of decisions meet personal preferences in sciatica treatment decisions

STUDY DESIGN

An in-depth interview study including patients, general practitioners, neurologists and neurosurgeons.

OBJECTIVE

To gain insight in decision-making in sciatica care, by identifying patients' and physicians' preferences for treatment options, and the differences between and within both groups.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Sciatica is a self-limiting condition, which can be treated both conservatively and surgically. The value of both options has been disputed, and the care pathway is known for a substantial amount of practice variation. Most Dutch patients are taken care of by general practitioners before they are referred to hospital-based neurologists, who might refer to a neurosurgeon, who can perform a surgical intervention. Dutch sciatica care thus follows the principles of stepped care, and a cascade of decisions precedes surgery. Better understanding of the decision-making within this cascade might reveal opportunities to improve shared decision-making and to reduce unwarranted practice variation.

METHODS

Interviews with 10 patients and 22 physicians were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

While physicians were confident of their clinical diagnosis, patients preferred confirmation trough imaging to exclude other possible explanations. Furthermore, many patients showed reluctance towards the use of (strong) opioids, while all physicians favoured this and underlined the benefits of opioids in the management of sciatica complaints, to buy time and to allow patients to recover naturally. Finally, individual physicians differed strongly in their opinion on benefits and optimal timing of surgical treatment and epidural injections.

CONCLUSIONS

Dutch sciatica care is characterised by a cascade of decisions preceding surgery. Preferences differ within and between patients and physicians, which adds to the practice variation. To improve decision-making, physicians and patients should invest not necessarily more in the exchange of options or preferences, but in making sure the other understands the rationale behind them.

What messages predict intention to self-manage low back pain? A study of attitudes towards patient education

ABSTRACT

This observational study evaluated people's attitudes towards educational statements and tested whether this predicted intention to self-manage low back pain (LBP). People with or without LBP who were older than 18 years and fluent in written English were recruited. Participants completed an online survey asking demographic questions and questions on the presence or absence of LBP, its duration, and intensity. We assessed attitude toward educational statements and conducted linear regression analyses to investigate the relationship between attitude toward each statement and intention to self-manage. We recruited 656 participants, n = 345 (53.6%), with LBP of varying duration. On average, participants had a positive attitude toward all statements except one; participants with chronic LBP had a negative attitude toward a statement relating to the cause of LBP. The effect of attitude on intention to self-manage was dependent on whether someone had LBP and for how long. For example, increased intention to self-manage was predicted by a positive attitude toward educational statements related to staying active (β = 0.22 [CI 0.11-0.33]) in participants without pain, statements about reassurance (β = 0.33 [CI 0.16-0.49]) for participants with acute or subacute LBP, and statements about the severity of back pain (β = 0.25 [CI 0.18-0.33]) for participants with chronic LBP. We noted differences in attitude toward educational messages and individuals' intention to self-manage LBP depending on pain duration. Self-management could be encouraged with specific reassurance in people with acute or subacute LBP and education about severity in people with chronic LBP.

Using a knowledge translation framework to identify health care professionals’ perceived barriers and enablers for personalised severe asthma care

Background

Whilst multidimensional assessment enables the detection of treatable traits in severe asthma and has the potential to improve patient outcomes, healthcare disparities exist, and little is known about the factors influencing optimal management in severe asthma. This study aimed to explore perceived barriers, and enablers to implementing personalised care in severe asthma, from the healthcare professionals’ perspective.

Methods

A descriptive, qualitative study involving a single focus group (n = 7) and semi-structured interviews (n = 33) with multidisciplinary healthcare professionals involved in severe asthma care was conducted. A hybrid thematic and content analysis was undertaken to identify themes, which were then deductively mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).

Results

Overall, three emergent themes were identified: (1) Barriers- (2) Enablers- to optimal management; (3) Desired model of care. Across all TDF domains, 6 constructs influenced development and implementation of optimal care: (1) belief about consequences, (2) environmental context and resources, (3) belief about capabilities, (4) social/professional role and identity, (5) goals and (6) knowledge.

Conclusion

Implementation of personalised care in severe asthma is complex and non-linear. The use of a theory-based approach effectively demonstrated how a variety of behaviours could be targeted to optimise and promote personalised care in different clinical setting.

Exploring motivations and resistances for implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: A systematic review based on a structure-process-outcome model

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision-making (SDM) as a multicollaborative approach is vital for facilitating patient-centred care. Considering the limited clinical practice, we attempted to synthesize the motivations and resistances, and investigate their mutual relationships for advancing the implementation of SDM.

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines was performed. 'Shared decision making' was searched as the mesh term through PubMed, Web of Science and EBSCO from 2000 to 2021, and the quality of literature was appraised using the QualSyst Tool. Motivations and resistances were categorized based on content analysis and the 'structure-process-outcome' model.

RESULTS

From 8319 potential citations, 105 were included, comprising 53 qualitative studies (the average quality score is 0.92) and 52 quantitative studies (the average quality score is 0.95). A total of 42 categories of factors were identified into 11 themes and further grouped into three dimensions: structure, process and outcome. The structure dimension comprised six themes (71.43%), the process dimension contained four themes (11.01%) and the outcome dimension covered only one theme. Across all categories, decision-making time and patients' decision preparedness in the process dimension were the most reported, followed by physicians' communication skills and health care environment in the structure dimension. Analysis of implementation of SDM among various types of diseases showed that more influencing factors were extracted from chronic diseases and unspecified disease decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

The major determinants for the implementation of SDM are focused on the structural dimension, which challenges the health systems of both developed and low- and middle-income countries. Furthermore, we consider it important to understand more about the interactions among the factors to take integrated measures to address the problems and to ensure the effectiveness of implementing SDM.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders articulated their perspectives on the implementation of SDM actively, and these were adopted and analysed in this study. However, the above-mentioned individuals were not directly involved in the process of this study. Protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021259309).

The association between empathy and the physiotherapy-patient therapeutic alliance: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The central component of person-centred care is in having a therapeutic realtionship. Furthermore, the empathy of the physiotherapist is one of the most important attributes in achieving a successful therapeutic alliance.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the research was to determine the association between the constructs of empathy and therapeutic alliance in Spanish physical therapists and the possible influence of socio-professional variables on them.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional research.

METHODS

An electronic survey including the Working Alliance Inventory-Short Form, the Interpersonal Reactivity Index and sociodemographic data with 473 Spanish physiotherapists. A descriptive, bivariate and simple lineal regression analysis was carried out.

RESULTS

Work experience has a positive influence on bonding and the agreement on objectives and tasks (0.04 < B > 0.06; p < 0.01). The perspective taking dimensions and empathic concern positively influence the agreement on achievement (0.14 < B > 0.19; p < 0.001). Personal distress inversely influences bonding and the agreement on achievements and tasks (-0.13 < B > -0.09; p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The dimensions of perspective taking and empathic concern seem to facilitate successful shared decision making in terms of treating objectives. Furthermore, the physiotherapist's personal distress acts as an obstacle to the development of the three subcomponents of the therapeutic alliance analysed.

Treatment decisions after interdisciplinary evaluation for nonarthritic hip pain: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Physical therapy and hip arthroscopy are two viable treatment options for patients with nonarthritic hip pain (NAHP); however, patients may experience considerable decisional conflict when making a treatment decision. Interdisciplinary evaluation with a physical therapist and surgeon may better inform the decision-making process and reduce decisional conflict.

OBJECTIVE

To identify the extent to which an interdisciplinary evaluation between a surgeon, physical therapist, and patient influences treatment plans and decisional conflict of persons with NAHP.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Hip preservation clinic.

PARTICIPANTS

Adults with primary NAHP.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomized to receive a standard (surgeon) or interdisciplinary (surgeon+physical therapist) evaluation. Surgeon evaluations included patient interview, strength and range-of-motion examination, palpation, gross motor observation, and special testing. Interdisciplinary evaluations started with the surgeon evaluation, then a physical therapist evaluated movement impairments during sitting, sit-to-stand, standing, single-leg stance, single-leg squat, and walking. All evaluations concluded with treatment planning with the respective provider(s).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Treatment plan and decisional conflict were collected pre- and postevaluation. Inclusion of physical therapy in participants' postevaluation treatment plans and postevaluation decisional conflict were compared between groups using chi-square tests and Mann-Whitney U tests, respectively.

RESULTS

Seventy-eight participants (39 in each group) met all eligibility criteria and were included in all analyses. Sixty-six percent of participants who received an interdisciplinary evaluation included physical therapy in their postevaluation treatment plan, compared to 48% of participants who received a standard evaluation (p = .10). Participants who received an interdisciplinary evaluation reported 6.3 points lower decisional conflict regarding their postevaluation plan (100-point scale; p = .04). The interdisciplinary and standard groups reduced decisional conflict on average 24.8 ± 18.9 and 23.6 ± 14.6 points, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding a physical therapist to a surgical clinic increased interest in physical therapy treatment, but this increase was not statistically significant. The interdisciplinary group displayed lower postevaluation decisional conflict; however, both groups displayed similar reductions in decisional conflict from pre- to postevaluation. This study also demonstrated the feasibility of an interdisciplinary evaluation in a hip preservation clinic.

Evaluation of a multilevel implementation program for timeout and shared decision making in breast cancer care: a mixed methods study among 11 hospital teams

OBJECTIVE

Evaluation of a multilevel implementation program on shared decision making (SDM) for breast cancer clinicians.

METHODS

The program was based on the 'Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovations-model' (MIDI). Key factors for effective implementation were included. Eleven breast cancer teams selected from two geographical areas participated; first six surgery teams and second five systemic therapy teams. A mixed method evaluation was carried out at the end of each period: Descriptive statistics were used for surveys and thematic content analysis for semi-structured interviews.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight clinicians returned the questionnaire (42%). Clinicians (96%) endorse that SDM is relevant to breast cancer care. The program supported adoption of SDM in their practice. Limited financial means, time constraints and concurrent activities were frequently reported barriers. Interviews (n = 21) showed that using a 4-step SDM model - when reinforced by practical examples, handy cards, feedback and training - helped to internalize SDM theory. Clinicians experienced positive results for their patients and themselves. Task re-assignment and flexible outpatient planning reinforce sustainable change. Patient involvement was valued.

CONCLUSION

Our program supported breast cancer clinicians to adopt SDM.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

To implement SDM, multilevel approaches are needed that reinforce intrinsic motivation by demonstrating benefits for patients and clinicians.

Qualitative Examination of Shared Decision-Making in Canada's Largest Health System: More Work to be Done : Shared Decision-Making-More Work to be Done

Background: Shared Decision-Making (SDM) is an inclusive approach where patients and providers work in partnership to make health care decisions that are grounded in clinical best practice and align with patient preferences and values. Despite a growing recognition that SDM can lead to improved outcomes and reductions in unnecessary health investigations, tensions exist between patient agency and a historically paternalistic model of health care. As an evolving ideology, the Research Team sought to better understand the current state, challenges, and implementation opportunities of SDM practices across the health system. Methods: This study used a cross-sectional quality improvement design utilizing semistructured interviews to gather information from focus group participants. Five open-ended, qualitative questions were used to generate discussion on the perceptions of SDM and its role in clinical appropriateness in a variety of clinical contexts in our health system. A total of 12 focus groups (n = 95 participants) representative of patients and families, leaders, physicians, and frontline clinicians were engaged in the study. Results: Through a consensus-based approach, study results identified 4 recommendations based on 4 themes: Time, Communication, System Design, and Clinical Appropriateness. Conclusion: There are no easy solutions to the challenges of enabling SDM; however, success will be dependent upon recognizing the importance of patient agency, while maintaining an inclusive and continuous stakeholder engagement with both patients and providers. Implementation of the 4 recommendations at the organizational level highlighted in this study can serve as a road map for other health care institutions and will require a gradual approach to transform the general principles of SDM into tangible solutions to meet the emerging needs at both the local and system level.

Clinician Factors Rather Than Patient Factors Affect Discussion of Treatment Options

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making aims to combine what matters most to a patient with clinician expertise to develop a personalized health strategy. It is a dialogue between patient and clinician in which preferences are expressed, misconceptions reoriented, and available options are considered. To improve patient involvement, it would help to know more about specific barriers and facilitators of patient-clinician communication. Health literacy, the ability to obtain, process, and understand health information, may affect patient participation in decision-making. If the patient is quiet, deferential, and asks few questions, the clinician may assume a more paternalistic style. A patient with greater agency and engagement could be the catalyst for shared decisions.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We assessed (1) whether effective clinician communication and effort is related to patient health literacy, and (2) if there are other factors associated with effective clinician communication and effort.

METHODS

We combined a prospective, cross-sectional cohort of 86 audio-recorded visits of adult patients seeking specialist hand care for a new problem at an urban community hospital in the Netherlands with a cohort of 72 audio-recorded hand surgery visits from a tertiary hospital in the United States collected for a prior study. The American cohort represents a secondary use of data from a set of patients from a separate study using audio-recorded visits and administering similar questionnaires that assessed different endpoints. In both cohorts, adult patients seeking specialist hand care for a new problem were screened. In total, 165 patients were initially screened, of which 96% (158) participated. Eight percent (13) of visits were excluded since the final diagnosis remained unclear, 8% (12) since it was not the first consultation for the current problem, 5% (8) in which only one treatment option was available, and < 1% (1) since there was a language barrier. A total of 123 patients were analyzed, 68 from the Netherlands and 55 from the United States. The Newest Vital Sign (NVS) health literacy test, validated in both English and Dutch, measures the ability to use health information and is based on a nutrition label from an ice cream container. It was used to assess patient health literacy on a scale ranging from 0 (low) to 6 (high). The 5-item Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION5) instrument is commonly used to assess the quality of patient-clinician discussion of options. Scores may be influenced by clinician effort to involve patients in decision-making as well as patient engagement and agency. Each item is scored from 0 (no effort) to 4 (maximum effort), with a total maximum score of 20. Two independent raters reached agreement (kappa value 0.8; strong agreement), after which all recordings were scored by one investigator. Visit duration and patient questions were assessed using the audio recordings. Patients had a median (interquartile range) age of 54 (38 to 66) years, 50% were men, 89% were white, 66% had a nontraumatic diagnosis, median (IRQ) years of education was 16 (12 to 18) years, and median (IQR) health literacy score was 5 (2 to 6). Median (IQR) visit duration was 9 (7 to 12) minutes. Cohorts did not differ in important ways. The number of visits per clinician ranged from 14 to 29, and the mean overall communication effectiveness and effort score for the visits was low (8.5 ± 4.2 points of 20 points). A multivariate linear regression model was used to assess factors associated with communication effectiveness and effort.

RESULTS

There was no correlation between health literacy and clinician communication effectiveness and effort (r = 0.087 [95% CI -0.09 to 0.26]; p = 0.34), nor was there a difference in means (SD) when categorizing health literacy as inadequate (7.8 ± 3.8 points) and adequate (8.9 ± 4.5 points; mean difference 1.0 [95% CI -2.6 to 0.54]; p = 0.20). After controlling for potential confounding variables such as gender, patient questions, and health literacy, we found that longer visit duration (per 1 minute increase: r2 = 0.31 [95% CI -0.14 to 0.48]; p < 0.001), clinician 3 (compared with clinician 1: OR 33 [95% CI 4.8 to 229]; p < 0.001) and clinician 5 (compared with clinician 1: OR 11 [95% CI 1.5 to 80]; p = < 0.02) were independently associated with more effective communication and effort, whereas clinician 6 was associated with less effective communication and effort (compared with clinician 1: OR 0.08 [95% CI 0.01 to 0.75]; p = 0.03). Clinicians' communication strategies (the clinician variable on its own) accounted for 29% of the variation in communication effectiveness and effort, longer visit duration accounted for 11%, and the full model accounted for 47% of the variation (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The finding that the overall low mean communication effectiveness and effort differed between clinicians and was not influenced by patient factors including health literacy suggests clinicians may benefit from training that moves them away from a teaching or lecturing style where patients receive rote directives regarding their health. Clinicians can learn to adapt their communication to specific patient values and needs using a guiding rather than directing communication style (motivational interviewing).Level of Evidence Level II, prognostic study.

Shared clinical decision-making experiences in nursing: a qualitative study

Background

Shared decision making (SDM) is a patient-centered nursing concept that emphasizes the autonomy of patients. SDM is a co-operative process that involves information exchange and communication between medical staff and patients for making treatment decisions. In this study, we explored the experiences of clinical nursing staff participating in SDM.

Methods

This study adopted a qualitative research design. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 21 nurses at a medical center in northern Taiwan. All interview recordings were transcribed verbatim. Content analysis was performed to analyze the data.

Results

The findings yielded the following three themes covering seven categories: knowledge regarding SDM, trigger discussion and coordination, and respect of sociocultural factors.

Conclusions

The results of this study describe the experiences of clinical nursing staff participating in SDM and can be used as a reference for nursing education and nursing administrative supervisors wishing to plan and enhance professional nursing SDM in nursing education.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12912-021-00597-0.

Factors facilitating and hindering the implementation of the European Society of Cardiology Syncope Guidelines at the Emergency Department: A nationwide qualitative study

AIMS

Syncope care is often fragmented and inefficient. Structuring syncope care through implementation of guidelines and Syncope Units has been shown to improve diagnostic yield, reduce costs and improve quality of life. We implemented the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) 2018 syncope guidelines at the Emergency Departments (ED) and established Syncope Units in five Dutch hospitals. We evaluated the implementation process by identifying factors that hinder ('barriers') and facilitate ('facilitators') the implementation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted, recorded and transcribed semi-structured interviews with 19 specialists and residents involved in syncope care from neurology, cardiology, internal medicine and emergency medicine. Two researchers independently classified the reported barriers and facilitators, according to the framework of qualitative research (Flottorp), which distinguished several separate fields ('levels'). Software package Atlas.ti was used for analysis. We identified 31 barriers and 22 facilitators. Most barriers occurred on the level of the individual health care professional (e.g. inexperienced residents having to work with the guideline at the ED) and the organizational context (e.g. specialists not relinquishing preceding procedures). Participants reported most facilitators at the level of innovation (e.g. structured work-flow at the ED). The multidisciplinary Syncope Unit was welcomed as useful solution to a perceived need in clinical practice.

CONCLUSION

Implementing ESC syncope guidelines at the ED and establishing Syncope Units facilitated a structured multidisciplinary work-up for syncope patients. Most identified barriers related to the individual health care professional and the organizational context. Future implementation of the multidisciplinary guideline should be tailored to address these barriers.

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

Background/Objective

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

Method

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

"All about the money?" A qualitative interview study examining organizational- and system-level characteristics that promote or hinder shared decision-making in cancer care in the United States

BACKGROUND

Despite decades of ethical, empirical, and policy support, shared decision-making (SDM) has failed to become standard practice in US cancer care. Organizational and health system characteristics appear to contribute to the difficulties in implementing SDM in routine care. However, little is known about the relevance of the different characteristics in specific healthcare settings. The aim of the study was to explore how organizational and health system characteristics affect SDM implementation in US cancer care.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with diverse cancer care stakeholders in the USA. Of the 36 invited, 30 (83%) participants consented to interview. We used conventional content analysis to analyze transcript content.

RESULTS

The dominant theme in the data obtained was that concerns regarding a lack of revenue generation, or indeed, the likely loss of revenue, were a major barrier preventing implementation of SDM. Many other factors were prominent as well, but the view that SDM might impair organizational or individual profit margins and reduce the income of some health professionals was widespread. On the organizational level, having leadership support for SDM and multidisciplinary teams were viewed as critical to implementation. On the health system level, views diverged on whether embedding tools into electronic health records (EHRs), making SDM a criterion for accreditation and certification, and enacting legislation could promote SDM implementation.

CONCLUSION

Cancer care in the USA has currently limited room for SDM and is prone to paying lip service to the idea. Implementation efforts in US cancer care need to go further than interventions that target only the clinician-patient level. On a policy level, SDM could be included in alternative payment models. However, its implementation would need to be thoroughly assessed in order to prevent further misdirected incentivization through box ticking.

Understanding shared decision-making experience among vulnerable population: Focus group with food bank clients

Introduction

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a critical component of delivering patient-centered care. Members of vulnerable populations may play a passive role in clinical decision-making; therefore, understanding their prior decision-making experiences is a key step to engaging them in SDM.

Objective

To understand the previous healthcare experiences and current expectations of vulnerable populations on clinical decision-making regarding therapeutic options.

Methods

Clients of a local food bank were recruited to participate in focus groups. Participants were asked to share prior health decision experiences, explain difficulties they faced when making a therapeutic decision, describe features of previous satisfactory decision-making processes, share factors under consideration when choosing between treatment options, and suggest tools that would help them to communicate with healthcare providers. We used the inductive content analysis to interpret data gathered from the focus groups.

Results

Twenty-six food bank clients participated in four focus groups. All participants lived in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage. Four themes emerged: prior negative clinical decision-making experience with providers, patients preparing to engage in SDM, challenges encountered during the decision-making process, and patients' expectations of decision aids. Participants also reported they were unable to discuss therapeutic options at the time of decision-making. They also expressed financial concerns and the need for sufficiently detailed information to evaluate risks.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest the necessity of developing decision aids that would improve the engagement of vulnerable populations in the SDM process, including consideration of affordability, use of patient-friendly language, and incorporation of drug-drug and drug-food interactions information.

Clinician and patient beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain: a systematic qualitative evidence synthesis

OBJECTIVE

Overuse of diagnostic imaging for patients with low back pain remains common. The underlying beliefs about diagnostic imaging that could drive overuse remain unclear. We synthesised qualitative research that has explored clinician, patient or general public beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain.

DESIGN

A qualitative evidence synthesis using a thematic analysis.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO from inception to 17 June 2019. Qualitative studies that interviewed clinicians, patients and/or general public exploring beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain were included. Four review authors independently extracted data and organised these according to themes and subthemes. We used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool to critically appraise included studies. To assess confidence in review findings, we used the GRADE-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research method.

RESULTS

We included 69 qualitative studies with 1747 participants. Key findings included: Patients and clinicians believe diagnostic imaging is an important test to locate the source of low back pain (33 studies, high confidence); patients with chronic low back pain believe pathological findings on diagnostic imaging provide evidence that pain is real (12 studies, moderate confidence); and clinicians ordered diagnostic imaging to reduce the risk of a missed diagnosis that could lead to litigation, and to manage patients' expectations (12 studies, moderate confidence).

CONCLUSION

Clinicians and patients can believe that diagnostic imaging is an important tool for locating the source of non-specific low back pain. Patients may underestimate the harms of unnecessary imaging tests. These beliefs could be important targets for intervention.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017076047.

Healthcare professionals' perceptions of the role of a multidisciplinary approach in improving the care of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease

OBJECTIVE

To explore and understand the experiences of healthcare professionals (HCPs) delivering care in a multidisciplinary care (MDC) clinic for advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients.

METHODS

This is a qualitative study based on semi-quantitative questionnaire and semi-structured interviews with thematic analysis and deductive mapping onto the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Sixteen HCPs caring for advanced CKD patients in a MDC clinic in a tertiary teaching hospital in Singapore were recruited based on maximum variation sampling procedures.

RESULTS

The majority of the HCPs were supportive of a MDC clinic. There was a positive overall opinion of the programme [median 7.0 of 10.0 (IQR 7.0-8.0)], high satisfaction ratings for interaction with other members of team [6.9 (5.3-8.0)] and time spent with patients [7.0 (5.3-7.0)]. Thematic analysis of the interviews identified the value of MDC clinic in the provision of one-stop care, the improvement in communication and collaboration between HCPs, the facilitation of patient activation to make planned kidney care decisions, and the optimisation of medications. The main challenges were lack of continuity of care, manpower constraints, poor patient navigation between HCPs, poor patient attendance with allied HCPs, and the perception of increased cost and time spent by patients in each MDC clinic visit. The proposed interventions were notification of patients beforehand of the MDC clinic schedule and provision of navigation to patients within the MDC clinic.

CONCLUSION

A multidisciplinary care clinic for advanced chronic kidney disease patients was viewed positively by the majority of the healthcare professionals, with areas for improvement.

Patients' and clinicians' perspectives on a 'fast-track' pathway for patients with sciatica in primary care: qualitative findings from the SCOPiC stratified care trial

BACKGROUND

Sciatica is common and associated with significant impacts for the individual and society. The SCOPiC randomised controlled trial (RCT) (trial registration: ISRCTN75449581 ) tested stratified primary care for sciatica by subgrouping patients into one of three groups based on prognostic and clinical indicators. Patients in one group were 'fast-tracked' for a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scan and spinal specialist opinion. This paper reports qualitative research exploring patients' and clinicians' perspectives on the acceptability of this 'fast-track' pathway.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 patients and 20 clinicians (general practitioners, spinal specialist physiotherapists, spinal surgeons). Data were analysed thematically and findings explored using Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) and 'boundary objects' concept.

RESULTS

Whilst the 'fast-track' pathway achieved a degree of 'coherence' (i.e. made sense) to both patients and clinicians, particularly in relation to providing early reassurance based on MRI scan findings, it was less 'meaningful' to some clinicians for managing patients with acute symptoms, reflecting a reluctance to move away from the usual 'stepped care' approach. Both groups felt a key limitation of the pathway was that it did not shorten patient waiting times between their spinal specialist consultation and further treatments.

CONCLUSION

Findings contribute new knowledge about patients' and clinicians' perspectives on the role of imaging and spinal specialist opinion in the management of sciatica, and provide important insights for understanding the 'fast-track' pathway, as part of the stratified care model tested in the RCT. Future research into the early referral of patients with sciatica for investigation and specialist opinion should include strategies to support clinician behaviour change; as well as take into account the role of imaging in providing reassurance to patients with severe symptoms in cases where imaging reveals a clear explanation for the patient's pain, and where this is accompanied by a thorough explanation from a trusted clinical expert.

Patients' and clinicians' perspectives on shared decision-making regarding treatment decisions for depression, anxiety disorders, and obsessive-compulsive disorder in specialized psychiatric care

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

People worldwide are affected by psychiatric disorders that lack a "best" treatment option. The role of shared decision-making (SDM) in psychiatric care seems evident, yet remains limited. Research on SDM in specialized mental health is scarce, concentrating on patients with depressive disorder or psychiatric disorders in general and less on patients with anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Furthermore, recent research concentrates on the evaluation of interventions to promote and measure SDM rather than on the feasibility of SDM in routine practice. This study investigated patients' and clinicians' perspectives on SDM to treat depression, anxiety disorders, and OCD as to better understand SDM in specialized psychiatric care and its challenges in clinical practice.

METHODS

Transcripts of eight focus groups with 17 outpatients and 33 clinicians were coded, and SDM-related codes were analysed using thematic analyses.

RESULTS

Motivators, responsibilities, and preconditions regarding SDM were defined. Patients thought SDM should be common practice given the autonomy they have over their own bodies and felt responsible for their treatments. Clinicians value SDM for obtaining patients' consent, promoting treatment adherence, and establishing a good patient-clinician relationship. Patients and clinicians thought clinicians assumed the most responsibility regarding the initiation and achievement of SDM in clinical practice. According to clinicians, preconditions were often not met, were influenced by illness severity, and formed important barriers (eg, patient's decision-making capacity, treatment availability, and clinicians' preferences), leading to paternalistic decision-making. Patients recognized these difficulties, but felt none of these preclude the implementation of SDM. Personalized information and more consultation time could facilitate SDM.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients and clinicians in specialized psychiatric care value SDM, but adapting it to daily practice remains challenging. Clinicians are vital to the implementation of SDM and should become versed in how to involve patients in the decision-making process, even when this is difficult.

Exploring healthcare professionals' knowledge, attitudes and experiences of shared decision making in rheumatology

OBJECTIVES

To explore physicians' and nurses' knowledge, attitudes and experiences of shared decision making (SDM) in rheumatology, to identify barriers and facilitators to SDM, and to examine whether physicians' and nurses' perspectives of SDM differ.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, exploratory, online survey was used. Besides demographic characteristics, healthcare professionals' knowledge, attitudes and experiences of SDM in rheumatology were assessed. Barriers and facilitators to SDM were identified from healthcare professionals' answers. Descriptive statistics were computed and differences between physicians' and nurses' perspectives of SDM were examined with a t-test or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate.

RESULTS

Between April and June 2019, 77 physicians and 70 nurses completed the survey. Although most healthcare professionals lacked a full conceptual understanding of SDM, almost all physicians (92%) and all nurses had a (very) positive attitude toward SDM, which was most frequently motivated by the belief that SDM improves patients' treatment adherence. The majority (>50%) of healthcare professionals experienced problems with the application of SDM in clinical practice, mostly related to time constraints. Other important barriers were the incompatibility of SDM with clinical practice guidelines and beliefs that patients do not prefer to be involved in decision making or are not able to take an active role. Modest differences between physicians' and nurses' perspectives of SDM were found.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a clear need for education and training that equips and empowers healthcare professionals to apply SDM. Furthermore, the commitment of time, resources and financial support for national, regional and organisational initiatives is needed to make SDM in rheumatology a practical reality.

Transforaminal epidural injection versus continued conservative care in acute sciatica (TEIAS trial): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Sciatica is a condition that is characterised by radicular pain in the leg and primarily caused by a herniated lumbar intervertebral disk. In addition to leg pain, patients can experience back pain, leg numbness and leg weakness resulting in decreased productivity and social activity. The majority of sciatica cases recovers spontaneously and therefore patients are initially treated conservatively with oral pain medication. However, some patients experience intractable pain that severely impedes them and no consensus exists on the optimal conservative treatment to reduce this discomfort in the acute phase of sciatica. The aim of the TEIAS trial is to assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and predictive capability on patient outcome of transforaminal epidural injection (TEI) compared to treatment with standard pain medication.

METHODS

This study is designed as a prospective, open-label, mono-centered, randomized controlled trial. Patients that visit their general practitioner with complaints of radicular leg pain and meet the selection criteria are asked to participate in this study. Eligible patients will be randomized to treatment with TEI or to treatment with standard oral pain medication. Treatment of TEI will comprise lidocaine with methylprednisolone acetate for L3 and below and lidocaine with dexamethasone above L3. A total of 142 patients will be recruited and follow-up will occur after 1, 2, 4, 10 and 21 weeks for assessment of pain, functionality, patient received recovery and cost-effectiveness. The primary outcome will be the average score for leg pain at 2 weeks. For this outcome we defined a clinically relevant difference as 1.5 on the 11-point NRS scale.

DISCUSSION

Adequate conservative treatment in the acute phase of sciatica is lacking, particularly for patients with severe symptoms. Focusing on effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and predictive capability on patient outcome of TEI will produce useful information allowing for more lucid decision making in the conservative treatment of sciatica in the acute phase.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov database under registry number NCT03924791 on April 23, 2019.

Preferences and attitudes of young Chinese clinicians about using a shared decision making tools for communicating cardiovascular risk

OBJECTIVE

This study assesses the attitudes and preferences of Chinese clinicians toward their involvement in shared decision making (SDM).

METHODS

From May 2014 to May 2015, 200 Chinese clinicians from two hospitals were enrolled to complete a survey on their attitude towards SDM. We conducted the survey via face-to-face interviews before and after an educational intervention on SDM among young Chinese clinicians. The clinicians were asked to give the extent of agreement to SDM. They also gave the extent of difficulty in using decision aids (DAs) during the SDM process. The variation in the range of responses to each question before and after the SDM intervention was recorded. The frequency of changed responses was analyzed by using JMP 6.0 software. Data were statistically analyzed using Chi-square and Mann-Whitney U tests, as appropriate to the data type. Multiple logistic regressions were used to test for those factors significantly and independently associated with preference for an approach for each scenario.

RESULTS

Of the 200 young Chinese clinicians sampled, 59.0% indicated a preference for SDM and a desire to participate in SDM before receiving education or seeing the DA, and this number increased to 69.0% after seeing the DA with the sample video of the SDM process on Statin Choice. However, 28.5% of the respondents still reported that, in their current practice, they make clinical decisions on behalf of their patients. The clinicians who denied a desire to use the DA stated that the main barriers to implement SDM or DA use in China are lack of time and knowledge of SDM.

CONCLUSIONS

Most young Chinese clinicians want to participate in SDM. However, they state the main barriers to perform SDM are lack of experience and time. The educational intervention about SDM that exposes clinicians to DAs was found to increase their receptivity.

Patients' experience regarding therapeutic person-centered relationships in physiotherapy services: A qualitative study

Introduction: Person-centered care has emerged as a key principle in the provision of health and rehabilitation services. To implement this approach, health professionals must strive to develop a person-centered therapeutic relationship. The aim of this study was to explore the barriers and facilitators for the establishment of a person-centered relationship, based on the experience of physiotherapy patients. Methods: A qualitative study was conducted based on four focus groups including 31 participants. The focus group discussions were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically using the method of constant comparisons. Results: Patients described specific traits, characteristics and behaviors relating to the health professional, the patient and the environment, that they felt may hinder or favor the establishment of therapeutic person-centered relationships. Some participants focused on aspects concerning the health professional, both regarding their characteristics as well as their relational skills, meaning that the physiotherapist may be responsible for using several strategies in order to put the person at the center of care. Conclusions: Person-centered care and the therapeutic relationship are important aspects in the field of rehabilitation, requiring further studies to improve our understanding of the same, and to inform both health professionals, and managers of health institutions.

A Model for Promoting Occupational Safety and Health in Taiwan's Hospitals: An Integrative Approach

Advocating for improving workplace safety and health has gained substantial support in recent years. The medical industry is a high-risk industry and receives considerable public attention. This study used an integrative approach as a starting point and combined the contextual factors of an organization: perceived organizational support, safety climate, social influence, and shared decision making. Subsequently, the effects of these factors on preventive action and safety satisfaction were investigated. This study surveyed employees of two hospitals, one in Northern Taiwan and one in Eastern Taiwan, collecting valid data from 468 respondents. Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used to verify our research framework. The finding indicates that (1) All hypotheses proposed in this study were supported. (2) The overall goodness of fit of the model was excellent, and the explained variance of the outcome variables was high. (3) Safety climate had the strongest total effects on preventive action and safety satisfaction simultaneously, whereas preventive action had the strongest direct effect on safety satisfaction. The objective of this study was to obtain empirical conclusions and make suggestions for academic theory and clinical practice. The findings may serve as a reference for future research and for scholars and practitioners, enabling the creation of healthy workplaces and, thus, a brighter future.

Experienced barriers in shared decision-making behaviour of orthopaedic surgery residents compared with orthopaedic surgeons

INTRODUCTION

In shared decision-making (SDM), physicians encourage the patient to participate in the care process. The theory of planned behaviour describes that behaviour is dependent on intention. In its turn, intention is explained by attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control. In orthopaedics, little is known about current SDM behaviour and how to promote it.The aim of the present study was to gain insight into the SDM behaviour of orthopaedic residents and supervisors by measuring levels of intention, attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control. Furthermore, we aimed to determine the predictors of intention for SDM.

METHODS

A questionnaire survey study was conducted among orthopaedic surgeons and residents working in the care of hip and knee osteoarthritis, to determine their intentions, attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control regarding SDM.

RESULTS

Of the 385 physicians approached, 71 residents and 64 orthopaedic surgeons participated. Residents and the supervisors alike had positive intentions regarding SDM. Intention for SDM behaviour was explained by attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control, with perceived behavioural control having the strongest association. In residents, the intention to engage in SDM was more hampered by a lower level of perceived behavioural control than in surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians are willing to perform SDM and consider SDM as favourable in the orthopaedic clinic. The implementation of SDM is mainly hampered by experienced barriers that they cannot control. These findings underline the importance of incorporating SDM in the curriculum of postgraduates. Possibilities for efficient SDM implementation should be explored, to overcome perceived barriers.

Dynamics of intervention adoption, implementation, and maintenance inside organizations: The case of an obesity prevention initiative

Overall impact of public health prevention interventions relies not only on the average efficacy of an intervention, but also on the successful adoption, implementation, and maintenance (AIM) of that intervention. In this study, we aim to understand the dynamics that regulate AIM of organizational level intervention programs. We focus on two well-documented obesity prevention interventions, implemented in food carry-outs and stores in low-income urban areas of Baltimore, Maryland, which aimed to improve dietary behaviour for adults by providing access to healthier foods and point-of-purchase promotions. Building on data from field observations, in-depth interviews, and data discussed in previous publications, as well as the strategy and organizational behaviour literature, we developed a system dynamics model of the key processes of AIM. With simulation analysis, we show several reinforcing mechanisms that span stakeholder motivation, communications, and implementation quality and costs can turn small changes in the process of AIM into big difference in the overall impact of the intervention. Specifically, small changes in the allocation of resources to communication with stakeholders of intervention could have a nonlinear long-term impact if those additional resources can turn stakeholders into allies of the intervention, reducing the erosion rates and enhancing sustainability. We present how the dynamics surrounding communication, motivation, and erosion can create significant heterogeneity in the overall impact of otherwise similar interventions. Therefore, careful monitoring of how those dynamics unfold, and timely adjustments to keep the intervention on track are critical for successful implementation and maintenance.

A Framework and Resources for Shared Decision Making: Opportunities for Improved Physical Therapy Outcomes

Shared decision making (SDM) is a collaborative approach between clinicians and patients, where the best available evidence is integrated with patients' values and preferences for managing their health problems. Shared decision making may enhance patient-centered care and increase patients' satisfaction, engagement, adherence, and ability to self-manage their conditions. Despite its potential benefits, SDM is underutilized by physical therapists, and frequent mismatches between patients' and therapists' rehabilitation goals have been reported. Physical therapists can use evidence-based strategies, tools, and techniques to address these problems. This paper presents a model for SDM and explains its association with improved patient outcomes and relevance to situations commonly encountered in physical therapy. It describes freely available resources, including health literacy universal precautions, teach-back, motivational interviewing, decision aids, and patient-reported outcome measures that can help physical therapists integrate SDM into their clinical practices. This paper also explains SDM facilitators and barriers, suggests a theoretical framework to address them, and highlights the need for SDM promotion within physical therapy practice, education, administration, and research.

Physical therapists' perceptions and experiences about barriers and facilitators of therapeutic patient-centred relationships during outpatient rehabilitation: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Over recent years there has been a paradigm shift towards a patient-centred biopsychosocial care model in physical therapy. This new paradigm features a growing interest in understanding the contextual factors that influence the patient's experience of disease, pain and recovery. This includes generalized consensus regarding the importance of establishing a therapeutic relationship that is centred on the patient.

OBJECTIVE

To explore physical therapists' perceptions and experiences regarding barriers and facilitators of therapeutic patient-centred relationships in outpatient rehabilitation settings.

METHODS

This is a qualitative study with four focus groups including twenty-one physical therapists. Two researchers conducted the focus groups, using a topic guide with predetermined questions. The focus group discussions were audiotaped and videotaped, transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically using a modified grounded theory approach.

RESULTS

Physical therapists perceived that the therapeutic patient-centred relationship not only depends on the personal qualities of the professional, but also on the patient's attitudes and the characteristics of the context, including the organization and team coordination.

CONCLUSIONS

Although being more linked towards the patients' contextual factors and needs than towards the practice of the profession, a therapeutic relationship is worth considering by physical therapists. Furthermore this study highlights the need for physical therapists and administrators to rethink the situation and propose strategies for improvement.

Organizational contextual features that influence the implementation of evidence-based practices across healthcare settings: a systematic integrative review

BACKGROUND

Organizational contextual features have been recognized as important determinants for implementing evidence-based practices across healthcare settings for over a decade. However, implementation scientists have not reached consensus on which features are most important for implementing evidence-based practices. The aims of this review were to identify the most commonly reported organizational contextual features that influence the implementation of evidence-based practices across healthcare settings, and to describe how these features affect implementation.

METHODS

An integrative review was undertaken following literature searches in CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases from January 2005 to June 2017. English language, peer-reviewed empirical studies exploring organizational context in at least one implementation initiative within a healthcare setting were included. Quality appraisal of the included studies was performed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Inductive content analysis informed data extraction and reduction.

RESULTS

The search generated 5152 citations. After removing duplicates and applying eligibility criteria, 36 journal articles were included. The majority (n = 20) of the study designs were qualitative, 11 were quantitative, and 5 used a mixed methods approach. Six main organizational contextual features (organizational culture; leadership; networks and communication; resources; evaluation, monitoring and feedback; and champions) were most commonly reported to influence implementation outcomes in the selected studies across a wide range of healthcare settings.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified six organizational contextual features that appear to be interrelated and work synergistically to influence the implementation of evidence-based practices within an organization. Organizational contextual features did not influence implementation efforts independently from other features. Rather, features were interrelated and often influenced each other in complex, dynamic ways to effect change. These features corresponded to the constructs in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), which supports the use of CFIR as a guiding framework for studies that explore the relationship between organizational context and implementation. Organizational culture was most commonly reported to affect implementation. Leadership exerted influence on the five other features, indicating it may be a moderator or mediator that enhances or impedes the implementation of evidence-based practices. Future research should focus on how organizational features interact to influence implementation effectiveness.

"We get them up, moving, and out the door. How do we get them to do what is recommended?" Using behaviour change theory to put exercise evidence into action for rehabilitation professionals

Recommendations suggest a multicomponent exercise for people with osteoporosis. We identified rehabilitation professionals' barriers and facilitators to implementing exercise recommendations with people with osteoporosis, and used those to make suggestions for targeted knowledge translation interventions. Future work will report on development and evaluation of the interventions informed by our study.

PURPOSE

Rehabilitation professionals can help people with osteoporosis to engage in a multicomponent exercise program and perform activities of daily living safely. However, rehabilitation professional face barriers to implementing exercise evidence, especially for specific disease conditions like osteoporosis. We performed a behavioural analysis and identified rehabilitation professionals' barriers to and facilitators of implementing disease-specific physical activity and exercise recommendations (Too Fit to Fracture recommendations), and used the Behaviour Change Wheel to select interventions.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were conducted with rehabilitation professionals, including physical therapists, kinesiologists, and occupational therapists, and transcribed verbatim. Two researchers coded data and identified emerging themes. Using the Behaviour Change Wheel framework, themes were categorized into capability, opportunity, and motivation, and relevant interventions were identified.

RESULTS

Ninety-four rehabilitation professionals (mean age 40.5 years, 88.3% female) participated. Identified barriers were as follows: capability-lack of training in behaviour change, how to modify recommendations for physical and cognitive impairments; opportunity-lack of resources, time, and team work; motivation-lack of trust between providers, fear in providing interventions that may cause harm. Interventions selected were as follows: education, training, enablement, modelling and persuasion. Policy categories are communication/marketing, guidelines, service provision and environmental/social planning.

CONCLUSIONS

Key barriers to implementing the recommendations are rehabilitation professionals' ability to use behaviour change techniques, to modify the recommendations for physical and cognitive limitations and to feel comfortable with delivering challenging but safe interventions for people with osteoporosis, and lacking trust and team work across sectors. Future work will report on development and evaluation of knowledge translation interventions informed by our study.

Exploring the potential implementation of a tool to enhance shared decision making (SDM) in mental health services in the United Kingdom: a qualitative exploration of the views of service users, carers and professionals

BACKGROUND

As a response to evidence that mental health service users and carers expect greater involvement in decisions about antipsychotic medication choice and prescribing, shared decision-making (SDM) has increasingly come to be viewed as an essential element of person-centred care and practice. However, this aspiration has yet to be realised in practice, as service users and carers continue to feel alienated from healthcare services. Existing understanding of the factors affecting the use of tools to support SDM is limited to inter-individual influences and wider factors affecting potential implementation are underexplored.

AIM

To explore the potential use of a tool designed to enhance collaborative antipsychotic prescribing from the perspectives of secondary care mental health service users, carers and professionals.

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative study (semi-structured interviews and focus groups) using a convenience sample of 33 participants (10 mental health service users, 10 carers and 13 professionals) involved in antipsychotic prescribing in one Trust in the North of England. Participants were asked about the potential implementation of a tool to support SDM within secondary mental health services. Framework analysis incorporating the use of constant comparative method was used to analyse the data.

RESULTS

The study identified a divergence in the views of service users and professionals, including a previously undocumented tendency for stakeholder groups to blame each other for potential implementation failure. This dissonance was shaped by meso and macro level influences relating to paternalism, legislative frameworks, accountability and lack of resources. Participants did not identify any macro level (policy or structural) facilitators to the use of the tool highlighting the negative impact of mental health contexts. Our study indicated that inter-individual factors are likely to be most important to implementation, given their potential to transcend meso and macro level barriers.

CONCLUSIONS

Consideration of the meso and macro level influences identified areas for potential intervention, including challenging professionals' and service users' perceptions of each other, rebalancing the notion of accountability within services and introducing new means for service user feedback on the quality of SDM. Multi-level strategies for facilitating the implementation of tools to support SDM are also presented.

The clinical and cost-effectiveness of stratified care for patients with sciatica: the SCOPiC randomised controlled trial protocol (ISRCTN75449581)

Background

Sciatica has a substantial impact on patients, and is associated with high healthcare and societal costs. Although there is variation in the clinical management of sciatica, the current model of care usually involves an initial period of ‘wait and see’ for most patients, with simple measures of advice and analgesia, followed by conservative and/or more invasive interventions if symptoms fail to resolve. A model of care is needed that does not over-treat those with a good prognosis yet identifies patients who do need more intensive treatment to help with symptoms, and return to everyday function including work. The aim of the SCOPiC trial (SCiatica Outcomes in Primary Care) is to establish whether stratified care based on subgrouping using a combination of prognostic and clinical information, with matched care pathways, is more effective than non-stratified care, for improving time to symptom resolution in patients consulting with sciatica in primary care. We will also assess the impact of stratified care on service delivery and evaluate its cost-effectiveness compared to non-stratified care.

Methods/Design

Multicentre, pragmatic, parallel arm randomised trial, with internal pilot, cost-effectiveness analysis and embedded qualitative study. We will recruit 470 adult patients with sciatica from general practices in England and Wales, over 24 months. Patients will be randomised to stratified care or non-stratified care, and treated in physiotherapy and spinal specialist services, in participating NHS services. The primary outcome is time to first resolution of sciatica symptoms, measured on a 6-point ordered categorical scale, collected using text messaging. Secondary outcomes include physical function, pain intensity, quality of life, work loss, healthcare use and satisfaction with treatment, and will be collected using postal questionnaires at 4 and 12-month follow-up. Semi-structured qualitative interviews with a subsample of participants and clinicians will explore the acceptability of stratified care.

Discussion

This paper presents the details of the rationale, design and processes of the SCOPiC trial. Results from this trial will contribute to the evidence base for management of patients with sciatica consulting in primary care.

Trial registration

ISRCTN75449581, date: 20.11.2014.

Interdisciplinary Shared Governance in Ambulatory Care: One Health System's Journey

The implementation of shared governance structures in acute care has illustrated the positive relationship between shared decision making and nurse empowerment and positive nurse and patient outcomes. Little is known, however, about interdisciplinary shared governance, and even less is known about shared governance in ambulatory care. This article details one health system's experience with the implementation of an interdisciplinary shared governance structure in ambulatory care over a 4-year period. The authors report lessons learned, positive health system outcomes that resulted including improved communication, better preparedness for accreditation visits, improved assessment of fall risk, and a streamlined documentation system. Also discussed are mechanisms to enhance sustainability of the structure and discussion of future opportunities and challenges.

Implementing shared decision-making in interprofessional home care teams (the IPSDM-SW study): protocol for a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial

INTRODUCTION

The frail elderly in Canada face a tough decision when they start to lose autonomy: whether to stay at home or move to another location. This study seeks to scale up and evaluate the implementation of shared decision-making (SDM) in interprofessional (IP) home care teams caring for elderly clients or their caregivers facing a decision about staying at home or moving elsewhere.

METHODS

A stepped wedge cluster randomised trial involving 8 Health and Social Service Centers (HSSCs) will be conducted with IP home care teams. HSSCs are the unit of randomisation. A decision guide will be passively distributed to all of the participating HSSCs at the beginning of the project. The participating HSSCs will then be randomised to 1 of 4 intervention start times, separated by 7-month intervals. The primary outcome is whether or not clients and caregivers assumed an active role in decision-making, assessed with a modified version of the Control Preferences Scale. The intervention, targeted at IP home care teams, consists of a 1.5 hour online tutorial and a 3.5 hour skills building workshop in IP SDM. Clients will be eligible for outcome assessment if they (1) are aged ≥65; (2) are receiving care from the IP home care team of the enrolled HSSCs; (3) have made a decision about whether to stay at home or move to another location during the recruitment periods; (4) are able to read, understand and write French or English; (5) can give informed consent. If clients are not able to provide informed consent, their primary caregiver will become the eligible participant.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics committee review approval has been obtained from the Multicenter Ethics Committee of CISSS-Laval. Results will be disseminated at conferences, on websites of team members and in peer-reviewed and professional journals intended for policymakers and managers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02592525, Pre-results.

Shared Decision-Making in Oncology - A Qualitative Analysis of Healthcare Providers' Views on Current Practice

BACKGROUND

Despite an increased awareness of shared decision-making (SDM) and its prominent position on the health policy agenda, its implementation in routine care remains a challenge in Germany. In order to overcome this challenge, it is important to understand healthcare providers' views regarding SDM and to take their perspectives and opinions into account in the development of an implementation program. The present study aimed at exploring a) the attitudes of different healthcare providers regarding SDM in oncology and b) their experiences with treatment decisions in daily practice.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted using focus groups and individual interviews with different healthcare providers at the University Cancer Center Hamburg, Germany. Focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using conventional content analysis and descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

N = 4 focus groups with a total of N = 25 participants and N = 17 individual interviews were conducted. Attitudes regarding SDM varied greatly between the different participants, especially concerning the definition of SDM, the attitude towards the degree of patient involvement in decision-making and assumptions about when SDM should take place. Experiences on how treatment decisions are currently made varied. Negative experiences included time and structural constraints, and a lack of (multidisciplinary) communication. Positive experiences comprised informed patients, involvement of relatives and a good physician-patient relationship.

CONCLUSION

The results show that German healthcare providers in oncology have a range of attitudes that currently function as barriers towards the implementation of SDM. Also, their experiences on how decision-making is currently done reveal difficulties in actively involving patients in decision-making processes. It will be crucial to take these attitudes and experiences seriously and to subsequently disentangle existing misconceptions in future implementation programs.

"Partners rather than just providers…": A qualitative study on health care professionals' views on implementation of multidisciplinary group meetings in the North West London Integrated Care Pilot

INTRODUCTION

Multidisciplinary group meetings are one of the key drivers of facilitating integrated care. Health care professionals attending such groups have a key role in the success of these discussions and hence, in the forming of multi-professional integrated care. The study aimed to explore the professionals' experiences and views of participating and implementing the groups in integrated care context.

METHODS

A qualitative study including 25 semi-structured interviews with professionals participating in the Northwest London Integrated Care Pilot analysed using thematic content analysis.

RESULTS

Participants mentioned a number of benefits of participating in the meetings, including shared learning and shared decision-making between different services and specialties. Yet, they perceived barriers that diminish the efficiency of the groups, such as time constraints, group dynamics and technicalities. The participants felt that the quality of discussions and facilitation could be improved, as well as technical arrangements that would make them easier to participate. Most of the participants perceived the groups to be beneficial for providers mostly questioning the benefits for patient care.

CONCLUSION

Findings provide an insight into how health professionals' views of their participation to the multidisciplinary group meetings can be more effectively translated into more tangible benefits to the patients. To benefit patient care, the multidisciplinary groups need to be more patient-oriented rather than provider-oriented, while overcoming professional boundaries for participating.

Measuring organisational readiness for patient engagement (MORE): an international online Delphi consensus study

Background

Widespread implementation of patient engagement by organisations and clinical teams is not a reality yet. The aim of this study is to develop a measure of organisational readiness for patient engagement designed to monitor and facilitate a healthcare organisation’s willingness and ability to effectively implement patient engagement in healthcare.

Methods

The development of the MORE (Measuring Organisational Readiness for patient Engagement) scale was guided by Weiner’s theory of organisational readiness for change. Weiner postulates that an organisation’s readiness is determined by both the willingness and ability to implement the change (i.e. in this context: patient engagement). A first version of the scale was developed based on a literature search and evaluation of pre-existing tools. We invited multi-disciplinary stakeholders to participate in a two-round online Delphi survey. Respondents were asked to rate the importance of each proposed item, and to comment on the proposed domains and items. Second round participants received feedback from the first round and were asked to re-rate the importance of the revised, new and unchanged items, and to provide comments.

Results

The first version of the scale contained 51 items divided into three domains: (1) Respondents’ characteristics; (2) the organisation’s willingness to implement patient engagement; and (3) the organisation’s ability to implement patient engagement. 131 respondents from 16 countries (health care managers, policy makers, clinicians, patients and patient representatives, researchers, and other stakeholders) completed the first survey, and 72 of them also completed the second survey. During the Delphi process, 34 items were reworded, 8 new items were added, 5 items were removed, and 18 were combined. The scale’s instructions were revised. The final version of MORE totalled 38 items; 5 on stakeholders, 13 on an organisation’s willingness to implement, and 20 on an organisation’s ability to implement patient engagement in healthcare.

Conclusions

The Delphi technique was successfully used to refine the scale’s instructions, domains and items, using input from a broad range of international stakeholders, hoping that MORE can be applied in a variety of healthcare contexts worldwide. Further assessment is needed to determine the psychometric properties of the scale.

Most important factors for the implementation of shared decision making in sciatica care: ranking among professionals and patients

INTRODUCTION

Due to the increasing specialization of medical professionals, patients are treated by multiple disciplines. To ensure that delivered care is patient-centered, it is crucial that professionals and the patient together decide on treatment (shared decision making (SDM)). However, it is not known how SDM should be integrated in multidisciplinary practice. This study determines the most important factors for SDM implementation in sciatica care, as it is known that a prior inventory of factors is crucial to develop a successful implementation strategy.

METHODS

246 professionals (general practitioners, physical therapists, neurologists, neurosurgeons, orthopedic surgeons) (30% response) and 155 patients (96% response) responded to an internet-based survey. Respondents ranked barriers and facilitators identified in previous interviews, on their importance using Maximum Difference Scaling. Feeding back the personal top 5 most important factors, each respondent indicated whether these factors were barriers or facilitators. Hierarchical Bayes estimation was used to estimate the relative importance (RI) of each factor.

RESULTS

Professionals assigned the highest importance to: quality of professional-patient relationship (RI 4.87; CI 4.75-4.99); importance of quick recovery of patient (RI 4.83; CI 4.69-4.97); and knowledge about treatment options (RI 6.64; CI 4.53-4.74), which were reported as barrier and facilitator. Professionals working in primary care had a different ranking than those working in hospital care. Patients assigned the highest importance to: correct diagnosis by professionals (barrier, RI 8.19; CI 7.99-8.38); information provision about treatment options and potential harm and benefits (RI 7.87; CI 7.65-8.08); and explanation of the professional about the care trajectory (RI 7.16; CI 6.94-7.38), which were reported as barrier and facilitator.

CONCLUSIONS

Knowledge, information provision and a good relationship are the most important conditions for SDM perceived by both patients and professionals. These conditions are not restricted to one specific disease or health care system, because they are mostly professional or patient dependent and require healthcare professional training.