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

Integrating Shared Decision-Making into Undergraduate Oncology Education: A Pedagogical Framework

The integration of shared decision-making (SDM) into undergraduate oncology education represents a critical evolution in medical pedagogy, reflecting the growing complexity and patient-centric focus of contemporary healthcare. This paper introduces a comprehensive pedagogical framework designed to embed SDM within the undergraduate medical curriculum, particularly in oncology, where the multiplicity of treatment options and their profound impact on patient life underscore the necessity of this approach. Grounded in a systematic literature review and aligned with established educational theories, this framework proposes twelve strategic approaches to cultivate future physicians proficient in both clinical acumen and patient-collaborative decision-making. The framework emphasizes real-world clinical experience, role-playing, case studies, and decision aids to deepen students' understanding of SDM. It advocates for the development of communication skills, ethical deliberation, and cultural competence, recognizing the multifaceted nature of patient care. The inclusion of patient narratives and evidence-based decision-making further enriches the curriculum, offering a holistic view of patient care. Additionally, the integration of digital tools within the SDM process acknowledges the evolving technological landscape in healthcare. The paper also addresses challenges in implementing this framework, such as curricular constraints and the need for educator training. It underscores the importance of continual evaluation and adaptation of these strategies to the dynamic field of medical education and practice. Overall, this comprehensive approach aims not only to enhance the quality of oncological care but also to prepare medical students for the complexities of modern medicine, where patient involvement in decision-making is both a necessity and an expectation.

The role of time in involving patients with cancer in treatment decision making: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Time is often perceived as a barrier to shared decision making in cancer care. It remains unclear how time functions as a barrier and how it could be most effectively utilized.

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review aimed to describe the role of time in patient involvement, and identify strategies to overcome time-related barriers.

METHODS

Seven databases were searched for any publications on patient involvement in cancer treatment decisions, focusing on how time is used to involve patients, the association between time and patient involvement, and/or strategies to overcome time-related barriers. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to select publications and extract data. One coder thematically analyzed data, a second coder checked these analyses.

RESULTS

The analysis of 26 eligible publications revealed four themes. Time was a resource 1) to process the diagnosis, 2) to obtain/process/consider information, 3) for patients and clinicians to spend together, and 4) for patient involvement in making decisions.

DISCUSSION

Time is a resource throughout the treatment decision-making process, and generic strategies have been proposed to overcome time constraints.

PRACTICE VALUE

Clinicians could co-create decision-making timelines with patients, spread decisions across several consultations, share written information with patients, and support healthcare redesigns that allocate the necessary time.

Effects of a shared decision-making implementation programme on patient-centred communication in oncology-Secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

There is a need for better implementation of patient-centred (PC) communication and shared decision-making (SDM) in routine cancer care.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess whether a programme to implement SDM in oncology had effects on PC communication in clinical encounters.

DESIGN

This study constitutes a secondary analysis of data derived from an implementation trial applying a stepped wedge design that, among other strategies, incorporated training and coaching to enhance the PC communication skills of physicians.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

We analysed audio recordings of clinical encounters collected in three departments of a comprehensive cancer centre in Germany before and after rolling out the implementation programme.

MAIN VARIABLES STUDIED

We assessed the PC communication skills of physicians.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Each recording was rated by two researchers using the German version of the Four Habits Coding Scheme (4HCS), an observer-based measure of PC communication. Interrater reliability of the outcome measure was acceptable but moderate. Demographic data of patients participating in audio recordings were analysed.

METHODS

Data were analysed using descriptive statistics and linear mixed-effects models.

RESULTS

In total, 146 encounters, 74 before and 72 after implementation, were evaluated. The mean age of patients was 57.1 years (SD = 13.8), 70.3% were female, the largest portion of patients had medium formal education (32.4%) and were (self-) employed (37.8%). No statistically significant effect of the implementation programme on the physicians' PC communication skills was found.

DISCUSSION

The results indicate that the investigated programme to implement SDM in oncology, including training and coaching, had no effects on PC communication in clinical encounters. These results are in contrast to other studies that report the effects of specific training or coaching on PC communication. Reasons for the lack of effect include the short duration of our training compared to other studies, limited reliability and moderate interrater reliability of the 4HCS scale, limited reach of the intervention programme as well as the inclusion of physicians regardless of their exposure to the interventions.

CONCLUSION

Further research is needed to develop implementation strategies that improve physicians' PC communication skills.

PATIENT CONTRIBUTION

Data on patients and clinical encounters with patients and physicians were analysed. There was no other patient or public involvement.

The decision aid is the easy part: workflow challenges of shared decision making in cancer care

Delivering high-quality, patient-centered cancer care remains a challenge. Both the National Academy of Medicine and the American Society of Clinical Oncology recommend shared decision making to improve patient-centered care, but widespread adoption of shared decision making into clinical care has been limited. Shared decision making is a process in which a patient and the patient's health-care professional weigh the risks and benefits of different options and come to a joint decision on the best course of action for that patient on the basis of their values, preferences, and goals for care. Patients who engage in shared decision making report higher quality of care, whereas patients who are less involved in these decisions have statistically significantly higher decisional regret and are less satisfied. Decision aids can improve shared decision making-for example, by eliciting patient values and preferences that can then be shared with clinicians and by providing patients with information that may influence their decisions. However, integrating decision aids into the workflows of routine care is challenging. In this commentary, we explore 3 workflow-related barriers to shared decision making: the who, when, and how of decision aid implementation in clinical practice. We introduce readers to human factors engineering and demonstrate its potential value to decision aid design through a case study of breast cancer surgical treatment decision making. By better employing the methods and principles of human factors engineering, we can improve decision aid integration, shared decision making, and ultimately patient-centered cancer outcomes.

Major influencing factors on routine implementation of shared decision-making in cancer care: qualitative process evaluation of a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is highly relevant in oncology but rarely implemented in routine care. In a stepped-wedge cluster randomized implementation trial, the outcome evaluation of a theoretically and empirically based multi-component SDM implementation program did not show a statistically significant effect on patient-reported SDM uptake. Within this SDM implementation trial, a thorough a priori planned process evaluation was conducted. Thus, the aim of this study was to investigate factors influencing SDM implementation in the context of a multi-component SDM implementation program.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative process evaluation of a stepped-wedge SDM implementation trial. Qualitative data included interviews with nurses and physicians of participating departments, field notes by the study team, and meeting minutes. Data were analyzed via deductive and inductive qualitative content analysis on basis of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

RESULTS

Transcripts of 107 interviews with 126 nurses and physicians, 304 pages of field note documentation, and 125 pages of meeting minutes were analyzed. Major factors influencing SDM implementation were found for all domains of the CFIR: a) four regarding characteristics of the individuals involved (e.g., perceived personal relevance, individual motivation to change), b) eleven regarding the inner setting (e.g., leadership engagement, networks and communication, available resources, compatibility with clinical practice), c) two regarding the outer setting (e.g., culture of health care delivery), d) eight regarding characteristics of the intervention (e.g., relative advantage, adaptability), and e) three regarding the implementation process (e.g., integration into existing structures). Furthermore, we found strong interrelations between several of the influencing factors within and between domains.

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive process evaluation complements the outcome evaluation of the SDM implementation trial and adds to its interpretation. The identified influencing factors can be used for planning, conducting, and evaluating SDM implementation in the future.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03393351, registered 8 January 2018, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03393351.

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.

Multi-pilot implementation experiences of patient-centered pathology reports: lessons learned for the advancement of patient-centered tools for cancer decision-making

PURPOSE

New federal legislation in the United States grants patients expanded access to their medical records, making it critical that medical records information is understandable to patients. Provision of informational summaries significantly increase patient perceptions of patient-centered care and reduce feelings of uncertainty, yet their use for cancer pathology is limited.

METHODS

Our team developed and piloted patient-centered versions of pathology reports (PCPRs) for four cancer organ sites: prostate, bladder, breast, and colorectal polyp. The objective of this analysis was to identify common barriers and facilitators to support dissemination of PCPRs in care delivery settings. We analyzed quantitative and qualitative data from pilot PCPR implementations, guided by the RE-AIM framework to explore constructs of reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance.

RESULTS

We present two case studies of PCPR implementation - breast cancer and colorectal polyps-that showcase diverse workflows for pathology reporting. Cross-pilot learnings emphasize the potential for PCPRs to improve patient satisfaction, knowledge, quality of shared decision-making activities, yet several barriers to dissemination exist.

CONCLUSION

While there is promise in expanding patient-centered cancer communication tools, more work is needed to expand the technological capacity for PCPRs and connect PCPRs to opportunities to reduce costs, improve quality, and reduce waste in care delivery systems.

Moving towards patient-centered care and shared decision-making in Germany

The main focus of this paper is to describe the development and current state of policy, research and implementation of patient-centered care (PCC) and shared decision-making (SDM) in Germany. What is the current state in health policy? Since 2013, the Law on Patients' Rights has standardized all rights and responsibilities regarding medical care for patients in Germany. This comprises the right to informed decisions, comprehensive and comprehensible information, and decisions based on a clinician-patient partnership. In addition, reports and action plans such as the German Ethics Council's report on patient well-being, the National Health Literacy Action Plan, or the National Cancer Plan emphasize and foster PCC and SDM on a policy level. There are a number of public organizations in Germany that support PCC and SDM. How are patients and the public involved in health policy and research? Publishers and funding agencies increasingly demand patient and public involvement. Numerous initiatives and organizations are involved in publicizing ways to engage patients and the public. Also, an increasing number of public and research institutions have established patient advisory boards. How is PCC and SDM taught? Great progress has been made in introducing SDM into the curricula of medical schools and other health care providers' (HCPs) schools (e.g., nursing, physical therapy). What is the German research agenda? The German government and other public institutions have constantly funded research programs in which PCC and SDM are important topics. This yielded several large-scale funding initiatives and helped to develop SDM training programs for HCPs in different fields of health care and information materials. Recently, two implementation studies on SDM have been conducted. What is the current uptake of PCC and SDM in routine care, and what implementation efforts are underway? Compared to the last country report from 2017, PCC and SDM efforts in policy, research and education have been intensified. However, many steps are still needed to reliably implement SDM in routine care in Germany. Specifically, the further development and uptake of decision tools and countrywide SDM trainings for HCPs require further efforts. Nevertheless, an increasing number of decision support tools - primarily with support from health insurance funds and other public agencies - are to be implemented in routine care. Also, recent implementation efforts are promising. For example, reimbursement by health insurance companies of hospital-wide SDM implementation is being piloted. A necessary next step is to nationally coordinate the gathering and provision of the many PCC and SDM resources available.

FACILITATORS AND BARRIERS OF PATIENT INVOLVEMENT IN HOSPITAL SERVICES: INTEGRATIVE REVIEW

ABSTRACT Objective to identify the facilitating factors and barriers that influence patient involvement in hospital services. Method integrative review; search of articles published between January 2011 and December 2020, in the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, Cinahl, Lilacs and Scopus, using descriptors related to "patient involvement", Barriers, Facilitators, in English, Spanish and Portuguese. Data collection was performed from May to June 2021, identifying 32 publications that met the inclusion criteria. Results the analysis resulted in three categories of facilitating factors and barriers: communication, actors of involvement and organizational culture, allowing the elaboration of a theoretical model of patient involvement. This model shows that in the centrality of the process are the actors involved, that is, patients and professionals, inserted in an organizational context, being influenced by leadership, culture, environment, available resources and processes, where communication permeates as a basis for involvement. Conclusion the facilitating factors and barriers identified in this review, synthesized in a theoretical model, allow transcending theoretical knowledge for practice. The complexity to operationalize this model requires patients, professionals, health services and society join forces to make this theoretical proposition a practice incorporated by the services.

FACILITADORES E BARREIRAS DO ENVOLVIMENTO DO PACIENTE NOS SERVIÇOS HOSPITALARES: REVISÃO INTEGRATIVA

RESUMO Objetivo identificar os fatores facilitadores e as barreiras que influenciam no envolvimento do paciente nos serviços hospitalares. Método revisão integrativa; realizada busca de artigos publicados entre janeiro de 2011 e dezembro de 2020, nas bases eletrônicas PubMed, Web of Science, Cinahl, Lilacs e Scopus, utilizando descritores relacionados a “patient involvement”, Barriers, Facilitators, nos idiomas inglês, espanhol e português. Coleta de dados realizada de maio a junho de 2021, identificando-se 32 publicações que atenderam aos critérios de inclusão. Resultados a análise resultou em três categorias de fatores facilitadores e barreiras: comunicação, atores do envolvimento e cultura organizacional, permitindo a elaboração de um modelo teórico de envolvimento do paciente. Esse modelo mostra que na centralidade do processo estão os atores envolvidos, ou seja, pacientes e profissionais, inseridos em um contexto organizacional, sendo influenciados pela liderança, cultura, ambiente, recursos disponíveis e processos, onde a comunicação perpassa como base para o envolvimento. Conclusão os fatores facilitadores e as barreiras identificadas nesta revisão, sintetizados num modelo teórico, permitem transcender o conhecimento teórico para a prática. A complexidade para operacionalizar esse modelo requer que pacientes, profissionais, serviços de saúde e sociedade unam os esforços para tornar esta proposição teórica em uma prática incorporada pelos serviços.

Evaluation of a program for routine implementation of shared decision-making in cancer care: results of a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is preferred by many patients in cancer care. However, despite scientific evidence and promotion by health policy makers, SDM implementation in routine health care lags behind. This study aimed to evaluate an empirically and theoretically grounded implementation program for SDM in cancer care.

METHODS

In a stepped wedge design, three departments of a comprehensive cancer center sequentially received the implementation program in a randomized order. It included six components: training for health care professionals (HCPs), individual coaching for physicians, patient activation intervention, patient information material/decision aids, revision of quality management documents, and reflection on multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs). Outcome evaluation comprised four measurement waves. The primary endpoint was patient-reported SDM uptake using the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire. Several secondary implementation outcomes were assessed. A mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted to evaluate reach and fidelity. Data were analyzed using mixed linear models, qualitative content analysis, and descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

A total of 2,128 patient questionnaires, 559 questionnaires from 408 HCPs, 132 audio recordings of clinical encounters, and 842 case discussions from 66 MDTMs were evaluated. There was no statistically significant improvement in the primary endpoint SDM uptake. Patients in the intervention condition were more likely to experience shared or patient-lead decision-making than in the control condition (d=0.24). HCPs in the intervention condition reported more knowledge about SDM than in the control condition (d = 0.50). In MDTMs the quality of psycho-social information was lower in the intervention than in the control condition (d = - 0.48). Further secondary outcomes did not differ statistically significantly between conditions. All components were implemented in all departments, but reach was limited (e.g., training of 44% of eligible HCPs) and several adaptations occurred (e.g., reduced dose of coaching).

CONCLUSIONS

The process evaluation provides possible explanations for the lack of statistically significant effects in the primary and most of the secondary outcomes. Low reach and adaptations, particularly in dose, may explain the results. Other or more intensive approaches are needed for successful department-wide implementation of SDM in routine cancer care. Further research is needed to understand factors influencing implementation of SDM in cancer care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03393351 , registered 8 January 2018.

The development of incorpoRATE: A measure of physicians' willingness to incorporate shared decision making into practice

OBJECTIVES

To develop 'incorpoRATE', a brief and broadly applicable measure of physicians' willingness to incorporate shared decision making (SDM) into practice.

METHODS

incorpoRATE was developed across three phases: 1) A review of relevant literature to inform candidate domain and item development, 2) Cognitive interviews with US physicians to iteratively refine the measure, and 3) Pilot testing of the measure across a larger sample of US physicians to explore item and measure performance.

RESULTS

The final measure consists of seven items that assess physician perspectives on various components of SDM use that may present as barriers in practice. During pilot testing, the majority of physicians expressed positive opinions about the overall concept of SDM, yet were less comfortable acting on informed patient choices when there was known incongruence with their own recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

incorpoRATE is a novel physician-reported measure that assesses physicians' willingness to incorporate SDM in practice.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

incorpoRATE has the potential to help us further understand the limited adoption of SDM and areas of focus for improving the use of SDM in the future. We recommend that incorpoRATE be subject to further psychometric, real-world testing, in order to explore its performance across different samples of physicians and organizations.

Opportunities and limitations of shared decision making in multidisciplinary tumor conferences with patient participation - A qualitative interview study with providers

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to examine opportunities and limitations of shared decision making in multidisciplinary tumor conferences with patient participation from the providers' perspective in breast and gynecological cancer centers.

METHODS

Semi-structured guideline-based expert interviews were conducted with providers from breast and gynecological cancer centers with and without patient participation in multidisciplinary tumor conferences. Interviews were transcribed, anonymized and analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

The providers (n = 30) reported that some process steps of shared decision making can be implemented in limited form and under certain conditions in multidisciplinary tumor conferences with patient participation. Above all, patients can potentially ask questions and contribute individual additional information and their preferences.

CONCLUSION

This study contributes first insights into the implementation of shared decision making in multidisciplinary tumor conferences with patient participation. From the providers' perspective, the implementation of shared decision making seems difficult under the current circumstances. Further studies, using patient experiences, participative observations or interventional designs, are required.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Despite the limited implementation of shared decision making in tumor conferences, patient participation can be advantageous as it can allow patients to ask questions and contribute individual additional information as well as their preferences.

What are the shared decision-making experiences of adult children in regard to their parent/s' health care in residential aged care facilities?

AIM

This scoping literature review aimed to answer the question: What are the shared decision-making experiences of adult children in regard to their parent/s' health care in residential aged care facilities?

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making has been an important patient-centred approach to nursing care since the 1990s, yet it is becoming increasingly evident that it is still not the reality in aged care facilities fifty years on. Currently, it is not well understood how adult children participate in shared decision-making and the types of decisions they are required to make.

DESIGN

A review of original research papers using Kable, Pich and Maslin-Prothero 12-step systematic approach to documenting a search strategy.

METHOD

The researcher screened 597 articles from four databases, published in the English language, during the period 1985-2019. The researcher used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool version 2011 to determine the methodological quality of the included studies. The Joanna Briggs Institute QARI data tool was used to appraise the seven selected articles and thematically analyse findings, respectively.

RESULTS

Four themes were highlighted: communication; staffing; being involved; and staff-family relationships. Despite these themes being apparent, families have limited opportunities to participate in shared health decision-making in regard to their parents' care.

CONCLUSION

The findings from this literature show how shared decision-making is affected by the RACF environment. There is a need to find out and understand what is important from a family member's point of view to optimise shared decision-making and nursing care of the family member in residential aged care settings.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

The limited findings specific to the SDM experiences of adult children of parents in RACFs in this review could help staff and RACFs to develop strategies and staff training to encourage and facilitate the implementation of shared health decision-making with staff and families on older people's care.

Involving patients and their families in deciding to use next generation sequencing: Results from a nationally representative survey of U.S. oncologists

OBJECTIVE

Next generation sequencing (NGS) may aid in tumor classification and treatment. Barriers to shared decision-making may influence use of NGS. We examined, from oncologists' perspectives, whether barriers to involving patients/families in decision-making were associated with NGS use.

METHODS

Using data from the first national survey of medical oncologists' perspectives on precision medicine (N = 1281), we approached our analyses in two phases. Bivariate analyses initially evaluated associations between barriers to involving patients/families in deciding to use NGS and provider- and organizational-level characteristics. Modified Poisson regressions then examined associations between patient/family barriers and NGS use.

RESULTS

Approximately 59 % of oncologists reported at least one barrier to involving patients/families in decision-making regarding NGS use. Those reporting patient/family barriers tended to have fewer genomic resources at their practices, to be in rural or suburban areas, and to have a higher proportion of Medicaid patients. However, these barriers were not associated with NGS use.

CONCLUSIONS

Oncologists encounter barriers to involving patients/families in NGS testing decisions. Organizational barriers may also potentially play a role in testing decisions.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

To foster patient-centered care, strategies to support patient involvement in genomic testing decisions are needed, particularly among practices in low-resource settings.

Shared Decision-Making and Medicolegal Aspects: Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care in India

It is often difficult for people with cancer to make decisions for their care. The aim of this review is to understand the importance of shared decisionmaking (SDM) in Indian clinical scenario and identify the gaps when compared to practices in the Western world. A systematic search (2000-2019) was executed in Medline and Google Scholar using predefined keywords. Of the approximate 400 articles retrieved, 43 articles (Indian: 5; Western: 38) were selected for literature review. Literature review revealed the paucity of information on SDM in India compared to the Western world data. This may contribute to patientreported physical or psychological harms, life disruptions, or unnecessary financial costs. Western world data demonstrate the involvement and sharing of information by both patient and physician, collective efforts of the two to build consensus for preferred treatment. In India, involvement of patients in the planning for treatment is largely limited to tertiary care centers, academic institutes, or only when the cost of therapy is high. In addition, cultural beliefs and prejudices impact the extent of participation and engagement of a patient in disease management. Communication failures have been found to strongly correlate with the medicolegal malpractice litigations. Research is needed to explore ways to how to incorporate SDM into routine oncology practice. India has a high unmet need towards SDM in diagnosis and treatment of cancer. Physicians need to involve patients or their immediate family members in decision making, to make it a patient-centric approach as well. SDM enforces to avoid uninformed decisionmaking or a lack of trust in the treating physician's knowledge and skills. Physician and patient education, development of tools and guiding policies, widespread implementation, and periodic assessments may advance the practice of SDM.

Shared Decision Making: Effects of an Online Education Session on Knowledge, Attitudes, Adaptability, and Communication Skills Among Nurses

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is beneficial for interprofessional teams but also challenging to implement correctly. Oncology nurses are at the forefront of patients' treatment and, therefore, one of the most essential components of the SDM process.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this pilot study was to examine the effects of a one-hour web-based SDM education session on self-reported knowledge, attitudes, adaptability, and communication skills related to SDM among oncology nurses.

METHODS

Using the ADDIE (analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation) theoretical framework, this study used a post-test-only, single-group, nonexperimental design.

FINDINGS

This study provides preliminary evidence that a one-hour web-based SDM education session is acceptable and has positive effects on oncology nurses' self-reported knowledge, attitudes, adaptability, and communication skills. More research is warranted to validate these findings.

Translation and psychometric evaluation of the German version of the Organisational Readiness for Implementing Change measure (ORIC): a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To translate the Organisational Readiness for Implementing Change measure into German and assess its psychometric properties.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional psychometric study based on secondary analysis of baseline data from a shared decision-making implementation study.

SETTING

Three departments within one academic cancer centre in Hamburg, Germany.

PARTICIPANTS

For comprehensibility assessment of the translated ORIC version, we conducted cognitive interviews with healthcare professionals (HCPs, n=11). Afterwards, HCPs (n=230) filled out the measure.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The original English version of the ORIC was translated into German using a team translation protocol. Based on comprehensibility assessment via cognitive interviews with HCPs, the translated version was revised. We analysed acceptance (completion rate), factorial structure (exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), model fit), item characteristics (item difficulties, corrected item-total correlations, inter-item correlations) and internal consistency (Cronbach's α).

RESULTS

Translation and cognitive testing of the German ORIC was successful except for item 10, which showed low comprehensibility as part of content validity in cognitive interviews. Completion rate was >97%. EFA and CFA provided a one-factorial structure. Item difficulties ranged between 55.98 and 65.32, corrected item-total-correlation ranged between 0.665 and 0.774, inter-item correlations ranged between 0.434 and 0.723 and Cronbach's α was 0.93.

CONCLUSIONS

The German ORIC is a reliable measure with high completion rates and satisfying psychometric properties. A one-factorial structure of the German ORIC was confirmed. Item 10 showed limited comprehensibility and therefore reduces content validity of the measure. The German ORIC can be used to analyse organisational readiness for change as a precursor for implementation success of various interventions.

"I need to know what makes somebody tick …": Challenges and Strategies of Implementing Shared Decision-Making in Individualized Oncology

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) has been advocated as an ethical framework for decision-making in cancer care. According to SDM, patients make decisions in light of their values and based on the available evidence. However, SDM is difficult to implement in cancer care. A lack of applicability in practice is often reported. This empirical-ethical study explores factors potentially relevant to current difficulties in translating the concept of SDM into clinical practice.

METHODS

This study was conducted with nonparticipant observation of the decision-making process in patients with gastrointestinal cancers for whom the benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy was uncertain according to clinical guidelines. Triangulation of qualitative data analysis was conducted by means of semistructured interviews subsequent to the observation. Observation notes and interview transcripts were analyzed according to the principles of grounded theory.

RESULTS

Deviating from the concept of SDM, oncologists initiated a process of eliciting values and medical information prior to conveying information. The purpose of this approach was to select and individualize information relevant to the treatment decision. In doing so, the oncologists observed used two strategies: "biographical communication" and a "metacommunicative approach." Both strategies could be shown to be effective or to fail depending on patients' characteristics such as their view of the physicians' role and the relevance of value-related information for medical decision-making.

CONCLUSION

In contrast to the conceptual account of SDM, oncologists are in need of patient-related information prior to conveying information. Both strategies observed to elicit such information are in principle justifiable but need to be adapted in accordance with patient preferences and decision-making styles.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

This study showed that knowledge of patients' values and preferences is very important to properly adapt the giving of medical information and to further the process of shared decision-making. Shared decision-making (SDM) trainings should consider different strategies of talking about values. The right strategy depends largely on the patient's preferences in communication. To be aware of the role of values in SDM and to be able to switch communicative strategies might prove to be of particular value. A more systematic evaluation of the patient's decision-making preferences as part of routine procedures in hospitals might help to reduce value-related barriers in communication.

Evaluation of a program for routine implementation of shared decision-making in cancer care: study protocol of a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) has become increasingly important in health care. However, despite scientific evidence, effective implementation strategies, and a prominent position on the health policy agenda, SDM is not widely implemented in routine practice so far. Therefore, we developed a program for routine implementation of SDM in oncology by conducting an analysis of the current state and a needs assessment in a pilot study based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Based on these results, the main aim of our current study is to evaluate the process and outcome of this theoretically and empirically grounded multicomponent implementation program designed to foster SDM in routine cancer care.

METHODS

We use a stepped wedge design, a variant of the cluster randomized controlled trial. The intervention to be implemented is SDM. Three participating clinics of one comprehensive cancer center will be randomized and receive the multicomponent SDM implementation program in a time-delayed sequence. The program consists of the following strategies: (a) SDM training for health care professionals, (b) individual coaching for physicians, (c) patient activation strategy, (d) provision of patient information material and decision aids, (e) revision of the clinics' quality management documents, and (f) critical reflection of current organization of multidisciplinary team meetings. We will conduct a mixed methods outcome and process evaluation. The outcome evaluation will consist of four measurement points. The primary outcome is adoption of SDM, measured by the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire. A range of other implementation outcomes will be assessed (i.e., acceptability, readiness for implementing change, appropriateness, penetration). The implementation process will be evaluated using stakeholder interviews and field notes. This will allow adapting interventions if necessary.

DISCUSSION

This study is the first large study on routine implementation of SDM conducted in German cancer care. We expect to foster implementation of SDM at the enrolled clinics. Insights gained from this study, using a theoretically and empirically grounded approach, can inform other SDM implementation studies and health policy developments, both nationally and internationally.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03393351 . Registered 8 January 2018.

Focusing on the "Person" in Personalized Medicine: The Future of Patient-Centered Care in Radiation Oncology

Numerous efforts in radiation oncology aim to improve the value of clinical care. To evaluate the success of these efforts, outcome measures must be well defined and incorporate the beliefs of the patients they affect. These outcomes have historically centered on rates of tumor control, overall survival, and adverse events as perceived and reported by providers. However, the future of patient-centered care in radiation oncology is increasingly focusing on the "person" in the population and the individual in the studies to more closely reflect the ideals of personalized medicine. Formally known as patient-centered outcomes, this metric encompasses parameters of patient satisfaction, engagement, and treatment compliance. Evaluations that investigate the safety and efficacy of treatments are increasingly soliciting participation from patients within a model of shared decision making that improves patients' knowledge, satisfaction, physical and emotional well-being, and trust in providers. Modern clinical trials that embrace this approach may even focus on patient-reported outcomes as the primary end point, as opposed to time-honored physician-reported events. The authors explore the growing role of patient-centered care, the incorporation of shared decision making, and the relevant body of existing and developing literature on this topic in radiation oncology. The authors report recent discoveries from this area of study and describe how they can not only support high-quality, high-value patient care but also enhance recruitment to clinical oncology trials, both of which are challenging to achieve in today's relatively resource-strapped environment.

The long way of implementing patient-centered care and shared decision making in Germany

The main focus of the paper is on the description of the development and current state of research and implementation of patient-centered care (PCC) and shared decision making (SDM) after fifteen years of substantial advances in health policy and health services research. What is the current state of SDM in health policy? The "Patients' Rights Act" from 2013 standardizes all rights and responsibilities within the framework of medical treatment for German citizens and legal residents. This comprises the right to informed decisions, comprehensive and comprehensible information for patients, and decisions based on a clinician-patient-partnership. What is the current state of SDM interventions and patient decision support tools? SDM training programs for healthcare professionals have been developed. Their implementation in medical schools has been successful. Several decision support tools - primarily with support from health insurance funds and other public agencies - are to be implemented in routine care, specifically for national cancer screening programs. What is the current state of research and routine implementation? The German government and other public institutions are constantly funding research programs in which patient-centered care and shared decision-making are important topics. The development and implementation of decision tools for patients and professionals as well as the implementation of CME trainings for healthcare professionals require future efforts. What does the future look like? With the support of health policy and scientific evidence, transfer of PCC and SDM to practice is regarded as meaningful. Research can help to assess barriers, facilitators, and needs, and subsequently to develop and evaluate corresponding strategies to successfully implement PCC and SDM in routine care, which remains challenging.

Lymphoma Therapy and Adverse Events: Nursing Strategies for Thinking Critically and Acting Decisively

BACKGROUND

Multiple treatment options, combined with disease heterogeneity, have created nursing challenges in the management of adverse events (AEs) during antilymphoma therapy. Testing has revealed that less than half of participating nurses correctly graded peripheral neuropathy and neutropenia related to antilymphoma regimens.

OBJECTIVES

This article identifies nursing challenges in the management of AEs associated with therapy for lymphomas and describes how strategies in critical thinking can help meet those challenges.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search in oncology nursing, nursing education, and critical thinking was conducted; participant responses to pre- and post-tests at nursing education programs were evaluated; and a roundtable meeting of authors was convened.

FINDINGS

Oncology nurses can cultivate critical thinking skills, practice thinking critically in relation to team members and patients, leverage information from the Patient-Reported Outcomes Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and manage workflow to allow more opportunity for critical thinking.

What do stakeholders need to implement shared decision making in routine cancer care? A qualitative needs assessment

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is particularly relevant in oncology, where complex treatment options with varying side effects may lead to meaningful changes in the patient's quality of life. For several years, health policies have called for the implementation of SDM, but SDM remains poorly implemented in routine clinical practice. Implementation science has highlighted the importance of assessing stakeholders' needs to inform the development of implementation programs. Thus, the aim of the present study was to assess different stakeholders' needs regarding the implementation of SDM in routine care.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A qualitative study using focus groups and interviews was conducted. Focus groups were carried out with junior physicians, senior physicians, nurses and other healthcare providers (HPCs) (e.g. psycho-oncologists, physiotherapists), patients and family members. Head physicians as well as other HPCs in management positions were interviewed. Audiotapes of focus groups and interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using content analysis.

RESULTS

Six focus groups with a total of n = 42 stakeholders as well as n = 17 interviews were conducted. Focus groups and interviews revealed five main categories of needs to be fulfilled in order to achieve a better implementation of SDM in routine cancer care: 1) changes in communication, 2) involvement of other parties, 3) a trustful patient-physician relationship, 4) culture change and 5) structural changes. Stakeholders discussed four clusters of intervention strategies that could foster the implementation of SDM in routine cancer care: 1) clinician-mediated interventions, 2) patient-mediated interventions, 3) provision of patient information material and 4) the establishment of a patient advocate.

CONCLUSION

Study results show that stakeholders voiced a diversity of needs to foster implementation of SDM in routine cancer care, of which some can be directly addressed by intervention strategies. Present results can be used to develop an implementation program to foster SDM in routine cancer care.