Adoption Of Shared Decision Research Articles

Healthcare systems collaborating to implement a shared decision-making tool in the electronic health record and build evidence on its adoption and use.

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a method of care by which patients and clinicians work together to co-create a plan of care. Electronic health record (EHR) integration of SDM tools may increase adoption of SDM. We conducted a "lightweight" integration of a freely available electronic SDM tool, CV Prevention Choice, within the EHRs of three healthcare systems. Here, we report how the healthcare systems collaborated to achieve integration. This work was conducted as part of a stepped wedge randomized pragmatic trial. CV Prevention Choice was developed using guidelines for HTML5-based web applications. Healthcare systems integrated the tool in their EHR using documentation the study team developed and refined with lessons learned after each system integrated the electronic SDM tool into their EHR. CV Prevention Choice integration populates the tool with individual patient data locally without sending protected health information between the EHR and the web. Data abstraction and secure transfer systems were developed to manage data collection to assess tool implementation and effectiveness outcomes. Time to integrate CV Prevention Choice in the EHR was 12.1 weeks for the first system, 10.4 weeks for the second, and 9.7 weeks for the third. One system required two 1-hour meetings with study team members and two healthcare systems required a single 1-hour meeting. Healthcare system information technology teams collaborated by sharing information and offering improvements to documentation. Challenges included tracking CV Prevention Choice use for reporting and capture of combination medications. Data abstraction required refinements to address differences in how each healthcare system captured data elements. Targeted documentation on tool features and resource mapping supported collaboration of IT teams across healthcare systems, enabling them to integrate a web-based SDM tool with little additional research team effort or oversight. Their collaboration helped overcome difficulties integrating the web application and address challenges to data harmonization for trial outcome analyses.

Understanding Patient Perspectives Toward Shared Decision-Making in Patients With Pulmonary Hypertension

Clinical guidelines for pulmonary hypertension (PH) recommend shared decision-making and individualized treatment. However, patient perspectives on PH treatment goals, preference toward a decision-making style of treatment, and adoption of shared decision-making remain unclear. This cross-sectional questionnaire-based study assessed the patients' preferred and actual participation role in treatment decision-making, rated on 5 scales (ranging from passive [patients leave all decisions to physicians] to active [patients make the decision after physicians show patients several options]) and evaluated the concordance between preferred and actual participation roles. The important factors underlying patients' perspectives in treatment decision-making (i.e., prognosis; symptom, financial, family, and social burdens; patient values; and physician recommendation) were evaluated. Univariate logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the patients with a positive preference toward "physician recommendation" in treatment decision-making. Among 130 patients with PH (median age: 58years; mean pulmonary arterial pressure: 23mm Hg; 27.7% were males), 59.2% preferred that "physicians make the decision regarding treatment after showing patients therapeutic options (i.e., intermediate between passive and active roles)." The patient-preferred and actual participation roles in decision-making had moderate agreement (Cohen's kappa=0.46). The most important factor in treatment decisions was "symptom burden reduction" (93.8%). Although 85.0% of patients chose "physician recommendation" as an important factor, 49.6% chose "alignment with my values." The determinants of patients who chose "physician recommendation" were less severe hemodynamics and better functional capacity. In conclusion, patients with PH preferred that the "physicians make the decision after showing patients therapeutic options" and prioritized physician recommendation over their values.

Shared decision making: a personal view from two kidney doctors and a patient.

Shared decision making (SDM) combines the clinician's expertise in the treatment of disease with the patient's expertise in their lived experience and what is important to them. All decisions made in the care of patients with kidney disease can potentially be explored through SDM. Adoption of SDM in routine kidney care faces numerous institutional and practical barriers. Patients with chronic disease who have become accustomed to paternalistic care may need support to engage in SDM-even though most patients actively want more involvement in decisions about their care. Nephrologists often underestimate the risks and overestimate the benefits of investigations and treatments and often default to recommending burdensome treatments rather than discussing prognosis openly. Guideline bodies continue to issue recommendations written for healthcare professionals without providing patient decision aids. To mitigate health inequalities, care needs to be taken to provide SDM to all patients, not just the highly health-literate patients least likely to need additional support in decision making. Kidney doctors spend much of their time in the consulting room, and it is unjustifiable that so little attention is paid to the teaching, audit and maintenance of consultation skills. Writing letters to the patient to summarise the consultation rather than sending them a copy of a letter between health professionals sets the tone for a consultation in which the patient is an active partner. Adoption of SDM will require nephrologists to relinquish long-established paternalistic models of care and restructure care around the values and preferences of patients.

EDITORIAL COMMENT

Current United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines endorse shared decision making (SDM) for PSA screening.1 However, current evidence shows marked variation and underutilization in SDM for prostate cancer screening, especially amongst more vulnerable patient populations.2 Although poorly studied, race and ethnicity, levels of education, income, and health literacy likely all play an important role in the adoption of SDM and, hence, account at least in part for the discrepancy between guideline recommendations and current practice.

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

ObjectiveEvaluation of a multilevel implementation program on shared decision making (SDM) for breast cancer clinicians. MethodsThe 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. ResultsTwenty-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. ConclusionOur program supported breast cancer clinicians to adopt SDM. Practice ImplicationsTo implement SDM, multilevel approaches are needed that reinforce intrinsic motivation by demonstrating benefits for patients and clinicians.

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

ObjectivesTo develop ‘incorpoRATE’, a brief and broadly applicable measure of physicians’ willingness to incorporate shared decision making (SDM) into practice. MethodsincorpoRATE 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. ResultsThe 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. ConclusionsincorpoRATE is a novel physician-reported measure that assesses physicians’ willingness to incorporate SDM in practice. Practice implicationsincorpoRATE 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.

User-centered and theory-based design of a professional training program on shared decision-making with older adults living with neurocognitive disorders: a mixed-methods study

BackgroundWe know little about the best approaches to design training for healthcare professionals. We thus studied how user-centered and theory-based design contribute to the development of a distance learning program for professionals, to increase their shared decision-making (SDM) with older adults living with neurocognitive disorders and their caregivers.MethodsIn this mixed-methods study, healthcare professionals who worked in family medicine clinics and homecare services evaluated a training program in a user-centered approach with several iterative phases of quantitative and qualitative evaluation, each followed by modifications. The program comprised an e-learning activity and five evidence summaries. A subsample assessed the e-learning activity during semi-structured think-aloud sessions. A second subsample assessed the evidence summaries they received by email. All participants completed a theory-based questionnaire to assess their intention to adopt SDM. Descriptive statistical analyses and qualitative thematic analyses were integrated at each round to prioritize training improvements with regard to the determinants most likely to influence participants’ intention.ResultsOf 106 participants, 98 completed their evaluations of either the e-learning activity or evidence summary (93%). The professions most represented were physicians (60%) and nurses (15%). Professionals valued the e-learning component to gain knowledge on the theory and practice of SDM, and the evidence summaries to apply the knowledge gained through the e-learning activity to diverse clinical contexts. The iterative design process allowed addressing most weaknesses reported. Participants’ intentions to adopt SDM and to use the summaries were high at baseline and remained positive as the rounds progressed. Attitude and social influence significantly influenced participants' intention to use the evidence summaries (P < 0.0001). Despite strong intention and the tailoring of tools to users, certain factors external to the training program can still influence the effective use of these tools and the adoption of SDM in practice.ConclusionsA theory-based and user-centered design approach for continuing professional development interventions on SDM with older adults living with neurocognitive disorders and their caregivers appeared useful to identify the most important determinants of learners’ intentions to use SDM in their practice, and validate our initial interpretations of learners’ assessments during the subsequent evaluation round.

Provider perspectives on shared decision-making regarding hypospadias surgery

Many parents experience decisional conflict and decisional regret around hypospadias surgery. The utilization of a shared decision-making (SDM) process may mitigate these issues, however addressing the principal components of the SDM process is a complex task that requires the investment of providers. The purpose of this study was to facilitate a discussion about SDM anchored on hypospadias with pediatric urology and general pediatric providers to explore perspectives, clinical applications and barriers to adopting SDM in clinical practice. We conducted two focus groups in order to engage pediatric urology and general pediatric providers in guided discussions about SDM anchored on hypospadias. All activities were audio recorded and professionally transcribed. The transcripts were analyzed by three coders using directed qualitative content analysis techniques to identify themes and relationships between themes to inform the development of an affinity diagram (Extended Summary Figure). Two focus groups were held; one with seven pediatric urology providers in November 2018 and one with ten general pediatric providers in January 2019 (median age 51 years, 88.2% Caucasian, 58.8% female, 70.6% physicians and 29.4% nurse practitioners). Both groups identified some of the key components of SDM including engaging families in decision-making, informing them about treatment options and clarifying values/preferences (Extended Summary Figure). They thought that SDM was useful for discussing preference-sensitive conditions (e.g. hypospadias) and addressing parental compliance. General pediatric providers also suggested that SDM helped them avoid unnecessary referrals to specialists. Both groups identified parental, provider and systemic barriers to the adoption of SDM: a) desire for paternalism, b) misperceptions about medical evidence, c) completion of parental decision-making prior to the clinical visit, d) provider bias/lack of interest and e) time constraints/productivity pressures. Providers who care for hypospadias patients are knowledgeable about SDM and its potential clinical applications. They identified several potentially modifiable barriers to the adoption of a SDM process about hypospadias surgery in a pediatric clinical setting. Based on feedback from providers, we plan to implement a hypospadias decision aid early in the parental decision-making process about hypospadias such as in the postpartum unit and at well-child visits in the newborn period and provide a provider training session about SDM to address the identified knowledge gaps.

Evaluation of a shared decision-making intervention for pediatric patients with asthma in the emergency department

BackgroundAsthma is a difficult-to-manage chronic disease marked with associated outcome disparities including an increase rate of emergency department (ED) visits for uncontrolled asthma among patients who are most at-risk. Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which the patient and provider jointly make a healthcare choice. SDM improves patient outcomes; however, implementation barriers of time constraints and staff availability are limitations. The use of health IT solutions may increase the adoption of SDM, but best practices for implementation are not well understood. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) is a flexible comprehensive model used to identify barriers and facilitators influencing implementation. The goal of this study is to implement an innovative web-based pediatric SDM tool in the real-world setting of two large healthcare system EDs through the following aims: (1) convene a patient, research, and ED stakeholder advisory board to oversee review of protocol and study materials prior to implementation, (2) implement the SDM intervention where providers and staff will be trained to incorporate use of this SDM intervention, (3) conduct on-going evaluation of barriers, facilitators, and implementation outcomes to tailor implementation in the EDs, (4) evaluate patient-centered outcomes of primary care utilization and changes in ED visits and hospitalizations before and after the SDM intervention, and (5) understand and document best practices for ED implementation.MethodsThe CFIR model will guide the implementation evaluation. Researchers will administer surveys to the clinical team and patients at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months to inform implementation design, determine barriers and facilitators, and resource-needs to allow for real-time process adjustments within the EDs. Focus group or key-informant interviews and analysis will provide additional feedback to the stakeholder team to iterate the implementation process. Researchers will track patient-centered outcomes including increased primary care, ED, and inpatient utilization over the duration of the study.DiscussionTo advance asthma care and the field of implementation science, further research is needed to assess best practices for incorporating SDM into high-need healthcare settings such as the ED. This knowledge will facilitate improved outcomes and appropriate policy changes towards further use of SDM interventions in local and national acute care settings.

Is sharing really caring? Viewpoints on shared decision-making in paediatrics.

Shared decision-making (SDM), the cornerstone of family-centred care and the gold standard in health decision-making, occurs when the patient, family members and the health-care team members partner to make health decisions about the child. This partnership involves an exchange of medical information and information about patient/family preferences and values. Together, the health-care team, parent and patient deliberate to determine the best course of action for the child. Despite high-quality evidence supporting its positive impact on outcomes, SDM has not been widely adopted in paediatric clinical practice. Greater understanding of the impact of SDM on all members of the decision triad (parent, patient and health-care provider) may increase the likelihood of SDM adoption. Therefore, we present the viewpoints of a paediatric patient, parent and paediatrician about the use of SDM. A youth living with a rare chronic disease discusses the impacts of being involved and excluded from health decisions. A mother of a son living with a rare nephrotic condition discusses working with a health-care team who are committed and skilled in SDM and the positive impacts SDM has had for her son's care. A general paediatrician with research expertise in SDM discusses the individual and system level challenges and rewards of using SDM in her clinical practice. Based on the viewpoints presented, we offer pragmatic recommendations for using SDM in paediatric clinical practice.

Purposeful SDM: A problem-based approach to caring for patients with shared decision making

ObjectivePatient involvement focused the growth of Shared Decision Making (SDM) in contemporary healthcare practice, research, and education. Whilst important, securing appropriate patient involvement or equipping patients to choose is not necessarily the principal purpose of SDM. The purpose of SDM like all medical decision making is to act well in response to a patient’s problem, broadly conceived. In which situations and how SDM addresses patient problems is unclear. We seek to develop a purposeful approach to SDM that is oriented to the kinds of problems that SDM might help resolve. MethodsThrough vignettes of the experience of a patient, Rachel we demonstrate different kinds of situations in which Rachel, her family, and clinicians need to make decisions together. ResultsDifferent methods of SDM are needed in situations of:•Uncertain harms and benefits.•Intra or interpersonal conflict.•Intellectual, practical, and emotional incoherence.•Existential transition. ConclusionSDM may be understood as a range of methods that vary substantially with patients’ situations and the purpose that they pursue. Practice ImplicationsClinicians struggle to adopt SDM when they do not see it as relevant to clinical work. Orienting SDM to the problems that patients and clinicians routinely face may further SDM adoption, education, and research.

Promoting Shared Decision-Making Behaviors During Inpatient Rounds: A Multimodal Educational Intervention

To estimate the effectiveness of a multimodal educational intervention to increase use of shared decision-making (SDM) behaviors by inpatient pediatric and internal medicine hospitalists and trainees at teaching hospitals at Stanford University and the University of California, San Francisco. The 8-week Patient Engagement Project Study intervention, delivered at four services between November 2014 and January 2015, included workshops, campaign messaging, report cards, and coaching. For 12-week pre- and postintervention periods, clinician peers used the nine-point Rochester Participatory Decision-Making Scale (RPAD) to evaluate rounding teams' SDM behaviors with patients during ward rounds. Eligible teams included a hospitalist and at least one trainee (resident, intern, medical student), in addition to nonphysicians. Random-effects models were used to estimate intervention effects based on RPAD scores that sum points on nine SDM behaviors per patient encounter. In total, 527 patient encounters were scored during 175 rounds led by 49 hospitalists. Patient and team characteristics were similar across pre- and postintervention periods. Improvement was observed on all nine SDM behaviors. Adjusted for the hierarchical study design and covariates, the mean RPAD score improvement was 1.68 points (95% CI, 1.33-2.03; P < .001; Cohen d = 0.82), with intervention effects ranging from 0.7 to 2.5 points per service. Improvements were associated with longer patient encounters and a higher percentage of trainees per team. The intervention increased behaviors supporting SDM during ward rounds on four independent services. The findings recommend use of clinician-focused interventions to promote SDM adoption in the inpatient setting.

Health Policy and Shared Decision Making in Emergency Care: A Research Agenda.

Although the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and other laws have promoted the use of shared decision making (SDM) in recent years, few specific policies have addressed the opportunities and challenges of utilizing SDM in the emergency department (ED). Policies relating to physician payment, quality measurement, and medical-legal risks each present unique challenges to adoption of SDM in the ED. This article summarizes findings from a health policy breakout session of the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference "Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: Development of a Policy-relevant, Patient-centered Research Agenda." The objectives were to 1) describe federal and state policies that influence utilization or assessment of SDM; 2) identify policies and policy-focused knowledge gaps that serve as barriers to adoption of ED SDM; and 3) to define a consensus-based, policy-focused research agenda to support adoption of SDM in emergency care.

From decision to shared-decision: Introducing patients' preferences into clinical decision analysis.

Taking into account patients' preferences has become an essential requirement in health decision-making. Even in evidence-based settings where directions are summarized into clinical practice guidelines, there might exist situations where it is important for the care provider to involve the patient in the decision. In this paper we propose a unified framework to promote the shift from a traditional, physician-centered, clinical decision process to a more personalized, patient-oriented shared decision-making (SDM) environment. We present the theoretical, technological and architectural aspects of a framework that encapsulates decision models and instruments to elicit patients' preferences into a single tool, thus enabling physicians to exploit evidence-based medicine and shared decision-making in the same encounter. We show the implementation of the framework in a specific case study related to the prevention and management of the risk of thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation. We describe the underlying decision model and how this can be personalized according to patients' preferences. The application of the framework is tested through a pilot clinical evaluation study carried out on 20 patients at the Rehabilitation Cardiology Unit at the IRCCS Fondazione Salvatore Maugeri hospital (Pavia, Italy). The results point out the importance of running personalized decision models, which can substantially differ from models quantified with population coefficients. This study shows that the tool is potentially able to overcome some of the main barriers perceived by physicians in the adoption of SDM. In parallel, the development of the framework increases the involvement of patients in the process of care focusing on the centrality of individual patients.

Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals.

Shared decision making (SDM) can reduce overuse of options not associated with benefits for all and respects patient rights, but has not yet been widely adopted in practice. To determine the effectiveness of interventions to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM. For this update we searched for primary studies in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Specialsied Register and PsycINFO for the period March 2009 to August 2012. We searched the Clinical Trials.gov registry and the proceedings of the International Shared Decision Making Conference. We scanned the bibliographies of relevant papers and studies. We contacted experts in the field to identify papers published after August 2012. Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM where the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer-based outcome measures (OBOM) or patient-reported outcome measures (PROM). The three overall categories of intervention were: interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both. Studies in each category were compared to studies in the same category, to studies in the other two categories, and to usual care, resulting in nine comparison groups. Statistical analysis considered categorical and continuous primary outcomes separately. We calculated the median of the standardized mean difference (SMD), or risk difference, and range of effect across studies and categories of intervention. We assessed risk of bias. Thirty-nine studies were included, 38 randomised and one non-randomised controlled trial. Categorical measures did not show any effect for any of the interventions. In OBOM studies, interventions targeting both patients and healthcare professionals had a positive effect compared to usual care (SMD of 2.83) and compared to interventions targeting patients alone (SMD of 1.42). Studies comparing interventions targeting patients with other interventions targeting patients had a positive effect, as did studies comparing interventions targeting healthcare professionals with usual care (SDM of 1.13 and 1.08 respectively). In PROM studies, only three comparisons showed any effect, patient compared to usual care (SMD of 0.21), patient compared to another patient (SDM of 0.29) and healthcare professional compared to another healthcare professional (SDM of 0.20). For all comparisons, interpretation of the results needs to consider the small number of studies, the heterogeneity, and some methodological issues. Overall quality of the evidence for the outcomes, assessed with the GRADE tool, ranged from low to very low. It is uncertain whether interventions to improve adoption of SDM are effective given the low quality of the evidence. However, any intervention that actively targets patients, healthcare professionals, or both, is better than none. Also, interventions targeting patients and healthcare professionals together show more promise than those targeting only one or the other.

Exploration of shared decision-making processes among dieticians and patients during a consultation for the nutritional treatment of dyslipidaemia.

Shared decision making (SDM) holds great potential for improving the therapeutic efficiency and quality of nutritional treatment of dyslipidaemia by promoting patient involvement in decision making. Adoption of specific behaviours fostering SDM during consultations has yet to be studied in routine dietetic practice. Using a cross-sectional study design, we aimed to explore both dieticians' and patients' adoption of SDM behaviours in dietetic consultations regarding the nutritional treatment of dyslipidaemia. Twenty-six dieticians working in local health clinics in the Quebec City metropolitan area were each asked to identify one dyslipidaemic patient they would see in an upcoming consultation. Based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour (TPB), questionnaires were designed to study two targeted SDM behaviours: 'to discuss nutritional treatment options for dyslipidaemia' and 'to discuss patients' values and preferences about nutritional treatment options for dyslipidaemia'. These questionnaires were administered to the dietician-patient dyad individually before the consultation. Associations between TPB constructs (attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control) towards behavioural intentions were analysed using Spearman's partial correlations. Thirteen unique patient-dietician dyads completed the study. Perceived behavioural control was the only TPB construct significantly associated with both dieticians' and patients' intentions to adopt the targeted SDM behaviours (P < 0.05). As perceived behavioural control seems to determine dieticians' and patients' adoption of SDM behaviours, interventions addressing barriers and reinforcing enablers of these behaviours are indicated. This exploratory study highlights issues that could be addressed in future research endeavours to expand the knowledge base relating to SDM adoption in dietetic practice.

Psychosocial Factors of Dietitians' Intentions to Adopt Shared Decision Making Behaviours: A Cross-Sectional Survey

ObjectivesWhile shared decision making (SDM) promotes health-related decisions that are informed, value-based and adhered to, few studies report on theory-based approaches to SDM adoption by healthcare professionals. We aimed to identify the factors influencing dietitians' intentions to adopt two SDM behaviours: 1) present dietary treatment options to patients and 2) help patients clarify their values and preferences.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional postal survey based on the Theory of Planned Behaviour among 428 randomly selected dietitians working in clinical practice across the Province of Quebec, Canada. We performed descriptive analyses and multiple regression analyses to determine the variables that explained the variance in intention to perform the behaviours.ResultsA total of 203 dietitians completed the questionnaire. Their ages were from 23 to 66 and they had been practising dietetics for 15.4±11.1 years (mean ± SD). On a scale from 1 to 7 (from strongly disagree to strongly agree), dietitians' intentions to present dietary treatment options and to clarify their patients' values and preferences were 5.00±1.14 and 5.68±0.74, respectively. Perceived behavioural control (β = 0.56, ρ<0.0001), subjective norm (β = 0.16, ρ<0.05), and moral norm (β = 0.22, ρ<0.0001), were the factors significantly predicting the intention to present dietary treatment options, while perceived behavioural control (β = 0.60, ρ<0.0001), attitude (β = 0.20, ρ<0.05), and professional norm (β = 0.22, ρ<0.001), significantly predicted the intention to help patients' clarify their values and preferences.ConclusionOur results showed that dietitians intend to adopt the two SDM behaviours studied. Factors influencing intention were different for each behaviour, except for perceived behavioural control which was common to both behaviours. Thus, perceived behavioural control could be a key factor in interventions aiming to encourage implementation of SDM by dietitians.

Shared Decision Making

A primary challenge to the American healthcare system is to improve quality by being more evidence based, cost-effective, and patient centered.1,2 The first 2 markers of quality are familiar to physicians and policy makers, wherein disease-specific performance measures and cost data are commonly used to gauge outcomes. The third quality parameter, patient-centered care, has gained increased awareness among the healthcare community but remains elusive to many. Patient-centered outcomes focus on patients’ experiences (eg, symptoms, quality of life) and preferences for these and other outcomes. Thus, the best outcome may be different for different individuals, depending on their priorities, values, and goals. For example, in assessing the outcome of implanting a defibrillator in an 80-year-old patient, we may need to look beyond 1-year mortality and ask whether the decision is consistent with the patient’s values concerning dying and acceptance of potential inappropriate shocks.3 In a patient-centered model, the focus is on high-quality decision making, stemming from the exchange of (1) balanced, evidence-based, disease-specific information; (2) presentation of treatment options and their inherent benefits and tradeoffs; (3) assessment of patient values, priorities, and goals; and (4) alignment of patient values with treatment decisions.4 This process of shared decision making (SDM) has the potential to advance patients’ desired wishes and to achieve better patient-centered outcomes while lowering the costs of care should patients choose less expensive treatment options.5,6 Decision aids are commonly used to facilitate SDM, conveying information about a particular disease and the risks and benefits associated with different treatment strategies, including no treatment at all.7 Decision aids may take the form of a Web-based tool, video, or pamphlet and may be administered in the hospital or office or even independently by patients before their visit. To date, >86 randomized trials have been …

Shared Decision Making in Oncology Practice: What Do Oncologists Need to Know?

There is growing interest by patients, policy makers, and clinicians in shared decision making (SDM) as a means to involve patients in health decisions and translate evidence into clinical practice. However, few clinicians feel optimally trained to implement SDM in practice, and many patients report that they are less involved than they desire to be in their cancer care decisions. SDM might help address the wide practice variation reported for many preference-sensitive decisions by incorporating patient preferences into decision discussions. This paper provides a perspective on how to incorporate SDM into routine oncology practice to facilitate patient-centered communication and promote effective treatment decisions. Oncology practice is uniquely positioned to lead the adoption of SDM because of the vast number of preference-sensitive decisions in which SDM can enhance the clinical encounter. Clinicians can facilitate cancer decision making by: (a) determining the situations in which SDM is critical; (b) acknowledging the decision to a patient; (c) describing the available options, including the risks, benefits, and uncertainty associated with options; (d) eliciting patients' preferences; and (e) agreeing on a plan for the next steps in the decision-making process. Given recent policy movements toward incorporating SDM and translating evidence into routine clinical practice, oncologists are likely to continue expanding their use of SDM and will have to confront the challenges of incorporating SDM into their clinical workflow. More research is needed to explore ways to overcome these challenges such that both quality evidence and patient preferences are appropriately translated and incorporated into oncology care decisions.