Aspects Of Shared Decision-making Research Articles

Medical Care as Flea Market Bargaining? An International Interdisciplinary Study of Varieties of Shared Decision Making in Physician–Patient Interactions

Phenomenon: Shared decision making (SDM) is a core ideal in the interaction between healthcare providers and patients, but the implementation of the SDM ideal in clinical routines has been a relatively slow process. Approach: In a sociological study, 71 interactions between physicians and simulated patients enacting chronic heart failure were video-recorded in China, Germany, the Netherlands, and Turkey as part of a quasi-experimental research design. Participating physicians varied in specialty and level of experience. The secondary analysis presented in this article used content analysis to study core components of SDM in all of the 71 interactions and a grounded theory approach to observe how physicians responded actively to patients even though they did not actively employ the SDM ideal. Findings: Full realization of the SDM ideal remains an exception, but various aspects of SDM in physician–patient interaction were observed in all four locations. Analyses of longer interactions show dynamic processes of interaction that sometimes surprised both patient and physician. We observed varieties of SDM that differ from the SDM ideal but arguably achieve what the SDM ideal is intended to achieve. Our analysis suggests a need to revisit the SDM ideal—to consider whether varieties of SDM may be acceptable, even valuable, in their own right. Insights: The gap between the SDM ideal and SDM as implemented in clinical practice may in part be explained by the tendency of medicine to define and teach SDM through a narrow lens of checklist evaluations. The authors support the argument that SDM defies a checklist approach. SDM is not uniform, but nuanced, dependent on circumstances and setting. As SDM is co-produced by patients and physicians in a dynamic process of interaction, medical researchers should consider and medical learners should be exposed to varieties of SDM-related practice rather than a single idealized model. Observing and discussing worked examples contributes to the physician’s development of realistic expectations and personal professional growth.

Shared Decision-Making Applied to Knee Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials.

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a strongly endorsed approach by which patients and clinicians work together to formulate a sensible care plan. The present study was undertaken to conduct a systematic review of SDM trials in patients considering knee arthroplasty (KA) to characterize how SDM was supported and the impact on care received. We searched multiple bibliographic databases from inception to December 31, 2019. A pair of reviewers working independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and evaluated each trial's risk of bias. We found 6 eligible randomized trials (4 included KA and hip arthroplasty), all of which tested the same proprietary decision aid (DA) (Treatment Choices for Hip or Knee Osteoarthritis), with some adding other materials to support SDM. These trials, all of which had moderate-to-high risk of bias, focused on assessing the effect of the DA on patient knowledge about the options while not explicitly supporting other aspects of SDM, such as choice awareness, deliberation, or decision-making. One trial found an increase in the number of African American patients undergoing KA in the 12 months following the intervention. No other trials found that SDM impacts clinical outcomes. Evidence for SDM in patients considering KA is mostly limited to a single DA. While use of this DA improves patient knowledge about their treatment options, this tool has not been shown to promote SDM, impact treatment decisions, or satisfaction with care. Future work should seek to support SDM directly and assess effects on treatment decisions, functional outcomes, and satisfaction.

Alignment and discordances in perceptions and experiences of shared decision making (SDM) among bladder cancer (BC) patients and their care team.

420 Background: To align BC treatment with patient goals, it is vital that healthcare providers (HCPs) engage their patients (pts) in SDM for treatment planning. We assessed alignment and discordances on aspects of SDM among BC pts and their urology and oncology teams. Methods: Between 05/2020 and 06/2020, surveys were administered to 53 pts with BC (48% female, mean age 68 years) and 23 HCPs, as part of in-clinic and virtual collaborative patient education sessions across 5 US-based practices. Surveys were designed to assess perceptions, preferences, and experiences with regard to SDM during BC care. Results: Survey findings indicated key alignments and discordances in pts’ reported experience and HCPs’ perceptions of the use of SDM in BC care. HCPs and pts identified the same top 2 patient goals for BC care: 1) preventing progression/recurrence (61% pts, 48% HCPs) and 2) maintaining quality of life (35% pts, 78% HCPs). When asked to identify patient’s top challenges for pts in BC care, both pts and HCPs indicated post-treatment aspects as the top challenge, though pts indicated managing side effects/serious worry about side effects from treatment as the top challenge (22%); whereas, HCPs were split evenly between managing side effects from treatment (26%) and managing life changes as a result of urinary diversion (26%). HCPs overestimated the effect that fatigue and worry had on pts capacity for SDM: only 9% of pts indicated worry or fatigue as a barrier to SDM, but 65% of HCPs indicated this as a likely barrier. Furthermore, the patient experience of SDM differed from HCP perception of SDM (Table); for some aspects of SDM, such as explaining different treatment options, explaining pros/cons of treatment options, and overall involvement in treatment decisions, fewer HCPs indicated that these aspects of SDM always or usually occurred as compared to pts. Conclusions: These findings reveal important alignments and discordances between pts and HCPs with regard to BC care and SDM, which may inform future bladder cancer and SDM initiatives. [Table: see text]

Association of shared decision making with inpatient satisfaction: a cross-sectional study

BackgroundWe assessed inpatient perceived shared decision making (SDM) and tested the association of SDM with inpatient satisfaction in public tertiary hospitals in Shanghai, China.MethodsA cross-sectional survey of 2585 inpatients in 47 public tertiary hospitals in Shanghai in July and August 2018 was conducted. We assessed overall SDM and 4 aspects of SDM and tested the factors influencing SDM and the association of SDM with patient satisfaction (patient satisfaction with physician services, medical expenses, outcomes and overall inpatient care), by adopting linear or two-level regression models.ResultsThe positive response rate (PRR) and high positive response rate (HPRR) to overall SDM among the inpatients of public tertiary hospitals in Shanghai were relatively high (95.30% and 87.86%, respectively), while the HPRR to “My physician informed me of different treatment alternatives” was relatively low (80.09%). In addition, the inpatients who underwent surgery during admission had higher HPRRs and adjusted HPRRs to overall SDM than those who did not undergo surgery. The study showed that the adjusted high satisfaction rates (HSRs) with physician services, medical expenses, outcomes and overall inpatient care among the inpatients with high level of overall SDM were higher (96.50%, 68.44%, 89.50% and 92.60%) than those among the inpatients without a high level of overall SDM (71.77%, 35.19%, 57.30% and 67.49%). The greatest differences in the adjusted HSRs between the inpatients with and without a high level of SDM were found in inpatient satisfaction with medical expenses and informed consent in SDM. Moreover, 46.22% of the variances in the HSRs with overall inpatient care across the hospitals were attributed to the hospital type (general hospitals vs. specialty hospitals).ConclusionsInpatient PRRs and HPRRs to SDM in public tertiary hospitals in Shanghai are relatively high overall but lower to information regarding alternatives. SDM can be affected by the SDM preference of both the patients and physicians and medical condition. Patient satisfaction can be improved through better SDM and should be committed at the hospital level.

Patterns of care in ALK+ or ROS1+ non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) in community systems.

232 Background: For patients who have ALK or ROS1+ NSCLC, targeted therapies have greatly improved treatment options, though challenges personalizing care have hindered effective integration. In a quality improvement (QI) program conducted in 2 community oncology systems, practices involving the use of targeted therapies for NSCLC were assessed. Methods: Between 01-04/2020, retrospective EMR audits of 100 patients with ALK or ROS1+ NSCLC were analyzed for demographics, molecular testing, disease characteristics, treatment history, and shared decision-making (SDM). Surveys were administered to evaluate healthcare professionals’ (HCP; N = 47) challenges and barriers. HCP teams participated in audit-feedback sessions and developed action plans for resolving identified gaps. Results: 64% of HCPs indicated high confidence in utilizing molecular tests to inform treatment and properly sequencing targeted therapies; however, the EMR audit demonstrated challenges efficiently integrating guideline-aligned testing into practice. The mean time from diagnosis to molecular testing results was 22 days and documentation of testing for genetic aberrations other than ALK/ROS1 during work-up were low (Table). Delays in receiving molecular testing results may have presented challenges aligning treatment practices to guidelines as some patients were not receiving frontline targeted therapies (31% ALK+, 24% ROS1+). Additionally, EMR audits suggested sub-optimal use of distress screening (37%), tobacco counseling (38%), quality of life screening (60%), and engagement/documentation of various aspects of SDM (Table) for patient-centered care. Importantly, given the role internalized stigma can play in lung cancer, only 59% of those surveyed indicated that they routinely use tools to identify patients affected by stigma. During audit-feedback sessions, teams identified increased documentation, improved molecular testing/collaboration with pathology team, and provision of patient-centered care, including reduction of smoking-associated stigma as action items. Conclusions: These findings reveal important performance gaps in providing targeted and patient-centered treatment for NSCLC in community settings. These findings may be relevant for future QI programs. [Table: see text]

Real-world data and patient perspectives on quality care and maintenance therapy (MT) decision-making for recurrent ovarian cancer (ROC).

e19174 Background: Despite clinical evidence illustrating the efficacy of MT for ROC, complexities, such as patient-, treatment-, and disease-related factors, and team-based care coordination, limit its optimal use in ROC. In a quality improvement (QI) program, conducted at 2 oncology systems, we evaluated gaps in evidence-based, quality ROC care. Methods: Between 09/2019-02/2020, retrospective EMR audits of 200 patients with ovarian cancer were analyzed for demographics, disease characteristics, treatment history, and shared decision-making (SDM) involving MT. Surveys were administered to evaluate challenges, barriers and experiences of healthcare professionals (HCP; N = 35) and their patients with ROC (N = 21). The HCP teams participated in audit-feedback sessions and developed action plans for resolving identified gaps. Results: EMR audits revealed low utility of MT among patients with ROC (Table), and only 20% of patients reported that MT was discussed as a treatment option. Lack of access to newer therapies was most commonly identified (27%) by HCP as the biggest challenge in treating patients with ROC. Furthermore, survey results revealed that HCP are challenged to correctly integrate guidelines for patient selection for PARP inhibitor MT based on BRCA mutation status (18% of HCP answered correctly), response to previous chemotherapy (49% correct), and line of therapy (46% correct). Data indicated a low level of SDM – none of the patients indicated a high level involvement in treatment decisions and only 20% indicated a high level of agreement that their care team understood their treatment goals. EMR audits also illustrate low documentation of multiple aspects of SDM (Table). Oncology team members formulated plans to develop guidance documents to assist in therapy sequencing and tools to improve patient education. Conclusions: Overall, data from this QI program indicate gaps, challenges, and barriers in evidence-based, MT decision-making and engagement of patients in SDM. These areas for improvement may be relevant for future interventions to improve the provision of quality ROC care. [Table: see text]

Understanding relational aspects of shared decision-making in gynaecology: A qualitative analysis of patients’ and physicians’ perspectives as well as clinical consultations

Rationale, aims and objectives: Following increased interest in the complexity of relational aspects of shared decision-making (SDM), this study traces the meanings and practices of the ways decisions are shared in clinical encounters within gynaecology. Methods: Guided by grounded theory, we analysed semi-structured interviews with 18 patients and 11 physicians as well as 33 observed consultations from 6 gynaecological outpatient care settings, selected by maximum variety sampling in the Basel area of Switzerland. Results: The results show how clinicians and patients co-produce different meanings and practices regarding decision-making across various care settings. Although female and male clinicians equally engaged in reciprocal bonds with patients in the decision-making process, the nature of these bonds differed and patients attributed gendered and different emotional meanings to decision-making. Shared decision-making was only advocated in female physician/female patient constellations, grounded in ‘being in reciprocal exchange’ due to sameness in gender and displayed as a means for creating closeness, empathy and support. In male physician/female patient constellations, the reciprocal bond was constructed upon unequal distribution of medical knowledge with patients favouring direct medical advice. However, whether patients felt supported in decision-making processes rather seemed to depend upon the continuity of clinical relationships than on the decision-making practices or care setting. Conclusion: By integrating different perspectives, insights into the complexity of relational aspects of SDM in gynaecology were obtained. Emotional meanings and practices of SDM differ according to gender constellations, care settings and continuity of clinical relationships.

The Choice of Renal Replacement Therapy (CORETH) project: study design and methods.

BackgroundTo date, research has neglected the patient's psychosocial and cognitive conditions as contributing factors to dialysis modality decision-making. Hence, the Choice of Renal Replacement Therapy (CORETH) study aims to examine these conditions with regard to their impact on the choice. Here we describe the design of the multicentre study, which is supported by a grant from the German Ministry for Education and Research.MethodsTwo groups of patients will be compared after having chosen peritoneal or haemodialysis as permanent treatment. About 1200 participants from 50 dialysis centres all over Germany will be questioned. The questionnaire addresses social, psychological and shared decision-making aspects. Furthermore, cognitive functioning will be tested. For an economic evaluation direct and indirect costs of treatment will be calculated. Changes will be examined through a one-year follow-up.ConclusionsThe results will enlighten the treatment choice under the German healthcare system. They will provide further insight regarding the discussion on patient autonomy. From the patients' perspective, the results will help to strengthen their participation in the individual process of health-related decision-making.

Shared decision-making: the perspectives of young adults with type 1 diabetes mellitus.

BackgroundShared decision-making (SDM) is at the core of patient-centered care. We examined whether young adults with type 1 diabetes perceived the clinician groups they consulted as practicing SDM.MethodsIn a web-based survey, 150 Australians aged 18–35 years and with type 1 diabetes rated seven aspects of SDM in their interactions with endocrinologists, diabetes educators, dieticians, and general practitioners. Additionally, 33 participants in seven focus groups discussed these aspects of SDM.ResultsOf the 150 respondents, 90% consulted endocrinologists, 60% diabetes educators, 33% dieticians, and 37% general practitioners. The majority of participants rated all professions as oriented toward all aspects of SDM, but there were professional differences. These ranged from 94.4% to 82.2% for “My clinician enquires about how I manage my diabetes”; 93.4% to 82.2% for “My clinician listens to my opinion about my diabetes management”; 89.9% to 74.1% for “My clinician is supportive of my diabetes management”; 93.2% to 66.1% for “My clinician suggests ways in which I can improve my self-management”; 96.6% to 85.7% for “The advice of my clinician can be understood”; 98.9% to 82.2% for “The advice of my clinician can be trusted”; and 86.5% to 67.9% for “The advice of my clinician is consistent with other members of the diabetes team”. Diabetes educators received the highest ratings on all aspects of SDM. The mean weighted average of agreement to SDM for all consultations was 84.3%. Focus group participants reported actively seeking clinicians who practiced SDM. A lack of SDM was frequently cited as a reason for discontinuing consultation. The dominant three themes in focus group discussions were whether clinicians acknowledged patients’ expertise, encouraged patients’ autonomy, and provided advice that patients could utilize to improve self-management.ConclusionThe majority of clinicians engaged in SDM. Young adults with type 1 diabetes prefer such clinicians. They may fail to take up recommended health services when clinicians do not practice this component of patient-centered care. Such findings have implications for patient safety, improved health outcomes, and enhanced health service delivery.

Core Domains of Shared Decision-Making During Psychiatric Visits: Scientific and Preference-Based Discussions

Shared decision-making (SDM) is imperative to person-centered care, yet little is known about what aspects of SDM are targeted during psychiatric visits. This secondary data analysis (191 psychiatric visits with 11 providers, coded with a validated SDM coding system) revealed two factors (scientific and preference-based discussions) underlying SDM communication. Preference-based discussion occurred less. Both provider and consumer initiation of SDM elements and decision complexity were associated with greater discussions in both factors, but were more strongly associated with scientific discussion. Longer visit length correlated with only scientific discussion. Providers' understanding of core domains could facilitate engaging consumers in SDM.