Patient Involvement In Decision Research Articles

Patients' preferred and perceived level of involvement in decision making for cancer treatment: A systematic review.

ObjectivePatient involvement in decision making is conditional for personalised treatment decisions. We aim to provide an up‐to‐date overview of patients’ preferred and perceived level of involvement in decision making for cancer treatment.MethodsA systematic search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL for articles published between January 2009 and January 2020. Search terms were ‘decision making’, ‘patient participation’, ‘oncology’, ‘perception’ and ‘treatment’. Inclusion criteria were: written in English, peer‐reviewed, reporting patients’ preferred and perceived level of involvement, including adult cancer patients and concerning decision making for cancer treatment. The percentages of patients preferring and perceiving an active, shared or passive decision role and the (dis)concordance are presented. Quality assessment was performed with a modified version of the New‐Castle Ottawa Scale.Results31 studies were included. The median percentage of patients preferring an active, shared or passive role in decision making was respectively 25%, 46%, and 27%. The median percentage of patients perceiving an active, shared or passive role was respectively 27%, 39%, and 34%. The median concordance in preferred and perceived role of all studies was 70%. Disconcordance was highest for a shared role; 42%.ConclusionsPatients’ preferences for involvement in cancer treatment decision vary widely. A significant number of patients perceived a decisional role other than preferred. Improvements in patient involvement have been observed in the last decade. However, there is still room for improvement and physicians should explore patients’ preferences for involvement in decision making in order to truly deliver personalised cancer care.

An evaluation of advance care planning during the COVID-19 pandemic: a retrospective review of patient involvement in decision making using routinely collected data from digital ReSPECT records

To review advance care planning (ACP) practice during the COVID-19 pandemic, evaluating the number of plans created, patient participation, cardiopulmonary resuscitation recommendations and variation between different population groups. A retrospective analysis and comparison of routinely collected data from electronic recommended summary plan for emergency care and treatment (ReSPECT) records documented in April 2020 and January to December 2019. Electronic ReSPECT documents completed for adult patients at a large, acute hospital trust in the UK. The number of plans created per 1,000 admissions in April 2020 was 333.0% higher than in 2019. A greater proportion of plans created during April 2020 were discussed with the patient and the proportion containing a 'for cardiopulmonary resuscitation' recommendation was higher across all population groups. A greater proportion of plans were created for younger adults and Black and minority ethnic groups during the pandemic. Increased ACP during a crisis can be achieved alongside increased patient participation in decision making. A tool such as ReSPECT that supports recommendations for, as well as limitations on, treatment may have enabled the expansion of ACP observed.

Patient Perspectives on Factors Affecting Direct Oral Anticoagulant Use for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation.

IntroductionOral anticoagulant therapy choices for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) expanded in the last decade with the introduction of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC). However, the implementation of DOACs was slow and varied across different health economies in England. There is limited evidence on the patient role in the uptake of new medicines, including DOACs, apart from considering their demographic and clinical characteristics. Hence, this study aimed to address the gap by exploring the view of patients with AF on factors affecting DOAC use.MethodsA qualitative study using semi-structured interviews was conducted in three health economies in the North of England. Adult patients (>18 years) diagnosed with non-valvular AF, prescribed an oral anticoagulant (vitamin K antagonist or DOAC), and able to give written consent were recruited. Data were collected between August 2018 and April 2019. Audio recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using the framework method.ResultsFour themes with eleven subthemes discussed identified factors affecting the use of DOACs. They were linked to limited healthcare financial and workforce resources, patient involvement in decision-making, patient knowledge about DOACs, safety concerns about oral anticoagulants, and oral anticoagulant therapy impact on patients’ daily lives. Lack of a) opportunities to voice patient preferences and b) information on available therapy options resulted in some patients experiencing difficulties with the prescribed therapy. This was reported to cause negative impact on their daily lives, adherence, and overall satisfaction with the therapy.ConclusionGreater patient involvement in decision-making could prevent and resolve difficulties encountered by some patients and potentially improve outcomes plus increase the uptake of DOACs.

109 Improving Escalation and Treatment Plans in the Borders General Hospital (BGH) During COVID-19

TopicClear escalation and treatment plans created in discussion with patients are crucial to managing patients safely and appropriately. Our goal was to introduce a standardised, easily identifiable document for this purpose, with an aim of 90% of medical inpatients having a clear escalation plan discussed and documented.InterventionWe developed a Treatment Escalation Plan (TEP), raised awareness via different platforms and delivered teaching for staff. For baseline and subsequent data collections following interventions, we reviewed the notes of twenty random medical inpatients for decisions regarding escalation, patient involvement in decision making including capacity and specific interventions considered. We also included time taken to find information; documented patient/family discussions and whether a TEP was present. We collected qualitative feedback from staff.ImprovementAfter introduction, TEP was present in 35/60 patients (58%). Improvement was demonstrated across all measured domains when a TEP form was present: escalation decision (no TEP 80%, TEP 100%), discussion with patient/relative (no TEP 4%, TEP 85%), capacity decision regarding escalation (no TEP 52%, TEP 91%), decision on specific interventions (no TEP 12%, TEP 94%), mean time taken to find information (no TEP 84 seconds, TEP 34 seconds). Qualitative feedback from staff was positive, particularly the inclusion of specific care decisions beyond “DNACPR”.DiscussionWe felt it was critical to develop a TEP to ensure appropriate decisions are made and clearly documented for medical inpatients, especially in light of COVID-19. In patients with a TEP completed, we observed improvements in all domains, particularly in the involvement of patients/relatives in escalation decisions, which is key to delivering patient-centered care. Implementing a new system in a pandemic had challenges, such as continuity of staffing, however feedback was uniformly positive. This is an ongoing project that will continue to promote TEPs to improve patient care.

Effect of shared decision making on mode of delivery and decisional conflict and regret in pregnant women with previous cesarean section: a randomized clinical trial

BackgroundThe promotion of vaginal birth after cesarean section (VBAC) is the best method for the reduction of repeated cesarean sections. Nonetheless, the decisional conflict which often results from inadequate patient involvement in decision making, may lead to delayed decision making and regret about the choices that were made. The present study aimed to determine the effect of shared decision making on the mode of delivery and decisional conflict and regret in pregnant women with previous cesarean section.MethodsThis randomized clinical trial was conducted on 78 pregnant women with a previous cesarean section referring to community health centers in Torbat-e Jam, Iran, in 2019. They were randomly assigned to two groups of intervention and control. During weeks 24-30 of pregnancy, the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) was completed by pregnant mothers. Apart from the routine care, the experimental group received a counseling session which was held based on the three-talk model of shared decision making. This session was moderated by a midwife; moreover, a complementary counseling session was administered by a gynecologist. During weeks 35–37 of pregnancy, DCS was completed, and the Decision Regret Scale (DRS) was filled out for both groups at the 8th weeks postpartum and they were asked about the mode of delivery. Data were analyzed in SPSS software (version 19) using the Mann-Whitney, Chi-squared and Fisher’s exact tests. p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.ResultsAfter the intervention, the decisional conflict score was significantly lower in the shared decision making (SDM) group, compared to that in the control group (14.90 ± 9.65 vs. 25.41 ± 13.38; P < 0.001). Moreover, in the SDM group, the rate of vaginal birth was significantly higher than that in the control group (P < 0.001). Two month after the delivery, the mean score of decision regret was lower in the SDM group, in comparison to that in the control group (15.67 ± 23.37 vs. 27. 30± 26.75; P = 0.007).ConclusionsBased on the results of the study, shared counseling can be effective in the reduction of decisional conflict and regret, as well as rate enhancement of VBAC. Therefore, it can be concluded that this counseling method can be used in prenatal care to reduce the rate of repeated cesarean section.Trial registrationIRCT20190506043499N1; Name of the registry: Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials; Registered 10.August 2019. URL of registry: https://en.irct.ir/trial/39538. Date of enrolment of the first participant to the trial: August 2019.

Satisfaction with Alignment After Reduction of a Displaced Distal Radial Fracture.

Alignment adequate to offer nonoperative treatment after reduction of a distal radial fracture is a matter of opinion. This study addressed factors associated with interobserver reliability of satisfaction with alignment after the reduction of a distal radial fracture. A survey sent to members of the Science of Variation Group divided the participants into 4 groups that each rated 24 sets of radiographs of adult patients with a distal radial fracture before and after manipulative reduction and cast or splint immobilization. This resulted in a total of 96 fractures rated by 111 participants. Observers indicated whether they were satisfied with the reduction, meaning that nonoperative treatment was an option, or not, meaning that they recommend surgery. The Fleiss kappa was used to measure reliability. There was fair reliability of satisfaction with reduction of a distal radial fracture (kappa, 0.34 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.28 to 0.41]). No surgeon factors were associated with variations in reliability. Multivariable linear regression analysis indicated that every degree decrease in dorsal angulation of the distal part of the radius on the lateral radiograph increased satisfaction by a mean of 1% (beta, -0.01 [95% CI, -0.02 to -0.006]; p = 0.001); each millimeter decrease in the anterior-to-posterior distance between the dorsal and volar articular margins on the lateral radiograph increased satisfaction by 3% (beta, -0.03 [95% CI, -0.04 to -0.005]; p = 0.014), and each millimeter decrease in ulnar positive variance increased satisfaction by 6% (beta, -0.06 [95% CI, -0.08 to -0.03]; p < 0.001), accounting for 44% of the observed variation. Surgeons are influenced by radiographic deformity, but do not agree on adequate alignment after reduction of a distal radial fracture. Greater involvement of patients in decisions with regard to acceptable deformity has the potential to decrease treatment variation.

The role of older patients\u2019 goals in GP decision-making about medicines: a qualitative study

BackgroundTo optimise medication use in older people, it is recommended that clinicians evaluate evidence on potential benefits and harms of medicines in light of the patients’ overall health, values and goals. This suggests general practitioners (GPs) should attempt to facilitate patient involvement in decision-making. In practice this is often challenging. In this qualitative study, we explored GPs’ perspectives on the importance of discussing patients’ goals and preferences, and the role patient preferences play in medicines management and prioritisation.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs from Australia (n = 32). Participants were purposively sampled to recruit GPs with variation in experience level and geographic location. Transcribed audio-recordings of interviews were coded using Framework Analysis.ResultsThe results showed that most GPs recognised some value in understanding older patients’ goals and preferences regarding their medicines. Most reported some discussions of goals and preferences with patients, but often this was initiated by the patient. Practical barriers were reported such as limited time during busy consultations to discuss issues beyond acute problems. GPs differed on the following main themes: 1) definition and perception of patients’ goals, 2) relationship with the patient, 3) approach to medicines management and prioritisation. We observed that GPs preferred one of three different practice patterns in their approach to patients’ goals in medicines decisions: 1) goals and preferences considered lower priority – ‘Directive’; 2) goals seen as central – ‘Goal-oriented’; 3) goals and preferences considered but not explicitly elicited – ‘Tacit’.ConclusionsThis study explores how GPs differ in their approach to eliciting patients’ goals and preferences, and how these differences are operationalised in the context of older adults taking multiple medicines. Although there are challenges in providing care that aligns with patients’ goals and preferences, this study shows how complex decisions are made between GPs and their older patients in clinical practice. This work may inform future research that investigates how GPs can best incorporate the priorities of older people in decision-making around medicines. Developing practical support strategies may assist clinicians to involve patients in discussions about their medicines.

Protocol for systematic review: patient decision aids for total hip and knee arthroplasty decision-making

BackgroundTotal hip and knee arthroplasty are a highly performed surgery; however, patient satisfaction with surgery results and patient involvement in the decision-making process remains low. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) are tools used in clinical practices to facilitate active patient involvement in healthcare decision-making. Nonetheless, PtDA effects have not been systematically evaluated for hip and knee total joint arthroplasty (TJA) decision-making. The aim of this systematic review is to determine the effect of patient decision aids compared to alternative of care on quality and process of decision-making when provided to adults with hip and knee osteoarthritis considering primary elective TJA.MethodsThis systematic review will follow the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews. This protocol was reported based on the PRISMA-P checklist guidelines. Studies will be searched in CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Eligible studies will be randomized control trial (RCT) evaluating the effect of PtDA on TJA decision-making. Descriptive and meta-analysis of outcomes will include decision quality (knowledge and values-based choice), decisional conflict, patient involvement, decision-making process satisfaction, actual decision made, health outcomes, and harm(s). Risk of bias will be evaluated with Cochrane’s risk of bias tool for RCTs. Quality and strength of recommendations will be appraised with Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).DiscussionThis review will provide a summary of RCT findings on PtDA effect on decision-making quality and process of adults with knee and hip osteoarthritis considering primary elective TJA. Further, it will provide evidence comparing different types of PtDA used for TJA decision-making. This review is expected to inform further research on joint replacement decision-making quality and processes and on ways PtDAs facilitate shared decision-making for orthopedic surgery.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020171334

Patient Perceived Involvement in Their Treatment is Influenced by Factors Other Than Independently Rated Clinician Communication Effectiveness.

We analyzed (1) the correspondence of patient and clinician perceived patient involvement in decision making and ratings made by independent observer's independent ratings, as well as (2), factors associated with patient-perceived involvement, among patients seeking hand specialty care. During 63 visits, the patient, their hand specialist, and 2 independent observers each rated patient involvement in decision making using the 9-item shared decision-making questionnaire for patients and clinicians, and the 5-item observing patient involvement scale (OPTION-5). We also measured health literacy (Newest Vital Sign), patient and visit characteristics (gender, age, race, years of education, occupation, marital status, and family present). There was no correlation (ρ = 0.17; P = .17) between patient (median 42, IQR 36-44.5) and clinician (38, IQR 35-43) ratings of patient involvement in decision making. Independently rated patient involvement correlated moderately with a specialist (ρ = 0.35, P <.01), but not patient (ρ = 0.22, P = .08) ratings. The finding that patient perception of their involvement in decision making has little or no relationship to independently rated clinician communication effectiveness and effort, suggests that other aspects of the encounter—such as empathy and trust—may merit investigation as mediators of the patient agency.

Effect of a multilevel implementation programme on shared decision-making in breast cancer care.

Women with newly diagnosed breast cancer face multiple treatment options. Involving them in a shared decision-making (SDM) process is essential. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether a multilevel implementation programme enhanced the level of SDM behaviour of clinicians observed in consultations. This before-after study was conducted in six Dutch hospitals. Patients with breast cancer who were facing a decision on surgery or neoadjuvant systemic treatment between April 2016 and September 2017 were included, and provided informed consent. Audio recordings of consultations made before and after implementation were analysed using the five-item Observing Patient Involvement in Decision-Making (OPTION-5) instrument to assess whether clinicians adopted new behaviour needed for applying SDM. Patients scored their perceived level of SDM, using the nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). Hospital, duration of the consultation(s), age, and number of consultations per patient that might influence OPTION-5 scores were investigated using linear regression analysis. Consultations of 139 patients were audiotaped, including 80 before and 59 after implementation. Mean (s.d.) OPTION-5 scores, expressed on a 0-100 scale, increased from 38.3 (15.0) at baseline to 53.2 (14.8) 1year after implementation (mean difference (MD) 14.9, 95 per cent c.i. 9.9 to 19.9). SDM-Q-9 scores of 105 patients (75.5 per cent) (72 before and 33 after implementation) were high and showed no significant changes (91.3 versus 87.6; MD -3.7, -9.3 to 1.9). The implementation programme had an association with OPTION-5 scores (β = 14.2, P < 0.001), hospital (β = 2.2, P = 0.002), and consultation time (β = 0.2, P < 0.001). A multilevel implementation programme supporting SDM in breast cancer care increased the adoption of SDM behaviour of clinicians in consultations.

Conceptual understanding and applicability of shared decision-making in psychiatric care: An integrative review.

INTRODUCTION: Patient involvement in decisions regarding treatment has increasingly been supported in health care, and therefore, shared decision-making (SDM), as an informative and participative approach, is promoted in the scientific literature. To review the current state of research regarding the conceptual understanding and implementation of SDM in psychiatric clinical practice. An integrative review that included empirical, theoretical and conceptual research published between 1997 and 2019 was conducted. For this, five health-related databases were searched. Fourteen articles were included in the synthesis. No universal conceptual understanding of SDM regarding psychiatric care could be identified, although several articles highlighted the link with other concepts, such as autonomy and patient-centeredness. Furthermore, four additional key themes with relevance for the successful implementation of SDM in clinical practice were determined. SDM refers to a process and is usually not limited to a single consultation. SDM shows the potential to enhance patient-centred and recovery-oriented care. A collaborative approach including multiple health professionals, peer workers and family members is required. The process of SDM should be made visible for all parties involved. Nurses in particular could play a key role by collecting information regarding patient's preferences and by providing support.

Advance care planning in patients with advanced cancer: A 6-country, cluster-randomised clinical trial.

Advance care planning (ACP) supports individuals to define, discuss, and record goals and preferences for future medical treatment and care. Despite being internationally recommended, randomised clinical trials of ACP in patients with advanced cancer are scarce. To test the implementation of ACP in patients with advanced cancer, we conducted a cluster-randomised trial in 23 hospitals across Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Slovenia, and United Kingdom in 2015-2018. Patients with advanced lung (stage III/IV) or colorectal (stage IV) cancer, WHO performance status 0-3, and at least 3 months life expectancy were eligible. The ACTION Respecting Choices ACP intervention as offered to patients in the intervention arm included scripted ACP conversations between patients, family members, and certified facilitators; standardised leaflets; and standardised advance directives. Control patients received care as usual. Main outcome measures were quality of life (operationalised as European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer [EORTC] emotional functioning) and symptoms. Secondary outcomes were coping, patient satisfaction, shared decision-making, patient involvement in decision-making, inclusion of advance directives (ADs) in hospital files, and use of hospital care. In all, 1,117 patients were included (442 intervention; 675 control), and 809 (72%) completed the 12-week questionnaire. Patients' age ranged from 18 to 91 years, with a mean of 66; 39% were female. The mean number of ACP conversations per patient was 1.3. Fidelity was 86%. Sixteen percent of patients found ACP conversations distressing. Mean change in patients' quality of life did not differ between intervention and control groups (T-score -1.8 versus -0.8, p = 0.59), nor did changes in symptoms, coping, patient satisfaction, and shared decision-making. Specialist palliative care (37% versus 27%, p = 0.002) and AD inclusion in hospital files (10% versus 3%, p < 0.001) were more likely in the intervention group. A key limitation of the study is that recruitment rates were lower in intervention than in control hospitals. Our results show that quality of life effects were not different between patients who had ACP conversations and those who received usual care. The increased use of specialist palliative care and AD inclusion in hospital files of intervention patients is meaningful and requires further study. Our findings suggest that alternative approaches to support patient-centred end-of-life care in this population are needed. ISRCTN registry ISRCTN63110516.

The content and conduct of GP consultations for dermatology problems: a cross-sectional study.

BackgroundSkin complaints are common in primary care, and poor outcomes in long-term conditions are often due to low adherence to treatment. Shared decision making and self-management support may help, yet there is little understanding of patient involvement or the support provided by GPs.AimTo describe the content of primary care consultations for skin problems, including shared decision making practice, delivery of self-management advice, and follow-up.Design and settingCross-sectional study of video-recorded UK adult GP consultations and linked data.MethodA coding tool was developed and applied to all consultations with skin problems. Shared decision making was assessed using the observer OPTION5 scale.ResultsA total of 45/318 consultations (14.2%) related to one or more skin problems, which were discussed alongside other problems in 71.1% (32/45) of consultations. Of the 100 different problems discussed in these consultations, 51 were dermatological. The mean amount of time spent on skin problems in the consultations was 4 minutes 16 seconds. Medication was recommended for 66.7% (34/51) of skin problems, with low shared decision making (mean OPTION5 score = 10.7). Self-management advice (verbal only) was given for 47.1% (24/51) of skin problems. Most skin problems (84.3%; 43/51) were not referred to secondary care; 32.6% (14/43) of the skin problems not referred were seen again in primary care within 12 weeks, of which 35.7% (5/14) follow-up appointments were not planned.ConclusionIn this study, skin problems were usually presented alongside other complaints and resulted in a medication recommendation. Shared decision making was uncommon and self-management advice not consistently given, with re-attendance for the same problem common. GPs’ training should reflect how frequently skin problems are seen and seek to improve patient involvement in decision making and support self-management.

Risk stratification of the cancer patient: a narrative review

: Major cancer surgery is associated with significant morbidity and, given the several management options that may be available, preoperative assessment should include an estimate of the potential postoperative complications that can significantly affect quality of life and disease progression. That will enable direct patient involvement in decision making and disease management, encourage preoperative optimisation and allow planning of postoperative care and allocation of resources. This review article aims to describe the preoperative tools that may be used to estimate the risk of postoperative complications. Risk stratification includes perioperative risk scoring systems, commonly used ones being the POSSUM (Physiological and Operative Severity Score for the enumeration of Mortality and morbidity) and ACS NSQIP (American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project) risk calculators. Given the ageing population of the cancer patients, assessment of frailty, fitness and cardiorespiratory reserve are also relevant and particularly important prior to major surgery. Comparison of individual achievements on cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) with specific thresholds allows risk stratification into high, intermediate or low risk categories for the development of postoperative complications. Additionally, biomarkers are increasingly being used as an adjunct to the assessment of postoperative risk, particularly troponin and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP). Postoperative complications are the major determinant of survival following major surgery, more so than preoperative characteristics and intraoperative factors and, therefore, perioperative care should be directed at their prevention. Preoperative risk stratification may assist in this way by personalising patient care and allowing for the best management choice given the patient’s wishes, comorbidities and level of fitness.

Did You Get What You Wanted? Patient Satisfaction and Congruence Between Preferred and Perceived Roles in Medical Decision Making in a Hungarian National Survey

ObjectivesIn a growing number of countries, patient involvement in medical decisions is considered a cornerstone of broader health policy agendas. This study seeks to explore public preferences for and experiences with participation in treatment decisions in Hungary. MethodsA nationally representative online panel survey was conducted in 2019. Outcome measures included the Control Preferences Scale for the preferred and actual role in the decision, the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire, and a Satisfaction With Decision numeric rating scale. ResultsA total of 1000 respondents participated in the study, 424 of whom reported having had a treatment decision in the preceding 6 months. Overall, 8%, 18%, 51%, 19%, and 4% of the population preferred an active, semiactive, shared, semipassive, and passive role in decision making, respectively. Corresponding rates for perceived role were as follows: 9%, 15%, 35%, 26%, and 15%. Preferred and perceived roles matched for 52% of the population, whereas 32% preferred more and 16% less participation. Better health status, attaining role congruence, and higher 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire scores were positively associated with satisfaction, accounting for 32% of the variation in Satisfaction With Decision scores (P < .05). ConclusionsThis study represents the first national survey on decisional roles in healthcare in Hungary and, more broadly, in Central and Eastern Europe. Shared decision making is the most preferred decisional role in Hungary; nevertheless, there is still room to improve patient involvement in decision making. It seems that patient satisfaction may be improved through tailoring the decisional role to reflect patients’ preferences and through practices that encourage shared decision making.

A Simple Goal Elicitation Tool Improves Shared Decision Making in Outpatient Orthopedic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Introduction. Shared decision making involves educating the patient, eliciting their goals, and collaborating on a decision for treatment. Goal elicitation is challenging for physicians as previous research has shown that patients do not bring up their goals on their own. Failure to properly elicit patient goals leads to increased patient misconceptions and decisional conflict. We performed a randomized controlled trial to test the efficacy of a simple goal elicitation tool in improving patient involvement in decision making. Methods. We conducted a randomized, single-blind study of new patients presenting to a single, outpatient surgical center. Prior to their consultation, the intervention group received a demographics questionnaire and a goal elicitation worksheet. The control group received a demographics questionnaire only. After the consultation, both groups were asked to complete the Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS) survey. We compared the mean PICS scores for the intervention and control groups using a nonparametric Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test. Secondary analysis included a qualitative content analysis of the patient goals. Results. Our final cohort consisted of 96 patients (46 intervention, 50 control). Both groups were similar in terms of demographic composition. The intervention group had a significantly higher mean (SD) PICS score compared to the control group (9.04 [2.15] v. 7.54 [2.27], P < 0.01). Thirty-nine percent of patient goals were focused on receiving a diagnosis or treatment, while 21% of patients wanted to receive education regarding their illness or their treatment options. Discussion. A single-step goal elicitation tool was effective in improving patient-perceived involvement in their care. This tool can be efficiently implemented in both academic and nonacademic settings.

Assessment of Shared Decision-making for Stroke Prevention in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

Shared decision-making (SDM) about anticoagulant treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is widely recommended but its effectiveness is unclear. To assess the extent to which the use of an SDM tool affects the quality of SDM and anticoagulant treatment decisions in at-risk patients with AF. This encounter-randomized trial recruited patients with nonvalvular AF who were considering starting or reviewing anticoagulant treatment and their clinicians at academic, community, and safety-net medical centers between January 30, 2017 and June 27, 2019. Encounters were randomized to either the standard care arm or care that included the use of an SDM tool (intervention arm). Data were analyzed from August 1 to November 30, 2019. Standard care or care using the Anticoagulation Choice Shared Decision Making tool (which presents individualized risk estimates and compares anticoagulant treatment options across issues of importance to patients) during the clinical encounter. Quality of SDM (which included quality of communication, patient knowledge about AF and anticoagulant treatment, accuracy of patient estimates of their own stroke risk [within 30% of their estimate], decisional conflict, and satisfaction), decisions made during the encounter, duration of the encounter, and clinician involvement of patients in the SDM process. The clinical trial enrolled 922 patients (559 men [60.6%]; mean [SD] age, 71 [11] years) and 244 clinicians. A total of 463 patients were randomized to the intervention arm and 459 patients to the standard care arm. Participants in both arms reported high communication quality, high knowledge, and low decisional conflict, demonstrated low accuracy in their risk perception, and would similarly recommend the approach used in their encounter. Clinicians were significantly more satisfied after intervention encounters (400 of 453 encounters [88.3%] vs 277 of 448 encounters [61.8%]; adjusted relative risk, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.42-1.53). A total of 747 of 873 patients (85.6%) chose to start or continue receiving an anticoagulant medication. Patient involvement in decision-making (as assessed through video recordings of the encounters using the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making 12-item scale) scores were significantly higher in the intervention arm (mean [SD] score, 33.0 [10.8] points vs 29.1 [13.1] points, respectively; adjusted mean difference, 4.2 points; 95% CI, 2.8-5.6 points). No significant between-arm difference was found in encounter duration (mean [SD] duration, 32 [16] minutes in the intervention arm vs 31 [17] minutes in the standard care arm; adjusted mean between-arm difference, 1.1; 95% CI, -0.3 to 2.5 minutes). The use of an SDM encounter tool improved several measures of SDM quality and clinician satisfaction, with no significant effect on treatment decisions or encounter duration. These results help to calibrate expectations about the value of implementing SDM tools in the care of patients with AF. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02905032.

Development and Pilot Testing of Decision Aid for Shared Decision Making in Barrett's Esophagus With Low-Grade Dysplasia.

To develop an encounter decision aid [Barrett's esophagus Choice (BE-Choice)] for patients and clinicians to engage in shared decision making (SDM) for management of BE with low-grade dysplasia (BE-LGD) and assess its impact on patient-important outcomes. Currently, there are 2 strategies for management of BE-LGD-endoscopic surveillance and ablation. SDM can help patients decide on their preferred management option. Phase-I: Patients and clinicians were engaged in a user-centered design approach to develop BE-Choice. Phase-I included review of evidence on BE-LGD management, observation of usual care (UC), creation, field-testing, and iterative development of BE-Choice in clinical settings. Phase-II: Impact of BE-Choice on patient-important outcomes (patient knowledge, decisional conflict, and patient involvement in decision making) was assessed using a controlled before-after study design (UC vs. BE-Choice). Phase-I: Initial prototype was designed with observation of 8 clinical encounters. With field-testing, 3 successive iterations were made before finalizing BE-Choice. BE-Choice was paper based and fulfilled the qualifying criteria of International patient decision aid standards. Phase II: 29 patients were enrolled, 8 to UC and 21 to BE-Choice. Compared with UC, use of BE-Choice improved patient knowledge (90.4% vs. 70.5%; P=0.03), decisional comfort (89.6 vs. 71.9; P=0.01), and patient involvement (OPTION score: 27.1 vs. 19.2; P=0.01). BE-Choice is a feasible and effective decision aid to promote SDM in the management of BE-LGD. On pilot testing, BE-Choice had promising impact on patient-important outcomes. A larger multicenter trial is needed to confirm our results and promote widespread use of BE-Choice.

Surgeons’ Views on Shared Decision-Making

Shared decision-making (SDM) has a significant role in surgical encounters, where decisions are influenced by both clinician and patient preferences. Herein, we sought to explore surgeons' practices and beliefs about SDM. We performed a qualitative study consisting of semi-structured individual interviews with 18 surgeons from private practice and academic surgery practices in Baltimore, Maryland. We purposively sampled participants to maximize diversity of practice type (academic vs private), surgical specialty, gender, and experience level. Interview topics included benefits and challenges to patient involvement in decision-making, communicating uncertainty to patients, and use of decision aids. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analyzed using content analysis to identify themes. Surgeons were supportive of patients being involved in decision-making, particularly in cases with uncertainty about treatment options. However, surgeons identified SDM as being more appropriate for patients whom surgeons perceived as interested in decision-making involvement and for decisions in which surgeons did not have strong preferences. Additionally, surgeons reported typically presenting only a subset of available options, remaining confident in their ability to filter less suitable options based on intuitive risk assessments. Surgeons differed in their approach to making recommendations, with some guiding patients towards what they saw as the correct or optimal decision while others sought to maintain neutrality and support of the patients' chosen decision. Many surgeons do not believe SDM is universally optimal for every surgical decision. They instead use assessments of patient disposition or potential clinical uncertainty to guide their perceived appropriateness of using SDM.

International guidelines on stage III N2 nonsmall cell lung cancer: surgery or radiotherapy?

Stage III N2 nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a complex disease with poor treatment outcomes. For patients in whom the disease is considered technically resectable, the main treatment options include surgery (with neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy/neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (CRT)) or CRT followed by adjuvant immunotherapy (dependent on programmed death ligand 1 status). As there is no clear evidence demonstrating a survival benefit between these options, patient preference plays an important role. A lack of a consensus definition of resectability of N2 disease adds to the complexity of the decision-making process. We compared 10 international guidelines on the treatment of NSCLC to investigate the recommendations on preoperatively diagnosed stage III N2 NSCLC. This comparison simplified the treatment paths to multimodal therapy based on surgery or radiotherapy (RT). We analysed factors relevant to decision-making within these guidelines. Overall, for nonbulky mediastinal lymph node involvement there was no clear preference between surgery and CRT. With increasing extent of mediastinal nodal disease, a tendency towards multimodal treatment based on RT was identified. In multiple scenarios, surgery or RT-based treatments are feasible and patient involvement in decision-making is critical.