Shared Decision-making Conversations Research Articles

Sharing the decision about VBAC: introducing the ARCS-V motivational learning model

Shared decision-making is considered key to influencing women's motivation to choose vaginal birth after caesarean section (VBAC), as when women's self-determination is respected, they are more likely to avoid intervention. However, the shared decision-making conversation can be challenging. This article introduces the ARCS-V (attention, relevance, confidence, satisfaction, volition), an model for understanding and responding to women's motivation to share the decision about VBAC vs repeat caesarean section. Each of the model's components are introduced, including the psychological basis for managing a shared conversation; capturing and holding women's attention on what they need to learn; matching the learning goals with women's personal goals; building their confidence to achieve their optimal birth; and ensuring they are satisfied with decision-making experience. When these educational conditions are met, women are more likely to use shared decision-making conversations to choose optimally.

Reducing overuse of PSA screening in primary care practices.

37 Background: The United States Preventive Services Task Force and the American Urological Association both recommend against routine PSA-based screening for prostate cancer in men 70 years and older and, for men younger than 70, recommend shared-decision making to discuss the potential benefits and harms of screening before a PSA is ordered. The HIT-OVERUSE study was a 2 year group randomized study from August 2016 thru July 2018 to test a practice-based intervention to reduce overuse in primary care practices, including avoidance of routine PSA screening without shared decision-making. The purpose of this report is present the impact of this intervention on PSA screening. Methods: Twenty one primary care practices in 19 states volunteered to participate in the study. Prior to randomization, all providers received academic detailing on prostate cancer screening recommendations. Eleven practices randomized to the intervention group then received quarterly performance reports, hosted site visits for participatory planning and sent two practice representatives to a one day meeting to share ‘best practices’. The ten control practices only received performance reports. Changes in PSA testing in the past year (excluding patients with prostate cancer) were compared in control and intervention practices. Results: At the patient level, there was a significantly larger unadjusted reduction in PSA screening in men ages 40 to 69 in the past year between intervention practices (28.6 % to 19.0%) and control practices (16.5% to 12.7%) (p<0.0001). There was also a significantly larger unadjusted reduction in PSA screening in men ages 70 and older in the past year between intervention practices (25.7% to 14.7%) and control practices (21.9% to 15.6%) (p<0.0001). Adjusted changes will also be presented. Conclusions: A practice-based intervention to reduce routine PSA-screening performed without shared decision-making resulted in a greater reduction in PSA screening compared to provision of academic detailing alone. Further research could elucidate whether this type of intervention results in increased shared decision-making conversations with patients.

Current State of Shared Decision-Making for CT Lung Cancer Screening and Improvement Strategies.

Introduction:Lung cancer remains the leading cause of oncologic mortality in the United States. Computed tomography (CT) screening has begun to combat this prevalent health problem. Prior to enrollment, a shared decision-making conversation is required to ensure a patient preference decision. This is the first and only imaging study to hold this requirement and compliance has been suspected to be low, but there is limited literature proving this.Methods:At a single academic institution, 30 patients who declined and 38 patients who enrolled in CT lung cancer screening were interviewed about their shared decision-making provider conversation. All referring providers were surveyed regarding their methods of shared decision-making for CT lung cancer screening. Clinical notes were evaluated 9 months prior to 2 interventions and 6 months following the first intervention to improve clinical documentation.Results:85% to 89% of the interviewed patients could not recall a decision aid used during the shared decision-making conversation. Zero percent of clinical notes met the Centers for Medicare/Medicaid Services (CMS) encounter requirements for shared decision-making despite interventions to improve knowledge and ease accessibility to decision aids and documentation templates.Discussion:Lack of compliance with CMS requirements has a low patient decision satisfaction. This also places the institution at risk for financial repercussions of reimbursement which may jeopardize the longevity of screening programs. Development of strategies to improve the patient experience and provider facilitation are nascent and require a dedicated leadership team with carefully constructed electronic health record support.

Shared decision-making conversations and smoking cessation interventions: critical components of low-dose CT lung cancer screening programs

Lung cancer remains the world's deadliest cancer despite efforts to decrease smoking rates. Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) was shown to reduce lung cancer deaths by 20%. Screening with LDCT comes with potential harms including a high rate of false-positive test results, subsequent follow-up procedures, and radiation exposure. For some patients, the potential benefits associated with screening may be outweighed by the harms. The decision to screen must therefore take into consideration patients' risk of developing lung cancer, comorbidities that may prevent diagnostic procedures or curative surgery, and their values and preferences regarding the benefits and harms of screening. A process called shared decision-making (SDM) is recognized as a crucial feature of LCS. SDM is a patient-centered approach where healthcare providers provide best clinical evidence and then work together with patients to discern if the screening process aligns with the patient's values and preferences. Unfortunately, clinician SDM skills are often of poor quality which can lead to patients making uninformed decisions. Decision support tools that help patients make informed decisions and increase SDM on LCS are available. In 2015, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services issued a coverage memo for LCS that contained an unprecedented requirement: an initial patient counseling and SDM visit with the use of at least one decision aid must occur for screening services to be reimbursed. This review focuses on SDM and suggests ways to increase the prevalence and effectiveness of SDM in LCS programs. Stopping smoking greatly reduces a person's risk for developing lung cancer, and smoking cessation messages in LCS guidelines from major medical organizations and interventions in LCS programs are explored. LCS has come of age; so too has SDM as it is an integral part of LCS programs.

Shared Decisionmaking in the Emergency Department: A Guiding Framework for Clinicians

Shared decisionmaking has been proposed as a method to promote active engagement of patients in emergency care decisions. Despite the recent attention shared decisionmaking has received in the emergency medicine community, including being the topic of the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference, misconceptions remain in regard to the precise meaning of the term, the process, and the conditions under which it is most likely to be valuable. With the help of a patient representative and an interaction designer, we developed a simple framework to illustrate how shared decisionmaking should be approached in clinical practice. We believe it should be the preferred or default approach to decisionmaking, except in clinical situations in which 3 factors interfere. These 3 factors are lack of clinical uncertainty or equipoise, patient decisionmaking ability, and time, all of which can render shared decisionmaking infeasible. Clinical equipoise refers to scenarios in which there are 2 or more medically reasonable management options. Patient decisionmaking ability refers to a patient's capacity and willingness to participate in his or her emergency care decisions. Time refers to the acuity of the clinical situation (which may require immediate action) and the time that the clinician has to devote to the shared decisionmaking conversation. In scenarios in which there is only one medically reasonable management option, informed consent is indicated, with compassionate persuasion used as appropriate. If time or patient capacity is lacking, physician-directed decisionmaking will occur. With this framework as the foundation, we discuss theprocess of shared decisionmaking and how it can be used in practice. Finally, we highlight 5 common misconceptions in regard to shared decisionmaking in the ED. With an improved understanding of shared decisionmaking, this approach should be used to facilitate the provision of high-quality, patient-centered emergency care.

Integrating Supportive Care Principles Into Dialysis Decision Making: A Primer for Palliative Medicine Providers

Despite advances in predialysis care and dialysis technology, patients with advanced chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease continue to experience multiple comorbidities, a high symptom burden, a shortened life expectancy, and substantial physical, emotional, and spiritual suffering. Patients with acute kidney injury and end-stage renal disease, especially if they are older, often undergo prolonged hospitalizations, greater use of intensive medical treatment, and limited survival. Unfortunately, most nephrologists are not trained to conduct shared decision-making conversations to elicit patients' values, preferences, and goals for treatment and address their patients' multifactorial suffering. These patients would benefit from the integration of supportive care principles into their care. This article addresses how supportive care specialists can collaborate with nephrology clinicians to provide patient-centered supportive care and identifies resources to assist them in this endeavor.

State of the Science: Tools and Measurement for Shared Decision Making.

Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated as an approach to selecting medical tests and treatments for many situations. The goal of SDM is to ensure that patients are well informed, are meaningfully involved in decisions, and receive treatments that meet their goals and preferences. There is considerable evidence about the tools used to promote SDM, called patient decision aids, and many different measures have been developed to assess the impact of SDM. However, fairly little is known about the applicability of the tools and measures in the emergency department (ED) setting. This article builds on insights from two keynote lectures presented at the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference discussing the state of the science for measurement of SDM and the design of patient decision aids to promote SDM conversations and highlights some key areas for further research to advance SDM in the ED.

Exploring Provider Reactions to Decision Aid Distribution and Shared Decision Making: Lessons from Two Specialties.

A critical component of shared decision making (SDM) is the role played by health care providers in distributing decision aids (DAs) and initiating SDM conversations. Existing literature indicates that decisions about designing and implementing DAs must take provider perspectives into account. However, little is known about how differences in provider attitudes across specialties may impact DA implementation and how provider attitudes may shift after DA implementation. Group Health's Decision Aid Implementation project was carried out in six specialties using 12 video-based DAs for preference-sensitive conditions; this study focused on two of the six specialties. In-depth, qualitative interviews with specialty care providers in two specialties-orthopedics and cardiology-at two time points during DA implementation. Data were analyzed using a thematic analysis approach. We interviewed 19 care providers in orthopedics and cardiology. All respondents believed that providing patients with accurate information on their health conditions and treatment options was important and that most patients wanted an active role in decision making. However, respondents diverged in decision-making styles and views on the practicality and appropriateness of using the DAs and SDM. For example, cardiology specialists were ambivalent about DAs for coronary artery disease because many viewed DAs and SDM as unnecessary or inappropriate for this clinical condition. Provider attitudes towards DAs and SDM were generally stable over two years. Limitations include a lack of patient perspectives, social desirability bias, and possible selection bias. Successfully implementing DAs in clinical practice to promote SDM requires addressing individual provider attitudes, beliefs, and knowledge of SDM by specialty. During DA development and implementation, providers should be asked for input about the specific conditions and care processes that are most appropriate for SDM.

A Shared Decision-Making System for Diabetes Medication Choice Utilizing Electronic Health Record Data.

The use of a shared decision-making (SDM) process in antihyperglycemic medication strategy decisions is necessary due to the complexity of the conditions of diabetes patients. Knowledge of guidelines is used as decision aids in clinical situations, and during this process, no patient health conditions are considered. In this paper, we propose an SDM system framework for type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) patients that not only contains knowledge abstracted from guidelines but also employs a multilabel classification model that uses class-imbalanced electronic health record (EHR) data and that aims to provide a recommended list of available antihyperglycemic medications to help physicians and patients have an SDM conversation. The use of EHR data to serve as a decision-support component in decision aids helps physicians and patients to reach a more intuitive understanding of current health conditions and allows the tailoring of the available knowledge to each patient, leading to a more effective SDM. Real-world data from 2542 T2DM inpatient EHRs were substituted by 77 features and eight output labels, i.e., eight antihyperglycemic medications, and these data were utilized to build and validate the recommendation model. The multilabel recommendation model exhibited stable performance in every single-label classification and showed the ability to predict minority positive cases in which the average recall value of the eight classes was 0.9898. As a whole multilabel classifier, the recommendation model demonstrated outstanding performance, with scores of 0.0941 for Hamming Loss, 0.7611 for Accuracyexam, 0.9664 for Recallexam, and 0.8269 for Fexam.

Shared Decision-Making in Diabetes Care.

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a collaborative process by which patients and clinicians work together in a deliberative dialogue. The purpose of this dialogue is to identify reasonable management options that best fit and addresses the unique situation of the patient. SDM supports the patient-centered translation of research into practice. SDM also helps implement a core principle of evidence-based medicine: evidence is necessary but never sufficient to make a clinical decision, as consideration of patient values and context is also required. SDM conversations build on a partnership between the patient and the clinician, draw on the body of evidence with regard to the different treatment options, and consider options in light of the values, preferences, and context of the patient. SDM is appropriate for diabetes care because diabetes care often requires consideration of management options that differ in ways that matter to patients, such as the way in which they place significant demands on patient's life and living. In the last decade, SDM has proven feasible and useful for sharing evidence with patients and for involving patients in making decisions with their clinicians. Health care and clinical policies advocate SDM, but these policies have yet to impact diabetes care. In this paper, we describe what SDM is, its known impact on diabetes care, and needed work to implement this patient-centered approach in the care of the millions of patients with diabetes.