Shared Decision-making Training Research Articles

Shared Decision-Making Training in Family Medicine Residency: A Scoping Review

Shared decisions, in which physicians and patients share their agendas and make clinical decisions together, are optimal for patient-centered care. Shared decision-making (SDM) training in family medicine residency is always provided, but the best training approach for improving clinical practice is unclear. This review aims to identify the scope of the literature on SDM training in family medicine residency to better understand the opportunities for training in this area. Four databases (Embase, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science) were searched from their inception to November 2022. The search was limited to English language and text words for the following four components: (1) family medicine, (2) residency, (3) SDM, and (4) training. Of the 522 unique articles, six studies were included for data extraction and synthesis. Four studies referenced three training programs that included SDM and disease- or condition-specific issues. These programs showed positive effects on family medicine residents’ knowledge, skills, and willingness to engage in SDM. Two studies outlined the requirements for SDM training in postgraduate medical education at the national level, and detailed the educational needs of family medicine residents. Purposeful SDM training during family medicine residency improves residents’ knowledge, skills, and willingness to engage in SDM. Future studies should explore the effects of SDM training on clinical practice and patient care.

Nurses' perspectives on shared decision-making in the daily care of hospitalized patients with dementia: An exploratory qualitative study.

Gain insight into the process of shared decision-making (SDM) in daily hospital care for patients with dementia from nurses' perspectives. Explorative qualitative design. In-depth digital interviews were conducted with 14 registered nurses between June and November 2022. A phenomenological approach was applied using Colaizzi's seven-step method. Five themes were identified in the data: (1) SDM in daily care: How shared decision-making is applied; (2) Nurses' perceptions and competence: How nurses perceive and manage SDM; (3) Nurses' roles and advocacy: The evolving roles of nurses and their advocacy efforts, (4) Recognition of dementia and its impact: How nurses recognize and manage dementia; and (5) Interventions to support SDM: Strategies and interventions to facilitate SDM. This study highlights the complexity of SDM in patients with dementia. It demonstrates the importance of the involvement of relatives, omission of patient goals in discussions and perceived deficiencies of nurses. The early identification of dementia, evaluation of nuanced capacity and targeted communication are essential. Further research and enhanced training are required to improve care in this context. Potential areas for further research on SDM in nurses involving patients with dementia include investigating the effects of integrating goal discussions into SDM training for nurses, overcoming barriers to SDM competence, and challenging the idea that SDM is solely the responsibility of physicians. These findings highlight the need for policies that encourage interdisciplinary collaboration, address misconceptions and recommend training programmes that focus on applying SDM to the daily care of patients with dementia, thereby improving the overall quality of patient care. The Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) checklist was used for reporting. No patient or public contribution.

Co-creation of a health literate-sensitive training and conversation aid to support shared decision-making in maternity care

BackgroundMaternity care increasingly aims to achieve Shared Decision-making (SDM), yet seemingly not to the benefit of clients with low health literacy (HL). We developed an SDM training for healthcare professionals (HCPs) and a conversation aid to support HL-sensitive SDM in maternity care. MethodsThe training and conversation aid were based on previous needs assessments and expert consultation, and were developed in co-creation with clients (n = 15) and HCPs (n = 7). Usability, acceptability and comprehension of the conversation aid were tested among new clients (n = 14) and HCPs (n = 6). Acceptability of the training was tested among midwifery students (n = 5). ResultsIn the co-creation sessions, clients reported to expect that their midwife becomes acquainted with their general values, priorities and daily context. Clients also emphasized wanting to be supported in their preferred decisional role. User test interviews showed that clients and HCPs were positive towards using the conversation aid, but also apprehensive about the time it required. The user test of the training showed that more attention was needed for recognizing and adapting information provision to clients' HL level. Conclusion and innovationThe newly developed conversation aid and training have potential to support HCPs and clients in HL-sensitive SDM.

Uncertainty tolerance among primary care physicians: Relationship to shared decision making-related perceptions, practices, and physician characteristics

ObjectiveUnderstand how physicians’ uncertainty tolerance (UT) in clinical care relates to their personal characteristics, perceptions and practices regarding shared decision making (SDM). MethodsAs part of a trial of SDM training about colorectal cancer screening, primary care physicians (n = 67) completed measures of their uncertainty tolerance in medical practice (Anxiety subscale of the Physician’s Reactions to Uncertainty Scale, PRUS-A), and their SDM self-efficacy (confidence in SDM skills). Patients (N = 466) completed measures of SDM (SDM Process scale) after a clinical visit. Bivariate regression analyses and multilevel regression analyses examined relationships. ResultsHigher UT was associated with greater physician age (p = .01) and years in practice (p = 0.015), but not sex or race. Higher UT was associated with greater SDM self-efficacy (p < 0.001), but not patient-reported SDM. ConclusionGreater age and practice experience predict greater physician UT, suggesting that UT might be improved through training, while UT is associated with greater confidence in SDM, suggesting that improving UT might improve SDM. However, UT was unassociated with patient-reported SDM, raising the need for further studies of these relationships. Practice implicationsDeveloping and implementing training interventions aimed at increasing physician UT may be a promising way to promote SDM in clinical care.

Shared decision making in chronic kidney disease: a qualitative study of the impact of communication practices on treatment decisions for older patients

BackgroundEffective interpersonal communication is critical for shared decision-making (SDM). Previous SDM communication training in nephrology has lacked context-specific evidence from ethnographic analysis of SDM interactions with older patients considering treatment options of end stage kidney disease (ESKD). This study explores communication strategies in SDM discussions in nephrology, specifically focusing on older patients considering dialysis as kidney replacement therapy (KRT).MethodsWe conducted a qualitative study analysing naturally-occurring audio-recorded clinical interactions (n = 12) between Australian kidney doctors, patients aged 60+, and carers. Linguistic ethnography and qualitative socially-oriented functional approaches were used for analysis.ResultsTwo types of communication strategies emerged: (1) Managing and advancing treatment decisions: involving active checking of knowledge, clear explanations of options, and local issue resolution. (2) Pulling back: Deferring or delaying decisions through mixed messaging. Specifically for non-English speaking patients, pulling back was further characterised by communication challenges deferring decision-making including ineffective issue management, and reliance on family as interpreters. Age was not an explicit topic of discussion among participants when it came to making decisions about KRT but was highly relevant to treatment decision-making. Doctors appeared reluctant to broach non-dialysis conservative management, even when it appears clinically appropriate. Conservative care, an alternative to KRT suitable for older patients with co-morbidities, was only explicitly discussed when prompted by patients or carers.ConclusionsThe findings highlight the impact of different communication strategies on SDM discussions in nephrology. This study calls for linguistic-informed contextualised communication training and provides foundational evidence for nephrology-specific communication skills training in SDM for KRT among older patients. There is urgent need for doctors to become confident and competent in discussing non-dialysis conservative management. Further international research should explore naturally-occurring SDM interactions in nephrology with other vulnerable groups to enhance evidence and training integration.

Engagement of Older Adults Receiving Home Care Services and Their Caregivers in Health Decisions in Partnership With Clinical Teams: Protocol for a Multimethod Study to Prioritize and Culturally Adapt Decision Aids for Home Care.

Older adults (people aged 65 years and older) face many difficult decisions. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) can help them and their families make informed value-congruent decisions. Some PtDAs have been developed for the home care context, but little is known about scaling them for use with older adults in a different culture. This study aims to (1) assess the scalability of existing PtDAs for older adults in the home care context; (2) prioritize those that best match the decisional needs of older adults in home care; and (3) culturally adapt the prioritized PtDAs so they can be scaled successfully to the Quebec health care system. This multimethod study includes 3 phases. All phases will be overseen by a steering committee of older adults, caregivers, health professionals, decision makers, community organization representatives, and researchers with the needed expertise. In phase 1, we will use the Innovation Scalability Self-administered Questionnaire, a validated scalability self-assessment tool, to assess the scalability of 33 PtDAs previously identified in a systematic review. Based on their scalability, their quality (based on the International Patient Decision Aids Standards), and the importance of the decision point, we will retain approximately a third of these. In phase 2, we will conduct a 2-round web-based Delphi to prioritize the PtDAs selected in phase 1. Using a snowball recruitment strategy, we aim to recruit 60 Delphi participants in the province of Quebec, including older adults, caregivers, health professionals, decision makers involved in home care services, and PtDA experts. In the first round, we will ask participants to rate the importance of several PtDA decision points according to various criteria such as prevalence and difficulty on a 5-point Likert scale (1=not important to 5=very important). Approximately 6 of the highest-rated PtDAs will be retained for presentation in the second round, and we will select up to 3 PtDAs judged as having the highest priority for cultural adaptation. In phase 3, using the Chenel framework and user-centered design methods, we will update and adapt the PtDAs to the Quebec health care system and integrate these PtDAs into an interprofessional shared decision-making training program for home care teams. The adapted PtDAs will respect the International Patient Decision Aids Standards criteria. This study was funded in March 2022 by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Data collection for the web-based Delphi began in October 2023. Results are expected to be published in May 2024. This project will provide relevant and culturally appropriate decision support tools for older adults making difficult decisions and their home care teams that will be ready for scaling across the province of Quebec. PRR1-10.2196/53150.

Potential Adverse Outcomes of Shared Decision Making about Palliative Cancer Treatment: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Trial

Background While shared decision making (SDM) is advocated for ethical reasons and beneficial outcomes, SDM might also negatively affect patients with incurable cancer. The current study explored whether SDM, and an oncologist training in SDM, are associated with adverse outcomes (i.e., patient anxiety, tension, helplessness/hopelessness, decisional uncertainty, and reduced fighting spirit). Design A secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial investigating the effects of SDM interventions in the context of advanced cancer. The relations between observed SDM (OPTION12), specific SDM elements (4SDM), oncologist SDM training, and adverse outcomes were analyzed. We modeled adverse outcomes as a multivariate phenomenon, followed by univariate regressions if significant. Results In total, 194 patients consulted by 31 oncologists were included. In a multivariate analysis, observed SDM and adverse outcomes were significantly related. More specifically, more observed SDM in the consultation was related to patients reporting more tension ( P = 0.002) and more decisional uncertainty ( P = 0.004) at 1 wk after the consultation. The SDM element “informing about the options” was especially found to be related to adverse outcomes, specifically to more helplessness/hopelessness ( P = 0.002) and more tension ( P = 0.016) at 1 wk after the consultation. Whether the patient consulted an oncologist who had received SDM training or not was not significantly related to adverse outcomes. No relations with long-term adverse outcomes were found. Conclusions It is important for oncologists to realize that for some patients, SDM may temporarily be associated with negative emotions. Further research is needed to untangle which, when, and how adverse outcomes might occur and whether and how burden may be minimized for patients. Highlights Observed shared decision making was related to more tension and uncertainty postconsultation in advanced cancer patients However, training oncologists in SDM did not affect adverse outcomes. Further research is needed to untangle which, when, and how adverse outcomes might occur and how burden may be minimized

Talking, not training, increased the accuracy of physicians’ diagnosis of their patients’ preferences for colon cancer screening

ObjectiveIdentify if primary care physicians (PCPs) accurately understand patient preferences for colorectal cancer (CRC) testing, whether shared decision making (SDM) training improves understanding of patient preferences, and whether time spent discussing CRC testing improves understanding of patient preferences. MethodsSecondary analysis of a trial comparing SDM training plus a reminder arm to a reminder alone arm. PCPs and their patients completed surveys after visits assessing whether they discussed CRC testing, patient testing preference, and time spent discussing CRC testing. We compared patient and PCP responses, calculating concordance between patient-physician dyads. Multilevel models tested for differences in preference concordance by arm or time discussing CRC. Results382 PCP and patient survey dyads were identified. Most dyads agreed on whether CRC testing was discussed (82%). Only 52% of dyads agreed on the patient's preference. SDM training did not impact accuracy of PCPs preference diagnoses (55%v.48%,p = 0.22). PCPs were more likely to accurately diagnose patient’s preferences when discussions occurred, regardless of length. ConclusionOnly half of PCPs accurately identified patient testing preferences. Training did not impact accuracy. Visits where CRC testing was discussed resulted in PCPs better understanding patient preferences. Practice implicationsPCPs should take time to discuss testing and elicit patient preferences.

Shared decision-making training in general practice.

Shared decision-making training in general practice.

Shared decision-making in the treatment of adolescents diagnosed with depression: A cross-sectional survey of mental health professionals in China.

INTRODUCTION: Shared decision-making (SDM) is an ideal model for a therapeutic relationship that can improve health outcomes. Healthcare professionals are a critical part of SDM, and they play an important role in the practices of SDM in the clinical setting. Evidence suggests that adolescents diagnosed with depression can benefit substantially from SDM. However, mental health professionals' (MHPs) practices of SDM for adolescents diagnosed with depression in China are not well-documented. This study aimed to investigate the practices of SDM for adolescents diagnosed with depression from the viewpoints of MHPs in China. In this cross-sectional study, we recruited a total of 581 MHPs by convenience sampling. The Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire-Physician Version (SDM-Q-Doc) was used to evaluate the MHPs' practices of SDM for adolescents diagnosed with depression. The mean SDM-Q-Doc was 80.47 (±16.31). Within the six specific decision-making situations, most MHPs selected non-SDM (52.7%-71.6%). Substantial numbers of respondents believed that MHPs made the final decision, especially with regard to the development (37%) and adjustment of medication regimens (42%). The practice of SDM was predicted by MHPs' preference for providing information, their trust in consumers, preference for family involvement in treatment decision-making, working in an outpatient clinic and receiving SDM training (F = 23.582; p = .000; R2 = .198; adjusted R2 = .189). Although the MHPs' self-rated score of SDM-Q-Doc was high, SDM was not extensively applied in the daily management of adolescents diagnosed with depression. Thus, SDM needs to be further promoted by enhancing SDM-related training for MHPs, thereby actively promoting the involvement of families, facilitating the information sharing for consumers and families, and building an active, trusting consumer-practitioner relationship. MHPs should prioritise information sharing with consumers and families, as well as build trusting and friendly therapeutic relationships. Family involvement in treatment decisions should be encouraged when adolescents diagnosed with depression are in need. Actively participating in training related to SDM is also important. Future high-quality evidence is still needed to explore the facilitators and barriers to SDM practices from a tripartite perspective of MHPs, adolescents diagnosed with depression and their families.

Piloting a shared decision-making clinician training intervention in maternity care in Australia: A mixed methods study

ProblemImplementation of woman-centred care in evidence-based maternity practice requires clinicians to be skilled in shared decision-making, yet there is limited training or research into such interventions. BackgroundShared decision-making enables women to make informed decisions in partnership with clinicians where there are varied clinical options in relation to indications for and timing of planned birth. AimWe aimed to develop a shared decision-making training intervention and evaluate its feasibility and acceptability to midwives and obstetricians. MethodsThe intervention was co-designed by midwifery and medical clinician-researchers, and a consumer representative. Online training and demonstration videos were distributed to midwives and obstetricians in three Sydney hospitals, followed by two online workshops in 2021 and 2022 where participants practised shared decision-making in roleplaying scenarios tailored to timing of birth. Training was evaluated using post-workshop and post-training surveys and semi-structured qualitative interviews. FindingsThe training workshop format, duration and content were well received. Barriers to the uptake of shared decision-making were time, paternalistic practices and fear of repercussions of centring women in the decision-making process. DiscussionThe intervention enabled midwifery and medical colleagues to learn communication repertoires from each other in woman-centred discussions around timing of birth. Roleplay scenarios enabled participants to observe and provide feedback on their colleagues’ shared decision-making practices, while providing a space for collective reflection on ways to promote, and mitigate barriers to, its implementation in practice. ConclusionShared decision-making training supports maternity clinicians in developing skills that implement woman-centred care in the timing of planned birth.

“I’d like more options!”: Interviews to explore young people and family decision-making needs for pain management in juvenile idiopathic arthritis

BackgroundJuvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is a common pediatric rheumatic condition and is associated with symptoms such as joint pain that can negatively impact health-related quality of life. To effectively manage pain in JIA, young people, their families, and health care providers (HCPs) should be supported to discuss pain management options and make a shared decision. However, pain is often under-recognized, and pain management discussions are not optimal. No studies have explored decision-making needs for pain management in JIA using a shared decision making (SDM) model. We sought to explore families’ decision-making needs with respect to pain management among young people with JIA, parents/caregivers, and HCPs.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured virtual or face-to-face individual interviews with young people with JIA 8–18 years of age, parents/caregivers and HCPs using a qualitative descriptive study design. We recruited participants online across Canada and the United States, from a hospital and from a quality improvement network. We used interview guides based on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework to assess decision-making needs. We audiotaped, transcribed verbatim and analyzed interviews using thematic analysis.ResultsA total of 12 young people (n = 6 children and n = 6 adolescents), 13 parents/caregivers and 11 HCPs participated in interviews. Pediatric HCPs were comprised of rheumatologists (n = 4), physical therapists (n = 3), rheumatology nurses (n = 2) and occupational therapists (n = 2). The following themes were identified: (1) need to assess pain in an accurate manner; (2) need to address pain in pediatric rheumatology consultations; (3) need for information on pain management options, especially nonpharmacological approaches; (4) importance of effectiveness, safety and ease of use of treatments; (5) need to discuss young people/families’ values and preferences for pain management options; and the (6) need for decision support. Themes were similar for young people, parents/caregivers and HCPs, although their respective importance varied.ConclusionsFindings suggest a need for evidence-based information and communication about pain management options, which would be addressed by decision support interventions and HCP training in pain and SDM. Work is underway to develop such interventions and implement them into practice to improve pain management in JIA and in turn lead to better health outcomes.

Healthcare professionals’ views on shared decision-making in plastic surgery in the Netherlands

In shared decision-making (SDM), patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) reach a joint clinical decision based on the best available evidence and the patient's preferences. SDM seems particularly valuable in plastic surgery, as often multiple treatment options are available. This cross-sectional online survey study aimed to assess HCPs' views and knowledge about SDM, identify facilitators and barriers of SDM, and determine specific requirements for SDM within plastic surgery. Participants were HCPs working in plastic surgery in the Netherlands. Participant characteristics, SDM knowledge, perceived facilitators and barriers, and requirements were assessed using a custom-made online survey. Two researchers thematically analyzed qualitative data. We received 124 responses (with a response rate of 23%). Most respondents were attending plastic surgeons (79%), and 60% had more than 10 years of experience. Almost all respondents considered SDM important (91%), and most (78%) indicated that they applied SDM during consultations. However, only 15% of the HCPs showed a comprehensive understanding of the principle of SDM. Sufficient time, available sources of information (on treatment options and SDM), and decision support tools were identified as important requirements for SDM. Despite the positive attitudes toward SDM, there is a clear need for SDM training of HCPs, uniform sources of information and guidelines, and improved awareness and availability of decision support tools. National plastic surgery societies can play a crucial role in improving SDM-related knowledge, the availability of information and decision support tools, and the implementation of SDM in the field of plastic surgery.

Shared decision-making training in general practice: a rapid review.

Although shared decision-making (SDM) is key to providing patient-centred care, SDM is lacking in primary care. Training programmes seeking to improve GP SDM have yet to be reviewed. Therefore, a rapid review of the literature was conducted to evaluate GP SDM training methods and their outcomes. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were systematically searched. Results of the studies included were synthesised narratively. Study quality was appraised using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI). Seven studies were identified. Study quality was high, with a mean MERSQI score of 17.2/18 (range 16-18). Theory/presentation was the most prevalent training method (n=6). Of the five studies assessing the impact of SDM training on patient outcomes, only one yielded positive results. Contrastingly, both studies assessing clinician behaviour produced positive results. SDM training improved GP behaviour but the effects on patient outcomes were lacking. SDM training programmes that utilised teaching methods targeting practical SDM skills, such as role play, observed some positive findings. However, because their prevalence was lacking, further research into these methods, and their cost-effectiveness, are needed.

Evaluating the Impact of a Training Program in Shared Decision-Making for Neurologists Treating People with Migraine.

Migraine symptoms vary significantly between patients and within the same patient. Currently, an increasing number of therapeutic options are available for symptomatic and preventive treatment. Guidelines encourage physicians to use shared decision-making (SDM) in their practice, listening to patients' treatment preferences in order to select the most suitable and effective therapy. Although training for healthcare professionals could increase their awareness of SDM, results concerning its effectiveness are inconclusive. This study aimed to analyze the impact of a training activity to promote SDM in the context of migraine care. This was addressed by evaluating the impact on patients' decisional conflict (main objective), patient-physician relationship, neurologists' perceptions of the training and patient's perception of SDM. A multicenter observational study was conducted in four highly specialized headache units. The participating neurologists received SDM training targeting people with migraine in clinical practice to provide techniques and tools to optimize physician-patient interactions and encourage patient involvement in SDM. The study was set up in three consecutive phases: control phase, in which neurologists were blind to the training activity and performed the consultation with the control group under routine clinical practice; training phase, when the same neurologists participated in the SDM training; and SDM phase, in which these neurologists performed the consultation with the intervention group after the training. Patients in both groups with a change of treatment assessment during the visit completed the Decisional conflict scale (DCS) after the consultation to measure the patient's decisional conflict. Also, patients answered the patient-doctor relationship questionnaire (CREM-P) and the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). The mean ± SD scores obtained from the study questionnaires were calculated for both groups and compared to determine whether there were significant differences (p < 0.05). A total of 180 migraine patients (86.7% female, mean age of 38.5 ± 12.3years) were included, of which 128 required a migraine treatment change assessment during the consultation (control group, n = 68; intervention group, n = 60). A low decisional conflict was found without significant differences between the intervention (25.6 ± 23.4) and control group (22.1 ± 17.9; p = 0.5597). No significant differences in the CREM-P and SDM-Q-9 scores were observed between groups. Physicians were satisfied with the training and showed greater agreement with the clarity, quality and selection of the contents. Moreover, physicians felt confident communicating with patients after the training, and they applied the techniques and SDM strategies learned. SDM is a model currently being actively used in clinical practice for headache consultation, with high patient involvement in the process. This SDM training, while useful from the physician's perspective, may be more effective at other levels of care where there is still room for optimization of patient involvement in decision-making.

Physician-reported characteristics, representations, and ethical justifications of shared decision-making practices in the care of paediatric patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness

BackgroundDespite consensus about the importance of implementing shared decision-making (SDM) in clinical practice, this ideal is inconsistently enacted today. Evidence shows that SDM practices differ in the degree of involvement of patients or family members, or in the amount of medical information disclosed to patients in order to “share” meaningfully in treatment decisions. Little is known on which representations and moral justifications physicians hold when realizing SDM. This study explored physicians’ experiences of SDM in the management of paediatric patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness (PDOC). Specifically, we focused on physicians’ SDM approaches, representations, and ethical justifications for engaging in SDM.MethodsWe used a qualitative approach to explore the SDM experiences of 13 ICU physicians, paediatricians, and neurologists based in Switzerland who have been or were involved in the care of paediatric patients living with PDOC. A semi-structured interview format was used and interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed through thematic analysis.ResultsWe found that participants followed three main decision-making approaches: the “brakes” approach, characterized by maximized family’s decisional freedom, though conditional to physician’s judgment regarding the medical appropriateness of a treatment; the “orchestra director” approach, characterized by a multi-step decision-making process led by the main physician aimed at eliciting the voices of the care team members and of the family; and the “sunbeams” approach, characterized by a process oriented to reach consensus with family members through dialogue, where the virtues of the physician are key to guide the process. We also found that participants differed in the moral justifications sustaining each approach, citing the duty to respect parental autonomy, to invest in an ethics of care, and to employ physicians’ virtues to guide the decision-making process.ConclusionOur results show that physicians come to perform SDM in different ways, with several representations, and distinct ethical justifications. SDM training among health care providers should clarify the ductility of SDM and the several ethical motivations underpinning it, rather than insisting on the principle of respect for patient’s autonomy as its only moral foundation.

Effects of a shared decision making intervention for older adults with multiple chronic conditions: the DICO study

BackgroundTo evaluate the effects of a shared decision making (SDM) intervention for older adults with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs).MethodsA pragmatic trial evaluated the effects of the SDMMCC intervention, existing of SDM training for nine geriatricians in two hospitals and a preparatory tool for patients. A prospective pre-intervention post-intervention multi-center clinical study was conducted in which an usual care group of older patients with MCC and their informal caregivers was included before the implementation of the intervention and a new cohort of patients and informal caregivers after the implementation of the intervention. SDM was observed using the OPTIONMCC during video-recorded consultations. Patient- and caregivers reported outcomes regarding their role in SDM, involvement, perceived SDM and decisional conflict were measured. The differences between groups regarding the level of observed SDM (OPTIONMCC) were analyzed with a mixed model analysis. Dichotomous patient-reported outcomes were analyzed with a logistic mixed model.ResultsFrom two outpatient geriatric clinics 216 patients with MCCs participated. The mean age was 77.3 years, and 56.3% of patients were female. No significant difference was found in the overall level of SDM as measured with the OPTIONMCC or in patient-reported outcomes. However, at item level the items discussing ‘goals’, ‘options’, and ‘decision making’ significantly improved after the intervention. The items discussing ‘partnership’ and ‘evaluating the decision-making process’ showed a significant decrease. Fifty-two percent of the patients completed the preparatory tool, but the results were only discussed in 12% of the consultations.ConclusionThis study provides scope for improvement of SDM in geriatrics. Engaging older adults with MCCs and informal caregivers in the decision making process should be an essential part of SDM training for geriatricians, beyond the SDM steps of explaining options, benefits and harms. More attention should be paid to the integration of preparatory work in the consultation.

Blended online learning for oncologists to improve skills in shared decision making about palliative chemotherapy: a pre-posttest evaluation

PurposeTo improve shared decision making (SDM) with advanced cancer patients, communication skills training for oncologists is needed. The purpose was to examine the effects of a blended online learning (i.e. e-learning and online training session) for oncologists about SDM in palliative oncological care and to compare this blended format with a more extensive, fully in-person face-to-face training format.MethodsA one-group pre-posttest design was adopted. Before (T0) and after (T2) training, participants conducted simulated consultations (SPAs) and surveys; after the e-learning (T1), an additional survey was filled out. The primary outcome was observed SDM (OPTION12 and 4SDM). Secondary outcomes included observed SDM per stage, SPA duration and decision made as well as oncologists’ self-reported knowledge, clinical behavioural intentions, satisfaction with the communication and evaluation of the training. Additionally, outcomes of the blended learning were compared with those of the face-to-face training cohort. Analyses were conducted in SPSS by linear mixed models.ResultsOncologists (n = 17) showed significantly higher SDM scores after the blended online learning. The individual stages of SDM and the number of times the decision was postponed as well as oncologists’ beliefs about capabilities, knowledge and satisfaction increased after the blended learning. Consultation duration was unchanged. The training was evaluated as satisfactory. When compared with the face-to-face training, the blended learning effects were smaller.ConclusionBlended online SDM training for oncologists was effective. However, the effects were smaller compared to face-to-face training. The availability of different training formats provides opportunities for tailoring training to the wishes and needs of learners.

Shared decision making with schizophrenic patients: a randomized controlled clinical trial with booster sessions (DECIDE Study)

BackgroundThe treatment of schizophrenia requires a prolonged, multidimensional intervention that includes antipsychotic drugs. Treatment adherence is essential to effectively control the disorder. Shared decision-making (SDM) is a strategy, supported by numerous practical and ethical arguments, that seeks to involve patients in the therapeutic process to improve treatment adherence and satisfaction. The use of this model in mental health has been limited for many intrinsic and extrinsic reasons. The results of clinical trials conducted to date have largely been disappointing, potential due to study design-related limitations. Aim/QuestionTo evaluate the efficacy, in terms of treatment adherence and improvement in clinical variables, such as severity of symptoms, days of hospitalization or insight, of a carefully timed SDM model initiated immediately prior to hospital discharge in patients with schizophrenia. MethodsSingle-blind, randomized clinical trial in an acute psychiatric care unit within the Andalusian Health Department to compare SDM (experimental group) to treatment as usual (TAU; control group) in a sample of patients hospitalized for an acute episode of schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. The study was performed between January 2014 and June 2017. The experimental group participated in SDM sessions prior to discharge with regular booster sessions over the one-year follow-up. The health care team responsible for SDM was predisposed to concordance (LatCon II scale) and received specific training in SDM. A hierarchical multiple linear regression analysis was performed to evaluate the factors independently associated with adherence, controlling for sociodemographic, clinical, and admission-related variables. Variables were assessed at admission, discharge and at 3, 6 and 12 months after discharge during the one year follow up. BARS, DAI, WAI-S, COMRADE and PANSS were used to evaluate adherence, attitude to treatment, therapeutic alliance, satisfaction and confidence with decision and clinical status, respectively. ResultsA total of 227 schizophrenic patients hospitalized with acute decompensation were evaluated; of these, 102 met all inclusion criteria and were included in the study. Most patients (95%) had prior experience with antipsychotics and most (82%) had experienced related side effects. Despite randomization, psychopathologic severity was greater in the experimental group, with a mean (SD) PANSS score of 104.08 (80) vs. 93.45 (20.30) (p < 0.05). The final regression model to explain adherence was significant (adjusted R2 = 0.384; F [df= 6] = 4.386; p < 0.001), with a direct, significant and independent association with SDM mediated by the number of booster sessions. DiscussionShared decision making with booster sessions appears to increase treatment adherence in patients with severe mental disorders. Implication on practiceEthical, practical, and clinical reasons support the use of strategies designed promote the use of long-term, shared decision-making in psychiatric patients, especially in schizophrenia spectrum disorder.

Comprehensive Implementation of Shared Decision Making in a Neuromedical Center Using the SHARE TO CARE Program.

SHARE TO CARE (S2C) is a comprehensive, multi-module implementation program for shared decision making (SDM). It is currently applied at the University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein in Kiel, Germany, and among general practitioners at the Federal State of Bremen. This study examines the results of the full implementation of S2C in terms of effectiveness within the Kiel Neuromedical Center comprising the departments of neurology and neurosurgery. The S2C program consists of four combined intervention modules: 1) multimodal training of physicians; 2) a patient activation campaign including the ASK-3 method; 3) digital evidence-based patient decision aids; and 4) SDM support by nurses, e.g., as decision coaches. The SDM level before and immediately after implementation was retrospectively assessed in consecutively selected patients on the subscale "Patient Decision Making" of the Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICSPDM). Mean scores were compared with t-tests. Eighty-nine percent of all physicians (N = 56) completed the SDM training. We developed a total of 12 evidence-based digital decision aids in the center, educated two decision coaches to support patients' decision processes by using decision aids. Physicians adjusted patients' pathways to incorporate the use of decision aids. Patients (n = 261) reported a significant increase in participation (p<0.001; Hedges' g = 0.49) in medical decision making. The S2C program has been successfully implemented within the entire Neuromedical Center. Patients reported a medium to small increase of perceived involvement in decision making demonstrating the effectiveness of the implementation. For future research, it might be interesting to investigate the sustainability of the effects of S2C. In addition, it seems useful to complement the patient-based evaluation with observer-based data.