Development of a shared decision making coding system for analysis of patient–healthcare provider encounters

Design and objectivesWe performed a systematic review of studies evaluating healthcare provider (HCP) trainings in shared decision-making (SDM) to analyse their evaluation strategies.Setting and participantsHCP trainings in SDM from all healthcare settings.MethodsWe searched scientific databases (Medline, PsycInfo, CINAHL), performed reference and citation tracking, contacted experts in the field and scanned the Canadian inventory of SDM training programmes for healthcare professionals. We included articles reporting data of summative evaluations of HCP trainings in SDM. Two reviewers screened records, assessed full-text articles, performed data extraction and assessed study quality with the integrated quality criteria for review of multiple study designs (ICROMS) tool. Analysis of evaluation strategies included data source use, use of unpublished or published measures and coverage of Kirkpatrick’s evaluation levels. An evaluation framework based on Kirkpatrick’s evaluation levels and the Quadruple Aim framework was used to categorise identified evaluation outcomes.ResultsOut of 7234 records, we included 41 articles reporting on 30 studies: cluster-randomised (n=8) and randomised (n=9) controlled trials, controlled (n=1) and non-controlled (n=7) before-after studies, mixed-methods (n=1), qualitative (n=1) and post-test (n=3) studies. Most studies were conducted in the USA (n=9), Germany (n=8) or Canada (n=7) and evaluated physician trainings (n=25). Eleven articles met ICROMS quality criteria. Almost all studies (n=27) employed HCP-reported outcomes for training evaluation and most (n=19) additionally used patient-reported (n=12), observer-rated (n=10), standardised patient-reported (n=2) outcomes or training process and healthcare data (n=10). Most studies employed a mix of unpublished and published measures (n=17) and covered two (n=12) or three (n=10) Kirkpatrick’s levels. Identified evaluation outcomes covered all categories of the proposed framework.ConclusionsStrategies to evaluate HCP trainings in SDM varied largely. The proposed evaluation framework maybe useful to structure future evaluation studies, but international agreement on a core set of outcomes is needed to improve evidence.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42016041623.

Download Full-text

Is Sociodemographic Status Associated with Empathic Communication and Decision Quality in Diabetes Care?

Journal of General Internal Medicine ◽

10.1007/s11606-021-07230-5 ◽

2022 ◽

Author(s):

Brigida A. Bruno ◽

Karen Guirguis ◽

David Rofaiel ◽

Catherine H. Yu

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Sample Size ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Analysis Tool ◽

Shared Decision ◽

Coding System ◽

Asian Patients ◽

Empathic Communication ◽

Patients With Diabetes

Abstract Objective To assess the relationship between empathic communication, shared decision-making, and patient sociodemographic factors of income, education, and ethnicity in patients with diabetes. Research Design and Methods This was a cross-sectional study from five primary care practices in the Greater Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada, participating in a randomized controlled trial of a diabetes goal setting and shared decision-making plan. Participants included 30 patients with diabetes and 23 clinicians (physicians, nurses, dietitians, and pharmacists), with a sample size of 48 clinical encounters. Clinical encounter audiotapes were coded using the Empathic Communication Coding System (ECCS) and Decision Support Analysis Tool (DSAT-10). Results The most frequent empathic responses among encounters were “acknowledgement with pursuit” (28.9%) and “confirmation” (30.0%). The most frequently assessed DSAT components were “stage” (86%) and knowledge of options (82.0%). ECCS varied by education (p=0.030) and ethnicity (p=0.03), but not income. Patients with only a college degree received more empathic communication than patients with bachelor’s degrees or more, and South Asian patients received less empathic communication than Asian patients. DSAT varied with ethnicity (p=0.07) but not education or income. White patients experienced more shared decision-making than those in the “other” category. Conclusions We identified a new relationship between ECCS, education and ethnicity, as well as DSAT and ethnicity. Limitations include sample size, heterogeneity of encounters, and predominant white ethnicity. These associations may be evidence of systemic biases in healthcare, with hidden roots in medical education.

Download Full-text

The Role of Shared Decision-Making in Audiologic Rehabilitation

Perspectives on Aural Rehabilitation and Its Instrumentation ◽

10.1044/arri21.1.15 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

pp. 15-23 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Helen Pryce ◽

Amanda Hall

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Behavior Changes ◽

Shared Decision ◽

Patient Centered ◽

Treatment Information ◽

Centered Care ◽

Potential Risks ◽

Audiologic Rehabilitation

Shared decision-making (SDM), a component of patient-centered care, is the process in which the clinician and patient both participate in decision-making about treatment; information is shared between the parties and both agree with the decision. Shared decision-making is appropriate for health care conditions in which there is more than one evidence-based treatment or management option that have different benefits and risks. The patient's involvement ensures that the decisions regarding treatment are sensitive to the patient's values and preferences. Audiologic rehabilitation requires substantial behavior changes on the part of patients and includes benefits to their communication as well as compromises and potential risks. This article identifies the importance of shared decision-making in audiologic rehabilitation and the changes required to implement it effectively.

Download Full-text