Shared Decision-Making for Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators: Policy Goals, Metrics, and Challenges

2021 ◽  
Vol 49 (4) ◽  
pp. 622-629
Author(s):  
Birju R. Rao ◽  
Faisal M. Merchant ◽  
David H. Howard ◽  
Daniel Matlock ◽  
Neal W. Dickert

AbstractShared decision-making has become a new focus of health policy. Though its core elements are largely agreed upon, there is little consensus regarding which outcomes to prioritize for policy-mandated shared decision-making.

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (11) ◽  
pp. 2420-2426 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fatima Ali‐Ahmed ◽  
Daniel Matlock ◽  
Emily P. Zeitler ◽  
Kevin L. Thomas ◽  
David E. Haines ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Bradley S. Lander ◽  
Dermot M. Phelan ◽  
Matthew W. Martinez ◽  
Elizabeth H. Dineen

Abstract Purpose of review This review will summarize the distinction between hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and exercise-induced cardiac remodeling (EICR), describe treatments of particular relevance to athletes with HCM, and highlight the evolution of recommendations for exercise and competitive sport participation relevant to individuals with HCM. Recent findings Whereas prior guidelines have excluded individuals with HCM from more than mild-intensity exercise, recent data show that moderate-intensity exercise improves functional capacity and indices of cardiac function and continuation of competitive sports may not be associated with worse outcomes. Moreover, recent studies of athletes with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) demonstrated a safer profile than previously understood. In this context, the updated American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) and European Society of Cardiology (ESC) HCM guidelines have increased focus on shared decision-making and liberalized restrictions on exercise and sport participation among individuals with HCM. Summary New data demonstrating the safety of exercise in individuals with HCM and in athletes with ICDs, in addition to a focus on shared decision-making, have led to the most updated guidelines easing restrictions on exercise and competitive athletics in this population. Further athlete-specific studies of HCM, especially in the context of emerging therapies such as mavacamten, are important to inform accurate risk stratification and eligibility recommendations.


2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (3.5) ◽  
pp. BPI19-012
Author(s):  
Lori L. DuBenske ◽  
Sarina B. Schrager ◽  
Terry A. Little ◽  
Elizabeth S. Burnside

Background: National health organizations offer contrasting guidelines for women aged 40–49 regarding when to begin and how often to use mammography screening for breast cancer. The ACS recommends average risk women aged 40–44 receive annual screening “if they wish to do so” and annual screening for women aged 45–54. The United States Preventive Services Task Force recommends individualized screening for average-risk women before age 50 advised by risk assessment and shared decision-making (SDM). Clinicians lack guidance on how to conduct and what elements to include in mammography SDM. Our prior work identified core elements via scoping review applied to a modified Delphi consensus process involving patients, primary care physicians (PCP), and healthcare decision scientists (HDS). This study examines stakeholder group differences in endorsing core SDM elements. Methods: The Delphi consensus included 10 patients, 10 PCP, and 10 HDS and fielded 48 items to codify core elements of mammography SDM. A threshold of 80% agreement across all participants was set to establish consensus for retaining or dropping an item. In this study, separate stakeholder groups’ endorsement rates for each item were calculated. Items were deemed to have stakeholder discrepancy if one group differed from the 2 others in either meeting or not meeting the 80% threshold criteria. Results: 16 items (13 retained, 3 dropped in Delphi) had a discrepant group. For all retained items, the discrepant group fell below 80% criteria for retaining. For 2 of the dropped items, discrepant groups achieved threshold for retaining the item. One item was dropped despite most participants voting to retain it (>80%) due to the discrepant group’s rating <80%. Patients rated less importance to educating women about risks and recommendations. PCPs rated lower importance to training PCPs and women for discussions about mammograms and having discussions on a regular basis. HDSs rated greater importance to considering mammogram procedures and costs in SDM. Discussion: Leading healthcare organizations are increasingly recommending SDM in breast cancer screening, among other decisions. Guidelines enumerating core elements of SDM are needed to effectively direct clinicians. This study, by illuminating differences between stakeholder group perspectives, highlights the importance of eliciting varied perspectives in identifying core elements of SDM when informing healthcare practices and policy.


2021 ◽  
Vol 29 (5) ◽  
pp. 243-252
Author(s):  
H. F. Groenveld ◽  
J. E. Coster ◽  
D. J. van Veldhuisen ◽  
M. Rienstra ◽  
Y. Blaauw ◽  
...  

AbstractImplantable cardioverter defibrillators are implanted on a large scale in patients with heart failure (HF) for the prevention of sudden cardiac death. There are different scenarios in which defibrillator therapy is no longer desired or indicated, and this is occurring increasingly in elderly patients. Usually device therapy is continued until the device has reached battery depletion. At that time, the decision needs to be made to either replace it or to downgrade to a pacing-only device. This decision is dependent on many factors, including the vitality of the patient and his/her preferences, but may also be influenced by changes in recommendations in guidelines. In the last few years, there has been an increased awareness that discussions around these decisions are important and useful. Advanced care planning and shared decision-making have become important and are increasingly recognised as such. In this short review we describe six elderly patients with HF, in whose cases we discussed these issues, and we aim to provide some scientific and ethical rationale for clinical decision-making in this context. Current guidelines advocate the discussion of end-of-life options at the time of device implantation, and physicians should realise that their choices influence patients’ options in this critical phase of their illness.


2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
D Yilmaz ◽  
A Egorova ◽  
L.M.H Lensvelt ◽  
L Van Erven

Abstract Background Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD) are effective in the prevention of sudden cardiac death and treating life-threatening arrhythmias. As the number of older patients increases, the number of implanted devices does as well. Evidence for current guidelines is mostly derived from trials conducted decades ago, in selected patient groups. Communicating the risks and benefits of an ICD to patients can be challenging. Shared decision making with the use of a decision aid has proven to result in more active patient participation and improved outcomes in several fields. Purpose The aim of our study is to evaluate the effect of an ICD specific decision aid in clinical practice. Methods We developed an evidence based decision aid according to the Delphi method. The decision aid was tested in 6 Dutch centres within a stepped wedge clustered randomized trial. We compared pre-procedural counselling with and without the use of a decision aid. Level of shared decision making was measured with the SDM-Q-9 in patients and SDM-Q-doc in caregivers. Additionally, we measured decisional conflict in patients with the decisional conflict scale questionnaire (DCS). This includes a subscore on how informed patients deemed to be. We included a set of 4 knowledge questions in our questionnaire. Differences between scoresbetween groups were analysed using the Mann-Whitney U test or One-way ANOVA. For categorical variables, we used the Chi-square test or Fishers Exact test accordingly. Results In total, we retrieved questionnaires from 234 caregivers and 150 patients. The majority of the patients were male (75%) and the mean age was 70±9 years. Levels of shared decision making were marked high in all groups. With the use of a decision aid, caregivers experienced significantly more shared decision making (median 78 (IQR 62–84) versus 81 (IQR 71–87) in the decision aid group (p=0.002)). Patients reported low levels of decisional conflict in both groups. There were also no differences for the subscales of the DCS (median 17 (IQR 6–25) in the control group vs 14 (IQR 5–23) in the decision aid group (p&gt;0.05)). Patients reported to be very well informed (DCS subscale score of 0 in the control group vs 8 with a decision aid, p&lt;0.05), although they answered the knowledge quiz poorly in both settings, with only 1 patient (0.067%) answering all the four question correctly (p&lt;0.05). Conclusions Patients and caregivers report high levels of shared decision making. This is likely due to a bias associated with the study design, in which all participating centres were required to conduct elaborate pre-implantation counselling with patients as standard care, which is different from current clinical practice. Despite the implications of an ICD procedure, there was no decisional conflict and patients report to be well informed. This is in spite of low scores on the knowledge quiz. This illustrates the phenomenon of the unconsciously uninformed patient. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Foundation. Main funding source(s): Federation of Medical Specialists (SKMS), Utrecht, The Netherlands


2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 1668-1677
Author(s):  
Kenneth D. Croes ◽  
Nathan R. Jones ◽  
Lori L. DuBenske ◽  
Sarina B. Schrager ◽  
Jane E. Mahoney ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 33 (5) ◽  
pp. e100291
Author(s):  
Sarah Markham

Collaborative risk assessment and management have been recommended in health policy for over a decade. We consider the nature and need for collaborative risk assessment and management between patients and clinicians in secure and forensic mental health settings in the context of shared decision making and personalised care in the UK. We examine the extent to which policy and recent initiatives have influenced the embedding of such practice in services through consideration of the evidence provided by research and the Commissioning for Quality and Innovation framework, and conclude that there is a need for further improvement.


2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (12) ◽  
pp. 1380-1385 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brandon C. Maughan ◽  
Zachary F. Meisel ◽  
Arjun K. Venkatesh ◽  
Michelle P. Lin ◽  
Warren M. Perry ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Pryce ◽  
Amanda Hall

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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document