scholarly journals Making shared decision-making (SDM) a reality: protocol of a large-scale long-term SDM implementation programme at a Northern German University Hospital

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e037575 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marion Danner ◽  
Friedemann Geiger ◽  
Kai Wehkamp ◽  
Jens Ulrich Rueffer ◽  
Christine Kuch ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Ethics Committee ◽  
University Hospital ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Programme Implementation ◽  
Patient Decision

IntroductionShared decision-making (SDM) is not yet widely used when making decisions in German hospitals. Making SDM a reality is a complex task. It involves training healthcare professionals in SDM communication and enabling patients to actively participate in communication, in addition to providing sound, easy to understand information on treatment alternatives in the form of evidence-based patient decision aids (EbPDAs). This project funded by the German Innovation Fund aims at designing, implementing and evaluating a multicomponent, large-scale and integrative SDM programme—called SHARE TO CARE (S2C)—at all clinical departments of a University Hospital Campus in Northern Germany within a 4-year time period.Methods and analysisS2C tackles the aforementioned components of SDM: (1) training physicians in SDM communication, (2) activating and empowering patients, (3) developing EbPDAs in the most common/relevant diseases and (4) training other healthcare professionals in SDM coaching. S2C is designed together with patients and providers. The physicians’ training programme entails an online and an in situ training module. The decision coach training is based on a similar but less comprehensive approach. The development of online EbPDAs follows the International Patient Decision Aid Standards and includes written, graphical and video-based information. Validated outcomes of SDM implementation are measured in a preintervention and postintervention evaluation design. Process evaluation accompanies programme implementation. Health economic impact of the intervention is investigated using a propensity-score-matched approach based on potentially preference-sensitive hospital decisions.Ethics and disseminationEthics committee review approval has been obtained from Medical Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel. Project information and results will be disseminated at conferences, on project-hosted websites at University Hospital Medical Center Schleswig Holstein and by S2C as well as in peer-reviewed and professional journals.

scholarly journals Patient decision aid based on multi-criteria decision analysis for disease-modifying drugs for multiple sclerosis: prototype development

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
I. E. H. Kremer ◽  
P. J. Jongen ◽  
S. M. A. A. Evers ◽  
E. L. J. Hoogervorst ◽  
W. I. M. Verhagen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Decision Aid ◽  
Disease Modifying Drugs ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Further Development

Abstract Background Since decision making about treatment with disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) is preference sensitive, shared decision making between patient and healthcare professional should take place. Patient decision aids could support this shared decision making process by providing information about the disease and the treatment options, to elicit the patient’s preference and to support patients and healthcare professionals in discussing these preferences and matching them with a treatment. Therefore, a prototype of a patient decision aid for MS patients in the Netherlands—based on the principles of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) —was developed, following the recommendations of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. MCDA was chosen as it might reduce cognitive burden of considering treatment options and matching patient preferences with the treatment options. Results After determining the scope to include DMDs labelled for relapsing-remitting MS and clinically isolated syndrome, users’ informational needs were assessed using focus groups (N = 19 patients) and best-worst scaling surveys with patients (N = 185), neurologists and nurses (N = 60) to determine which information about DMDs should be included in the patient decision aid. Next, an online format and computer-based delivery of the patient decision aid was chosen to enable embedding of MCDA. A literature review was conducting to collect evidence on the effectiveness and burden of use of the DMDs. A prototype was developed next, and alpha testing to evaluate its comprehensibility and usability with in total thirteen patients and four healthcare professionals identified several issues regarding content and framing, methods for weighting importance of criteria in the MCDA structure, and the presentation of the conclusions of the patient decision aid ranking the treatment options according to the patient’s preferences. Adaptations were made accordingly, but verification of the rankings provided, validation of the patient decision aid, evaluation of the feasibility of implementation and assessing its value for supporting shared decision making should be addressed in further development of the patient decision aid. Conclusion This paper aimed to provide more transparency regarding the developmental process of an MCDA-based patient decision aid for treatment decisions for MS and the challenges faced during this process. Issues identified in the prototype were resolved as much as possible, though some issues remain. Further development is needed to overcome these issues before beta pilot testing with patients and healthcare professionals at the point of clinical decision-making can take place to ultimately enable making conclusions about the value of the MCDA-based patient decision aid for MS patients, healthcare professionals and the quality of care.

scholarly journals Continuing professional education of Iranian healthcare professionals in shared decision-making: lessons learned

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Samira Abbasgholizadeh Rahimi ◽  
Charo Rodriguez ◽  
Jordie Croteau ◽  
Alireza Sadeghpour ◽  
Amir-Mohammad Navali ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Professional Education ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Prenatal Screening ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Facilitators And Barriers ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background In this study, we sought to assess healthcare professionals’ acceptance of and satisfaction with a shared decision making (SDM) educational workshop, its impact on their intention to use SDM, and their perceived facilitators and barriers to the implementation of SDM in clinical settings in Iran. Methods We conducted an observational quantitative study that involved measurements before, during, and immediately after the educational intervention at stake. We invited healthcare professionals affiliated with Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, East Azerbaijan, Iran, to attend a half-day workshop on SDM in December 2016. Decisions about prenatal screening and knee replacement surgery was used as clinical vignettes. We provided a patient decision aid on prenatal screening that complied with the International Patient Decision Aids Standards and used illustrate videos. Participants completed a sociodemographic questionnaire and a questionnaire to assess their familiarity with SDM, a questionnaire based on theoretical domains framework to assess their intention to implement SDM, a questionnaire about their perceived facilitators and barriers of implementing SDM in their clinical practice, continuous professional development reaction questionnaire, and workshop evaluation. Quantitative data was analyzed descriptively and with multiple linear regression. Results Among the 60 healthcare professionals invited, 41 participated (68%). Twenty-three were female (57%), 18 were specialized in family and emergency medicine, or community and preventive medicine (43%), nine were surgeons (22%), and 14 (35%) were other types of specialists. Participants’ mean age was 37.51 ± 8.64 years with 8.09 ± 7.8 years of clinical experience. Prior to the workshop, their familiarity with SDM was 3.10 ± 2.82 out of 9. After the workshop, their belief that practicing SDM would be beneficial and useful (beliefs about consequences) (beta = 0.67, 95% CI 0.27, 1.06) and beliefs about capability of using SDM (beta = 0.32, 95% CI -0.08, 0.72) had the strongest influence on their intention of practicing SDM. Participants perceived the main facilitator and barrier to perform SDM were training and high patient load, respectively. Conclusions Participants thought the workshop was a good way to learn SDM and that they would be able to use what they had learned in their clinical practice. Future studies need to study the level of intention of participants in longer term and evaluate the impact of cultural differences on practicing SDM and its implementation in both western and non-western countries.

scholarly journals Healthcare professionals’ behaviour regarding the implementation of shared decision-making in screening programmes: A systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
María José Hernández-Leal ◽  
María José Pérez-Lacasta ◽  
María Feijoo-Cid ◽  
Vanesa Ramos-García ◽  
Misericòrdia Carles-Lavila
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Shared Decision

Certified Patient Decision Aids: Solving Persistent Problems with Informed Consent Law

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thaddeus Mason Pope
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Legal Doctrine ◽  
Patient Decision Aids ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Decision Making Processes

The legal doctrine of informed consent has overwhelmingly failed to assure that the medical treatment patients get is the treatment patients want. This Article describes and defends an ongoing shift toward shared decision making processes incorporating the use of certified patient decision aids.

scholarly journals Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
France Légaré ◽  
Rhéda Adekpedjou ◽  
Dawn Stacey ◽  
Stéphane Turcotte ◽  
Jennifer Kryworuchko ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Shared Decision

Patient Involvement in Anesthesia Decision-making: A Qualitative Study of Knee Arthroplasty

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Veena Graff ◽  
Justin T. Clapp ◽  
Sarah J. Heins ◽  
Jamison J. Chung ◽  
Madhavi Muralidharan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Qualitative Study ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Primary Knee Arthroplasty

Background Calls to better involve patients in decisions about anesthesia—e.g., through shared decision-making—are intensifying. However, several features of anesthesia consultation make it unclear how patients should participate in decisions. Evaluating the feasibility and desirability of carrying out shared decision-making in anesthesia requires better understanding of preoperative conversations. The objective of this qualitative study was to characterize how preoperative consultations for primary knee arthroplasty arrived at decisions about primary anesthesia. Methods This focused ethnography was performed at a U.S. academic medical center. The authors audio-recorded consultations of 36 primary knee arthroplasty patients with eight anesthesiologists. Patients and anesthesiologists also participated in semi-structured interviews. Consultation and interview transcripts were coded in an iterative process to develop an explanation of how anesthesiologists and patients made decisions about primary anesthesia. Results The authors found variation across accounts of anesthesiologists and patients as to whether the consultation was a collaborative decision-making scenario or simply meant to inform patients. Consultations displayed a number of decision-making patterns, from the anesthesiologist not disclosing options to the anesthesiologist strictly adhering to a position of equipoise; however, most consultations fell between these poles, with the anesthesiologist presenting options, recommending one, and persuading hesitant patients to accept it. Anesthesiologists made patients feel more comfortable with their proposed approach through extensive comparisons to more familiar experiences. Conclusions Anesthesia consultations are multifaceted encounters that serve several functions. In some cases, the involvement of patients in determining the anesthetic approach might not be the most important of these functions. Broad consideration should be given to both the applicability and feasibility of shared decision-making in anesthesia consultation. The potential benefits of interventions designed to enhance patient involvement in decision-making should be weighed against their potential to pull anesthesiologists’ attention away from important humanistic aspects of communication such as decreasing patients’ anxiety. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New

scholarly journals Comparison of Three Measures of Shared Decision Making: SDM Process_4, CollaboRATE, and SURE Scales

2019 ◽  
Vol 39 (6) ◽  
pp. 673-680 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne Brodney ◽  
Floyd J. Fowler ◽  
Michael J. Barry ◽  
Yuchiao Chang ◽  
Karen Sepucha
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Quality ◽  
Herniated Disc ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Patient Reported Measures ◽  
Lumbar Spinal

Objective. If shared decision making (SDM) is to be part of quality assessment, it is necessary to have good measures of SDM. The purpose of this study is to compare the psychometric performance of 3 short patient-reported measures of SDM. Methods. Patients who met with a specialist to discuss possible surgery for hip or knee osteoarthritis (hips/knees), lumbar herniated disc, or lumbar spinal stenosis (backs) were surveyed shortly after the visit and again 6 months later. Some of the patients saw a patient decision aid (PDA) prior to the meeting. The 3 SDM measures were the SDM Process_4 (SDMP) survey, CollaboRATE, and SURE scale. The follow-up survey included measures of decision regret, satisfaction, and decision quality. Results. Patients in the sample ( N = 649) had a mean age of 63.3 years, 51% were female, 60% were college educated, and there were more hip/knee patients than back patients (69% v. 31%). Forty-nine percent had surgery. For hips/knees, the SDMP and SURE scores were significantly associated with viewing all of the PDA compared with those who did not ( P < 0.001), but not for CollaboRATE ( P = 0.35). For backs, none of the scores were significantly associated with viewing all the PDA. All 3 scores were significantly associated with less regret and higher satisfaction ( P < 0.001) for hips/knees. For backs, only SURE and CollaboRATE were significantly associated with less regret, and only SDMP was significantly associated with higher satisfaction. For hips/knees and backs, the SDMP and SURE scales were significantly associated with an informed patient-centered decision ( P < 0.001), but this relationship was not significant for CollaboRATE (hips/knees: P = 0.24; backs: P = 0.25). Discussion. Each measure has some evidence of validity. SURE and SDMP better discriminate the use of PDAs and have higher decision quality.

scholarly journals Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
France Légaré ◽  
Stéphane Ratté ◽  
Dawn Stacey ◽  
Jennifer Kryworuchko ◽  
Karine Gravel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Shared Decision
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document