Do consultants do what they say they do? Observational study of the extent to which clinicians involve their patients in the decision-making process

ObjectivesTo assess whether consultants do what they say they do in reaching decisions with their patients.DesignCross-sectional analysis of hospital outpatient encounters, comparing consultants’ self-reported usual decision-making style to their actual observed decision-making behaviour in video-recorded encounters.SettingLarge secondary care teaching hospital in the Netherlands.Participants41 consultants from 18 disciplines and 781 patients.Primary and secondary outcome measureWith the Control Preference Scale, the self-reported usual decision-making style was assessed (paternalistic, informative or shared decision making). Two independent raters assessed decision-making behaviour for each decision using the Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION)5 instrument ranging from 0 (no shared decision making (SDM)) to 100 (optimal SDM).ResultsConsultants reported their usual decision-making style as informative (n=11), shared (n=16) and paternalistic (n=14). Overall, patient involvement was low, with mean (SD) OPTION5 scores of 16.8 (17.1). In an unadjusted multilevel analysis, the reported usual decision-making style was not related to the OPTION5 score (p>0.156). After adjusting for patient, consultant and consultation characteristics, higher OPTION5 scores were only significantly related to the category of decisions (treatment vs the other categories) and to longer consultation duration (p<0.001).ConclusionsThe limited patient involvement that we observed was not associated with the consultants’ self-reported usual decision-making style. Consultants appear to be unconsciously incompetent in shared decision making. This can hinder the transfer of this crucial communication skill to students and junior doctors.

Download Full-text

The content and conduct of GP consultations for dermatology problems: a cross-sectional study

British Journal of General Practice ◽

10.3399/bjgp20x712577 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 70 (699) ◽

pp. e723-e730

Author(s):

Emma Le Roux ◽

Peter J Edwards ◽

Emily Sanderson ◽

Rebecca K Barnes ◽

Matthew J Ridd

Keyword(s):

Primary Care ◽

Decision Making ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Patient Involvement ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Self Management ◽

Shared Decision ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Management Advice

BackgroundSkin complaints are common in primary care, and poor outcomes in long-term conditions are often due to low adherence to treatment. Shared decision making and self-management support may help, yet there is little understanding of patient involvement or the support provided by GPs.AimTo describe the content of primary care consultations for skin problems, including shared decision making practice, delivery of self-management advice, and follow-up.Design and settingCross-sectional study of video-recorded UK adult GP consultations and linked data.MethodA coding tool was developed and applied to all consultations with skin problems. Shared decision making was assessed using the observer OPTION5 scale.ResultsA total of 45/318 consultations (14.2%) related to one or more skin problems, which were discussed alongside other problems in 71.1% (32/45) of consultations. Of the 100 different problems discussed in these consultations, 51 were dermatological. The mean amount of time spent on skin problems in the consultations was 4 minutes 16 seconds. Medication was recommended for 66.7% (34/51) of skin problems, with low shared decision making (mean OPTION5 score = 10.7). Self-management advice (verbal only) was given for 47.1% (24/51) of skin problems. Most skin problems (84.3%; 43/51) were not referred to secondary care; 32.6% (14/43) of the skin problems not referred were seen again in primary care within 12 weeks, of which 35.7% (5/14) follow-up appointments were not planned.ConclusionIn this study, skin problems were usually presented alongside other complaints and resulted in a medication recommendation. Shared decision making was uncommon and self-management advice not consistently given, with re-attendance for the same problem common. GPs’ training should reflect how frequently skin problems are seen and seek to improve patient involvement in decision making and support self-management.

Download Full-text

Evaluation of the Use of Shared Decision Making in Breast Cancer: International Survey

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health ◽

10.3390/ijerph18042128 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 18 (4) ◽

pp. 2128

Author(s):

Marta Maes-Carballo ◽

Manuel Martín-Díaz ◽

Luciano Mignini ◽

Khalid Saeed Khan ◽

Rubén Trigueros ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Breast Cancer ◽

Decision Making ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Health Professionals ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Shared Decision ◽

Online Questionnaire ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Professional Societies ◽

New Policies

Objectives: To assess shared decision-making (SDM) knowledge, attitude and application among health professionals involved in breast cancer (BC) treatment. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study based on an online questionnaire, sent by several professional societies to health professionals involved in BC management. There were 26 questions which combined demographic and professional data with some items measured on a Likert-type scale. Results: The participation (459/541; 84.84%) and completion (443/459; 96.51%) rates were high. Participants strongly agreed or agreed in 69.57% (16/23) of their responses. The majority stated that they knew of SDM (mean 4.43 (4.36–4.55)) and were in favour of its implementation (mean 4.58 (4.51–4.64)). They highlighted that SDM practice was not adequate due to lack of resources (3.46 (3.37–3.55)) and agreed on policies that improved its implementation (3.96 (3.88–4.04)). The main advantage of SDM for participants was patient satisfaction (38%), and the main disadvantage was the patients’ paucity of knowledge to understand their disease (24%). The main obstacle indicated was the lack of time and resources (40%). Conclusions: New policies must be designed for adequate training of professionals in integrating SDM in clinical practice, preparing them to use SDM with adequate resources and time provided.

Download Full-text

Observer Ratings of Shared Decision Making Do Not Match Patient Reports: An Observational Study in 5 Family Medicine Practices

Medical Decision Making ◽

10.1177/0272989x20977885 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 41 (1) ◽

pp. 51-59

Author(s):

Gisèle Diendéré ◽

Imen Farhat ◽

Holly Witteman ◽

Ruth Ndjaboue

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Family Medicine ◽

Risk Communication ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Clinical Encounter ◽

Values Clarification ◽

Shared Decision ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Medical Consultations

Background Measuring shared decision making (SDM) in clinical practice is important to improve the quality of health care. Measurement can be done by trained observers and by people participating in the clinical encounter, namely, patients. This study aimed to describe the correlations between patients’ and observers’ ratings of SDM using 2 validated and 2 nonvalidated SDM measures in clinical consultations. Methods In this cross-sectional study, we recruited 238 complete dyads of health professionals and patients in 5 university-affiliated family medicine clinics in Canada. Participants completed self-administered questionnaires before and after audio-recorded medical consultations. Observers rated the occurrence of SDM during medical consultations using both the validated OPTION-5 (the 5-item “observing patient involvement” score) and binary questions on risk communication and values clarification (RCVC-observer). Patients rated SDM using both the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q9) and binary questions on risk communication and values clarification (RCVC-patient). Results Agreement was low between observers’ and patients’ ratings of SDM using validated OPTION-5 and SDM-Q9, respectively (ρ = 0.07; P = 0.38). Observers’ ratings using RCVC-observer were correlated to patients’ ratings using either SDM-Q9 ( rpb = −0.16; P = 0.01) or RCVC-patients ( rpb = 0.24; P = 0.03). Observers’ OPTION-5 scores and patients’ ratings using RCVC-questions were moderately correlated ( rφ = 0.33; P = 0.04). Conclusion There was moderate to no alignment between observers’ and patients’ ratings of SDM using both validated and nonvalidated measures. This lack of strong correlation emphasizes that observer and patient perspectives are not interchangeable. When assessing the presence, absence, or extent of SDM, it is important to clearly state whose perspectives are reflected.

Download Full-text

US-based cross-sectional survey of clinicians’ knowledge and attitudes about shared decision-making across healthcare professions and specialties

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022730 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 8 (10) ◽

pp. e022730 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Rachel C Forcino ◽

Renata West Yen ◽

Maya Aboumrad ◽

Paul J Barr ◽

Danielle Schubbe ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Family Medicine ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Nurse Practitioners ◽

Physician Assistants ◽

Shared Decision ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Knowledge And Attitudes ◽

Positive Attitudes

ObjectiveIn this study, we aim to compare shared decision-making (SDM) knowledge and attitudes between US-based physician assistants (PAs), nurse practitioners (NPs) and physicians across surgical and family medicine specialties.SettingWe administered a cross-sectional, web-based survey between 20 September 2017 and 1 November 2017.Participants272 US-based NPs, PA and physicians completed the survey. 250 physicians were sent a generic email invitation to participate, of whom 100 completed the survey. 3300 NPs and PAs were invited, among whom 172 completed the survey. Individuals who met the following exclusion criteria were excluded from participation: (1) lack of English proficiency; (2) area of practice other than family medicine or surgery; (3) licensure other than physician, PA or NP; (4) practicing in a country other than the US.ResultsWe found few substantial differences in SDM knowledge and attitudes across clinician types, revealing positive attitudes across the sample paired with low to moderate knowledge. Family medicine professionals (PAs) were most knowledgeable on several items. Very few respondents (3%; 95% CI 1.5% to 6.2%) favoured a paternalistic approach to decision-making.ConclusionsRecent policy-level promotion of SDM may have influenced positive clinician attitudes towards SDM. Positive attitudes despite limited knowledge warrant SDM training across occupations and specialties, while encouraging all clinicians to promote SDM. Given positive attitudes and similar knowledge across clinician types, we recommend that SDM is not confined to the patient-physician dyad but instead advocated among other health professionals.

Download Full-text

The Association Between Patients' eHealth Literacy and Satisfaction With Shared Decision-making and Well-being: Multicenter Cross-sectional Study (Preprint)

10.2196/preprints.26721 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Richard Huan Xu ◽

Ling-Ming Zhou ◽

Eliza Lai-Yi Wong ◽

Dong Wang

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Regression Models ◽

Well Being ◽

Shared Decision ◽

Background Characteristics ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Ehealth Literacy ◽

High Level ◽

The Relationship

BACKGROUND Although previous studies have shown that a high level of health literacy can improve patients’ ability to engage in health-related shared decision-making (SDM) and improve their quality of life, few studies have investigated the role of eHealth literacy in improving patient satisfaction with SDM (SSDM) and well-being. OBJECTIVE This study aims to assess the relationship between patients’ eHealth literacy and their socioeconomic determinants and to investigate the association between patients’ eHealth literacy and their SSDM and well-being. METHODS The data used in this study were obtained from a multicenter cross-sectional survey in China. The eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) and Investigating Choice Experiments Capability Measure for Adults were used to measure patients’ eHealth literacy and capability well-being, respectively. The SSDM was assessed by using a self-administered questionnaire. The Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used to compare the differences in the eHEALS, SSDM, and Investigating Choice Experiments Capability Measure for Adults scores of patients with varying background characteristics. Ordinary least square regression models were used to assess the relationship among eHealth literacy, SSDM, and well-being adjusted by patients’ background characteristics. RESULTS A total of 569 patients completed the questionnaire. Patients who were male, were highly educated, were childless, were fully employed, were without chronic conditions, and indicated no depressive disorder reported a higher mean score on the eHEALS. Younger patients (SSDM≥61 years=88.6 vs SSDM16-30 years=84.2) tended to show higher SSDM. Patients who were rural residents and were well paid were more likely to report good capability well-being. Patients who had a higher SSDM and better capability well-being reported a significantly higher level of eHealth literacy than those who had lower SSDM and poorer capability well-being. The regression models showed a positive relationship between eHealth literacy and both SSDM (β=.22; P<.001) and well-being (β=.26; P<.001) after adjusting for patients’ demographic, socioeconomic status, lifestyle, and health status variables. CONCLUSIONS This study showed that patients with a high level of eHealth literacy are more likely to experience optimal SDM and improved capability well-being. However, patients’ depressive status may alter the relationship between eHealth literacy and SSDM. CLINICALTRIAL

Download Full-text

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

Anesthesiology ◽

10.1097/aln.0000000000003795 ◽

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

Download Full-text

Usability and Perceived Usefulness of the AFib 2gether™ Mobile App in a Clinical Setting: Single-Arm Intervention Study (Preprint)

10.2196/preprints.27016 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Alok Kapoor ◽

Anna Hayes ◽

Jay Patel ◽

Harshal Patel ◽

Andreza Andrade ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Patient Involvement ◽

Rating Scale ◽

Mobile App ◽

Perceived Usefulness ◽

Controlled Study ◽

Average Score ◽

Shared Decision ◽

Item Questionnaire

BACKGROUND Although the American Heart Association and other professional societies have recommended shared decision-making as a way for patients with atrial fibrillation or flutter (AF) to reach informed decisions about using anticoagulation (AC), the best method of facilitating shared decision-making remains uncertain. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to assess the AFib 2gether™ mobile app for usability, perceived usefulness, and extent and nature of shared decision making that occurred for clinical encounters between patients with AF and their cardiology providers in which the app was used. METHODS We identified patients coming to see a cardiology provider from October 2019 until May 2020. We measured usability from patients and providers through the mobile app rating scale (MARS). From the eight items of the MARS, we report the average score (out of 5) for domains of functionality, aesthetics, and overall quality. We administered a three-item questionnaire to patients relating to their perceived usefulness and a separate three-item questionnaire to providers to measure their perceived usefulness. We performed a chart review to track AC starts occurring within 6 months of the index visit. We also audio-recorded a subset of encounters to identify evidence of shared decision-making. RESULTS We facilitated shared decision-making visits for 37 patients seeing 13 providers. In terms of usability, patients’ ratings of functionality, aesthetics, and overall quality were (average ± standard deviation): 4.51 ± 0.61, 4.26 ± 0.51, and 4.24 ± 0.89, respectively. In terms of usefulness, 40% of patients agreed that the app improved their knowledge regarding AC and 62% agreed that the app helped clarify to their provider, their preferences regarding AC. Among providers, 79% agreed that the app helped clarify their patients’ preferences; 82% agreed that the app saved them time; and 59% agreed that the app helped their patients make decisions about AC. Additionally, 12 patients started AC after their shared decision-making visits. We audio-recorded 25 encounters. Of these encounters, 84% included mention of AC for AF, 44% included discussion of multiple options for AC, 72% included a provider recommendation for AC, and 48% included evidence of patient involvement in the discussion. CONCLUSIONS Patients and providers rated the app with high usability and perceived usefulness. Moreover, a third of patients began AC and in nearly ½ the encounters, there was evidence of patient involvement in decision-making. In the future, we plan to study the effect of the app in a larger sample and with a controlled study design. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04118270. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT RR2-21986

Download Full-text

Relationship Between Parental Intolerance of Uncertainty and Decisional Conflict in Pediatric Otolaryngologic Surgery

Otolaryngology ◽

10.1177/0194599820973644 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 019459982097364

Author(s):

Chelsea Cleveland ◽

Vijay A. Patel ◽

Shari A. Steinman ◽

Reena Razdan ◽

Michele M. Carr

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Sex Education ◽

Short Form ◽

Intolerance Of Uncertainty ◽

Decisional Conflict ◽

Shared Decision ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Pediatric Otolaryngology ◽

State Worry

Objective To assess the relationship between depression, anxiety, stress, worry, intolerance of uncertainty (IU), and shared decision making (SDM) in parents of pediatric otolaryngology surgical patients with their perceptions of decisional conflict (DC). Study Design Cross-sectional. Setting Academic pediatric otolaryngology outpatient clinic. Methods Participants were legal guardians of pediatric patients who met criteria for otolaryngologic surgery. Participants completed a demographic survey as well as validated Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS); Shared Decision-Making Scale (SDMS); Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale–21 (DASS-21); Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ); and short form of the Intolerance of Uncertainty Scale (IUS-12). Results A total of 114 participants were enrolled. Respondents were predominantly female (93.0%) and married (60.5%). Most guardians had not consented previously for otolaryngologic surgery for their child (69.3%). Participants reported low levels of DC and depression as well as moderate levels of anxiety and stress. DC scores were not significantly correlated to DASS-21, PSWQ, or SDM. IUS-12 Total and subscale IUS-12 prospective negatively correlated with Total DC. DC was not related to age, sex, education level, previous otolaryngologic surgery, or type of surgery recommended. Conclusion In this group, an association was found between IU and DC. Clinicians should be aware that DC is not modified by previous surgical experience. Interventions aimed at addressing parental IU related to surgery may reduce DC. Further research efforts could help us understand how mental health relates to surgical decision making.

Download Full-text

Can the current hypodontia care pathway promote shared decision-making?

Journal of Orthodontics ◽

10.1177/1465312519842743 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 46 (2) ◽

pp. 126-136 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Sophy Barber ◽

Sue Pavitt ◽

David Meads ◽

Balvinder Khambay ◽

Hilary Bekker

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Young People ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Information Exchange ◽

Care Pathway ◽

Information Provision ◽

Alternative Methods ◽

Teaching Hospitals ◽

Shared Decision ◽

Cross Sectional

Objective: To determine the extent to which the current care pathway in hypodontia promotes shared decision-making (SDM). Design: Exploratory cross-sectional study using qualitative methods. Setting: Orthodontic department of two NHS teaching hospitals in Yorkshire. Participants: Young people aged 12–16 years with hypodontia of any severity and at any stage of treatment, and their parents and guardians. Methods: (1) Observation and audio-recording of interdisciplinary consultation in hypodontia clinics (n = 5) without any researcher interference; (2) short, structured interviews with young people with hypodontia (n = 8) and their parent (n = 8) using a topic guide to explore themes around decision-making. Audio-recordings were transcribed and analysed using a thematic framework. Results: Consultations were used as an opportunity for interdisciplinary discussion, information provision and treatment planning. Evidence of good communication was observed but patient engagement was low. The decision to be made was usually stated and treatment options discussed, but time constraints limited the scope for adequate information exchange and assessment of understanding. No methods were used to establish patient and family preferences or values. Interviews suggested parents expect the dental team to make decisions and young people rely on parental advocacy. Despite little evidence of SDM, participants reported satisfaction with their treatment. Conclusions: The current care pathway for hypodontia does not support clinicians in the steps of SDM. Recommendations for improving SDM processes include support to identify preference-based decisions, greater access to comprehensive and accessible patient information to enable preparation for consultation, alternative methods for effective communication of complex information and use of preference elicitation tools to aid value-driven decision-making.

Download Full-text