Professionals’ views on shared decision-making in severe aortic stenosis

Heart ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. heartjnl-2021-320194
Author(s):  
Judith J A M van Beek-Peeters ◽  
Jop B L van der Meer ◽  
Miriam C Faes ◽  
Annemarie J B M de Vos ◽  
Martijn W A van Geldorp ◽  
...  

ObjectiveTo provide insight into professionals’ perceptions of and experiences with shared decision-making (SDM) in the treatment of symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS).MethodsA semistructured interview study was performed in the heart centres of academic and large teaching hospitals in the Netherlands between June and December 2020. Cardiothoracic surgeons, interventional cardiologists, nurse practitioners and physician assistants (n=21) involved in the decision-making process for treatment of severe AS were interviewed. An inductive thematic analysis was used to identify, analyse and report patterns in the data.ResultsFour primary themes were generated: (1) the concept of SDM, (2) knowledge, (3) communication and interaction, and (4) implementation of SDM. Not all respondents considered patient participation as an element of SDM. They experienced a discrepancy between patients’ wishes and treatment options. Respondents explained that not knowing patient preferences for health improvement hinders SDM and complicating patient characteristics for patient participation were perceived. A shared responsibility for improving SDM was suggested for patients and all professionals involved in the decision-making process for severe AS.ConclusionsProfessionals struggle to make highly complex treatment decisions part of SDM and to embed patients’ expectations of treatment and patients’ preferences. Additionally, organisational constraints complicate the SDM process. To ensure sustainable high-quality care, professionals should increase their awareness of patient participation in SDM, and collaboration in the pathway for decision-making in severe AS is required to support the documentation and availability of information according to the principles of SDM.

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
KD Valentine ◽  
Felisha Marques ◽  
Alexandra Selberg ◽  
Laura Flannery ◽  
Nathaniel Langer ◽  
...  

Objective: To identify the degree to which shared decision making (SDM) is occurring for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) considering aortic valve replacement (AVR) as measured by the Shared Decision Making Process (SDMP) measure. Methods: Patient eligibility was ascertained via the electronic medical record. Eligible patients were between 18-85, spoke English, were diagnosed with severe AS, either had no prior AVR or had AVR more than 6 months prior, and were at low to intermediate risk for surgical AVR (SAVR). Patients were ineligible if they had a concomitant disease of the aorta or another heart valve that required intervention. Eligible patients were approached in either the Interventional Cardiology or Cardiac Surgery clinic after the respective visit and asked to complete the Shared Decision Making Process (SDMP) Measure, which includes 6 questions with a total score ranging from 0-4. The questions focus on if options were presented (yes/no), preferences elicited (yes/no), and if the pros and cons of transcatheter AVR (TAVR) and SAVR were discussed (“a lot”, “some”, “a little”, or “not at all”). A higher score indicates greater shared decision making occurred. Results: Of 60 enrolled patients, 59 (98%) returned their survey. Most patients were recruited after the visit with an interventional cardiologist (68%, 40 of 59). The average age was 72 years (SD=7 years), all patients were white, 67.8% (40 of 59) were men, and 82.1% (46 of 56) had more than a high school education. There was a trend toward patients reporting higher SDMP scores if patients were recruited in the cardiac surgery clinic (M=3.0, SD=0.7) when compared to those recruited in the interventional cardiology clinic (M=2.6, SD=1.1; t(57)=1.4, p=.164, d=.39). Nearly all (96.6%, 57 of 59) patients stated they were presented with different options to treat their AS and 88.1% (52 of 59) reported discussing the pros of TAVR while 78.0% (46 of 59) discussed SAVR “some” or “a lot.” Conversely, fewer patients stated they discussed the cons of TAVR (57.6%, 34 of 59) or SAVR (49.2%, 29 of 59) “some” or “a lot.” Most patients stated they were asked what they wanted to do to treat their AS (64.4%, 38 of 59). Conclusions: One third of patients did not recall being asked for their preference—a key component of shared decision making conversations. Given the importance of patients being well informed in this preference sensitive decision context, future work should seek to understand both how this multidisciplinary approach may benefit patients, and how to ensure the downsides of options and patient preferences are discussed during the visit.


Heart ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 106 (9) ◽  
pp. 647-655 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith J A M van Beek-Peeters ◽  
Elsemieke H M van Noort ◽  
Miriam C Faes ◽  
Annemarie J B M de Vos ◽  
Martijn W A van Geldorp ◽  
...  

This review provides an overview of the status of shared decision making (SDM) in older patients regarding treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (SSAS). The databases Embase, Medline Ovid, Cinahl and Cochrane Dare were searched for relevant studies from January 2002 to May 2018 regarding perspectives of professionals, patients and caregivers; aspects of decision making; type of decision making; application of the six domains of SDM; barriers to and facilitators of SDM. The systematic search yielded 1842 articles, 15 studies were included. Experiences of professionals and informal caregivers with SDM were scarcely found. Patient refusal was a frequently reported result of decision making, but often no insight was given into the decision process. Most studies investigated the ‘decision’ and ‘option’ domains of SDM, yet no study took all six domains into account. Problem analysis, personalised treatment aims, use of decision aids and integrating patient goals in decisions lacked in all studies. Barriers to and facilitators of SDM were ‘individualised formal and informal information support’ and ‘patients’ opportunity to use their own knowledge about their health condition and preferences for SDM’. In conclusion, SDM is not yet common practice in the decision making process of older patients with SSAS. Moreover, the six domains of SDM are not often applied in this process. More knowledge is needed about the implementation of SDM in the context of SSAS treatment and how to involve patients, professionals and informal caregivers.


2021 ◽  
pp. 089801012110627
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Kinchen

The purpose of this quantitative, descriptive, exploratory study was to gauge the degree to which nurse practitioners (NPs) incorporate holistic nursing values in their care, with a special focus on shared decision-making (SDM), using the Nurse Practitioner Holistic Caring Instrument (NPHCI), an investigator-developed scale. A single open-ended question inviting free-text comment was also included, soliciting participants’ views on the holistic attributes of their care. A convenience sample of NPs ( n = 573) was recruited from a southeastern U.S. state Board of Nursing's (BON) publicly available list of licensed NPs. Results suggest that NPs do indeed perceive their care to be holistic, and that they routinely incorporate elements of SDM in their care. Highest scores were accorded to listening, taking time to talk to patients, knowledge of physical condition, soliciting patient input in care decisions, considering how other areas of a patient's life may affect their medical condition, and attention to “what matters most” to the patient. Age, gender, level of education, practice specialty, and location were also associated with inclusion of holistic care. Free-text responses revealed that NPs value holistic care and desire to practice holistically, but identify “lack of time” to incorporate or practice holistic care as a barrier.


2021 ◽  
Vol 429 ◽  
pp. 119162
Author(s):  
Michelle Gratton ◽  
Bonnie Wooten ◽  
Sandrine Deribaupierre ◽  
Andrea Andrade

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. e022730 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel C Forcino ◽  
Renata West Yen ◽  
Maya Aboumrad ◽  
Paul J Barr ◽  
Danielle Schubbe ◽  
...  

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.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 3402-3402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori E. Crosby ◽  
Francis J Real ◽  
Bradley Cruse ◽  
David Davis ◽  
Melissa Klein ◽  
...  

Background: Although hydroxyurea (HU) is an effective disease modifying treatment for sickle cell disease (SCD), uptake remains low in pediatric populations in part due to parental concerns such as side-effects and safety. NHLBI Guidelines recommend shared decision making for HU initiation to elicit family preferences and values; however, clinicians lack specific training. A HU shared decision-making (H-SDM) toolkit was developed to facilitate such discussions (NCT03442114). It includes: 1) decision aids to support parents (brochure, booklet, video narratives, and an in-visit issue card [featuring issues parents reported as key to decision-making about HU]); 2) quality improvement tools to monitor shared decision-making performance; and 3) a curriculum to train clinicians in advanced communication skills to engage parents in shared decision-making. This abstract describes the development and preliminary evaluation of the virtual reality (VR) component of the clinician curriculum. Objectives: The goals are to: 1) describe the development of a VR simulation for training clinicians in advanced communication skills, and 2) present preliminary data about its tolerability, acceptability, and impact. Methods: Immersive VR simulations administered via a VR headset were created. The VR environment was designed to replicate a patient room, and graphical character representatives (avatars) of parents and patients were designed based on common demographics of patients with SCD (Figure 1). During simulations, the provider verbally counseled the avatars around HU initiation with avatars' verbal and non-verbal responses matched appropriately. The H-SDM in-visit issue card was incorporated into the virtual environment to reinforce practice with this tool. The VR curriculum was piloted for initial acceptability with parents of a child with SCD and clinicians at a children's hospital. Evaluation: Hematology providers participated in the workshop training that included information on facilitating shared decision-making with subsequent deliberate practice of skills through VR simulations. Each provider completed at least one VR simulation. The view through the VR headset was displayed on to a projector screen so others could view the virtual interaction. Debriefing occurred regarding use of communication skills and utilization of the issue card. To assess tolerability, providers reported side effects related to participation. To assess acceptability, providers completed a modified version of the Spatial Presence Questionnaire and described their experience. Impact was assessed by self-report on a retrospective pre-post survey of confidence in specific communication skills using a 5-point scale (from not confident at all to very confident). Differences in confidence were assessed using Wilcoxon Signed-ranks tests. Results: Nine providers (5 pediatric hematologists and 4 nurse practitioners at 3 children's hospitals) participated. Tolerability: The VR experience was well tolerated with most providers reporting no side effects (Table 1). Acceptability: All providers agreed or strongly agreed that the VR experience captured their senses and that they felt physically present in the VR environment. Providers described the experience as "enjoyable", "immersive", and "fun". One provider noted, "It (the VR simulation) put me in clinic to experience what it felt like to discuss HU and use the tool." Impact: Providers' self-reported confidence significantly improved after VR simulations on 4 of 5 communication skills: confirming understanding, Z =1.98, p = .05, r = .44, eliciting parent concerns/values, Z = 2.22, p = .03, r = .50, using an elicit-provide-elicit approach, Z =1.8, p = .02, r = .50, minimizing medical jargon, Z = 1.8, p = .07, r = .40, and using open-ended questions, Z =1.98, p = .05, r = .44. Median scores changed by one-point for all responses and effects were medium to large (see Figure 2). Discussion: The VR curriculum was rated as immersive, realistic, and well-tolerated. Providers endorsed it as a desirable training method. Self-report of confidence in shared decision making-related communication skills improved following completion of VR simulation. Thus, initial data support that VR may be an effective method for educating providers to engage parents in shared decision making for HU. Disclosures Quinn: Amgen: Other: Research Support; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees.


2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kazuyoshi Okada ◽  
Ken Tsuchiya ◽  
Ken Sakai ◽  
Takahiro Kuragano ◽  
Akiko Uchida ◽  
...  

Abstract Background In Japan, forgoing life-sustaining treatment to respect the will of patients at the terminal stage is not stipulated by law. According to the Guidelines for the Decision-Making Process in Terminal-Stage Healthcare published by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare in 2007, the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy (JSDT) developed a proposal that was limited to patients at the terminal stage and did not explicitly cover patients with dementia. This proposal for the shared decision-making process regarding the initiation and continuation of maintenance hemodialysis was published in 2014. Methods and results In response to changes in social conditions, the JSDT revised the proposal in 2020 to provide guidance for the process by which the healthcare team can provide the best healthcare management and care with respect to the patient's will through advance care planning and shared decision making. For all patients with end-stage kidney disease, including those at the nonterminal stage and those with dementia, the decision-making process includes conservative kidney management. Conclusions The proposal is based on consensus rather than evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. The healthcare team is therefore not guaranteed to be legally exempt if the patient dies after the policies in the proposal are implemented and must respond appropriately at the discretion of each institution.


BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (Suppl 2) ◽  
pp. bmjopen-2017-016492.41
Author(s):  
N Thomas ◽  
K Jenkins ◽  
S Datta ◽  
R Endacott ◽  
J Kent ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document