Assessing the quality of shared decision making for elective orthopedic surgery across a large healthcare system: cross-sectional survey study

Abstract Background Clinical guidelines recommend engaging patients in shared decision making for common orthopedic procedures; however, limited work has assessed what is occurring in practice. This study assessed the quality of shared decision making for elective hip and knee replacement and spine surgery at four network-affiliated hospitals. Methods A cross-sectional sample of 875 adult patients undergoing total hip or knee joint replacement (TJR) for osteoarthritis or spine surgery for lumbar herniated disc or lumbar spinal stenosis was selected. Patients were mailed a survey including measures of Shared Decision Making (SDMP scale) and Informed, Patient-Centered (IPC) decisions. We examined decision-making across sites, surgeons, and conditions, and whether the decision-making measures were associated with better health outcomes. Analyses were adjusted for clustering of patients within surgeons. Results Six hundred forty-six surveys (74% response rate) were returned with sufficient responses for analysis. Patients who had TJR reported lower SDMP scores than patients who had spine surgery (2.2 vs. 2.8; p < 0.001). Patients who had TJR were more likely to make IPC decisions (OA = 70%, Spine = 41%; p < 0.001). SDMP and IPC scores varied widely across surgeons, but the site was not predictive of SDMP scores or IPC decisions (all p > 0.09). Higher SDMP scores and IPC decisions were associated with larger improvements in global health outcomes for patients who had TJR, but not patients who had spine surgery. Conclusions Measures of shared decision making and decision quality varied among patients undergoing common elective orthopedic procedures. Routine measurement of shared decision making provides insight into areas of strength across these different orthopedic conditions as well as areas in need of improvement.

Download Full-text

Doctor–patient relationship mediates the effects of shared decision making on health-related quality of life among women living with breast cancer

South African Journal of Psychology ◽

10.1177/0081246318801159 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 49 (3) ◽

pp. 364-375 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Nuworza Kugbey ◽

Kwaku Oppong Asante ◽

Anna Meyer-Weitz

Keyword(s):

Breast Cancer ◽

Quality Of Life ◽

Decision Making ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Shared Decision ◽

Patient Relationship ◽

Doctor Patient Relationship ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Patient Relationships

Decreased quality of life is a major challenge among women living with breast cancer due to treatment effects and other psychosocial comorbidities. However, shared decision making and doctor–patient relationship have been linked to improved quality of life, but the mechanism linking shared decision making and quality of life is poorly understood. This study therefore examined both the direct and indirect influences of shared decision making on quality of life through doctor–patient relationship among 205 women living with breast cancer in Ghana with a mean age of 52.49 years. Using a cross-sectional design, participants were administered questionnaires which measured quality of life, doctor–patient relationship, and shared decision making. Results showed that shared decision making had significant indirect influence on overall quality of life via doctor–patient relationships ( b = 4.69, 95% confidence interval = [0.006, 9.555]). Shared decision making had a significant effect on doctor–patient relationships ( b = 7.63, t = 6.76, p < .001) but no significant direct effect on quality of life ( b = 2.72, t = 0.510, p = .61). Findings suggest that shared decision making results in improved doctor–patient relationships which probably lead to better quality of life among women living with breast cancer. These findings underscore the need for increased patient involvement in medical decisions to improve interpersonal relationships and consequently quality of life.

Download Full-text

Value discrepancies between nurses and patients: A survey study

Nursing Ethics ◽

10.1177/0969733020906595 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 27 (4) ◽

pp. 1044-1055

Author(s):

Liesbeth Van Humbeeck ◽

Simon Malfait ◽

Els Holvoet ◽

Dirk Vogelaers ◽

Michel De Pauw ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Treatment Options ◽

Information Provision ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

University Hospital ◽

Survey Study ◽

Shared Decision ◽

Patient Centeredness ◽

Cross Sectional

Background Patient-centeredness, respect for patient autonomy, and shared decision-making have now made it to center stage in discussions on quality of care. Knowing what actually counts in care and how it should be accomplished from the patients’ and nurses’ perspective seems crucial. Aim To explore how patients and their nurses perceive the importance and enactment of values in their healthcare. Research design An observational, cross-sectional study using a self-developed questionnaire, consisting of 15 items related to seven values (e.g. uniqueness, autonomy, professionalism, compassion, responsiveness, partnership, and empowerment) as described in the taxonomy of Bastemeijer et al. Participants and research context The survey was completed by 384 patients and 81 nurses. Participants were recruited on eight internal medicine wards of a 1000-bed university hospital in Belgium. Ethical considerations This study was approved by the ethical committee of the Ghent University Hospital (B670201836799). Findings (1) Patients and nurses prioritize values of care differently; (2) nurses report not being able to enact the values they prioritize in actual practice as much as one would like to; and (3) there is a gap in experienced delivery of a comprehensible explanation of all treatment options, a conversation based on equality, making shared decisions, and being non-judgmental between nurses and patients. Discussion Our findings challenge nurses’ overemphasis on professional compassion and uniqueness while arguing for increased attention on authentic shared decision-making and empowerment. The first step to a patient-centered culture truly involving patients in their healthcare is communication and information provision, rather than focusing on tangible and normative constructs. Conclusion Our findings revealed differences in prioritization and actual enactment of values in care between patients and nurses. This was especially so for values related to communication, provision of complete unbiased information, and shared decision-making. Nurses should prioritize providing comprehensible information and using conversations based on equality to make decision together with patients.

Download Full-text

The Patient's Perspective on Shared Decision-Making in Advanced Parkinson's Disease: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study

Frontiers in Neurology ◽

10.3389/fneur.2019.00896 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 10 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Frouke A. P. Nijhuis ◽

Lieneke van den Heuvel ◽

Bastiaan R. Bloem ◽

Bart Post ◽

Marjan J. Meinders

Keyword(s):

Parkinson’S Disease ◽

Decision Making ◽

Parkinson's Disease ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Survey Study ◽

Shared Decision ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Advanced Parkinson’S Disease ◽

Patient’S Perspective

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

Optimizing patient adherence to stroke rehabilitation: A mixed method telerehabilitation trial (Preprint)

10.2196/preprints.32134 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Isabelle Gaboury ◽

Michel Tousignant ◽

Hélène Corriveau ◽

Matthew Menear ◽

Guylaine Le Dorze ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Stroke Rehabilitation ◽

Patient Adherence ◽

Interprofessional Collaboration ◽

Interdisciplinary Collaboration ◽

Control Group ◽

Shared Decision ◽

The Impact

BACKGROUND Strong evidence supports beginning stroke rehabilitation as soon as the patient’s medical status has stabilized and continuing following discharge from acute care. However, adherence to rehabilitation treatments over the rehabilitation phase has been shown to be suboptimal. OBJECTIVE Objective: The aim of this study is to assess the impact of a telerehabilitation platform on stroke patients’ adherence to a rehabilitation plan and on their level of reintegration to normal social activities, in comparison with usual care. The primary outcome is patient adherence to stroke rehabilitation (up to 12 weeks), which is hypothesized to influence reintegration to normal living. Secondary outcomes for patients include functional recovery and independence, depression, adverse events related to telerehabilitation, use of services (up to 6 months), perception of interprofessional shared decision making, and quality of services received. Interprofessional collaboration as well as quality of interprofessional shared decision making will be measured on clinicians. METHODS In this interrupted time series with a convergent qualitative component, rehabilitation teams will be trained to develop rehabilitation treatment plans that engage the patient and family, while taking advantage of a telerehabilitation platform to deliver the treatment. The intervention will entail 220 patients to receive stroke telerehabilitation with an interdisciplinary group of clinicians (telerehabilitation) versus face-to-face, standard of care (n = 110 patients). RESULTS Results: Our Research Ethics Board has approved the study in June 2020. Data collection for the control group is underway, with another year planned before we begin the intervention phase. CONCLUSIONS This study will contribute to minimize both knowledge and practice gaps, while producing robust, in-depth data on the factors related to the effectiveness of telerehabilitation in a stroke rehabilitation continuum. Findings will inform best practices guidelines regarding telecare services and the provision of telerehabilitation, including recommendations regarding effective interdisciplinary collaboration regarding stroke rehabilitation. CLINICALTRIAL ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04440215

Download Full-text

Improving the Perception of Patient-Centered Wellness in a Virtual Population During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Journal of Doctoral Nursing Practice ◽

10.1891/jdnp-d-20-00078 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. JDNP-D-20-00078

Author(s):

Sybilla Myers ◽

Christopher Kennedy

Keyword(s):

Quality Of Life ◽

Decision Making ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Cognitive Theory ◽

Well Being ◽

Mobile App ◽

Shared Decision ◽

Patient Centered ◽

The Social

BackgroundPerceived health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is fundamental to well-being and is a meaningful way to measure physical and mental health.Local ProblemNo standard method exists for measuring perceived HRQOL during the COVID-19 pandemic in participants as they attempt to improve their self-determined wellness goals. An implementation plan that considers the social distancing limitations imposed can be used to predict an individual’s likelihood of long-term success.MethodsDuring the four, 2-week plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles, the Social Cognitive Theory model informed the implementation of the four core interventions. To guide iterative changes, the data was analyzed through Excel and run charts.InterventionsThe four core interventions were the shared decision-making tool (SDMT), health mobile app tool (HMAT), wellness tracker tool (WTT), and the team engagement plan.ResultsAmong 28 participants, perceived quality of life increased by 70%, engagement in shared decision-making increased to 82%, app use and confidence increased to 85%, and goal attainment reached 81%.ConclusionsThe SDMT, health app, and wellness tracker created a methodical plan of accountability for increasing participant wellness. The contextual barrier of the COVID-19 pandemic added a negative wellness burden which was mitigated by creating a patient-centered culture of wellness.

Download Full-text

Shared decision-making approach to taper postoperative opioids in spine surgery patients with preoperative opioid use

Pain ◽

10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002456 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽

Author(s):

Peter Uhrbrand ◽

Mikkel Mylius Rasmussen ◽

Simon Haroutounian ◽

Lone Nikolajsen

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Shared Decision Making ◽

Spine Surgery ◽

Shared Decision ◽

Opioid Use

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