Patient attendance at molecular tumor board: A new means of shared decision making?

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18001-e18001
Author(s):  
Timothy Lewis Cannon ◽  
Donald L. Trump ◽  
Laura Knopp ◽  
Hongkun Wang ◽  
Tiffani DeMarco ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Medical Decision Making ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Tumor Board ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Treatment Team ◽  
Level Of Satisfaction ◽  
Holistic Method ◽  
Molecular Tumor Board

e18001 Background: Patient engagement in medical decision-making improves patient related outcomes through compliance and patient satisfaction. The Inova Schar Cancer Institute (ISCI) has a weekly molecular tumor board (MTB) to match comprehensive genomic sequencing results with targeted therapies for patients. The ISCI MTB invites patients to attend and engage in the MTB discussion. We performed a pilot study to investigate the feasibility and satisfaction in patients who attended MTB. Methods: During the time of this study, August 2017 through October 2018, 139 patients were presented and all 20 who were able to attend MTB completed pre-and post- MTB surveys. Patients who did not attend were either not invited by their primary oncologist, unable to attend, or chose not to attend. The survey included six questions related to comprehension, engagement, and satisfaction with the treatment team. Results: There was a statistically significant change for the question “I am satisfied with how well informed I am about targeted therapy” with p = 0.016. All 20 patients answered positively that it was beneficial for them to attend. Many patients expressed concerns about their difficulty understanding the technical aspects of the meeting. Conclusions: Patients who attended MTB reported a higher level of satisfaction after MTB attendance as compared to before MTB. This may reflect a sense of engagement in shared decision making rather than comprehension of genomic information. A more holistic method of studying this practice would include sampling a larger patient population and a formal evaluation of the physicians’ experience with patients attending. Supported by philanthropic funds from the Inova Schar Cancer Institute.

scholarly journals Navigating the Decision Space: Shared Medical Decision Making as Distributed Cognition

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (7) ◽  
pp. 1035-1048 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine D. Lippa ◽  
Markus A. Feufel ◽  
F. Eric Robinson ◽  
Valerie L. Shalin
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Distributed Cognition ◽  
Medical Decision Making ◽  
Medical Training ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Access To Information ◽  
Decision Space

Despite increasing prominence, little is known about the cognitive processes underlying shared decision making. To investigate these processes, we conceptualize shared decision making as a form of distributed cognition. We introduce a Decision Space Model to identify physical and social influences on decision making. Using field observations and interviews, we demonstrate that patients and physicians in both acute and chronic care consider these influences when identifying the need for a decision, searching for decision parameters, making actionable decisions Based on the distribution of access to information and actions, we then identify four related patterns: physician dominated; physician-defined, patient-made; patient-defined, physician-made; and patient-dominated decisions. Results suggests that (a) decision making is necessarily distributed between physicians and patients, (b) differential access to information and action over time requires participants to transform a distributed task into a shared decision, and (c) adverse outcomes may result from failures to integrate physician and patient reasoning. Our analysis unifies disparate findings in the medical decision-making literature and has implications for improving care and medical training.

scholarly journals Institutional constraints on strategic maneuvering in shared medical decision-making

2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans ◽  
Dima Mohammed
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Medical Decision Making ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Institutional Constraints ◽  
Treatment Preferences ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Basic Principles ◽  
The Ideal

In this paper it is first investigated to what extent the institutional goal and basic principles of shared decision making are compatible with the aim and rules for critical discussion. Next, some techniques that doctors may use to present their own treatment preferences strategically in a shared decision making process are discussed and evaluated both from the perspective of the ideal of shared decision making and from that of critical discussion.

scholarly journals Shared decision making in mild cognitive impairment

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 160-164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea M. Mejia ◽  
Glenn E. Smith ◽  
Meredith Wicklund ◽  
Melissa J. Armstrong
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Mild Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Medical Decision Making ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Medical Evidence

Shared decision making (SDM) occurs when patients and clinicians consider patients' values and preferences while discussing medical evidence to inform healthcare decisions. SDM enables patients with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to express values and preferences when making current healthcare decisions and presents a unique opportunity to inform future decision making in the case of further cognitive decline. However, clinicians often fail to facilitate SDM with patients with MCI. This review describes research pertaining to value solicitation, weighing of the medical evidence, and medical decision making for individuals with MCI, explores the role of caregivers, identifies barriers to and facilitators of SDM in MCI, and suggests strategies to optimize SDM for persons with MCI in neurology clinical practice. Further research is needed to identify more strategies for decision support for individuals affected by cognitive impairment.

Prudence in Shared Decision-Making: The Missing Link between the “Technically Correct” and the “Morally Good” in Medical Decision-Making

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Muleli Kioko ◽  
Pablo Requena Meana
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Patient Autonomy ◽  
Intellectual Ability ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Physician Patient Relationship ◽  
Good Healing ◽  
The Right ◽  
Physician Patient

Abstract Shared Decision-Making is a widely accepted model of the physician–patient relationship providing an ethical environment in which physician beneficence and patient autonomy are respected. It acknowledges the moral responsibility of physician and patient by promoting a deliberative collaboration in which their individual expertise—complementary in nature, equal in importance—is emphasized, and personal values and preferences respected. Its goal coincides with Pellegrino and Thomasma’s proximate end of medicine, that is, a technically correct and morally good healing decision for and with a particular patient. We argue that by perfecting the intellectual ability to apprehend the complexity of clinical situations, and through a perfection of the application of the first principles of practical reason, prudence is able to point toward the right and good shared medical decision. A prudent shared medical decision is therefore always in keeping with the kind of person the physician and the patient have chosen to be.

scholarly journals Development and Evaluation of the Shared Decision Making Process Scale: A Short Patient-Reported Measure

2020 ◽  
pp. 0272989X2097787
Author(s):  
K. D. Valentine ◽  
Ha Vo ◽  
Floyd J. Fowler ◽  
Suzanne Brodney ◽  
Michael J. Barry ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Construct Validity ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Small Sample ◽  
Decision Quality ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Partial Credit ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Process Scale

Background The Shared Decision Making (SDM) Process scale is a short patient-reported measure of the amount of SDM that occurs around a medical decision. SDM Process items have been used previously in studies of surgical decision making and exhibited discriminant and construct validity. Method Secondary data analysis was conducted across 8 studies of 11 surgical conditions with 3965 responses. Each study contained SDM Process items that assessed the discussion of options, pros and cons, and preferences. Item wording, content, and number of items varied, as did inclusion of measures assessing decision quality, decisional conflict (SURE scale), and regret. Several approaches for scoring, weighting, and the number of items were compared to identify an optimal approach. Optimal SDM Process scores were compared with measures of decision quality, conflict, and regret to examine construct validity; meta-analysis generated summary results. Results Although all versions of the scale were highly correlated, a short, partial credit, equally weighted version of the scale showed favorable properties. Overall, higher SDM Process scores were related to higher decision quality ( d = 0.18, P = 0.029), higher SURE scale scores ( d = 0.57, P < 0.001), and lower decision regret ( d = −0.34, P < 0.001). Significant heterogeneity was present in all validity analyses. Limitations Included studies all focused on surgical decisions, several had small sample sizes, and many were retrospective. Conclusion SDM Process scores showed resilience to coding changes, and a scheme using the short, partial credit, with equal weights was adopted. The SDM Process scores demonstrated a small, positive relationship with decision quality and were consistently related to lower decision conflict and less regret, providing evidence of validity across several surgical decisions.

scholarly journals Treatment Choice in Adolescents With Cleft Lip and/or Palate: The Importance of Shared Decision-Making

2019 ◽  
Vol 56 (9) ◽  
pp. 1220-1229
Author(s):  
Francesca Wogden ◽  
Alyson Norman ◽  
Louise Dibben
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Young People ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Cleft Lip ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Pediatric Dentist ◽  
Semistructured Interviews ◽  
Inductive Thematic Analysis

Objective: Limited research has studied the involvement of children in medical decision-making. The aim of the study was to understand the involvement of adolescents with cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) in decisions about elective surgeries and treatments. Design: Parents and professionals completed mixed-methods questionnaires about the degree to which children had been involved in choices about elective treatments. Data were analyzed using content analysis. Young people aged 12 to 25 years were asked to take part in semistructured interviews. The data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Setting: Questionnaire data collection took place online, and interview data were collected via messenger or telephone-based interviews. Participants: The study employed 30 participants; 11 young people (3 male, 8 female), 17 parents (13 mothers, 4 fathers), and 5 professionals (2 surgeons, 2 speech and language therapists, and 1 pediatric dentist). Results: Five main themes were identified. These reflected participants feeling that with increasing age should come increased involvement in decision-making and that it was important for adolescents to “have a voice” during decision-making. Parents, peers, and health professionals were identified as influencing decisions. Most adolescents reported overall satisfaction with their involvement in decision-making but sometimes felt “left in the dark” by professionals or under pressure from parents. A desire to improve speech and/or appearance was as an area where adolescents wanted to be more involved in decision-making. Conclusions: Shared decision-making is an important factor for psychological well-being by promoting autonomy and self-esteem among adolescents with CL/P.

scholarly journals 41st Annual North American Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making; October 21, 2019; Portland, Oregon Keynote Address The More Who Die, the Less We Care: Confronting the Deadly Arithmetic of Compassion

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 238146832091431
Author(s):  
Paul Slovic
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
North American ◽  
Medical Decision Making ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Keynote Address ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Daily Lives ◽  
The Face

In this keynote address delivered at the 41st Annual North American Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making, I discuss the psychology behind valuing human lives. Research confirms what we experience in our daily lives. We are inconsistent and sometimes incoherent in our valuation of human life. We value individual lives greatly, but these lives lose their value when they become part of a larger crisis. As a result, we do too little to protect human lives in the face of catastrophic threats from violence, natural disasters, and other causes. In medicine, this may pose difficult choices when treating individual patients with expensive therapies that keep hope alive but are not cost-effective for the population, for example, with end of life. Lifesaving judgments and decisions are highly context-dependent, subject to many forms of response mode and framing effects and affective biases. This has implications for risk communication and the concept of shared decision making. Slower, more introspective decision making may reduce some of the biases associated with fast, intuitive decisions. But slow thinking can also introduce serious biases. Understanding the strengths and weaknesses of fast and slow thinking is a necessary first step toward valuing lives humanely and improving decisions.

Does shared decision making for PSA screening empower patients?

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (6_suppl) ◽  
pp. e549-e549
Author(s):  
James Austin Talcott ◽  
Maureen Bezuhly ◽  
Gina Aharanoff ◽  
Jessica Herzstein ◽  
Michael P. Osborne ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Specific Antigen ◽  
Cluster Randomized Trial ◽  
Educational Interventions ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Psa Screening ◽  
Screening Guideline

e549 Background: Participant characteristics affect shared decision making. In a randomized trial of physician (MD) educational interventions to improve cancer screening guideline compliance, we studied patient (PT) and MD recall of discussions and how PT characteristics affected recall. Methods: In a cluster-randomized trial of educational supports for MDs, we are enrolling an age- (30-89 years) and sex-stratified sample of 216 PTs who underwent a physical examination at two urban hospitals, 18 for each of 12 primary care MDs. Screening guideline formatting (color-coding) and academic detailing were randomly assigned in a 2x2 design. Immediate post-encounter surveys recorded PT and MD recall of screening discussions. Results: Of the first 174 participants, 92 were men. PTs were diverse (69% white) and well educated (73% college degree). When MDs reported a prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening discussion, 32% of PTs did not, and 26% of MDs disagreed when PTs reported the discussion occurred. Further, when the MD reported recommending screening, 26% of PTs disagreed, and 33% of MDs disagreed when their patients reported a recommendation. Overall, agreement between all PTs and MDs on whether screening was recommended was fair (kappa = 0.29) but there was no agreement for PTs over 70 years (kappa = -0.03). PTs reported more elements of shared decision making than MDs (data not shown). When both PT and MD or the MD alone reported that all elements of shared medical decision making had occurred, agreement on whether screening was recommended improved (kappa = 0.54 and 0.45, respectively). When PTs disagreed with their MD, they more often reported recommending for screening not against (11 vs. 4). Conclusions: In a highly educated, diverse PT population, PTs and MDs surveyed immediately after their encounter often disagreed on whether PSA screening was discussed and recommended. Disagreement was worse with older PT age but improved when both PT and MD or the MD alone reported all shared decision making elements. Clinical trial information: NCT02430948.

scholarly journals Patient autonomy in dental medical decision making – demonstrating the need for shared decision making

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mareike Benecke ◽  
Jürgen Kasper ◽  
Christoph Heesen ◽  
Nina Schäffler ◽  
Daniel Reissmann
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
General Practice ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Decisions ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Study Results

Abstract Background: Evidence-based Dentistry (EBD), decision aids, patient preferences and autonomy preferences (AP) play an important role in shared decision making (SDM) and are useful tools in the process of medical and dental decisions as well as in developing of quality criteria for decision making in many fields of health care. However, there aren’t many studies on SDM and AP in the field of dentistry. This study aimed at exploring patients’ autonomy preferences in dentistry in comparison to other medical domains. Methods: As a first step, a consecutive sample of 100 dental patients and 16 dentists was recruited at a university-based prosthodontic clinic to assess and compare patients’ and dentists’ preferences regarding their roles in dental decision making for commonly performed diagnostic and treatment decisions using the Control Preference Scale (CPS). This was followed by a cross sectional survey to study autonomy preferences in three cohorts of 100 patients each recruited from general practices, a multiple sclerosis clinic, and a university-based prosthodontic clinic . A questionnaire with combined items from the Autonomy Preference Index (API) to assess general and the CPS to assess specific preferences was used in this process. Results: Dentists were slightly less willing to deliver control than patients willing to enact autonomy. Decisions about management of tooth loss were however considered relevant for a shared decision making by both parties. Highest AP was expressed by people with multiple sclerosis, lowest by patients in dentistry (CPS means: dentistry 2.5, multiple sclerosis 2.1, general practice 2.4, p=.035). Patients analysis showed considerable differences in autonomy preferences referring to different decision types (p<.001). More autonomy was needed for treatment decisions in comparison to diagnostic decisions, for trivial compared to severe conditions, and for dental care compared to general practice (all: p<.001). Conclusion: The study results showed substantial relevance of patient participation in decision making in dentistry. Furthermore, a need has been discovered to refer to specific medical decisions instead of assessing autonomy preferences in general.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document