Development of a communication skills based workshop for Shared Decision-Making (SDM)

2015 ◽  
Vol 3 (4) ◽  
pp. 529 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen Kelly-Blake ◽  
Adesuwa Olomu ◽  
Francesca Dwamena ◽  
Katherine Dontje ◽  
Rebecca Henry ◽  
...  

Rationale, aims and objectives:Shared Decision-Making (SDM) is increasingly recommended to improve patient-centered care. Implementation of SDM in routine practice has been challenging.  Our aim was to develop and evaluate a brief SDM workshop based on a communication skills approach for primary care physicians (PCPs). The clinical problem chosen was one in which over-treatment is a concern: screening and treatment options in stable coronary artery disease (CAD) following a mildly abnormal stress test.  Method: Essential training tasks were identified from existing communication skills and shared decision-making skills. A 90-minute workshop was developed for use with a patient decision aid. Didactic content and role plays featuring 3 case scenarios with interactive feedback formed the approach. Participants were academic internal and family medicine PCPs. Retrospective pre-post surveys evaluated self-reported effectiveness in actual clinic encounters. Results: Seventy-two percent (21/29) of PCPs in the 2 clinics participated in the Communication-Shared Decision Making (COMM-SDM) Training Program. Providers reported increased confidence in doing shared decision-making with CAD patients. Decreases in confidence occurred in the specific task of “setting the stage for the encounter”. Some PCPs were uncomfortable with counseling patients making decisions about optimal medical therapy or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), preferring the cardiologist to discuss the options.Conclusions: SDM as an extension of a communication approach appears logistically feasible. The essential tasks of this training approach may be applicable to other clinical decisions where shared decision-making is appropriate, either because the decisions are preference sensitive or because testing and treatment patterns are frequently inconsistent with scientific evidence.

Author(s):  
Catherine H. Yu ◽  
◽  
Calvin Ke ◽  
Aleksandra Jovicic ◽  
Susan Hall ◽  
...  

Abstract Background An individualized approach using shared decision-making (SDM) and goal setting is a person-centred strategy that may facilitate prioritization of treatment options. SDM has not been adopted extensively in clinical practice. An interprofessional approach to SDM with tools to facilitate patient participation may overcome barriers to SDM use. The aim was to explore decision-making experiences of health professionals and people with diabetes (PwD), then develop an intervention to facilitate interprofessional shared decision-making (IP-SDM) and goal-setting. Methods This was a multi-phased study. 1) Feasibility: Using a descriptive qualitative study, individual interviews with primary care physicians, nurses, dietitians, pharmacists, and PwD were conducted. The interviews explored their experiences with SDM and priority-setting, including facilitators and barriers, relevance of a decision aid for priority-setting, and integration of SDM and a decision aid into practice. 2) Development: An evidence-based SDM toolkit was developed, consisting of an online decision aid, MyDiabetesPlan, and implementation tools. MyDiabetesPlan was reviewed by content experts for accuracy and comprehensiveness. Usability assessment was done with 3) heuristic evaluation and 4) user testing, followed by 5) refinement. Results Seven PwD and 10 clinicians participated in the interviews. From interviews with PwD, we identified that: (1) approaches to decision-making were diverse and dynamic; (2) a trusting relationship with the clinician and dialog were critical precursors to SDM; and, (3) goal-setting was a dynamic process. From clinicians, we found: (1) complementary (holistic and disease specific) approaches to the complex patient were used; (2) patient-provider agendas for goal-setting were often conflicting; (3) a flexible approach to decision-making was needed; and, (4) conflict could be resolved through SDM. Following usability assessment, we redesigned MyDiabetesPlan to consist of data collection and recommendation stages. Findings were used to finalize a multi-component toolkit and implementation strategy, consisting of MyDiabetesPlan, instructional card and videos, and orientation meetings with participating patients and clinicians. Conclusions A decision aid can provide information, facilitate clinician-patient dialog and strengthen the therapeutic relationship. Implementation of the decision aid can fit into a model of team care that respects and exemplifies professional identity, and can facilitate intra-team communication. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02379078. Date of Registration: 11 February 2015.


2012 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia A. Zanini ◽  
Sara Rubinelli

This paper aims to identify the challenges in the implementation of shared decision-making (SDM) when the doctor and the patient have a difference of opinion. It analyses the preconditions of the resolution of this difference of opinion by using an analytical and normative framework known in the field of argumentation theory as the ideal model of critical discussion. This analysis highlights the communication skills and attitudes that both doctors and patients must apply in a dispute resolution-oriented communication. Questions arise over the methods of empowerment of doctors and patients in these skills and attitudes as the preconditions of SDM. Overall, the paper highlights aspects in which research is needed to design appropriate programmes of training, education and support in order to equip doctors and patients with the means to successfully engage in shared decision-making.


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 ◽  
...  

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.


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 ◽  
Author(s):  
Apurupa Ballamudi ◽  
John Chi

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a process in which patients and providers work together to make medical decisions with a patient-centric focus, considering available evidence, treatment options, the patient’s values and goals, and risks and benefits. It is important for all providers to understand how to effectively use SDM in their interactions with patients to improve patients’ experiences throughout their healthcare journey. There are strategies to improve communication between patients and their providers, particularly when communicating quantitative data, risks and benefits, and treatment options. Decision aids (DAs) can help patients understand complex medical information and make an informed decision. This review contains 9 figures, 4 tables and 45 references Key words: Shared decision-making, decision-making, communication, risk and benefit, patient-centered, health literacy, quality of life, decision aids, option grid, pictographs.


2019 ◽  
Vol 184 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 467-475 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bella Etingen ◽  
Jennifer N Hill ◽  
Laura J Miller ◽  
Alan Schwartz ◽  
Sherri L LaVela ◽  
...  

Abstract Objective To describe current practices used by Veterans Administration (VA) mental health (MH) providers involved in post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatment planning to support engagement of veterans with PTSD in shared decision-making (SDM). Methods Semi-structured interviews with MH providers (n = 9) were conducted at 1 large VA, audio-recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analyzed deductively, guided by a published account of the integral SDM components for MH care. Results While discussing forming a cohesive team with patients, providers noted the importance of establishing rapport and assessing treatment readiness. Providers’ clinical knowledge/expertise, knowledge of the facility’s treatment options, knowledge of how to navigate the VA MH care system, and patient factors (goals/preferences, factors influencing treatment engagement) were noted as important to consider when patients and providers exchange information. When negotiating the treatment plan, providers indicated that conversations should include treatment recommendations and concurrent opportunities for personalization. They also emphasized the importance of discussions to finalize a mutually agreeable patient- and provider-informed treatment plan and measure treatment impact. Conclusion These results offer a preliminary understanding of VA MH providers’ facilitation of SDM for PTSD care. Findings may provide insights for MH providers who wish to engage patients with PTSD in SDM.


2018 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 378-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Quigley ◽  
Michael P Dillon ◽  
Stefania Fatone

Background: Shared decision making is a consultative process designed to encourage patient participation in decision making by providing accurate information about the treatment options and supporting deliberation with the clinicians about treatment options. The process can be supported by resources such as decision aids and discussion guides designed to inform and facilitate often difficult conversations. As this process increases in use, there is opportunity to raise awareness of shared decision making and the international standards used to guide the development of quality resources for use in areas of prosthetic/orthotic care. Objectives: To describe the process used to develop shared decision-making resources, using an illustrative example focused on decisions about the level of dysvascular partial foot amputation or transtibial amputation. Development process: The International Patient Decision Aid Standards were used to guide the development of the decision aid and discussion guide focused on decisions about the level of dysvascular partial foot amputation or transtibial amputation. Examples from these shared decision-making resources help illuminate the stages of development including scoping and design, research synthesis, iterative development of a prototype, and preliminary testing with patients and clinicians not involved in the development process. Conclusion: Lessons learnt through the process, such as using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards checklist and development guidelines, may help inform others wanting to develop similar shared decision-making resources given the applicability of shared decision making to many areas of prosthetic-/orthotic-related practice. Clinical relevance Shared decision making is a process designed to guide conversations that help patients make an informed decision about their healthcare. Raising awareness of shared decision making and the international standards for development of high-quality decision aids and discussion guides is important as the approach is introduced in prosthetic-/orthotic-related practice.


Author(s):  
Martin H.N. Tattersall ◽  
David W. Kissane

The respect of a patient’s autonomous rights within the model of patient-centred care has led to shared decision-making, rather than more paternalistic care. Understanding patient needs, preferences, and lifestyle choices are central to developing shared treatment decisions. Patients can be prepared through the use of question prompt sheets and other decision aids. Audio-recording of informative consultations further helps. A variety of factors like the patient’s age, tumour type and stage of disease, an available range of similar treatment options, and their risk-benefit ratios will impact on the use of shared decision-making. Modifiable barriers to shared decision-making can be identified. Teaching shared decision-making includes the practice of agenda setting, use of partnership statements, clarification of patient preferences, varied approaches to explaining potential treatment benefits and risks, review of patient values and lifestyle factors, and checking patient understanding–this sequence helps both clinicians and patients to optimally reach a shared treatment decision.


BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (12) ◽  
pp. e031763 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hanna Bomhof-Roordink ◽  
Fania R Gärtner ◽  
Anne M Stiggelbout ◽  
Arwen H Pieterse

ObjectivesTo (1) provide an up-to-date overview of shared decision making (SDM)-models, (2) give insight in the prominence of components present in SDM-models, (3) describe who is identified as responsible within the components (patient, healthcare professional, both, none), (4) show the occurrence of SDM-components over time, and (5) present an SDM-map to identify SDM-components seen as key, per healthcare setting.DesignSystematic review.Eligibility criteriaPeer-reviewed articles in English presenting a new or adapted model of SDM.Information sourcesAcademic Search Premier, Cochrane, Embase, Emcare, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Web of Science were systematically searched for articles published up to and including September 2, 2019.ResultsForty articles were included, each describing a unique SDM-model. Twelve models were generic, the others were specific to a healthcare setting. Fourteen were based on empirical data, 26 primarily on analytical thinking. Fifty-three different elements were identified and clustered into 24 components. Overall, Describe treatment optionswas the most prominent component across models. Components present in >50% of models were:Make the decision (75%),Patient preferences (65%),Tailor information (65%),Deliberate (58%), Create choice awareness (55%), andLearn about the patient(53%). In the majority of the models (27/40), both healthcare professional and patient were identified as actors. Over time,Describe treatment optionsandMake the decisionare the two components which are present in most models in any time period.Create choice awarenessstood out for being present in a markedly larger proportion of models over time.ConclusionsThis review provides an up-to-date overview of SDM-models, showing that SDM-models quite consistently share some components but that a unified view on what SDM is, is still lacking. Clarity about what SDM constitutes is essential though for implementation, assessment, and research purposes. A map is offered to identify SDM-components seen as key.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration CRD42015019740


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document