SHARED DECISION MAKING IN ONCOLOGY AND PALLIATIVE CARE

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul A Glare
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Cognitive Biases ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Human Decision ◽  
Based Medicine

Background: Cancer raises many questions for people afflicted by it. Do I want to have genetic testing? Will I comply with screening recommendations? If I am diagnosed with it, where will I have treatment? What treatment modalities will I have? Will I go on a clinical trial? Am I willing to bankrupt my family in the process of pursuing treatment? Will I write an advance care plan? Will I accept hospice if I have run out of available treatment options? Most of these questions have more than one correct answer, and the evidence for the superiority of one option over another is either not available or does not allow differentiation. Often the best choice between two or more valid approaches depends on how individuals value their respective risks and benefits; “preference-based medicine” may be more important than “evidence-based medicine.” There are various models for eliciting preferences, but applying them can raise a number of challenges. Objectives: To present the concepts, the value, the strategies, the quandaries, and the potential pitfalls of Shared Decision Making in Oncology and Palliative Care. Method: Narrative review. Results: Some challenges to practicing preference-based medicine in oncology and palliative care include: some patients don’t want to participate in shared decision making (SDM); the whole situation needs to be addressed, not just part of it; but are some topics out of bounds? Cognitive biases apply as much in SDM as any other human decision making, affecting the choice; how numerically equivalent data are framed can also affect the outcome; conducting SDM is also important at the end of life. Conclusions: By being aware of the potential pitfalls with SDM, clinicians are more able to facilitate the discussion so that the patients’ choices truly reflect their informed preferences, at a time when stakes and emotions are high.

Neuropalliative Care in the Inpatient Setting

2021 ◽  
Vol 41 (05) ◽  
pp. 619-630
Author(s):  
Adeline L. Goss ◽  
Claire J. Creutzfeldt
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Inpatient Setting ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Care Needs ◽  
Goals Of Care ◽  
Advanced Stages ◽  
Palliative Care Needs

AbstractThe palliative care needs of inpatients with neurologic illness are varied, depending on diagnosis, acuity of illness, available treatment options, prognosis, and goals of care. Inpatient neurologists ought to be proficient at providing primary palliative care and effective at determining when palliative care consultants are needed. In the acute setting, palliative care should be integrated with lifesaving treatments using a framework of determining goals of care, thoughtfully prognosticating, and engaging in shared decision-making. This framework remains important when aggressive treatments are not desired or not available, or when patients are admitted to the hospital for conditions related to advanced stages of chronic neurologic disease. Because prognostic uncertainty characterizes much of neurology, inpatient neurologists must develop communication strategies that account for uncertainty while supporting shared decision-making and allowing patients and families to preserve hope. In this article, we illustrate the approach to palliative care in inpatient neurology.

Shared Decision-Making in the Context of Uncertain Care Goals and Outcomes: Dissecting a Penetrating Abdominal Trauma Case Complicated by Enterocutaneous Fistulae

2020 ◽  
Vol 86 (11) ◽  
pp. 1456-1461
Author(s):  
Buddy Marterre ◽  
Jaewook Shin ◽  
William T. Hillman Terzian
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Morbidly Obese ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Trauma Case ◽  
Experience Education

Surgeons care deeply about their patients, their patient’s surgical outcomes, and their fund of knowledge as it relates to disease, treatment options, and risk is remarkable. Unfortunately, surgical patients’ values, hopes, fears, and unacceptable levels of suffering are rarely elicited and addressed while constructing surgical treatment plans, even when the stakes are high. How can surgeons bring all their experience, education, and expertise to bear in a patient-centered manner amidst uncertainty? Surgeons typically emulate mentors who either employed a solely informative, facilitative, or directive/paternalistic approach to decision-making. These 3 styles fail to simultaneously address: (1) what matters most to patients and (2) the surgeon’s expertise. Since communication in each of these 3 approaches is unidirectional, and the decisional power locus is imbalanced, they are unshared, nonpartnering, and—perhaps surprisingly—not patient-centered. Patient-centered, collaborative shared decision-making (SDM) approaches align with palliative care principles and are rarely employed, taught, or modeled. Furthermore, nonpartnering approaches to surgical decision-making are often laden with unintended consequences, such as patient and family suffering and the suffering of surgeons. We present the high-risk case of an abdominal gunshot wound in a morbidly obese man, which was complicated by 3 enterocutaneous fistulae and a loss of abdominal wall integrity, where ongoing empathic, partnering SDM dialogue is enabling a patient-centered and value‐concordant care plan. The authors invite you to virtually journey with us as this case unfolds, as the impending surgical decisions are substantial and weighty. Uncertainty and risks appear at every turn—providing additional challenges to overcome.

scholarly journals Patient decision aid based on multi-criteria decision analysis for disease-modifying drugs for multiple sclerosis: prototype development

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 ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Decision Aid ◽  
Disease Modifying Drugs ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Further Development

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.

Shared Decision Making

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Apurupa Ballamudi ◽  
John Chi
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Medical Information ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Risks And Benefits ◽  
Benefit Patient ◽  
Risk And Benefit

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.

Shared Decision-Making in Palliative Care: A Maternalistic Approach

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-220
Author(s):  
Laura Specker Sullivan ◽  
Mary Adler ◽  
Joshua Arenth ◽  
Shelly Ozark ◽  
Leigh Vaughan
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision

scholarly journals An Exploratory Pilot Study to Describe Shared Decision-Making for PTSD Treatment Planning: The Provider Perspective

2019 ◽  
Vol 184 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 467-475 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bella Etingen ◽  
Jennifer N Hill ◽  
Laura J Miller ◽  
Alan Schwartz ◽  
Sherri L LaVela ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Planning ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Post Traumatic Stress ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Treatment Readiness ◽  
Ptsd Treatment

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.

Development of shared decision-making resources to help inform difficult healthcare decisions: An example focused on dysvascular partial foot and transtibial amputations

2018 ◽  
Vol 42 (4) ◽  
pp. 378-386 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Quigley ◽  
Michael P Dillon ◽  
Stefania Fatone
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Development Process ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Partial Foot Amputation

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document