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

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.

OP316 Patients’ Testimonials In The National Committee For Health Technology Incorporation In Brazilian Public Health System (Conitec) Meetings

IntroductionThe Department of Management and Incorporation of Technologies and Innovation in Health (DGITIS) acts as Conitec's Executive Secretariat. Among its attributions, it promotes the public/patient involvement in the health technology assessment (HTA) process. Recently, Conitec has been working on the inclusion of patient's testimonials about their illness experience in the plenary sessions, that is, the monthly meeting where technologies are assessed.MethodsTo support the action of including patient reporting in Conitec's HTA process, DGITIS developed research on HTA agencies websites worldwide. The main criteria was the inclusion of patients’ reports in their Committee meetings. DGITIS contacted some of these agencies and requested a listserv question to the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) members. These findings supported the DGITIS for the inclusion of patient participation in Conitec's meetings, from the selection process to the actual participation.ResultsFor the Conitec's HTA process, the patients’ participation should occur in the prior session to the public consultation, guaranteeing the inclusion of their perspective since the recommendation process beginning. Hence, every demand for incorporation to be discussed at Conitec's meeting should be preceded by a public call for patients with the clinical condition. The DGITIS will also hold preparatory meetings, which will serve as moments for shared construction of knowledge and literacy.ConclusionsThe nomination process, so far, has been grounded as a consensus among the patients. Thus, Conitec acts as a mediator, connecting the involved stakeholders, in a way that they can autonomously organize themselves and indicate the main representative and an alternate one. With the inclusion of the patient's perspective in the Conitec's meeting, another form of patient participation was opened in the HTA process. Therefore, the consolidation of this participation space is feasible and contributes to enrich the Brazilian HTA process.