Evaluating nuanced practices for initiating decision-making in neurology clinics: a mixed-methods study

BackgroundWe report follow-on research from our previous qualitative analysis of how neurologists offer patients choice in practice. This focus reflects the NHS’s emphasis on ‘patient choice’ and the lack of evidence-based guidance on how to enact it. Our primary study identified practices for offering choice, which we called ‘patient view elicitors’ (PVEs) and ‘option-listing’. However, that study was not designed to compare these with recommendations or to analyse the consequences of selecting one practice over another.ObjectivesTo (1) map out (a) the three decision-making practices – recommending, PVEs and option-listing – together with (b) their interactional consequences; (2) identify, qualitatively and quantitatively, interactional patterns across our data set; (3) statistically examine the relationship between interactional practices and self-report data; and (4) use the findings from 1–3 to compare the three practices as methods for initiating decision-making.DesignA mixed-methods secondary analysis of recorded neurology consultations and associated questionnaire responses. We coded every recommendation, PVE and option-list together with a range of variables internal (e.g. patients’ responses) and external to the consultation (e.g. self-reported patient satisfaction). The resulting matrix captured the qualitative and quantitative data for every decision.Setting and participantsThe primary study was conducted in two neurology outpatient centres. A total of 14 neurologists, 223 patients and 114 accompanying others participated.ResultsDistribution of practices – recommending was the most common approach to decision-making. Patient demographics did not appear to play a key role in patterning decisional practices. Several clinical factors did show associations with practice, including (1) that neurologists were more likely to use option-lists or PVEs when making treatment rather than investigation decisions, (2) they were more certain about a diagnosis and (3) symptoms were medically explained. Consequences of practices – option-lists and PVEs (compared with recommendations) – were strongly associated with choice by neurologists and patients. However, there was no significant difference in overall patient satisfaction relating to practices employed. Recommendations were strongly associated with a course of action being agreed. Decisions containing PVEs were more likely to end in rejection. Option-lists often ended in the decision being deferred. There was no relationship between length of consultation and the practice employed.LimitationsA main limitation is that we judged only outcomes based on the recorded consultations and the self-report data collected immediately thereafter. We do not know what happened beyond the consultation.ConclusionsPatient choice is harder to enact than policy directives acknowledge. Although there is good evidence that neurologists are seeking to enact patient choice, they are still more likely to make recommendations. This appears to be partly due to concerns that ‘choice’ might conflict with doctors’ duty of care. Future guidance needs to draw on evidence regarding choice in practice to support doctors and patients to achieve the wider goal of shared decision-making.Future researchTo advance understanding of how interactional practices might have effects beyond the clinic, a priority is to investigate associations between decision-making practices and external outcomes (such as adherence).FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Delivering patient choice in clinical practice: a conversation analytic study of communication practices used in neurology clinics to involve patients in decision-making

BackgroundThe NHS is committed to offering patients more choice. Yet even within the NHS, the meaning of patient choice ranges from legal ‘rights to choose’ to the ambition of establishing clinical practice as a ‘partnership’ between doctor and patient. In the absence of detailed guidance, we focused on preciselyhowto engage patients in decision-making.ObjectivesTo contribute to the evidence-base about whether or not, and how, patient choice is implemented to identify the most effective communication practices for facilitating patient choice.DesignWe used conversation analysis to examine practices whereby neurologists offer choice. The main data set consists of audio- and video-recorded consultations. Patients completed pre- and post-consultation questionnaires and neurologists completed the latter.Setting and participantsThe study was conducted in neurology outpatient clinics in Glasgow and Sheffield. Fourteen neurologists, 223 patients and 120 accompanying others took part.ResultsPatients and clinicians agreed that choice had featured in 53.6% of consultations and that choice was absent in 14.3%. After 32.1% of consultations,eitherpatientorneurologist thought choice was offered. The presence or absence of choice was not satisfactorily explained by quantitatively explored clinical or demographic variables. For our qualitative analysis, the corpus was divided into four subsets: (1) patient and clinician agree that choice was present; (2) patient and clinician agree that choice was absent; (3) patient ‘yes’, clinician ‘no’; and (4) patient ‘no’, clinician ‘yes’. Comparison of all subsets showed that ‘option-listing’ was the only practice for offering choice that was presentonly(with one exception, which, as we show, proves the rule) in those consultations for which participantsagreed there was a choice. We show how option-listing can be used to engage patients in decision-making, but also how very small changes in the machinery of option-listing [for instance the replacement or displacement of the final component of this practice, the patient view elicitor (PVE)] can significantly alter the slot for patient participation. In fact, a slightly modified form of option-listing can be used to curtail choice. Finally, we describe two forms of PVE that can be used to hand a single-option decision to the patient, but which, we show, can raise difficulties for patient choice.ConclusionsChoice features in the majority of recorded consultations. If doctors want to ensure a patient knows she or he has a choice, option-listing is likely to be best understood by patients as an invitation to choose. However, an important lesson from this study is that simply asking doctors to adopt a practice (like option-listing) will not automatically lead to a patient-centred approach. Our study shows that preciselyhowa practice is implemented is crucial.Future researchFuture research should investigate (1) links between the practices identified here and relevant outcome measures (like adherence); (2) whether being given a choice is better or worse for patients than receiving a doctor’s recommendation, taking account of clinical and demographic factors; and (3) how our approach could be fruitfully applied in other settings.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.