Experienced barriers in shared decision-making behaviour of orthopaedic surgery residents compared with orthopaedic surgeons

Barriers and Stimulus in Shared Decision Making Among Aesthetic Dermatologists in China: Findings from a Cross-Sectional Study

Introduction

Shared decision making (SDM) is a collaborative process involving both healthcare providers and patients in making medical decisions, which gains increasing prominence in healthcare practice. But evidence on the level of SDM in medical practice and barriers as well as stimulus during the SDM implementation among aesthetic dermatologists is limited in China.

Methods

From July to August 2023, 1938 dermatologists were recruited online in China. Data were collected through an electronic questionnaire covering: (1) demographic features; (2) SDM questionnaire physician version (SDM-Q-Doc); and (3) stimulus and barriers in SDM implementation. Logistic regression was applied to explore factors associated with SDM practice, barriers, and stimulus of SDM implementation, respectively.

Results

The 1938 dermatologists included 1329 females (68.6%), with an average age of 35 years. The total SDM score ranged from 0 to 45, with a median value of 40 (IQR: 35-44), and the median stimulus score and barriers scores were 28 (IQR: 24-32) and 19 (IQR: 13-26), respectively. The prevalence of good SDM was 27.2%, logistic regression indicated that female dermatologists (odds ratio, OR=1.21, 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.96-1.51), and dermatologists with more years of aesthetic practice had a higher proportion of good SDM practice (OR was 1.44 for 5-9 years, 1.58 for 10-15 years and 1.77 for over 15 years). Moreover, female dermatologists and dermatologists with higher education level and serviced in private settings had lower barrier scores; female dermatologists and dermatologists with more years of aesthetic practice had higher stimulus scores.

Conclusion

Chinese aesthetic dermatologists appear to implement SDM at an active level, with more stimulus and less barriers in SDM implementation. The integration of SDM into clinical practice among dermatologists is beneficial both for patients and dermatologists. Moreover, SDM practice should be strongly promoted and enhanced during medical aesthetics, especially among male dermatologists, dermatologists with less working experience, and those who work at public institutions.

Implementation of a Decision Aid for Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis in Orthopedics: A Mixed-Methods Process Evaluation

BACKGROUND

In orthopedics, the use of patient decision aids (ptDAs) is limited. With a mixed-method process evaluation, we investigated patient factors associated with accepting versus declining the use of the ptDA, patients' reasons for declining the ptDA, and clinicians' perceived barriers and facilitators for its use.

METHODS

Patients with an indication for joint replacement surgery (N = 153) completed questionnaires measuring demographics, physical functioning, quality of life (EQ-5D-3L), and a visual analog scale (VAS) pain score at 1 time point. Subsequently, their clinician offered them the relevant ptDA. Using a retrospective design, we compared patients who used the ptDA (59%) with patients who declined (41%) on all these measures as well as the chosen treatment. If the use of the ptDA was declined, patients' reasons were recorded by their clinician and analysed (n = 46). To evaluate the experiences of clinicians (n = 5), semistructured interviews were conducted and thematically analyzed. Clinicians who did not use the ptDA substantially (<10 times) were also interviewed (n = 3).

RESULTS

Compared with patients who used the ptDA, patients who declined use had higher VAS pain scores (7.2 v. 6.2, P < .001), reported significantly worse quality of life (on 4 of 6 EQ-5D-3L subscales), and were less likely to receive nonsurgical treatment (4% v. 28%, P < .001). Of the patients who declined to use the ptDA, 46% said they had enough information and felt ready to make a decision without the ptDA. The interviews revealed that clinicians considered the ptDAs most useful for newly diagnosed patients who had not received previous treatment.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that the uptake of a ptDA may be improved if it is introduced in the early disease stages of hip and knee osteoarthritis.

HIGHLIGHTS

Patients who declined the use of a patient decision aid (ptDA) for hip and knee osteoarthritis reported more pain and worse quality of life.Most patients who declined to use a ptDA felt sufficiently well informed to make a treatment decision.Patients who declined the ptDA were more likely to have received prior treatment in primary care.Clinicians found the ptDA to be a helpful addition to the consultation, particularly for newly diagnosed patients.

Internal Medicine Residents' Experience Performing Routine Assessment of What Matters Most to Patients Upon Hospital Admission

PROBLEM

Failure to elicit patients' values, goals, and priorities can result in missed opportunities to provide patient-centered care. Little is known about resident physicians' direct experience of eliciting patients' values, goals, and priorities and integrating them into routine hospital care.

INTERVENTION

In 2017, we asked resident physicians on general internal medicine wards rotations to elicit and document a "Personal History" from patients upon hospital admission, in addition to a traditional social history. We defined a Personal History as documenting "what matters most to the patient and why." The purpose of the Personal History was to understand and consider patients' values, goals, and priorities. We then conducted qualitative interviews of the resident physicians to understand their experiences eliciting and integrating patients' values, goals, and priorities in routine hospital care.

CONTEXT

We performed this exploratory intervention at a large high-volume urban hospital. Two teams from general medicine wards participated in the Personal History intervention. We conducted voluntary interviews of eligible residents (n = 14/15; 93%) about their experience after they completed their general wards rotations. Using the coproduction model, our aim was to explore how patients' self-expertise can be combined with physicians' medical expertise to achieve patient-centered care.

IMPACT

Four major themes were identified: 1) Taking a Personal History had value, and eliciting patients' self-expertise had the potential to change medical decision making, 2) Situational and relational factors created barriers to obtaining a Personal History, 3) Variability in buy-in with the proposed intervention affected effort, and 4) Meaningful Personal History taking could be an adaptive and longitudinal process. Perceived benefits included improved rapport with patients, helpful for patients with complex medical history, and improved physician-patient communication. Barriers included patient distress, lack of rapport, and responses from patients which did not add new insights. Accountability from attending physicians affected resident effort. Suggested future applications were for patients with serious illness, integration into electronic health records, and skills taught in medical education.

LESSONS LEARNED

Resident physicians had generally positive views of eliciting a Personal History from patients upon admission to the hospital. Overall, many residents conveyed the perceived ability to elicit and consider patient's values, goals, and priorities in certain situations (e.g., patient not in distress, adequate rapport, lack of competing priorities such as medical emergencies or overwhelming workloads). External factors, such as electronic health record design and accountability from attending physicians, may further promote residents' efforts to routinely incorporate patients' values, goals, and priorities in clinical care. Increasing familiarity among both resident physicians and patients in routinely discussing patients' values, goals, and priorities may facilitate patient-centered practice.

Treatment decision-making process after an anterior cruciate ligament injury: patients', orthopaedic surgeons' and physiotherapists' perspectives

Objective

To investigate the treatment decision-making process after an anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injury from patients’, orthopaedic surgeons’ and physiotherapists’ perspectives.

Methods

The study is a part of the NACOX study, which is designed to describe the natural corollaries after ACL injury. For the present study, a subgroup 101 patients were included. Patients, their orthopaedic surgeons and their physiotherapists, answered a Shared Decision-Making Process (SDMP) questionnaire, when treatment decision for ACL reconstruction surgery (ACLR) or non-reconstruction (non-ACLR) was taken. The SDMP questionnaire covers four topics: “ informed patient”, “ to be heard”, “ involvement” and “ agreement”.

Results

Most (75–98%) patients considered their needs met in terms of being heard and agreement with the treatment decision. However, fewer in the non-ACLR group compared to the ACLR group reported satisfaction with information from the orthopaedic surgeon (67% and 79%), or for their own involvement in the treatment decision process (67% and 97%).

Conclusion and practice implications

Most patients and caregivers considered that patients’ needs to be informed, heard and involved, and to agree with the decision about the treatment process, were fulfilled to a high extent. However, patients where a non-ACLR decision was taken experienced being involved in the treatment decision to a lower extent. This implies that the non-ACLR treatment decision process needs further clarification, especially from the patient involvement perspective.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-022-05745-4.

Disappointing evaluation of a shared decision-making intervention for residents and orthopaedic surgeons

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate a shared decision-making (SDM) intervention in orthopaedic hip and knee osteoarthritis care.

METHODS

Using a pre- post intervention design study, we tested an intervention, that included a decision aid for patients (ptDA) and a SDM training course for residents in training and orthopaedic surgeons. The theory of planned behaviour was used for intervention development. Primary outcomes included patient reported decisional conflict, SDM, and satisfaction. Secondary outcomes were physicians' attitude and knowledge, and uptake of the ptDA.

RESULTS

317 patients were included. The intervention improved physicians' knowledge about SDM but had no effect on the primary outcomes. 19 eligible patients used the ptDA (17%). SDM was higher for middle educated patients compared to lower educated (mean difference 9.91, p=0.004), patients who saw surgeons instead of residents (mean difference 5.46, p=0.044) and when surgery was chosen and desired by patients compared to situations where surgery was desired but not chosen (mean difference 15.39, p=0.036).

CONCLUSION

Our multifaceted intervention did not improve SDM and ptDA uptake was low.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

In orthopaedic hip and knee osteoarthritic care other ways should be explored to successful implement SDM. Since residents received lower SDM scores, special focus should go to this group.

Why do medical residents prefer paternalistic decision making? An interview study

BACKGROUND

Although shared decision making is championed as the preferred model for patient care by patient organizations, researchers and medical professionals, its application in daily practice remains limited. We previously showed that residents more often prefer paternalistic decision making than their supervisors. Because both the views of residents on the decision-making process in medical consultations and the reasons for their 'paternalism preference' are unknown, this study explored residents' views on the decision-making process in medical encounters and the factors affecting it.

METHODS

We interviewed 12 residents from various specialties at a large Dutch teaching hospital in 2019-2020, exploring how they involved patients in decisions. All participating residents provided written informed consent. Data analysis occurred concurrently with data collection in an iterative process informing adaptations to the interview topic guide when deemed necessary. Constant comparative analysis was used to develop themes. We ceased data collection when information sufficiency was achieved.

RESULTS

Participants described how active engagement of patients in discussing options and decision making was influenced by contextual factors (patient characteristics, logistical factors such as available time, and supervisors' recommendations) and by limitations in their medical and shared decision-making knowledge. The residents' decision-making behavior appeared strongly affected by their conviction that they are responsible for arriving at the correct diagnosis and providing the best evidence-based treatment. They described shared decision making as the process of patients consenting with physician-recommended treatment or patients choosing their preferred option when no best evidence-based option was available.

CONCLUSIONS

Residents' decision making appears to be affected by contextual factors, their medical knowledge, their knowledge about SDM, and by their beliefs and convictions about their professional responsibilities as a doctor, ensuring that patients receive the best possible evidence-based treatment. They confuse SDM with acquiring informed consent with the physician's treatment recommendations and with letting patients decide which treatment they prefer in case no evidence based guideline recommendation is available. Teaching SDM to residents should not only include skills training, but also target residents' perceptions and convictions regarding their role in the decision-making process in consultations.

The development of incorpoRATE: A measure of physicians' willingness to incorporate shared decision making into practice

OBJECTIVES

To develop 'incorpoRATE', a brief and broadly applicable measure of physicians' willingness to incorporate shared decision making (SDM) into practice.

METHODS

incorpoRATE was developed across three phases: 1) A review of relevant literature to inform candidate domain and item development, 2) Cognitive interviews with US physicians to iteratively refine the measure, and 3) Pilot testing of the measure across a larger sample of US physicians to explore item and measure performance.

RESULTS

The final measure consists of seven items that assess physician perspectives on various components of SDM use that may present as barriers in practice. During pilot testing, the majority of physicians expressed positive opinions about the overall concept of SDM, yet were less comfortable acting on informed patient choices when there was known incongruence with their own recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

incorpoRATE is a novel physician-reported measure that assesses physicians' willingness to incorporate SDM in practice.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

incorpoRATE has the potential to help us further understand the limited adoption of SDM and areas of focus for improving the use of SDM in the future. We recommend that incorpoRATE be subject to further psychometric, real-world testing, in order to explore its performance across different samples of physicians and organizations.

Experienced barriers in shared decision-making behaviour of orthopaedic surgery residents compared with orthopaedic surgeons

INTRODUCTION

In shared decision-making (SDM), physicians encourage the patient to participate in the care process. The theory of planned behaviour describes that behaviour is dependent on intention. In its turn, intention is explained by attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control. In orthopaedics, little is known about current SDM behaviour and how to promote it.The aim of the present study was to gain insight into the SDM behaviour of orthopaedic residents and supervisors by measuring levels of intention, attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control. Furthermore, we aimed to determine the predictors of intention for SDM.

METHODS

A questionnaire survey study was conducted among orthopaedic surgeons and residents working in the care of hip and knee osteoarthritis, to determine their intentions, attitudes, subjective norms and perceived behavioural control regarding SDM.

RESULTS

Of the 385 physicians approached, 71 residents and 64 orthopaedic surgeons participated. Residents and the supervisors alike had positive intentions regarding SDM. Intention for SDM behaviour was explained by attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioural control, with perceived behavioural control having the strongest association. In residents, the intention to engage in SDM was more hampered by a lower level of perceived behavioural control than in surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians are willing to perform SDM and consider SDM as favourable in the orthopaedic clinic. The implementation of SDM is mainly hampered by experienced barriers that they cannot control. These findings underline the importance of incorporating SDM in the curriculum of postgraduates. Possibilities for efficient SDM implementation should be explored, to overcome perceived barriers.