Physician as partner or salesman? Shared decision-making in real-time encounters

Language in Bioethics: Beyond the Representational View

Though assumptions about language underlie all bioethical work, the field has rarely partaken of theories of language. This article encourages a more linguistically engaged bioethics. We describe the tacit conception of language that is frequently upheld in bioethics-what we call the representational view, which sees language essentially as a means of description. We examine how this view has routed the field's theories and interventions down certain paths. We present an alternative model of language-the pragmatic view-and explore how it expands and clarifies traditional bioethical concerns. To lend concreteness, we apply the pragmatic view to a pervasive concept in bioethics and adjacent fields: decision making. We suggest that problems of the decision-making approach to bioethical issues are grounded in adherence to the representational view. Drawing on empirical work in surgery and critical care, we show how the pragmatic view productively reframes bioethical questions about how medical treatments are pursued.

The argumentative role of patient companions in (shared) decision-making

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to examine the type of involvement of patient companions in the argumentative exchanges in consultations and explore when their contributions should be taken into account in shared decision-making (SDM).

METHODS

A qualitative analysis was carried out using transcribed medical consultations (N = 10) between health professionals (doctors at a regional Dutch hospital), adult patients and informal patient companions. Insights from argumentation theory were used to develop an inventory of twelve theoretically distinct discussion situations involving patient companions, distinguishing possible discussion roles, disagreement types and coalition formations.

RESULTS

Consultations contained on average 4.3 discussion situations. In most discussions (37.21 %) the health professional adopted a standpoint, and the patient and their companion only expressed doubt. More complex cases occurred when one of the three parties, including the companion, opposed opinions of the other parties (in 34.88 % of the situations found) and when coalitions were formed (possible in 18.60 % of the situations found). We found that disagreements occurred or were anticipated by all three parties and involved standpoints about the diagnosis as well as treatment options.

CONCLUSION

Using the pragma-dialectical argumentation theory as an analytical framework reveals that patient companions can substantially influence treatment decision-making during medical consultation. This influence is contingent upon the specific role they assume in the discussion, the type of disagreement with the health professional and patient, and the formation of coalitions with these parties.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The contributions by patient companions should be considered in SDM if the companion forms a coalition with the patient. If the companion does not form a coalition, the contributions might have a bearing on SDM as well, but their acceptability and relevance for the treatment decision should be checked by the health professional. In general, it is desirable to explicitly establish the role of patient companions in consultations.

Caregivers and multidisciplinary team members' perspectives on shared decision making in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

As new therapies for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) are entering the market, shared decision making (SDM) will become increasingly important. Therefore, this study aimed to understand (1) Belgian stakeholders' knowledge and perceptions of SDM in DMD treatment decision making, (2) the current state of SDM implementation in DMD in Belgium, examining the role of all involved parties, and (3) the barriers and facilitators for SDM in DMD in the Belgian context.

METHODS

In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews with the multidisciplinary team (MDT) of individuals with DMD (n = 18) and caregivers thereof (n = 11) were conducted in Belgium. Qualitative data was analyzed thematically using the framework method.

RESULTS

Most caregivers were unfamiliar with the term SDM, while MDT members were aware of it but struggled to define it consistent with existing literature. Despite acknowledging some drawbacks, participants valued SDM as an important process in DMD care, noting its presence in current practice. However, both MDT members and caregivers sometimes questioned the necessity of SDM due to limited treatment options available. Consequently, decision making predominantly relied on (child) neurologists sharing information and seeking consent from caregivers and individuals with DMD for a proposed treatment. Participants highlighted the important role of the MDT, with each professional contributing its unique expertise to SDM. To reduce existing barriers and enhance the SDM process, participants called for clear and transparent information regarding different treatment options, including clinical trials, and detailed information on how treatments might affect patients' daily life.

CONCLUSION

This study identified an increased need for easily understandable information, particularly regarding DMD care in general, but also about clinical trials covering new and emerging therapies. Developing specific evidence-based tools could support stakeholders' understanding of this information, thereby enhancing implementation of the SDM process in DMD care. Further, as the treatment landscape of DMD evolves, it will become increasingly important for patients to be supported by an MDT, as they can provide information on clinical trials (e.g., study coordinators), emotional support (e.g., psychologists, nurses), and decisional guidance (e.g., neurologist).

In risk we trust? Making decisions about knee replacement

Risk communication is a key legal and ethical component of shared decision-making. Decisions about total knee replacement, a common surgery, must contend with the fact that a minority of cases result in unintended outcomes, some of which have devastating effects. To understand how risks are communicated during decision-making, we audio-recorded and analysed 62 consultations between surgeons and patients. Various communication methods were evident, including listing risks without elaboration, discussing them in a conversational manner, abrogating discussion of risk, or using decision-tools. Discussion of risks was often brief in nature, and risk communication was sometimes curtailed or deferred by both patients and surgeons. Risks could also be observed to play a part in reinforcing policy norms of the doctor-patient relationship that highlighted patient responsibility. Nevertheless, patients and surgeons in the observed consultations appeared more interested in developing trusting relationships than in discussing risks. Because patients had sometimes experienced considerable deterioration in their knee function before their consultation, were in pain and struggled with mobility, the realities of clinical practice clashed with the policy norms of choice and patient responsibility. Rather, decisions could appear coerced by the disease process rather than being clear-cut examples of self-determination. While policy norms putatively use risk disclosure to frame communication between patients and clinicians as a transaction between customer and technician, the lack of conformity to these norms in the consultations may indicate resistance to this framing. A greater emphasis on determining positive roles for trust and care would help policy to present a nuanced understanding of decision-making. Risk communication could be seen as a factor in the formation of trusting relationships, improving its role in decision-making processes while recognising its inherent tensions with practice.

The illusion of treatment choice in abortion care: A qualitative study of comparative care experiences in England and Wales

Treatment choice is a key component of quality, person-centred care, but policies promoting choice often ignore how capacity to choose is unequally distributed and influenced by social structures. In abortion care, the choice of either medication or a procedure is limited in many countries, but the structuring of treatment choice from the perspective of people accessing abortion care is poorly understood. This qualitative study explored comparative experiences of abortion treatment choice in England and Wales, using in-depth interviews with 32 people who recently accessed abortion care and had one or more prior abortions. A codebook approach was used to analyse the data, informed by a multidisciplinary framework for understanding the relationship between choice and equity. Abortion treatment choice was structured by multiple intersecting mechanisms: limitations on the supply of abortion care, incomplete or unbalanced information from providers, and participants' socio-economic environments. Long waiting times or travel distances could reduce choice of both treatment options. In interactions with providers, participants described not being offered procedural abortions or receiving information that favoured medication abortion. Participants' socio-economic environments impacted the way they navigated decision-making and their ability to manage the experience of either treatment option. Individual preferences for care were shaped in part by the interplay between these structural barriers, creating an illusion of choice, as the health system bias towards medication abortion reinforced some participants' negative perceptions of procedural abortion. The erosion of choice, to the point it is rendered illusory, has unequal impacts on quality of care. People's needs for their abortion care are complex and diverse, and access to varied service models is required to meet these needs. Treatment choice could be expanded by integrating public and private non-profit sector provision, aligning time limits and workforce requirements for abortion care with international standards, addressing financial pressures on service delivery, and revising the language used to depict each treatment option.

Surgeon's steering behaviour towards patients to participate in a cluster randomised trial on active surveillance for oesophageal cancer: A qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Few studies have been conducted into how physicians use steering behaviour that may persuade patients to choose for a particular treatment, let alone to participate in a randomised trial. The aim of this study is to assess if and how surgeons use steering behaviour in their information provision to patients in their choice to participate in a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial investigating an organ sparing treatment in (curable) oesophageal cancer (SANO trial).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A qualitative study was performed. Thematic content analysis was applied to audiotaped and transcribed consultations of twenty patients with eight different oncological surgeons in three Dutch hospitals. Patients could choose to participate in a clinical trial in which an experimental treatment of 'active surveillance' (AS) was offered. Patients who did not want to participate underwent standard treatment: neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by oesophagectomy.

RESULTS

Surgeons used various techniques to steer patients towards one of the two options, mostly towards AS. The presentation of pros and cons of treatment options was imbalanced: positive framing of AS was used to steer patients towards the choice for AS, and negative framing of AS to make the choice for surgery more attractive. Further, steering language, i.e. suggestive language, was used, and surgeons seemed to use the timing of the introduction of the different treatment options, to put more focus on one of the treatment options.

CONCLUSION

Awareness of steering behaviour can help to guide physicians in more objectively informing patients on participation in future clinical trials.

The hidden curriculum of breaking bad news: Identification of three dimensions and four communication patterns

OBJECTIVES

To explore students' observations in the hidden curriculum of physicians' breaking bad news interactions and identify dimensions and patterns within them.

METHODS

We qualitatively analyzed 156 written narrative descriptions of bad news encounters in the clinics written by senior medical students.

RESULTS

The analysis identified three dimensions within the encounters: providing information, dealing with emotions, and discussing treatment plans. These dimensions were observed in different proportions, identifying four communication patterns. Half of the encounters focused solely on presenting a treatment plan. Within them, the news was communicated abruptly while neglecting to share information or address emotions.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to the main literature on breaking bad news that focuses on two dimensions-the present study identified a third, prominent dimension-discussing the treatment plan. Half of the hidden curriculum experiences contradict the taught protocol, paying little/no attention to emotion and information.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

When teaching breaking bad news, it is essential to address the day-to-day practices students' observe. Students exposed to these encounters might misinterpret the physician's reliance on a single dimension as best practice. To mitigate this and help recognize their and others' tendency to focus primarily or solely on one dimension, we suggest a simple reflective prompt.

What Does Patient-Centered Communication Look Like?: Linguistic Markers of Provider Compassionate Care and Shared Decision-Making and Their Impacts on Patient Outcomes

Patient-centered communication promotes positive patient outcomes. This study examines the linguistic markers of two key dimensions of patient-centered communication (i.e., provider compassionate care and shared decision-making) and their mediating effects on patient perceived quality of and affective responses to the provider's treatment recommendations. Transcripts (N = 343) of provider talk from provider-patient interactions in medical visits for upper respiratory infection symptoms where patients were not prescribed with antibiotics were analyzed with the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) dictionary. Results showed that providers' use of affiliation words positively predicted patients' perceptions of their providers' compassionate care. Providers' use of insight words negatively predicted patients' perceptions of provider shared decision-making. Meanwhile, providers' use of first-person singular pronouns, causation and differentiation words, and clout words were positively related to perceived provider shared decision-making. Patient perceived compassionate care and shared decision-making further increased patients' positive affect toward and perceived quality of non-antibiotic treatment recommendations. These perceptions also reduced their negative affect toward the recommendations. Implications of the findings are discussed with regard to patient-centered communication in relation to the promotion of antibiotic stewardship.

Association of objective and subjective socioeconomic markers with cognitive impairment among older adults: cross-sectional evidence from a developing country

OBJECTIVE

This study explored how various markers of objective and subjective socioeconomic status (SES) are associated with cognitive impairment among older Indian adults.

DESIGN

A cross-sectional study was conducted using large nationally representative survey data.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANT

This study used data from the Longitudinal Ageing Study in India (2017-2018). The sample included 31 464 older adults aged 60 years and above.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Outcome variable was cognitive impairment, measured through broad domains of memory, orientation, arithmetic function, and visuo-spatial and constructive skills. We estimated descriptive statistics and presented cross-tabulations of the outcome. Χ2 test was used to evaluate the significance level of differences in cognitive impairment by subjective (ladder) and objective SES measures (monthly per-capita consumption expenditure (MPCE) quintile, education and caste status). Multivariable linear and logistic regression analyses were conducted to fulfil the objectives.

RESULTS

A proportion of 41.7% and 43.4% of older adults belonged to low subjective (ladder) and objective (MPCE) SES, respectively. Older adults with low subjective (adjusted OR (aOR): 2.04; p<0.05) and objective SES (aOR: 1.32; p<0.05) had higher odds of having cognitive impairment in comparison with their counterparts, with a stronger subjective SES-cognitive impairment association. Older adults with lower education or belonged to lower caste had higher odds of cognitive impairment than their counterparts. Interaction analyses revealed that older adults who belonged to lower subjective and objective (poorest MPCE quintile, Scheduled Castes and lowest education) SES had 2.45 (CI: 1.77 to 3.39), 4.56 (CI: 2.97 to 6.98) and 54.41 (CI: 7.61 to 388.93) higher odds of cognitive impairment than those from higher subjective and objective SES, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Subjective measures of SES were linked to cognitive outcomes, even more strongly than objective measures of SES; considering the relative ease of obtaining such measures, subjective SES measures are a promising target for future study on socioeconomic indicators of cognitive impairment.

Implementation and staff understanding of shared decision-making in the context of recovery-oriented care across US Veterans Health Administration (VHA) inpatient mental healthcare units: a mixed-methods evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To examine the understanding and practice of shared decision-making (SDM) within the context of recovery-oriented care across Veterans Health Administration (VHA) inpatient mental healthcare units.

DESIGN

VHA inpatient mental health units were scored on the Recovery-Oriented Acute Inpatient Scale (RAIN). Scores on the RAIN item for medication SDM were used to rank each site from lowest to highest. The top 7 and bottom 8 sites (n=15) were selected for additional analyses using a mixed-methods approach, involving qualitative interviews, observation notes and quantitative data.

SETTING

34 VHA inpatient mental health units located in every geographical region of the USA.

PARTICIPANTS

55 treatment team members.

RESULTS

Our results identified an overarching theme of 'power-sharing' that describes participants' conceptualisation and practice of medication decision-making. Three levels of power sharing emerged from both interview and observational data: (1) No power sharing: patients are excluded from treatment decisions; (2) Limited power sharing: patients are informed of treatment decisions but have limited influence on the decision-making process; and (3) Shared-power: patients and providers work collaboratively and contribute to medication decisions. Comparing interview to observational data, only observational data indicating those themes differentiate top from bottom scoring sites on the RAIN SDM item scores. All but one top scoring sites indicated shared power medication decision processes, whereas bottom sites reflected mostly no power sharing. Additionally, our findings highlight three key factors that facilitate the implementation of SDM: inclusion of veteran in treatment teams, patient education and respect for patient autonomy.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation of SDM appears feasible in acute inpatient mental health units. Although most participants were well informed about SDM, that knowledge did not always translate into practice, which supports the need for ongoing implementation support for SDM. Additional contextual factors underscore the value of patients' self-determination as a guiding principle for SDM, highlighting the role of a supporting, empowering and autonomy-generating environment.

Persuasive communication in medical decision-making during consultations with patients with limited health literacy in hospital-based palliative care

OBJECTIVE

Both patients in the palliative phase of their disease and patients with limited health literacy (LHL) have an increased risk of being influenced by healthcare providers (HCPs) when making decisions. This study aims to explore to what extent persuasive communication occurs during shared decision-making (SDM) by (1) providing an overview of persuasive communication behaviours relevant for medical decision-making and (2) exemplifying these using real-life outpatient consultations.

METHODS

An exploratory qualitative design was applied: (1) brief literature review; (2) analysis of verbatim extracts from outpatient consultations and stimulated recall sessions with HCPs; and (3) stakeholder meetings.

RESULTS

24 different persuasive communication behaviours were identified, which can be divided in seven categories: biased presentation of information, authoritative framing, probability framing, illusion of decisional control, normative framing, making assumptions and using emotions or feelings.

CONCLUSIONS

Persuasive communication is multi-faceted in outpatient consultations. Although undesirable, it may prove useful in specific situations making it necessary to study the phenomenon more in depth and deepen our understanding of its mechanisms and impact.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Awareness among HCPs about the use of persuasive communication needs to be created through training and education. Also, HCPs need help in providing balanced information.

Cost and Effort Considerations for the Development of Intervention Studies Using Mobile Health Platforms: Pragmatic Case Study

BACKGROUND

The research marketplace has seen a flood of open-source or commercial mobile health (mHealth) platforms that can collect and use user data in real time. However, there is a lack of practical literature on how these platforms are developed, integrated into study designs, and adopted, including important information around cost and effort considerations.

OBJECTIVE

We intend to build critical literacy in the clinician-researcher readership into the cost, effort, and processes involved in developing and operationalizing an mHealth platform, focusing on Intui, an mHealth platform that we developed.

METHODS

We describe the development of the Intui mHealth platform and general principles of its operationalization across sites.

RESULTS

We provide a worked example in the form of a case study. Intui was operationalized in the design of a behavioral activation intervention in collaboration with a mental health service provider. We describe the design specifications of the study site, the developed software, and the cost and effort required to build the final product.

CONCLUSIONS

Study designs, researcher needs, and technical considerations can impact effort and costs associated with the use of mHealth platforms. Greater transparency from platform developers about the impact of these factors on practical considerations relevant to end users such as clinician-researchers is crucial to increasing critical literacy around mHealth, thereby aiding in the widespread use of these potentially beneficial technologies and building clinician confidence in these tools.

Communication strategies and persuasion as core components of shared decision-making for children with life-limiting conditions: A multiple case study

BACKGROUND

Families and professionals caring for children with life-limiting conditions face difficult healthcare decisions. Shared decision-making is promoted in many countries, however little is known about factors influencing these processes.

AIM

To explore the communication strategies used in shared decision-making for children with life-limiting conditions.

DESIGN

A longitudinal, qualitative, multiple-case study. Cases were centred around the child and parent/carer(s). Most cases also included professionals or extended family members. Data from interviews, observations and medical notes were re-storied for each case into a narrative case summary. These were subject to comparative thematic analysis using NVivo11.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Eleven cases recruited from three tertiary hospitals in England. 23 participants were interviewed (46 interviews). Cases were followed for up to 12 months between December 2015 and January 2017. 72 observations were conducted and the medical notes of nine children reviewed.

FINDINGS

Strategies present during shared decision-making were underpinned by moral work. Professionals presented options they believed were in the child's best interests, emphasising their preference. Options were often presented in advance of being necessary to prevent harm, therefore professionals permitted delay to treatment. Persuasion was utilised over time when professionals felt the treatment was becoming more urgent and when families felt it would not promote the child's psychosocial wellbeing.

CONCLUSIONS

Communication strategies in shared decision-making are underpinned by moral work. Professionals should be aware of the models of shared decision-making which include such communication strategies. Open discussions regarding individuals' moral reasoning may assist the process of shared decision-making.

Fostering Patient Choice Awareness and Presenting Treatment Options Neutrally: A Randomized Trial to Assess the Effect on Perceived Room for Involvement in Decision Making

Purpose

Shared decision making calls for clinician communication strategies that aim to foster choice awareness and to present treatment options neutrally, such as by not showing a preference. Evidence for the effectiveness of these communication strategies to enhance patient involvement in treatment decision making is lacking. We tested the effects of 2 strategies in an online randomized video-vignettes experiment.

Methods

We developed disease-specific video vignettes for rheumatic disease, cancer, and kidney disease showcasing a physician presenting 2 treatment options. We tested the strategies in a 2 (choice awareness communication present/absent) by 2 (physician preference communication present/absent) randomized between-subjects design. We asked patients and disease-naïve participants to view 1 video vignette while imagining being the patient and to report perceived room for involvement (primary outcome), understanding of treatment information, treatment preference, satisfaction with the consultation, and trust in the physician (secondary outcomes). Differences across experimental conditions were assessed using 2-way analyses of variance.

Results

A total of 324 patients and 360 disease-naïve respondents participated (mean age, 52 ± 14.7 y, 54% female, 56% lower educated, mean health literacy, 12 ± 2.1 on a 3–15 scale). The results showed that choice awareness communication had a positive (M_present = 5.2 v. M_absent = 5.0, P = 0.042, η²_partial = 0.006) and physician preference communication had no (M_present = 5.0 v. M_absent = 5.1, P = 0.144, η²_partial = 0.003) significant effect on perceived room for involvement in decision making. Physician preference communication steered patients toward preferring that treatment option (M_present = 4.7 v. M_absent = 5.3, P = 0.006, η²_partial = 0.011). The strategies had no significant effect on understanding, satisfaction, or trust.

Conclusions

This is the first experimental evidence for a small effect of fostering choice awareness and no effect of physician preference on perceived room to participate in decision making. Physician preference steered patients toward preferring that option.

A simulation-based module in pharmacology education reveals and addresses medical students' deficits in leading prescription talks

Although doctor-patient communication is essential for drug prescription, the literature reveals deficits in this area. An educational approach at the Cologne medical faculty aims at identifying and addressing those deficits in medical students.Fifth-year medical students first conducted a simulated prescription talk spontaneously. Subsequently, the conversation was discussed with peer students. A pharmacist moderated the discussion based upon a previously developed conversation guide. Afterwards, the same student had the conversation again, but as if for the first time. Conversations were video-recorded, transcribed and subjected to quantitative content analysis. Four days after the simulation, the students who conducted the talk, those who observed and discussed it, and students who did neither, completed a written test that focused on the content of an effective prescription talk.Content analysis revealed clear deficits in spontaneously led prescription talks. Even essential information as on adverse drug reactions were often lacking. Prescription talks became clearly more informative and comprehensive after the short, guided peer discussion. With regard to a comprehensive, informative prescription talk, the written test showed that both the students who conducted the talk and those who only observed it performed clearly better than the students who did not participate in the educational approach.Deficits regarding prescription talks are present in 5^th year medical students. We provide an approach to both identify and address these deficits. It thus may be an example for training medical students in simulated and clinical environments like the EACPT recommended to improve pharmacology education.

Patient Involvement in Anesthesia Decision-making: A Qualitative Study of Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Calls to better involve patients in decisions about anesthesia-e.g., through shared decision-making-are intensifying. However, several features of anesthesia consultation make it unclear how patients should participate in decisions. Evaluating the feasibility and desirability of carrying out shared decision-making in anesthesia requires better understanding of preoperative conversations. The objective of this qualitative study was to characterize how preoperative consultations for primary knee arthroplasty arrived at decisions about primary anesthesia.

METHODS

This focused ethnography was performed at a U.S. academic medical center. The authors audio-recorded consultations of 36 primary knee arthroplasty patients with eight anesthesiologists. Patients and anesthesiologists also participated in semi-structured interviews. Consultation and interview transcripts were coded in an iterative process to develop an explanation of how anesthesiologists and patients made decisions about primary anesthesia.

RESULTS

The authors found variation across accounts of anesthesiologists and patients as to whether the consultation was a collaborative decision-making scenario or simply meant to inform patients. Consultations displayed a number of decision-making patterns, from the anesthesiologist not disclosing options to the anesthesiologist strictly adhering to a position of equipoise; however, most consultations fell between these poles, with the anesthesiologist presenting options, recommending one, and persuading hesitant patients to accept it. Anesthesiologists made patients feel more comfortable with their proposed approach through extensive comparisons to more familiar experiences.

CONCLUSIONS

Anesthesia consultations are multifaceted encounters that serve several functions. In some cases, the involvement of patients in determining the anesthetic approach might not be the most important of these functions. Broad consideration should be given to both the applicability and feasibility of shared decision-making in anesthesia consultation. The potential benefits of interventions designed to enhance patient involvement in decision-making should be weighed against their potential to pull anesthesiologists' attention away from important humanistic aspects of communication such as decreasing patients' anxiety.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

The use of implicit persuasion in decision-making about treatment for end-stage kidney disease

BACKGROUND

There are various options for managing end-stage kidney disease. Each option impacts the lives of patients differently. When weighing the pros and cons of the different options, patients' values, needs and preferences should, therefore, be taken into account. However, despite the best intentions, nephrologists may, more or less deliberately, convey a treatment preference and thereby steer the decision-making process. Being aware of such implicit persuasion could help to further optimise shared decision-making (SDM). This study explores verbal acts of implicit persuasion during outpatient consultations scheduled to make a final treatment decision. These consultations mark the end of a multi-consultation, educational process and summarise treatment aspects discussed previously.

METHODS

Observations of video-recorded outpatient consultations in nephrology (n = 20) were used to capture different forms of implicit persuasion. To this purpose, a coding scheme was developed.

RESULTS

In nearly every consultation nephrologists used some form of implicit persuasion. Frequently observed behaviours included selectively presenting treatment options, benefits and harms, and giving the impression that undergoing or foregoing treatment is unusual. The extent to which nephrologists used these behaviours differed.

CONCLUSION

The use of implicit persuasion while discussing different kidney replacement modalities appears diverse and quite common. Nephrologists should be made aware of these behaviours as implicit persuasion might prevent patients to become knowledgeable in each treatment option, thereby affecting SDM and causing decisional regret. The developed coding scheme for observing implicit persuasion elicits useful and clinically relevant examples which could be used when providing feedback to nephrologists.

Shared Decision-Making With a Virtual Patient in Medical Education: Mixed Methods Evaluation Study

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a process in which clinicians and patients work together to select tests, treatments, management, or support packages based on clinical evidence and the patient's informed preferences. Similar to any skill, SDM requires practice to improve. Virtual patients (VPs) are simulations that allow one to practice a variety of clinical skills, including communication. VPs can be used to help professionals and students practice communication skills required to engage in SDM; however, this specific focus has not received much attention within the literature. A multiple-choice VP was developed to allow students the opportunity to practice SDM. To interact with the VP, users chose what they wanted to say to the VP by choosing from multiple predefined options, rather than typing in what they wanted to say.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate a VP workshop for medical students aimed at developing the communication skills required for SDM.

METHODS

Preintervention and postintervention questionnaires were administered, followed by semistructured interviews. The questionnaires provided cohort-level data on the participants' views of the VP and helped to inform the interview guide; the interviews were used to explore some of the data from the questionnaire in more depth, including the participants' experience of using the VP.

RESULTS

The interviews and questionnaires suggested that the VP was enjoyable and easy to use. When the participants were asked to rank their priorities in both pre- and post-VP consultations, there was a change in the rank position of respecting patient choices, with the median rank changing from second to first. Owing to the small sample size, this was not analyzed for statistical significance. The VP allowed the participants to explore a consultation in a way that they could not with simulated or real patients, which may be part of the reason that the VP was suggested as a useful intervention for bridging from the early, theory-focused years of the curriculum to the more patient-focused ones later.

CONCLUSIONS

The VP was well accepted by the participants. The multiple-choice system of interaction was reported to be both useful and restrictive. Future work should look at further developing the mode of interaction and explore whether the VP results in any changes in observed behavior or practice.

Chinese mental health professionals' perceptions of shared decision-making regarding people diagnosed with schizophrenia: A qualitative study

The implementation of shared decision-making regarding people diagnosed with schizophrenia is limited, although it is reported to have a positive impact on improving treatment adherence, therapeutic relationships and saving medical costs. The successful implementation of it is mainly dependent on the active engagement of mental health professionals. This study aims to identify mental health professionals' perceptions of shared decision-making regarding people diagnosed with schizophrenia in collectivist cultures such as Chinese culture. A qualitative descriptive approach was used, involving ten individual interviews with psychiatrists and four focus groups with twenty-three mental health nurses from the psychiatry department of a tertiary hospital in mainland China. An inductive thematic approach was used to analyze the data. Two main themes with five subthemes generated: willingness to engage in shared decision-making and perceiving shared decision-making as unachievable. The last theme included five subthemes: (i) deference to authority, (ii) tension between family decision-making and patient autonomy, (iii) uncertainty of trusting therapeutic relationships, (iv) implicit persuasion and (v) insufficient consultation time. Patients often lack opportunity and support to engage in decision-making. Mental health nurses in other countries need to be aware that Chinese patients and patients with a similar background are not knowledgeable about or value shared decision-making to the extent that other countries might. They need to evaluate and support them, including encouraging them to engage in decision-making as well as providing appropriate information. Mental health nurses need to collaborate with patients and their families to achieve patient-centred care when family involvement is expected.

Quality of Patient Education Materials on Safe Opioid Management in the Acute Perioperative Period: What Do Patients Find Online?

OBJECTIVE

Guidelines on postoperative pain management recommend inclusion of patient and caregiver education on opioid safety. Patient education materials (PEMs) should be written at or below a sixth grade reading level. We designed this study to compare the readability of online PEMs related to postoperative opioid management produced by institutions with and without a regional anesthesiology and acute pain medicine (RAAPM) fellowship.

METHODS

With institutional review board exemption, we constructed our cohort of PEMs by searching RAAPM fellowship websites from North American academic medical centers and identified additional websites using structured Internet searches. Readability metrics were calculated from PEMs using the TextStat 0.4.1 textual analysis package for Python 2.7. The primary outcome was the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), a score based on words per sentence and syllables per word. We also compared fellowship-based and nonfellowship PEMs on the presence or absence of specific content-related items.

RESULTS

PEMs from 15 fellowship and 23 nonfellowship institutions were included. The mean (SD) FKGL for PEMs was grade 7.84 (1.98) compared with the recommended sixth grade level (P < 0.001) and was not different between groups. Less than half of online PEMs contained explicit discussion of opioid tapering or cessation. Disposal and overdose risk were addressed more often by nonfellowship PEMs.

CONCLUSIONS

Available online PEMs related to opioid management are beyond the recommended reading level, but readability metrics for online PEMs do not differ between fellowship and nonfellowship groups. More than two-thirds of RAAPM fellowship programs in North America are lacking readable online PEMs on safe postoperative opioid management.

Dementia, Treatment Decisions, and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities. A New Framework for Old Problems

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has been at the center of considerable debate in the field of mental health. The discussion has caught up in particular after the publication of General Comment No. 1 in which the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities proposes a particularly radical interpretation of Article 12 of the Convention. Such a document has triggered skeptic and at times hostile reactions especially by psychiatrists, together with some positive comments. In this context, there is sometimes the tendency to focus only on the problematic aspects of the rights and support based model proposed by the CRPD and its Committee, forgetting that also "pre-CRPD" legislations on legal capacity present significant shortcomings. In this contribution I focus on the paradigmatic case of treatment decisions of people living with dementia with the aim to show how a number of provisions emerging from the CRPD and General Comment No. 1 can contribute to overcome the issues characterizing the traditional model of legal capacity and consent to treatment. First, I provide a brief overview of the provisions contained in the CRPD and General Comment No.1, summarizing the debate in this area. Then, I move to the case of treatment decisions of people living with dementia, analysing the main issues posed by the traditional model of capacity still characterizing European legislations. I will show how such problems and the solutions previously advanced by academics and practitioners resound in many ways with those identified by the CRPD and its Committee. In the second part, I analyse one by one the main provisions proposed by the CRPD and the Committee, studying how they can be applied in the area of treatment decisions of people living with dementia. In this context I point out the possible interpretations of the various provisions and their pros and cons, also referring to ongoing initiatives providing an insight on how such norms might work in practice.

Treatment decision-making in diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis: a patient's perspective

OBJECTIVES

To examine the treatment decision-making process of patients with dcSSc in the context of haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT).

METHODS

A qualitative semi-structured interview study was done in patients before or after HSCT, or patients who chose another treatment than HSCT. Thematic analysis was used. Shared decision-making (SDM) was assessed with the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9).

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients [16 male/nine female, median age 47 (range 27-68) years] were interviewed: five pre-HSCT, 16 post-HSCT and four following other treatment. Whereas the SDM-Q-9 showed the decision-making process was perceived as shared [median score 81/100 (range 49-100)], we learned from the interviews that the decision was predominantly made by the rheumatologist, and patients were often steered towards a treatment option. Strong guidance of the rheumatologist was appreciated because of a lack of accessible, reliable and SSc-specific information, due to the approach of the decision-making process of the rheumatologist, the large consequence of the decision and the trust in their doctor. Expectations of outcomes and risks also differed between patients. Furthermore, more than half of patients felt they had no choice but to go for HSCT, due to rapid deterioration of health and the perception of HSCT as 'the holy grail'.

CONCLUSION

This is the first study that provides insight into the decision-making process in dcSSc. This process is negatively impacted by a lack of disease-specific education about treatment options. Additionally, we recommend exploring patients' preferences and understanding of the illness to optimally guide decision-making and to provide tailor-made information.

The use of PROMs and shared decision-making in medical encounters with patients: An opportunity to deliver value-based health care to patients

BACKGROUND

The recent emphasis on value-based health care (VBHC) is thought to provide new opportunities for shared decision-making (SDM) in the Netherlands, especially when using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in routine medical encounters. It is still largely unclear about how PROMs could be linked to SDM and what we expect from clinicians in this respect.

AIM

To describe approaches and lessons learned in the fields of SDM and VBHC implementation that converge in using PROMs in medical encounters.

APPROACH

Based on input from three Dutch forerunner case examples and available evidence about SDM and VBHC, we describe barriers and facilitators regarding the use of PROMs and SDM in the medical encounter. Barriers and facilitators were structured according to a conversational model that included monitoring and managing, team talk, option talk, choice talk, and decision talk. Key lessons learned and recommendations were synthesized.

RESULTS

The use of individual, N = 1 PROMs scores in the medical encounter has been largely achieved in the forerunner projects. Conversation on monitoring and managing is relatively well implemented, and option talk to some extent, unlike team talk, and decision talk. Aggregated PROMs information describing outcomes of treatment options seemed to be scarcely used. Experienced barriers largely corresponded to what is known from the literature, eg, perceived lack of time and lack of tools summarizing the options. Some concerns were identified about increasing health care consumption as a result of using PROMs and SDM in the medical encounter.

CONCLUSION

Successful implementation of SDM within VBHC initiatives may not be self-evident, even though individual, N = 1 PROMs scores are being used in the medical encounter. Education and staff resources on meso and macro levels may facilitate the more time-consuming SDM aspects. It seems fruitful to especially target team talk and choice talk in redesigning clinical pathways.

The clinical practice guideline palliative care for children and other strategies to enhance shared decision-making in pediatric palliative care; pediatricians' critical reflections

BACKGROUND

Because of practice variation and new developments in palliative pediatric care, the Dutch Association of Pediatrics decided to develop the clinical practice guideline (CPG) palliative care for children. With this guideline, the association also wanted to precipitate an attitude shift towards shared decision-making (SDM) and therefore integrated SDM in the CPG Palliative care for children. The aim was to gain insight if integrating SDM in CPGs can potentially encourage pediatricians to practice SDM. Its objectives were to explore pediatricians' attitudes and thoughts regarding (1) recommendations on SDM in CPGs in general and the guideline Palliative care for children specifically; (2) other SDM enhancing strategies or tools linked to CPGs.

METHODS

Semi-structured face-to-face interviews. Pediatricians (15) were recruited through purposive sampling in three university-based pediatric centers in the Netherlands. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim, coded by at least two authors and analyzed with NVivo.

RESULTS

Some pediatricians considered SDM a skill or attitude that cannot be addressed by clinical practice guidelines. According to others, however, clinical practice guidelines could enhance SDM. In case of the guideline Palliative care for children, the recommendations needed to focus more on how to practice SDM, and offer more detailed recommendations, preferring a recommendation stating multiple options. Most interviewed pediatricians felt that patient decisions aids were beneficial to patients, and could ensure that all topics relevant to the patient are covered, even topics the pediatrician might not consider him or herself, or deems less important. Regardless of the perceived benefit, some pediatricians preferred providing the information themselves instead of using a patient decision aid.

CONCLUSIONS

For clinical practice guidelines to potentially enhance SDM, guideline developers should avoid blanket recommendations in the case of preference sensitive choices, and SDM should not be limited to recommendations on non-treatment decisions. Furthermore, preference sensitive recommendations are preferably linked with patient decision aids.

'We don't know for sure': discussion of uncertainty concerning multigene panel testing during initial cancer genetic consultations

Pre-test counseling about multigene panel testing involves many uncertainties. Ideally, counselees are informed about uncertainties in a way that enables them to make an informed decision about panel testing. It is presently unknown whether and how uncertainty is discussed during initial cancer genetic counseling. We therefore investigated whether and how counselors discuss and address uncertainty, and the extent of shared decision-making (SDM), and explored associations between counselors’ communication and their characteristics in consultations on panel testing for cancer. For this purpose, consultations of counselors discussing a multigene panel with a simulated patient were videotaped. Simulated patients represented a counselee who had had multiple cancer types, according to a script. Before and afterwards, counselors completed a survey. Counselors’ uncertainty expressions, initiating and the framing of expressions, and their verbal responses to scripted uncertainties of the simulated patient were coded by two researchers independently. Coding was done according to a pre-developed coding scheme using The Observer XT software for observational analysis. Additionally, the degree of SDM was assessed by two observers. Correlation and regression analyses were performed to assess associations of communicated uncertainties, responses and the extent of SDM, with counselors’ background characteristics. In total, twenty-nine counselors, including clinical geneticists, genetic counselors, physician assistants-in-training, residents and interns, participated of whom working experience varied between 0 and 25 years. Counselors expressed uncertainties mainly regarding scientific topics (94%) and on their own initiative (95%). Most expressions were framed directly (77%), e.g. We don’t know, and were emotionally neutral (59%; without a positive/negative value). Counselors mainly responded to uncertainties of the simulated patient by explicitly referring to the uncertainty (69%), without providing space for further disclosure (66%). More experienced counselors provided less space to further disclose uncertainty (p < 0.02), and clinical geneticists scored lower on SDM compared with other types of counselors (p < 0.03). Our findings that counselors mainly communicate scientific uncertainties and use space-reducing responses imply that the way counselors address counselees’ personal uncertainties and concerns during initial cancer genetic counseling is suboptimal.

Beyond pros and cons - developing a patient decision aid to cultivate dialog to build relationships: insights from a qualitative study and decision aid development

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.

Barriers to eliciting patient goals and values in shared decision-making breast cancer surgery consultations: An ethnographic and interview study

OBJECTIVE

Previous research has demonstrated the importance of eliciting patients' goals and values during shared decision-making (SDM), but this does not occur in most SDM conversations. Understanding challenges to eliciting patients' goals and values is crucial. This study assessed how clinicians balanced sharing medical information and considering patients' goals and values during breast cancer surgery consultation in an integrated health care system.

METHODS

We conducted interviews with clinicians (n = 6) and patients (n = 11) and conducted naturalistic, ethnographic observations of eight surgical consultations in a multidisciplinary breast cancer clinic. We analyzed the data following the template method using the qualitative software NVivo 10.

RESULTS

Clinicians prioritized sharing medical information. We identified four patient factors necessary to integrate patients' values and goals into the conversation in addition to sharing medical information: ability to process large quantities of information quickly, willingness to embrace swift decision-making, ability to quickly formulate one's values, and prioritization of surgical choice as the goal of the conversation.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that SDM implementation results in practices that emphasize information and choice, with less focus on patient goals and values. More research is needed to explore factors that may encourage the elicitation of patients' goals and values.

A Learning Loop Model of Collaborative Decision-Making in Chronic Illness

Shared decision-making is a core attribute of quality health care that has proved challenging to implement and assess in pediatric practice. Current models of shared decision-making are limited, including their capacity to incorporate multiple stakeholders; to integrate downstream effects of subacute or minor decisions; and to account for the context(s) in which such decisions are being made and enacted. Based on a review of literature from organizational psychology, cognitive sciences, business, and medicine, we propose an iterative decision-making model of care planning and identify targets at several levels of influence warranting measurement in future studies. Our learning loop model posits the relationship between pediatric patients, their parents, and their clinicians as central to the collaborative decision-making process in the setting of chronic illness. The model incorporates the evolution of both context and developmental capacity over time. It suggests that "meta-learning" from the experience of and outcomes from iterative decision is a key factor that may influence relationships and thus continued engagement in collaboration by patients, their parents, and their clinicians. We consider the model in light of the needs of children with special health care needs, for whom understanding the ongoing iterative effects of decision making and clinician-parent-child dynamics are likely to be particularly important in influencing outcomes.

Making decisions on health care for children / adolescents with complex chronic conditions: a review of the literature

The profile of pediatric care has gone through changes in Brazil and in the world. This process becomes more visible in surveys that deal with hospital admission or specialized outpatient care data. This fact leads us to the idea that it is in such spaces that these children and subjects who care for them are more visible and negotiate decisions. We aim to perform a state of the art literature review on decision making discussions and definitions, analyzing the current research in light of the theoretical Mol perspectives on the actors' logics of chronic diseases care; And the perspective of care goods exchanges in the dialogue between Martins and Moreira, triggering the Theory of Gift. The synthesis of the literature shows that decision making may be understood as a care planning process in which family, patients and health professionals are involved, and is linked to the family-centered care model. In terms of difficulties, we point out the prevalence of a dynamic that favors a criticizable choice because of the risks of inequality, such as the lack of discussion on the options and the actuation of the family mostly in times of difficult decisions.

Discussions about evidence and preferences in real-life general practice consultations with older patients

OBJECTIVES

To explore how decisions are made in real-life general practice consultations with older patients (65+ years), and examine how general practitioners (GPs) communicate risk and benefit information and evidence, and integrate patient preferences.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of 20 video-recorded consultations with older patients in Australian primary healthcare settings. Consultations were analysed qualitatively using the Framework method and quantitatively using the Observer OPTION⁵ scale and the Assessing Communication about Evidence and Patient Preferences (ACEPP) tool.

RESULTS

Overall, Observer OPTION⁵ and ACEPP scores were low, with mean total scores of 11.3 (out of 100) and 10.4 (out of 40) respectively. Together with qualitative findings, these results suggest that shared decision-making did not occur, and that healthcare options (including anticipated benefits and risks), evidence and patient preferences were rarely discussed in our sample of consultations with older people. GPs often unilaterally made treatment decisions (usually pharmacotherapy) while patients reverted to a passive decision-making role.

CONCLUSION

We observed a lack of shared decision-making in our primary care study, with little engagement of older patients in decisions about their health.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Training and support tools may be needed to enhance the capacity and self-efficacy of providers and older patients to share healthcare decisions.

The Me first communication model

This article explores communication and decision-making with children and young people in healthcare. Children and young people report that healthcare professionals are good at explaining and helping them to understand what will happen to them, but that they do not feel involved in decision-making about their care or treatment. To improve communication with children and young people, they need to be involved in decision-making about their care and treatment. In partnership with children, young people and healthcare professionals Common Room Consulting, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust and Health Education England have co-produced a communication model, Me first, to support decision-making with children and young people in healthcare. This article introduces the Me first model and explores how it can be applied in clinical practice.

Barriers and facilitators of pediatric shared decision-making: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) is rarely implemented in pediatric practice. Pediatric health decision-making differs from that of adult practice. Yet, little is known about the factors that influence the implementation of pediatric shared decision-making (SDM). We synthesized pediatric SDM barriers and facilitators from the perspectives of healthcare providers (HCP), parents, children, and observers (i.e., persons who evaluated the SDM process, but were not directly involved).

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review guided by the Ottawa Model of Research Use (OMRU). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PubMed, and PsycINFO (inception to March 2017) and included studies that reported clinical pediatric SDM barriers and/or facilitators from the perspective of HCPs, parents, children, and/or observers. We considered all or no comparison groups and included all study designs reporting original data. Content analysis was used to synthesize barriers and facilitators and categorized them according to the OMRU levels (i.e., decision, innovation, adopters, relational, and environment) and participant types (i.e., HCP, parents, children, and observers). We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to appraise study quality.

RESULTS

Of 20,008 identified citations, 79 were included. At each OMRU level, the most frequent barriers were features of the options (decision), poor quality information (innovation), parent/child emotional state (adopter), power relations (relational), and insufficient time (environment). The most frequent facilitators were low stake decisions (decision), good quality information (innovation), agreement with SDM (adopter), trust and respect (relational), and SDM tools/resources (environment). Across participant types, the most frequent barriers were insufficient time (HCPs), features of the options (parents), power imbalances (children), and HCP skill for SDM (observers). The most frequent facilitators were good quality information (HCP) and agreement with SDM (parents and children). There was no consistent facilitator category for observers. Overall, study quality was moderate with quantitative studies having the highest ratings and mixed-method studies having the lowest ratings.

CONCLUSIONS

Numerous diverse and interrelated factors influence SDM use in pediatric clinical practice. Our findings can be used to identify potential pediatric SDM barriers and facilitators, guide context-specific barrier and facilitator assessments, and inform interventions for implementing SDM in pediatric practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42015020527.

Reconciling the theory and reality of shared decision-making: A "matching" approach to practitioner leadership

Shared decision making (SDM) evolved to resolve tension between patients’ entitlement to make health‐care decisions and practitioners’ responsibility to protect patients’ interests. Implicitly assuming that patients are willing and able to make “good” decisions, SDM proponents suggest that patients and practitioners negotiate decisions. In practice, patients often do not wish to participate in decisions, or cannot make good decisions. Consequently, practitioners sometimes lead decision making, but doing so risks the paternalism that SDM is intended to avoid. We argue that practitioners should take leadership when patients cannot make good decisions, but practitioners will need to know: (a) when good decisions are not being made; and (b) how to intervene appropriately and proportionately when patients cannot make good decisions. Regarding (a), patients rarely make decisions using formal decision logic, but rely on informal propositions about risks and benefits. As propositions are idiographic and their meanings context‐dependent, normative standards of decision quality cannot be imposed. Practitioners must assess decision quality by making subjective and contextualized judgements as to the “reasonableness” of the underlying propositions. Regarding (b), matched to judgements of reasonableness, we describe levels of leadership distinguished according to how directively practitioners act; ranging from prompting patients to question unreasonable propositions or consider new propositions, to directive leadership whereby practitioners recommend options or deny requested procedures. In the context of ideas of relational autonomy, the objective of practitioner leadership is to protect patients’ autonomy by supporting good decision making, taking leadership in patients’ interests only when patients are unwilling or unable to make good decisions.

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

Background

We 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.

Objectives

To (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.

Design

A 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 participants

The primary study was conducted in two neurology outpatient centres. A total of 14 neurologists, 223 patients and 114 accompanying others participated.

Results

Distribution 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.

Limitations

A 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.

Conclusions

Patient 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 research

To 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).

Funding

The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

The categorisation of resistance: interpreting failure to follow a proposed line of action in the diagnosis of autism amongst young adults

Many characteristics typical of autism, a neurodevelopmental condition characterised by socio-communicative impairments, are most evident during social interaction. Accordingly, procedures such as the Autism Diagnosis Observation Schedule (ADOS) are interactive and intended to elicit interactional impairments: a diagnosis of autism is given if interactional difficulties are attributed as a persistent quality of the individual undergoing diagnosis. This task is difficult, first, because behaviours can be interpreted in various ways and, second, because conversation breakdown may indicate a disengagement with, or resistance to, a line of conversation. Drawing upon conversation analysis, we examine seven ADOS diagnosis sessions and ask how diagnosticians distinguish between interactional resistance as, on the one hand, a diagnostic indicator and, on the other, as a reasonable choice from a range of possible responses. We find evidence of various forms of resistance during ADOS sessions, but it is a resistance to a line of conversational action that is often determined to be indicative of autism. However, and as we show, this attribution of resistance can be ambiguous. We conclude by arguing for reflexive practice during any diagnosis where talk is the problem, and for a commitment to acknowledge the potential impact of diagnostic procedures themselves upon results.

Clinical and sociodemographic associations with treatment selection in major depression

OBJECTIVE

To investigate treatment selection in a naturalistic sample of MDD outpatients and the factors influencing treatment selection in specialized psychiatric care.

METHOD

Multinomial Logistic Regression analysis investigated associations between treatment selection and patients' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, using retrospective chart review data and Routine Outcome Monitoring (ROM) data of MDD outpatients.

RESULTS

Of the patients included for analyses (N = 263), 34% received psychotherapy, 32% received an antidepressant (AD) and 35% received a combination. Men were more likely than women to receive AD with reference to psychotherapy (OR_AD = 5.57, 95% CI 2.38-13.00). Patients with severe depression and patients with AD use upon referral, prescribed by their general practitioner, were more likely to receive AD (OR_{severe depression} = 5.34, 95% CI 1.70-16.78/OR_{AD GP} = 9.26, 95% CI 2.53-33.90) or combined treatment (OR_{severe depression} = 6.32, 95% CI 1.86-21.49/OR_{AD GP} = 22.36, 95% CI 5.89-83.59) with respect to psychotherapy. More severe patients with AD upon referral received combined treatment less often compared to psychotherapy (OR = 0.14, 95% CI 0.03-0.68).

CONCLUSION

AD prescriptions in primary care, severity and gender influenced treatment selection for depressive disorders in secondary psychiatric care. Other factors such as the accessibility of treatment and patient preferences may have played a role in treatment selection in this setting and need further investigation.

Exploring Differences in Patient-Centered Practices among Healthcare Professionals in Acute Care Settings

There is limited evidence of the extent to which Healthcare professionals implement patient-centered care (PCC) and of the factors influencing their PCC practices in acute care organizations. This study aimed to (1) examine the practices reported by health professionals (physicians, nurses, social workers, other healthcare providers) in relation to three PCC components (holistic, collaborative, and responsive care), and (2) explore the association of professionals' characteristics (gender, work experience) and a contextual factor (caseload), with the professionals' PCC practices. Data were obtained from a large scale cross-sectional study, conducted in 18 hospitals in Ontario, Canada. Consenting professionals (n = 382) completed a self-report instrument assessing the three PCC components and responded to standard questions inquiring about their characteristics and workload. Small differences were found in the PCC practices across professional groups: (1) physicians reported higher levels of enacting the holistic care component; (2) physicians, other healthcare providers, and social workers reported implementing higher levels of the collaborative care component; and (3) physicians, nurses, and other healthcare providers reported higher levels of providing responsive care. Caseload influenced holistic care practices. Interprofessional education and training strategies are needed to clarify and address professional differences in valuing and practicing PCC components. Clinical guidelines can be revised to enable professionals to engage patients in care-related decisions, customize patient care, and promote interprofessional collaboration in planning and implementing PCC. Additional research is warranted to determine the influence of professional, patient, and other contextual factors on professionals' PCC practices in acute care hospitals.

Continue, adjust, or stop antipsychotic medication: developing and user testing an encounter decision aid for people with first-episode and long-term psychosis

BACKGROUND

People with psychosis struggle with decisions about their use of antipsychotics. They often want to reduce the dose or stop, while facing uncertainty regarding the effects these decisions will have on their treatment and recovery. They may also fear raising this issue with clinicians. The purpose of this study was to develop and test a shared decision making (SDM) tool to support patients and clinicians in making decisions about antipsychotics.

METHODS

A diverse editorial research team developed an Encounter Decision Aid (EDA) for patients and clinicians to use as part of the psychiatric consultation. The EDA was tested using 24 semistructured interviews with participants representing six stakeholder groups: patients with first-episode psychosis, patients with long-term psychosis, family members, psychiatrists, mental health counselors, and administrators. We used inductive and deductive coding of interview transcripts to identify points to revise within three domains: general impression and purpose of the EDA; suggested changes to the content, wording, and appearance; and usability and potential contribution to the psychiatric consultation.

RESULTS

An EDA was developed in an iterative process that yielded evidence-based answers to five frequently asked questions about antipsychotic medications. Patients with long-term psychosis and mental health counselors suggested more changes and revisions than patients with first-episode psychosis and psychiatrists. Family members suggested more revisions to the answers about potential risks of stopping or adjusting antipsychotics than other respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

The EDA was perceived as potentially useful and feasible in psychiatric routine care, especially if presented during the consultation.

Veterans Like Me: Formative evaluation of a patient decision aid design

Patient decision aids are tools intended to facilitate shared decision-making. Currently development of a patient decision aid is resource intensive: it requires a decision-specific review of the scientific literature by experts to ascertain the potential outcomes under different treatments. The goal of this project was to conduct a formative evaluation of a generalizable, scalable decision aid component we call Veterans Like Me (VLme). VLme mines EHR data to present the outcomes of individuals "like you" on different treatments to the user. These outcome are presented through a combination of an icon array and simulated narratives. Twenty-six patients participated in semi-structured interviews intended to elicit feedback on the tool's functional and interface design. The interview focused on the filters users desired with which to make cases similar to them, the kinds of outcomes they wanted presented, and their envisioned use of the tool. The interview also elicited participants information needs and salient factors related to the therapeutic decision. The interview transcripts were analyzed using an iteratively refined coding schema and content analysis. . Participants generally expressed enthusiasm for the tool's design and functionality. Our analysis identified desired filters for users to view patients like themselves, outcome types that should be included in future iterations of the tool (e.g. patient reported outcomes), and information needs that need to be addressed for patients to effectively participate in shared decision making. Implications for the integration of our findings into the design of patient decision aids are discussed.

Parental decision making involvement and decisional conflict: a descriptive study

Background

Decisional conflict is a state of uncertainty about the best treatment option among competing alternatives and is common among adult patients who are inadequately involved in the health decision making process. In pediatrics, research shows that many parents are insufficiently involved in decisions about their child’s health. However, little is known about parents’ experience of decisional conflict. We explored parents’ perceived decision making involvement and its association with parents’ decisional conflict.

Method

We conducted a descriptive survey study in a pediatric tertiary care hospital. Our survey was guided by validated decisional conflict screening items (i.e., the SURE test). We administered the survey to eligible parents after an ambulatory care or emergency department consultation for their child.

Results

Four hundred twenty-nine respondents were included in the analysis. Forty-eight percent of parents reported not being offered treatment options and 23% screened positive for decisional conflict. Parents who reported being offered options experienced less decisional conflict than parents who reported not being offered options (5% vs. 42%, p < 0.001). Further, parents with options were more likely to: feel sure about the decision (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02–1.15); understand the information (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.63–2.28); be clear about the risks and benefits (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.05–1.20); and, have sufficient support and advice to make a choice (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03–1.11).

Conclusion

Many parents in our sample experienced decisional conflict after their clinical consultation. Involving parents in the decision making process might reduce their risk of decisional conflict. Evidence based interventions that support parent decision making involvement, such as shared decision making, should be evaluated and implemented in pediatrics as a strategy to reduce parents’ decisional conflict.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12887-017-0899-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Implementing shared decision making in routine mental health care

Shared decision making (SDM) in mental health care involves clinicians and patients working together to make decisions. The key elements of SDM have been identified, decision support tools have been developed, and SDM has been recommended in mental health at policy level. Yet implementation remains limited. Two justifications are typically advanced in support of SDM. The clinical justification is that SDM leads to improved outcome, yet the available empirical evidence base is inconclusive. The ethical justification is that SDM is a right, but clinicians need to balance the biomedical ethical principles of autonomy and justice with beneficence and non-maleficence. It is argued that SDM is "polyvalent", a sociological concept which describes an idea commanding superficial but not deep agreement between disparate stakeholders. Implementing SDM in routine mental health services is as much a cultural as a technical problem. Three challenges are identified: creating widespread access to high-quality decision support tools; integrating SDM with other recovery-supporting interventions; and responding to cultural changes as patients develop the normal expectations of citizenship. Two approaches which may inform responses in the mental health system to these cultural changes - social marketing and the hospitality industry - are identified.

The prescription talk - an approach to teach patient-physician conversation about drug prescription to medical students

Background: Medication communication from physicians to patients often is poor, by this among others enhancing the risk of non-adherence. In this context, a neglect regarding the prescription talk has been complained. Aim of the project: In a newly developed elective medical students work on physician-patient conversations dealing with drug prescription. Essential aspects related to an effective and safe drug treatment are combined with steps of shared decision-making. Together with a tutor, students develop a (model) conversation guide that might be tailored according to individual needs and views. Description/Methods: In a one-week course 3rd-5th year medical students treat a paper case according to problem-based learning. This is accompanied by a one-hour lecture and literature provided on an online learning platform (ILIAS). During a workshop, aspects of drug treatment and patient participation are integrated into a guide for a prescription talk. At the end of the week the students are invited to apply the (if need be individualized) guide in a simulated physician-patient communication with an actor. The conversation is evaluated using a checklist based upon the (model) conversation guide. Results: Informal and formalized feedback indicate high acceptance and satisfaction of participants with this elective. The checklist turned out to be of acceptable to good reliability with mostly selective items. Portfolio entries and written evaluation suggest that participants' positions and attitudes are influenced.

Working with interpreters: The challenges of introducing Option Grid patient decision aids

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to observe how an Option Grid™ decision aid for clinical encounters might be used where an interpreter is present, and to assess the impact of its use on shared decision making.

METHODS

Data were available from three clinical consultations between patient, clinician (a physiotherapist), and interpreter about knee osteoarthritis. Clinicians were trained in the use of an Option Grid decision aid and the tool was used. Consultations were audio-recorded, transcribed, and translated by independent translators into English.

RESULTS

Analysis revealed the difficulties with introducing a written decision aid into an interpreted consultation. The extra discussion needed between the clinician and interpreter around the principles and purpose of shared decision making and instructions regarding the Option Grid decision aid proved challenging and difficult to manage. Discussion of treatment options while using an Option Grid decision aid was predominantly done between clinician and interpreter. The patient appeared to have little involvement in discussion of treatment options.

CONCLUSION

Patients were not active participants within the discussion. Further work needs to be done on how shared decision making can be achieved within interpreted consultations.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Option Grid decision aids are not being used as intended in interpreted consultations.

The Ethics of Deprescribing in Older Adults

Deprescribing is the term used to describe the process of withdrawal of an inappropriate medication supervised by a clinician. This article presents a discussion of how the Four Principles of biomedical ethics (beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice) that may guide medical practitioners' prescribing practices apply to deprescribing medications in older adults. The view of deprescribing as an act creates stronger moral duties than if viewed as an omission. This may explain the fear of negative outcomes which has been reported by prescribers as a barrier to deprescribing. Respecting the autonomy of older adults is complex as they may not wish to be active in the decision-making process; they may also have reduced cognitive function and family members may therefore have to step in as surrogate decision-makers. Informed consent is intended as a process of information giving and reflection, where consent can be withdrawn at any time. However, people are rarely updated on the altered risks and benefits of their long-term medications as they age. Cessation of inappropriate medication use has a large financial benefit to the individual and the community. However, the principle of justice also dictates equal rights to treatment regardless of age.

High Levels of Decisional Conflict and Decision Regret When Making Decisions About Biologics

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to understand the association between parents' perceptions of the decision process and the decision outcomes in decisions about the use of biologics in pediatric chronic conditions.

METHODS

We mailed surveys to parents of children with inflammatory bowel disease or juvenile idiopathic arthritis who had started treatment with biologics in the prior 2 years and were treated at either of 2 children's hospitals. The survey included measures of the decision process, including decision control and physician engagement, and decision outcomes, including conflict and regret. We used means and frequencies to assess the response distributions. General linear models were used to test the associations between decision process and decision outcomes.

RESULTS

We had 201 respondents (response rate 54.9%). Approximately 47.0% reported using shared decision making. Each physician engagement behavior was experienced by the majority of parents, with the highest percentage reporting that their child's physician used language they understood and listened to them. Approximately 48.5% of parents had decisional conflict scores of 25 or greater, indicating high levels of conflict. Approximately 28.2% had no regret, 31.8% had mild regret, and the remaining 40.0% had moderate to severe regret. Shared decision making was not associated with improved decisional conflict, but physician engagement behaviors were associated with both decisional conflict and regret.

CONCLUSIONS

Improving decision outcomes will require more than just focusing on who parents perceive as controlling the final decision. Developing interventions that facilitate specific physician engagement behaviors may decrease parents' distress around decision making and improve decision outcomes.

Individualized Integrative Cancer Care in Anthroposophic Medicine: A Qualitative Study of the Concepts and Procedures of Expert Doctors

Background Cancer patients widely seek integrative oncology which embraces a wide variety of treatments and system approaches. Objective To investigate the concepts, therapeutic goals, procedures, and working conditions of integrative oncology doctors in the field of anthroposophic medicine. Methods This qualitative study was based on in-depth interviews with 35 highly experienced doctors working in hospitals and office-based practices in Germany and other countries. Structured qualitative content analysis was applied to examine the data. Results The doctors integrated conventional and holistic cancer concepts. Their treatments aimed at both tumor and symptom control and at strengthening the patient on different levels: living with the disease, overcoming the disease, enabling emotional and cognitive development, and addressing spiritual or transcendental issues according to the patient's wishes and initiatives. Therapeutic procedures were conventional anticancer and symptom-relieving treatments, herbal and mineral remedies, mistletoe therapy, art therapies, massages and other external applications, nutrition and lifestyle advice, psychological support, and multiple forms of empowerment. The approach emphasised good patient-doctor relationships and sufficient time for patient encounters and decision-making. Individualization appeared in several dimensions and was interwoven with standards and mindlines. The doctors often worked in teams and cooperated with other cancer care-related specialists. Conclusion Integrative cancer care pursues an individualized and patient-centered approach, encompassing conventional and multimodal complementary interventions, and addressing, along with physical and functional needs, the emotional and spiritual needs of patients. This seems to be important for tumor and symptom control, and addresses major challenges and important goals of modern cancer care.