Patient and companion shared decision making and satisfaction with decisions about starting cholinesterase medication at dementia diagnosis

Factors influencing the engagement of older adults with neurocognitive disorders in the design of decision aids: A qualitative descriptive study

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors influencing the engagement of older adults with neurocognitive disorders (NCDs) in the design of decision aids (DAs).

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative descriptive study using semi-structured interviews with 23 older adults with NCDs who were accompanied by 27 caregivers. This is a secondary analysis of a published study to identify the features of DAs designed for this population and their caregivers.

RESULTS

Several behaviours and attitudes of caregivers and researchers hindered the older adults' engagement in the DA design process. Specific communication strategies can be employed to support their engagement and overcome the communication challenges inherent to this population, such as memory, attention, hearing, or visual impairments. Adopting the appropriate attitude, taking the time, and providing guidance to the older person can help them focus on the topic, while developing trust between participants is a facilitator to obtain their feedback.

CONCLUSION

Findings from this project could serve to inform the communication and co-design of DAs with older people with NCDs and their caregivers.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Caregivers and researchers have key roles to play in facilitating communication with older persons with NCDs so they are empowered to help in co-designing DAs.

Patterns of use of symptomatic treatments for Alzheimer's disease dementia (AD)

BACKGROUND

Symptomatic treatment for Alzheimer's disease (AD) dementia could temporarily slow symptom worsening and improve the quality of life for both AD dementia patients and their caregivers. A comprehensive evaluation of symptomatic treatment patterns using recent data for newly diagnosed AD dementia has not been performed and compared across different countries.

METHODS

The drug name, time to the first therapy, duration, discontinuation or switches were described in newly diagnosed AD dementia patients in two databases (a major U.S. health plan [US] and UK-Clinical Practice Research Datalink [CPRD GOLD]). This analysis included patients with newly diagnosed AD dementia in 2018-2019, who initiated symptomatic AD drug therapy, with ≥ 1 year baseline period and ≥ 1 year of follow-up.

RESULTS

Over median follow-ups of 698 and 645 days, 63% and 65% of AD dementia patients used symptomatic treatments, with 34% and 77% newly initiating therapy, constituting analytic samples of 7637 patients in the US database and 4470 patients in the CPRD, respectively. The median time to the first therapy was 14 days for US and 49 days for CPRD; donepezil ranked the as most frequently used (69% vs 61%), followed by memantine (19% vs 28%) in the US database and CPRD, respectively. Median time on first therapy was 213 and 334 days, and 30% and 12% of patients proceeded to a second treatment in the US and CPRD databases, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Approximately two thirds of newly diagnosed AD dementia patients utilized approved symptomatic treatment. Time on first therapy was relatively short (< 1 year) and the majority did not move to a second therapy, highlighting the need for better adherence and persistence to existing AD symptomatic therapies and the need for additional therapies to alleviate the significant burden of AD dementia.

Shared decision-making in persons living with dementia: A scoping review

Evidence supports that older adults with cognitive impairment can reliably communicate their values and choices, even as cognition may decline. Shared decision-making, including the patient, family members, and healthcare providers, is critical to patient-centered care. The aim of this scoping review was to synthesize what is known about shared decision-making in persons living with dementia. A scoping review was completed in PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science. Keywords included content areas of dementia and shared decision-making. Inclusion criteria were as follows: description of shared or cooperative decision making, cognitively impaired patient population, adult patient, and original research. Review articles were excluded, as well as those for which the formal healthcare provider was the only team member involved in the decision-making (e.g., physician), and/or the patient sample was not cognitively impaired. Systematically extracted data were organized in a table, compared, and synthesized. The search yielded 263 non-duplicate articles that were screened by title and abstract. Ninety-three articles remained, and the full text was reviewed; 32 articles were eligible for this review. Studies were from across Europe (n = 23), North America (n = 7), and Australia (n = 2). The majority of the articles used a qualitative study design, and 10 used a quantitative study design. Categories of similar shared decision-making topics emerged, including health promotion, end-of-life, advanced care planning, and housing decisions. The majority of articles focused on shared decision-making regarding health promotion for the patient (n = 16). Findings illustrate that shared decision-making requires deliberate effort and is preferred among family members, healthcare providers, and patients with dementia. Future research should include more robust efficacy testing of decision-making tools, incorporation of evidence-based shared decisionmaking approaches based on cognitive status/diagnosis, and consideration of geographical/cultural differences in healthcare delivery systems.

Identifying Patterns in Preoperative Communication about High-Risk Surgical Intervention: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

Surgeons are entrusted with providing patients with information necessary for deliberation about surgical intervention. Ideally, surgical consultations generate a shared understanding of the treatment experience and determine whether surgery aligns with a patient's overall health goals. In-depth assessment of communication patterns might reveal opportunities to better achieve these objectives.

METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis of audio-recorded consultations between surgeons and patients considering high-risk surgery. For 43 surgeons, we randomly selected 4 transcripts each of consultations with patients aged ≥60 y with at least 1 comorbidity. We developed a coding taxonomy, based on principles of informed consent and shared decision making, to categorize surgeon speech. We grouped transcripts by treatment plan and recorded the treatment goal. We used box plots, Sankey diagrams, and flow diagrams to characterize communication patterns.

RESULTS

We included 169 transcripts, of which 136 discussed an oncologic problem and 33 considered a vascular (including cardiac and neurovascular) problem. At the median, surgeons devoted an estimated 8 min (interquartile range 5-13 min) to content specifically about intervention including surgery. In 85.5% of conversations, more than 40% of surgeon speech was consumed by technical descriptions of the disease or treatment. "Fix-it" language was used in 91.7% of conversations. In 79.9% of conversations, no overall goal of treatment was established or only a desire to cure or control cancer was expressed. Most conversations (68.6%) began with an explanation of the disease, followed by explanation of the treatment in 53.3%, and then options in 16.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

Explanation of disease and treatment dominate surgical consultations, with limited time spent on patient goals. Changing the focus of these conversations may better support patients' deliberation about the value of surgery.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02623335.

HIGHLIGHTS

In decision-making conversations about high-risk surgical intervention, surgeons emphasize description of the patient's disease and potential treatment, and the use of "fix-it" language is common.Surgeons dedicated limited time to eliciting patient preferences and goals, and 79.9% of conversations resulted in no explicit goal of treatment.Current communication practices may be inadequate to support deliberation about the value of surgery for individual patients and their families.

Availability and evaluation of medication management resources for carers of people with dementia: a scoping review with an environmental scan

INTRODUCTION

There is a need for resources to guide informal carers in medication management for people with dementia. Availability of resources on medication management guidance has yet to be explored.

AREAS COVERED

A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO was performed in May 2022 to identify and evaluate resources for carers of people with dementia that provide guidance in medication management. Google and known repositories were also searched. Readability of text-based resources was examined using the Flesch-Kincaid reading level, the Flesch reading ease and the Gunning-Fog index. Resources were further evaluated using the Patient Education Material Assessment Tool (PEMAT or PEMAT-A/V).

EXPERT OPINION

Fifteen resources were identified, which largely focused on medication administration with limited discussion of shared decision-making. Current resources do not appear to have included people living with dementia or their carers in their development and did not address high-risk care settings. Codesign of resources with carers and people with dementia would ensure that resources are comprehensive and target their needs. Future research should therefore focus on development of readily available and understandable resources that provide medication management guidance for carers across different health settings, to comprehensively address the multi-faceted nature of dementia.

Video-based observation research: A systematic review of studies in outpatient health care settings

OBJECTIVE

To examine the use of video-based observation research in outpatient health care encounter research.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane and other databases from database inception to October 2020 for reports of studies that used video recording to investigate ambulatory patient-clinician interactions. Two authors independently reviewed all studies for eligibility and extracted information related to study setting and purpose, participant recruitment and consent processes, data collection procedures, method of analysis, and participant sample characteristics.

RESULTS

175 articles were included. Most studies (65%) took place in a primary care or family practice setting. Study objectives were overwhelmingly focused on patient-clinician communication (81%). Reporting of key study elements was inconsistent across included studies.

CONCLUSION

Video recording has been used as a research method in outpatient health care in a limited number and scope of clinical contexts and research domains. In addition, reporting of study design, methodological characteristics, and ethical considerations needs improvement.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Video recording as a method has been relatively underutilized within many clinical and research contexts. This review will serve as a practical resource for health care researchers as they plan and execute future video-based studies.

Bringing personal perspective elicitation to the heart of shared decision-making: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Proponents of shared decision-making (SDM) advocate the elicitation of the patient's perspective. This scoping review explores if, and to what extent, the personal perspectives of patients are elicited during a clinical encounter, as part of a SDM process. We define personal perspective elicitation (PPE) as: the disclosure (either elicited by the clinician or spontaneously expressed by the patient) of information related to the patient's personal preferences, values and/or context.

METHODS

A search was conducted in five literature databases from inception dates up to July 2020, to identify empirical studies about SDM (with/without SDM instrument).

RESULTS

The search identified 4562 abstracts; 263 articles were read in full text, resulting in 99 included studies. Studies reported low levels of PPE. Integration of personal perspectives into the conversation or a future care plan was largely absent. The majority of the discussed content related to physical health, while social and psychological topics were mostly unaddressed.

CONCLUSIONS

PPE occurs on a very low level in efforts to achieve SDM according to evaluation studies.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

PPE is advocated but rarely achieved in SDM evaluation studies. Causes should be identified, followed by designing interventions to improve this aspect of SDM.

Surgeon Use of Shared Decision-making for Older Adults Considering Major Surgery: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Because major surgery carries significant risks for older adults with comorbid conditions, shared decision-making is recommended to ensure patients receive care consistent with their goals. However, it is unknown how often shared decision-making is used for these patients.

Objective

To describe the use of shared decision-making during discussions about major surgery with older adults.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This study is a secondary analysis of conversations audio recorded during a randomized clinical trial of a question prompt list. Data were collected from June 1, 2016, to November 31, 2018, from 43 surgeons and 446 patients 60 years or older with at least 1 comorbidity at outpatient surgical clinics at 5 academic centers.

Interventions

Patients received a question prompt list brochure that contained questions they could ask a surgeon.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The 5-domain Observing Patient Involvement in Decision-making (OPTION5) score (range, 0-100, with higher scores indicating greater shared decision-making) was used to measure shared decision-making.

Results

A total of 378 surgical consultations were analyzed (mean [SD] patient age, 71.9 [7.2] years; 206 [55%] male; 312 [83%] White). The mean (SD) OPTION5 score was 34.7 (20.6) and was not affected by the intervention. The mean (SD) score in the group receiving the question prompt list was 36.7 (21.2); in the control group, the mean (SD) score was 32.9 (19.9) (effect estimate, 3.80; 95% CI, -0.30 to 8.00; P = .07). Individual surgeon use of shared decision-making varied greatly, with a lowest median score of 10 (IQR, 10-20) to a high of 65 (IQR, 55-80). Lower-performing surgeons had little variation in OPTION5 scores, whereas high-performing surgeons had wide variation. Use of shared decision-making increased when surgeons appeared reluctant to operate (effect estimate, 7.40; 95% CI, 2.60-12.20; P = .003). Although longer conversations were associated with slightly higher OPTION5 scores (effect estimate, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52-0.88; P < .001), 57% of high-scoring transcripts were 26 minutes long or less. On multivariable analysis, patient age and gender, patient education, surgeon age, and surgeon gender were not significantly associated with OPTION5 scores.

Conclusions and Relevance

These findings suggest that although shared decision-making is important to support the preferences of older adults considering major surgery, surgeon use of shared decision-making is highly variable. Skillful shared decision-making can be done in less than 30 minutes; however, surgeons who engage in high-scoring shared decision-making are more likely to do so when surgical intervention is less obviously beneficial for the patient.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02623335.

Challenges in disclosing and receiving a diagnosis of dementia: a systematic review of practice from the perspectives of people with dementia, carers, and healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Disclosing a diagnosis of dementia is a key process involving people with dementia, carers, and healthcare professionals (HCPs) that can facilitate access to treatment and support. Receiving a diagnosis of dementia may represent a change in identity and loss of a planned-for future, resulting in an emotional impact for both people with dementia and carers. Delivering the diagnosis of dementia can be difficult and draining for HCPs.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review that included studies which explored the experience of giving or receiving a diagnosis of dementia from the perspectives of people with dementia, carers, or HCPs. All study designs were eligible except for previous literature reviews. Findings were analyzed thematically and grouped into categories and then synthesized into a narrative review. The quality of all included studies was assessed.

RESULTS

Fifty-two studies were included in this review. Findings indicated that receiving a diagnosis is generally a negative process for people with dementia, carers, and HCPs and leaves carers in particular feeling uncertain over the prognosis and future of the person they care for. Disclosing a diagnosis of dementia is a difficult and complex process, for which formal training and guidance is lacking. Carers in particular would welcome more opportunity for realistic and hopeful discussions of the implications of receiving a diagnosis of dementia.

CONCLUSIONS

Changes in some aspects of disclosure, such as providing a truthful diagnosis to the person with dementia, have occurred over the last decade. A process approach involving pre-diagnostic counseling and follow-up appointments could enable discussions regarding prognosis and the future, create opportunities to clarify the diagnosis, and reduce emotional burden on HCPs. There is a need for more objective evidence that considers the perspectives of all individuals involved.

Decision making for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in pediatric, adolescent, and young adult patients with a hemoglobinopathy-Shared or not?

BACKGROUND

Hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) offers an established curative option for sickle cell disease (SCD) and thalassemia patients but is associated with significant risks. Decision making is a complex process and shared decision making (SDM) could be a fitting approach in case of such preference-sensitive decisions. This study investigated what level of SDM is used in conversations with hemoglobinopathy patients and/or their caregivers considering HSCT as a curative treatment option.

METHODS

Longitudinal, descriptive study using the Observing-Patient-Involvement-in-Decision-Making scale (OPTION⁵ ) scale to determine the level of SDM in conversations with 26 hemoglobinopathy patients and/or their caregivers.

RESULTS

The total mean OPTION⁵ score was 43%, which is a moderate SDM approach. There was no difference between conversations with thalassemia patients and SCD patients. Conversations needing an interpreter scored worse than nontranslated conversations. The best scoring OPTION⁵ item was item 3: "informing about the various treatment options" (mean score 2.3 on scale 0-4). For OPTION⁵ item 4: "eliciting patients' preferences" a more skilled effort was measured for SCD patients compared to thalassemia patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The mean OPTION⁵ score of "moderate" was achieved mainly by giving information on available options, which is primarily a one-way communication. The SDM process can be improved by actively inviting patients to deliberate about options and including their elicited preferences in decision making.

Is Three a Crowd? The Influence of Companions on a Patient's Decision to Transition to a Biosimilar

BACKGROUND

Involving patients in treatment decisions is commonplace in healthcare, and patients are frequently accompanied by a companion (support person). Companions are often actively involved in medical consultations, yet their impact on decisions to change medications is unknown.

PURPOSE

This study examines the influence of companions on a patient's decision to transition from their bio-originator therapy to a biosimilar.

METHODS

A parallel, two-arm randomized controlled trial was conducted with 79 patients taking a bio-originator for rheumatic diseases who regularly attend clinic with a companion. Patients were randomized to receive an explanation about a hypothetical transition to a biosimilar alone or with their companion. Patients reported willingness to transition, risk perceptions, difficulty understanding, social support, and completed the Decisional Conflict Scale and Satisfaction with Decision Scale.

RESULTS

Companions did not influence decisions to transition to biosimilars or cognitive and affective risk perceptions. Accompanied patients reported more difficulty understanding the explanation (p = .006, Cohen's d = .64) but thought it was more important to receive information with companions (p = .023, Cohen's d = -.52). Companions did not impact decision satisfaction or decisional conflict. Receiving emotional, but not practical support, was associated with less decisional conflict in accompanied patients (p = .038, r  2 = 0.20).

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of companions does not seem to influence risk perceptions or decisions about transitioning to biosimilars. Companions, however, impact the patient's reporting of their ability to understand treatment explanations. Providers should check understanding in all patients but may need to provide additional time or educational resources to accompanied patients and companions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry: ACTRN12619001435178.

Communication and understanding of mild cognitive impairment diagnoses

BACKGROUND

Communication of mild cognitive impairment (MCI) diagnoses is challenging due to its heterogeneity and unclear prognosis.

AIM

To identify how MCI is communicated and to explore the relationship with patient and companion understanding.

METHOD

Conversation analysis identified whether MCI was named and explained in 43 video recorded diagnosis feedback meetings. Afterward, patients and companions were asked to name the diagnosis to assess understanding.

RESULTS

Mild cognitive impairment was not named in 21% meetings. Symptoms were explained as (a) a result of vascular conditions (49%), (b) a stage between normal ageing and dementia (30%), or (c) caused by psychological factors (21%). Fifty-four percentage of prognosis discussions included mention of dementia. There was no association between symptom explanations and whether prognosis discussions included dementia. Fifty-seven percentage patients and 37% companions reported not having or not knowing their diagnosis after the meeting. They were more likely to report MCI when prognosis discussions included dementia.

CONCLUSIONS

Doctors offer three different explanations of MCI to patients. The increased risk of dementia was not discussed in half the diagnostic feedback meetings. This is likely to reflect the heterogeneity in the definition, cause and likely prognosis of MCI presentations. Clearer and more consistent communication, particularly about the increased risk of dementia, may increase patient understanding and enable lifestyle changes to prevent some people progressing to dementia.