Does Shared Decision Making Actually Occur in the Emergency Department? Looking at It from the Patients' Perspective

Through the Eyes of Patients: The Effect of Training General Practitioners and Nurses on Perceived Shared Decision-Making Support

PURPOSE

To examine the effects of training general practitioners and nurses in shared decision-making (SDM) support as perceived by cancer patients and survivors.

DESIGN

An innovative, experimental design was adopted that included analogue patients (APs), that is, people who have or have had cancer and who imagine themselves in the position of the actor-patient presented in a video. Each AP assessed a video-recorded simulated consultation of a health care professional (HCP) conducted before or after an SDM support training program. The primary outcome was the APs' perceived SDM support with 13 self-developed items reflecting the perceived patient benefit of SDM support as well as the perceived HCP support behavior. Secondary outcomes included an overall rating of SDM support, AP-reported extent of SDM (CollaboRATE), satisfaction with the communication (Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire), conversation appreciation and helpfulness, as well as decision-making satisfaction and confidence (visual analog scale, 0-100). In addition, patient and HCP characteristics associated with AP-perceived SDM support were examined.

RESULTS

APs (n = 131) did not significantly differentiate trained from untrained HCPs in their perceptions of SDM support nor in secondary outcomes. Agreement between APs' perceptions was poor. The higher the perceived comparability of the consultation with APs' previous personal experiences, the higher their rating of SDM support.

LIMITATIONS

We used a nonvalidated primary outcome and an innovative study design that should be tested in future work.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the limitations of the study design, the training seemed to not affect cancer patients' and survivors' perceived SDM support.

IMPLICATIONS

The clinical relevance of the training on SDM support needs to be established. The variation in APs' assessments suggests patients differ in their perception of SDM support, stressing the importance of patient-tailored SDM support.

HIGHLIGHTS

Cancer patients and survivors did not significantly differentiate trained from untrained HCPs when evaluating SDM support, and agreement between their perceptions was poor.The clinical relevance of training GPs and nurses in SDM support needs to be established.Patient-tailored SDM support may be recommended, given the variation in APs' assessments and their possible diverging perceptions of SDM support.This innovative study design (having patients watch and assess videos of simulated consultations made in the context of training evaluation) needs to be further developed.

Factors Influencing Participation in Shared Decision-Making Among Patients with Glaucoma in China: A Cross-Sectional Study

Purpose

To explore the level of participation in shared decision-making by patients with glaucoma and identify influencing factors, to subsequently provide references to promote shared decision-making in ophthalmology, and achieve patient-centered care.

Patients and Methods

A questionnaire was completed by 148 patients with glaucoma who had been admitted to a specialized ophthalmic hospital in China, between October 2021 and January 2022. The participants' responses to the nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and a general information survey were analyzed to determine their level of participation in shared decision-making and influencing factors. Multiple linear regression was used to identify factors that influence shared decision-making at the time of clinical practice.

Results

The mean score of SDM-Q-9 was 71.73±21.27 (n=140). Multiple linear regression analysis showed that patients with negative attitudes towards participation in decision-making (P=0.023) and those who had rural insurance (P=0.017) had significantly lower SDM-Q-9 scores than those with positive attitudes and those with medical insurance. Patients who were more satisfied with their medical service had higher SDM-Q-9 scores (P<0.05).

Conclusion

Patients with glaucoma presented a high level of shared decision-making. Patients' attitudes towards participating in decision-making, the payment method of medical expenses, and the level of satisfaction with medical services are factors that influence their level of participation in shared decision-making.

Key elements and checklist of shared decision-making conversation on life-sustaining treatment in emergency: a multispecialty study from China

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) has broad application in emergencies. Most published studies have focused on SDM for a certain disease or expert opinions on future research gaps without revealing the full picture or detailed guidance for clinical practice. This study is to investigate the optimal application of SDM to guide life-sustaining treatment (LST) in emergencies.

METHODS

This study was a prospective two-round Delphi consensus-seeking survey among multiple stakeholders at the China Consortium of Elite Teaching Hospitals for Residency Education. Participants were identified based on their expertise in medicine, law, administration, medical education, or patient advocacy. All individual items and questions in the questionnaire were scored using a 5-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from "very unimportant" (a score of 1) to "extremely important" (a score of 5). The percentages of the responses that had scores of 4-5 on the 5-point Likert scale were calculated. A Kendall's W coefficient was calculated to evaluate the consensus of experts.

RESULTS

A two-level framework consisting of 4 domains and 22 items as well as a ready-to-use checklist for the informed consent process for LST was established. An acceptable Kendall's W coefficient was achieved.

CONCLUSION

A consensus-based framework supporting SDM during LST in an emergency department can inform the implementation of guidelines for clinical interventions, research studies, medical education, and policy initiatives.

Shared decision-making in advance care planning among hospitalized older COVID-19 patients: a multicenter, retrospective cohort study

Background

In the Netherlands, it is customary to discuss directives regarding resuscitation, intubation, and ICU-admission with patients and/or their relatives upon hospital-admission. The outcome of this discussion is documented in a code status. Ideally, these advance care planning (ACP)-related decisions are made by a patient (and/or their relatives) and a professional together in a shared decision-making (SDM) process, to improve patient satisfaction and prevent undesired care. Given the bad outcomes in older COVID-19 patients, it is particularly important to discuss the code status upon admission. This study aims to describe the practice of SDM regarding code status during the COVID-pandemic. Specific aims were to find out to what extend patients took part in this decision-making process and whether all key elements of SDM for a shared decision were documented in medical reports.

Methods

In this retrospective cohort study, we included COVID-19 patients aged 70 years and older, admitted to two large teaching hospitals in the Netherlands, during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Data about code status and the decision-making process were extracted from electronic healthcare records.

Results

Code status was documented for 274 of 275 included patients. Patient participation in the decision-making process was described in 48%. In 19% all key elements of shared decision-making have been described. Key elements of SDM were defined as the presence of a completed code status form, the presence of clinical notes showing that both patient’s wishes and values and the opinion of the healthcare professional about the predicted outcome was taken into consideration and clinical notes of a patient–healthcare professional interaction during the admission.

Conclusion

Our results show that a proper SDM process regarding code status is possible, even in hectic times like the COVID-19-pandemic. However, shared decision-making was not common practice in older patients with COVID-19 regarding code status (an ACP-related decision) in the early phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Only in 19% of the patients, all key elements of SDM regarding code status were described.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40520-022-02281-y.

Patients’ and physicians’ gender and perspective on shared decision-making: A cross-sectional study from Dubai

Background

Delivering patient-centered care is a declared objective of many health delivery systems globally, especially in an era of value-based health care. It entails the active engagement of the patients in healthcare decisions related to their health, also known as shared decision making (SDM). Little is known about the role of gender in shaping the perspective of patients on their opportunity for engaging in SDM in the Arabian Gulf Region. The aim of this study is to investigate the role of gender in shaping patients’ perspectives toward their opportunity for SDM in Dubai, UAE.

Methods

This study utilized a cross-sectional survey consisting of sociodemographic questions and the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9). A total of 50 physicians (25 females and 25 males), practicing at a large private healthcare delivery network in Dubai, were recruited using convenience sampling. Ten patients of every recruited physician (5 male and 5 female) were surveyed (i.e., a total of 500 patients). Statistical analysis assessed the differences in patients’ perceptions of physician SDM attitude scores by physicians’ and patients’ gender using independent t-test, ANOVA-test, and Chi-square analyses.

Findings

A total of 50 physicians and 500 patients (250 male patients and 250 female patients) participated in this study. The odd of patients agreement was significantly lower for male physicians, compared to their female counterparts, on the following elements of SDM: the doctor precisely explaining the advantages and disadvantages of the treatment (OR = 0.55, 95%CI: 0.34–0.88, p = 0.012); the doctor helping them understand the information (OR = 0.47, 95%CI: 0.23–0.97, p = 0.038), the doctor asking about preferred treatment option (OR = 0.52, 95%CI: 0.35–0.77, p = 0.001), and the doctor thoroughly weighting the different treatment options (OR = 0.60, 95%CI: 0.41–0.90, p = 0.013). No significant associations were observed between patients’ gender and their perception of their opportunity for SDM. Likewise, no significant associations were observed between the same or different physician-patient gender and patients’ perception of physicians’ SDM attitudes. Statistically significant associations were observed between physician-patient gender and preferred treatment option for patients (p = 0.012).

Conclusion

Study findings suggest that while there were no differences in patients’ perspective on SDM by the gender of patients, significant differences were observed by the gender of physicians. Female physicians, compared to their male counterparts, were more engaged in SDM, with both male and female patients. Male physician-female patient dyad received the lowest scores on SDM. This could be explained by the cultural, social, and religious sensitivities that infiltrate the physician-patient relationship in the Arab contexts. Despite the multi-cultural nature of the country, some female patients may still experience some discomfort in opening up and in discussion preferences with male physicians. For physicians, striking the right balance between assertiveness and SDM is necessary within the cultural context, especially among male providers. Offering targeted learning and development programs on the importance and practice of SDM is also necessary to ensure equitable opportunity for engagement in SDM for all patients irrespective of the gender of their provider.

Risk Prediction After a Brief Resolved Unexplained Event

OBJECTIVES

Only 4% of brief resolved unexplained events (BRUE) are caused by a serious underlying illness. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) guidelines do not distinguish patients who would benefit from further investigation and hospitalization. We aimed to derive and validate a clinical decision rule for predicting the risk of a serious underlying diagnosis or event recurrence.

METHODS

We retrospectively identified infants presenting with a BRUE to 15 children's hospitals (2015-2020). We used logistic regression in a split-sample to derive and validate a risk prediction model.

RESULTS

Of 3283 eligible patients, 565 (17.2%) had a serious underlying diagnosis (n = 150) or a recurrent event (n = 469). The AAP's higher-risk criteria were met in 91.5% (n = 3005) and predicted a serious diagnosis with 95.3% sensitivity, 8.6% specificity, and an area under the curve of 0.52 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.47-0.57). A derived model based on age, previous events, and abnormal medical history demonstrated an area under the curve of 0.64 (95%CI: 0.59-0.70). In contrast to the AAP criteria, patients >60 days were more likely to have a serious underlying diagnosis (odds ratio:1.43, 95%CI: 1.03-1.98, P = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

Most infants presenting with a BRUE do not have a serious underlying pathology requiring prompt diagnosis. We derived 2 models to predict the risk of a serious diagnosis and event recurrence. A decision support tool based on this model may aid clinicians and caregivers in the discussion on the benefit of diagnostic testing and hospitalization (https://www.mdcalc.com/calc/10400/brief-resolved-unexplained-events-2.0-brue-2.0-criteria-infants).

Comparison of the CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires to appreciate the patient-reported level of shared decision-making

OBJECTIVE

To compare CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires when appreciating patient-perceived level of shared decision-making (SDM) in doctor-patient consultations.

METHODS

Data were harvested from five separate studies on SDM, conducted in three university and one large community hospital in the Netherlands, using Dutch versions of both questionnaires. CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 scores were expressed as percentages. Correlation was assessed using Spearman's Rho coefficient. Bland&Altman analysis was used to assess the degree of agreement. Top scores were calculated to assess possible ceiling effects.

RESULTS

The five studies included 442 patients. Median CollaboRATE scores (88.9%, IQR 81.5-100%) were significantly higher (p < 0.001) than SDM-Q-9 scores (80.0%, IQR 64.4-100%). Correlation was moderate (Rho=0.53, p < 0.001). A systematic, 12.5-point higher score was found across the range of scores when using CollaboRATE. Top scores for CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 were present in 37.5% and 17% of questionnaires, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires showed a high level of patient-perceived SDM. However, CollaboRATE only moderately correlated with SDM-Q-9 and had a stronger ceiling effect.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

When choosing a SDM-measurement tool, its benefits and limitations should be weighed. These metrics should be combined with objective scores of SDM, as these may differ from the patients' subjective interpretation.

'I knew I'd be taken care of': Exploring patient experiences in the Emergency Department

Aims

To explore adult Emergency Department patient experiences to inform the development of a new Emergency Department patient‐reported experience measure.

Design

Descriptive, exploratory qualitative study using semi‐structured individual interviews with adult Emergency Department patients.

Methodology

Participants were recruited across two Emergency Departments in Southeast Queensland, Australia during September and October 2020. Purposive sampling based on maximum variation was used. Participants were recruited during their Emergency Department presentation and interviewed in 2‐weeks via telephone. Inductive thematic analysis followed the approach proposed by Braun and Clarke (2012).

Results

Thirty participants were interviewed, and four themes were inductively identified: Caring relationships between patients and Emergency Department care providers; Being in the Emergency Department environment; Variations in waiting for care; and Having a companion in the Emergency Department. Caring relationships between patients and Emergency Department care providers included being treated like a person and being cared for, being informed about and included in care, and feeling confident in care providers. Being in the Emergency Department environment included being around other patients, feeling comfortable and having privacy. Variations in waiting for care included expecting a longer wait, waiting throughout the Emergency Department journey and receiving timely care. Having a companion in the Emergency Department included not feeling alone, and observing care providers engage with companions.

Conclusion

Patient experiences in the Emergency Department are multifaceted, and themes are not mutually exclusive. These findings demonstrate consistency with the core experiential themes identified in the international literature.

Impact

Strategies to improve patient engagement in shared decision‐making, and communication between patients and care providers about wait times will be critical to optimizing Emergency Department patient experiences, and person‐centred practice. These findings holistically conceptualize patient experiences in the Emergency Department which is the first step to developing a new Emergency Department patient‐reported experience measure.

Experiences with information provision and preferences for decision making of patients with acute stroke

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to gain insight into experiences of patients with acute stroke regarding information provision and their preferred involvement in decision-making processes during the initial period of hospitalisation.

METHODS

A sequential explanatory design was used in two independent cohorts of patients with stroke, starting with a survey after discharge from hospital (cohort 1) followed by observations and structured interviews during hospitalisation (cohort 2). Quantitative data were analysed descriptively.

RESULTS

In total, 72 patients participated in this study (52 in cohort 1 and 20 in cohort 2). During hospitalisation, the majority of the patients were educated about acute stroke and their treatment. Approximately half of the patients preferred to have an active role in the decision-making process, whereas only 21% reported to be actively involved. In cohort 2, 60% of the patients considered themselves capable to carefully consider treatment options.

CONCLUSIONS

Active involvement in the acute decision-making process is preferred by approximately half of the patients with acute stroke and most of them consider themselves capable of doing so. However, they experience a limited degree of actual involvement.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Physicians can facilitate patient engagement by explicitly emphasising when a decision has to be made in which the patient's opinion is important.

Engaging consumers and health professionals in collaborative decision-making to optimize care

Shared communication and collaborative decision-making between consumers and health professionals is essential in optimizing the quality of consumer care. However, the consumers' ability to ask questions and seek answers, as well as health professionals' communication skills to engage with the consumer, are necessary considerations for the collaborative decision-making process. This quality improvement initiative sought to understand the context of collaborative decision making from the perspective of consumers and health professionals adapted from the international Choosing Wisely program. Findings indicated health professionals acknowledged a problem with unnecessary and overuse of tests, treatments, and procedures. Consumers suggested they were confident asking questions about their health and care. The findings of this study highlight collaborative decision-making as a worthwhile and beneficial undertaking.

Moving toward patient-centered care in the emergency department: Patient-reported expectations, definitions of success, and importance of improvement in pain-related outcomes

OBJECTIVES

Musculoskeletal pain is a common emergency department (ED) presentation, and patient-centered care may improve quality of life, treatment satisfaction, and outcomes. Our objective was to investigate the expectations, definitions of success, and priorities of ED patients with musculoskeletal pain.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of the demographic, clinical, and psychosocial characteristics of adult ED patients (n = 210) with musculoskeletal pain. Patients completed the Patient-Centered Outcomes Questionnaire to quantify usual, desired, expected, and successful levels of pain and interference with daily activities, fatigue, and emotion from 0 (none) to 100 (worst imaginable). They also reported the importance of improvement in each domain. Cluster analysis identified subgroups by importance ratings. Patients were asked their willingness to try various pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments. Fully completed surveys were analyzed (n = 174).

RESULTS

Most patients desired 100% resolution in each domain and defined treatment success as substantial (median = 63.2%-76.5%) reductions but expected only moderate (median = 45%-53.7%) improvements across all domains. Patients with previous pain episodes had similar desired levels but less stringent definitions of success and expectations for improvement. Cluster analysis identified three patient subgroups by importance ratings of each domain: (1) multiple domains important (n = 118) with high importance attached to all four domains, (2) pain and function important (n = 34) with high importance primarily for pain and interference with daily activities, and (3) only pain important (n = 22). Regardless of subgroup, there was a high willingness to use a variety of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments.

DISCUSSION

ED patients with musculoskeletal pain have expectations and goals that include addressing impairments in function, improving quality of life, and reducing pain.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that: (1) patient subgroups by outcome priorities may exist that could inform multimodal, personalized approaches from the ED and (2) patients are flexible in which treatments they are willing to try to meet their individual goals.