Was a decision made? An assessment of patient-clinician discordance in medical oncology encounters

Shared decision-making in scaling and root planing

INTRODUCTION

Estimate proportion of various approaches used by dental hygienists for engaging patients in decisions commonly arising during scaling and root planing. Distribution of approaches was compared across various task components in this procedure, practice experience of dental hygienists and patient compliance.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Survey of graduates from and students in a baccalaureate dental hygiene program.

RESULTS

Paternalism (tell then do) and informed consent (give choices and reasons and ask for permission) were more common than shared decision-making (discuss alternatives, solicit patient input and arrive at a mutual decision) and disengagement (patient refusing offered service or avoiding further involvement) by a ratio of 4 to 1 for the first 2 compared with the latter 2. This relationship was held across selecting treatment, procedural adjuncts, homecare instructions and financial arrangements. Dental hygienists exhibited a range of personal preferences for engagement approaches. No-show rate, patient disengagement outside the office, was high (20%).

CONCLUSION

Dental hygienists reported using 'more controlled' approaches to engaging patients in decisions regarding treatment. Patients may prefer to engage in more shared decisions and choose this approach by staying away from the office. This may underestimate patients' decisions to stay away from treatment, for example by not showing for completion of the treatment or disregarding homecare routines.

Development and Application of a Quality Assessment Tool for Oncological Question Prompt Lists

No specific quality criteria yet exist for question prompt lists (QPLs), so this study aims to develop a quality assessment tool to then use for an evaluation of online-available QPLs. An online search was conducted for German-language QPLs using different internet search engines and terms. A wide range of existing quality criteria for patient information was adapted to the field of QPLs to build an assessment tool and evaluate all identified QPLs by four independent raters. All new quality criteria were applicable to QPLs. The overall quality of 46 oncological QPLs was low, though the tool's subcategories were mostly fulfilled to over 80% by at least one QPL. For-profit organizations published lesser quality than medical organizations. The quality of breast- and prostate-cancer-specific QPLs was higher than that of general ones. High-quality QPLs could be created if more aspects were taken into account, but the available QPLs only focus on few quality aspects. The ambiguous results of effectiveness studies to date may be a result of vastly differing quality of the QPLs used for the interventions. The criteria provided in this study present a solid basis to assess the quality of QPLs. The creation of future QPLs as well as effectiveness studies should be more firmly based on quality criteria.

Decision-making by cancer patients and the role of a counselling facility for complementary and alternative medicine: a cohort study

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this cohort study was to gain insight on influencing factors on the decision-making process in conventional medicine compared to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).

METHODS

A standardized questionnaire was distributed among cancer patients who attended the counselling facility for CAM of a German university hospital in 2020.

RESULTS

Fifty patients (30.3%) returned the questionnaire. After counselling on CAM, most patients made a decision in CAM but also in conventional medicine. Thus, the focus on informed decision-making during counselling on CAM had a strong effect on the decision-making process in conventional medicine. Patients reporting good support also reported making decisions together with physicians and relatives. Moreover, after counselling on CAM, patients reported being more satisfied with their decision in both settings afterwards.

CONCLUSION

Information on CAM which focuses on informed decision-making, supports patient's ability to understand and weigh risks and benefits of treatments, supports shared decision-making and enables patients to transfer these competences also to decisions on conventional medicine. So counselling on CAM may further decision-making competences in cancer patients. This encourages patients to engage in shared decision-making and increases patient's satisfaction with decisions.

Systemic Therapy Decision Making in Advanced Cancer: A Qualitative Analysis of Patient-Oncologist Encounters

PURPOSE

We sought to characterize patient-oncologist communication and decision making about continuing or limiting systemic therapy in encounters after an initial consultation, with a particular focus on whether and how oncologists foster shared decision making (SDM).

METHODS

We performed content analysis of outpatient oncology encounters at two US National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers audio recorded between November 2010 and September 2014. A multidisciplinary team used a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. We used a combination of random and purposive sampling. We restricted quantitative frequency counts to the coded random sample but included all sampled encounters in qualitative thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Among 31 randomly sampled dyads with three encounters each, systemic therapy decision making was discussed in 90% (84 of 93) encounters. Thirty-four (37%) broached limiting therapy, which 27 (79%) framed as temporary, nine (26%) as completion of a standard regimen, and five (15%) as permanent discontinuation. Thematic analysis of these 93 encounters, plus five encounters purposively sampled for permanent discontinuation, found that (1) patients and oncologists framed continuing therapy as the default, (2) deficiencies in the SDM process (facilitating choice awareness, discussing options, and incorporating patient preferences) contributed to this default, and (3) oncologists use persuasion rather than deliberation when broaching discontinuation.

CONCLUSION

In this study of outpatient encounters between patients with advanced cancer and their oncologists, when discussing systemic therapy, there exists a default to continue systemic therapy, and deficiencies in SDM contribute to this default.

A Decision Aid for Nutrition Support is Acceptable in the Pediatric Hospital Setting

PURPOSE

Incorporating a Decision Aid (DA) about nutrition support into the general pediatric healthcare setting may improve parent and patient understanding about the risks and benefits of nutrition support options. We aimed to evaluate the acceptability and usability of our newly developed DA for parents of children in the general pediatric healthcare setting who require nutrition support.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Participants were 18 parents with a child who had received nutrition support; and 12 Healthcare Professionals (HCPs) involved in pediatric nutrition support discussions. Parents' and HCPs' ratings of acceptability and feasibility of the booklet, and parents' perceived knowledge acquisition after reading the booklet were assessed.

RESULTS

Parents were satisfied with the DA, reporting that it was an appropriate length and unbiased. Most parents felt the DA was relevant to their decision-making, improved understanding, and would recommend it to other parents. HCPs felt that the booklet clearly described the essential information for nutrition support options, but less certain of the booklets' impact on parent decision-making. Regardless, most HCPs would recommend the booklet to other clinicians.

CONCLUSION

Our decision aid appears to be acceptable and useful for parents deciding on nutrition support for their child in the general pediatric hospital setting.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

A DA may facilitate shared decision-making through improved understanding of the risks and benefits of different nutrition support options in the pediatric setting. Further evaluation is required with specific pediatric conditions, to determine the effectiveness for parents actively deciding on their child's nutrition support.

Comparison of audio vs. audio + video for the rating of shared decision making in oncology using the observer OPTION5 instrument: an exploratory analysis

BACKGROUND

How non-verbal data may influence observer-administered ratings of shared decision making is unknown. Our objective for this exploratory analysis was to determine the effect of mode of data collection (audio+video vs. audio only) on the scoring of the OPTION⁵ instrument, an observer rated measure of shared decision making.

METHODS

We analyzed recordings of 15 encounters between cancer patients and clinicians in which a clinical decision was made. Audio+video or audio only recordings of the encounters were randomly assigned to four trained raters, who reviewed them independently. We compared the adjusted mean scores of audio+video and audio only.

RESULTS

Forty-one unique decisions were identified within the 15 encounters. The mean OPTION⁵ score for audio+video was 17.5 (95% CI 13.5, 21.6) and for audio only was 21.8 (95% CI 17.2, 26.4) with a mean difference of 4.28 (95% CI = 0.36, 8.21; p = 0.032).

CONCLUSION

A rigorous and well established measure of shared decision making performs differently when the data source is audio only. Data source may influence rating of observer administered measures of shared decision making. This potential bias needs to be confirmed as video recording to examine communication behaviors becomes more common.

Getting on the same page: Communication, patient involvement and shared understanding of "decisions" in oncology

Background

Patients and clinicians do not often agree on whether a decision has been made about cancer care. This could be explained by factors related to communication quality and/or the type of decision being made.

Methods

We used a self‐developed coding scheme to code a random sample of 128 encounters in which patients and clinicians either agreed (n=64) or disagreed (n=64) that a cancer care decision was made and tested for associations between concordance and key communication behaviours. We also identified and characterized cancer care decisions by topic and level of patient involvement and looked for trends.

Results

We identified 378 cancer care decisions across 128 encounters. Explicit decisions were most commonly made about topics wherein decision control could be easily delegated to a clear and present expert (eg either the patient or the clinician). Related to this, level of patient involvement varied significantly by decision topic. Explicit decisions were rarely made in an observable way about social, non‐clinical or self‐management related topics, although patients and clinicians both reported having made a cancer care decision in encounters where no decisions were observed. We found no association between communication behaviours and concordance in our sample.

Conclusions

What counts as a “decision” in cancer care may be constructed within disparate social roles that leave many agendas unaddressed and decisions unmade. Changing the content of conversations to encourage explicit decisions about self‐management and life context‐related topics may have greater value in enabling shared understanding than promoting communication behaviours among already high‐performing communicators.