Routine patient-reported experience measurement of shared decision-making in the USA: a qualitative study of the current state according to frontrunners

Usability of an Automated System for Real-Time Monitoring of Shared Decision-Making for Surgery: Mixed Methods Evaluation

BACKGROUND

Improving shared decision-making (SDM) for patients has become a health policy priority in many countries. Achieving high-quality SDM is particularly important for approximately 313 million surgical treatment decisions patients make globally every year. Large-scale monitoring of surgical patients' experience of SDM in real time is needed to identify the failings of SDM before surgery is performed. We developed a novel approach to automating real-time data collection using an electronic measurement system to address this. Examining usability will facilitate its optimization and wider implementation to inform interventions aimed at improving SDM.

OBJECTIVE

This study examined the usability of an electronic real-time measurement system to monitor surgical patients' experience of SDM. We aimed to evaluate the metrics and indicators relevant to system effectiveness, system efficiency, and user satisfaction.

METHODS

We performed a mixed methods usability evaluation using multiple participant cohorts. The measurement system was implemented in a large UK hospital to measure patients' experience of SDM electronically before surgery using 2 validated measures (CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9). Quantitative data (collected between April 1 and December 31, 2021) provided measurement system metrics to assess system effectiveness and efficiency. We included adult patients booked for urgent and elective surgery across 7 specialties and excluded patients without the capacity to consent for medical procedures, those without access to an internet-enabled device, and those undergoing emergency or endoscopic procedures. Additional groups of service users (group 1: public members who had not engaged with the system; group 2: a subset of patients who completed the measurement system) completed user-testing sessions and semistructured interviews to assess system effectiveness and user satisfaction. We conducted quantitative data analysis using descriptive statistics and calculated the task completion rate and survey response rate (system effectiveness) as well as the task completion time, task efficiency, and relative efficiency (system efficiency). Qualitative thematic analysis identified indicators of and barriers to good usability (user satisfaction).

RESULTS

A total of 2254 completed surveys were returned to the measurement system. A total of 25 service users (group 1: n=9; group 2: n=16) participated in user-testing sessions and interviews. The task completion rate was high (169/171, 98.8%) and the survey response rate was good (2254/5794, 38.9%). The median task completion time was 3 (IQR 2-13) minutes, suggesting good system efficiency and effectiveness. The qualitative findings emphasized good user satisfaction. The identified themes suggested that the measurement system is acceptable, easy to use, and easy to access. Service users identified potential barriers and solutions to acceptability and ease of access.

CONCLUSIONS

A mixed methods evaluation of an electronic measurement system for automated, real-time monitoring of patients' experience of SDM showed that usability among patients was high. Future pilot work will optimize the system for wider implementation to ultimately inform intervention development to improve SDM.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079155.

Barriers and enablers to the implementation of patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs/PREMs): protocol for an umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs, respectively) are evidence-based, standardized questionnaires that can be used to capture patients' perspectives of their health and health care. While substantial investments have been made in the implementation of PROMs and PREMs, their use remains fragmented and limited in many settings. Analysis of multi-level barriers and enablers to the implementation of PROMs and PREMs has been hampered by the lack of use of state-of-the-art implementation science frameworks. This umbrella review aims to consolidate available evidence from existing quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods systematic and scoping reviews covering factors that influence the implementation of PROMs and PREMs in healthcare settings.

METHODS

An umbrella review of systematic and scoping reviews will be conducted following the guidelines of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods reviews of studies focusing on the implementation of PROMs and/or PREMs in all healthcare settings will be considered for inclusion. Eight bibliographical databases will be searched. All review steps will be conducted by two reviewers independently. Included reviews will be appraised and data will be extracted in four steps: (1) assessing the methodological quality of reviews using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist; (2) extracting data from included reviews; (3) theory-based coding of barriers and enablers using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) 2.0; and (4) identifying the barriers and enablers best supported by reviews using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) approach. Findings will be presented in diagrammatic and tabular forms in a manner that aligns with the objective and scope of this umbrella review, along with a narrative summary.

DISCUSSION

This umbrella review of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods systematic and scoping reviews will inform policymakers, researchers, managers, and clinicians regarding which factors hamper or enable the adoption and sustained use of PROMs and PREMs in healthcare settings, and the level of confidence in the evidence supporting these factors. Findings will orient the selection and adaptation of implementation strategies tailored to the factors identified.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023421845.

Shared Decision-Making in Patients Seeking Surgery for Facial Trauma: The Role of Decisional Conflict and Perceived Discrimination

Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) may facilitate challenging discussions between patients with facial trauma and reconstructive surgeons. Objective: To determine among patients seeking surgical evaluation for facial trauma, whether patient demographics, decisional conflict (DC), or experiences of discrimination in health care are associated with patient perceptions of SDM, as measured by scored responses on the CollaboRATE-10 questionnaire. Methods: English-speaking adults who presented to the offices of five facial trauma surgeons were contacted by telephone after their visit to complete a cross-sectional survey. Results: After screening 247 patients, 131 patients were recruited (53.0%). DC and history of discrimination were associated with lower perceived SDM (p < 0.001 and p = 0.048, respectively). After adjusting for age, sex, race, education, initial emergency department presentation, DC, and past discrimination, patients of older age (odds ratio [OR] 1.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.09) and non-White race (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.1-11.4) had higher perceptions of SDM; patients with DC (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.01-0.20) reported less SDM. Conclusions: Patients who present to clinic for surgical evaluation after facial trauma feel that their physicians involve them less when deciding on a treatment plan if they have experienced discrimination in health care settings in the past, or if they have significant difficulty deciding between treatment options.

Shared decision-making interventions: An overview and a meta-analysis of their impact on vaccine uptake

BACKGROUND

The interest in shared decision making (SDM) and the use of patient decision aids have increased significantly. Research indicates that this approach has benefits, and yet, implementation remains a challenge. To illustrate this development, we focus on vaccine hesitancy which has become a serious public health challenge during the COVID-19 pandemic. Various strategies have been used in healthcare, with limited success, to help patients overcome vaccine hesitancy. It is unclear whether SDM interventions can increase vaccination rates.

AIMS

Our aim was two-fold: to provide an overview of SDM and the use of patient decision aids and to determine the effect of SDM interventions on vaccine uptake.

METHODS

To provide an overview, we drew on our knowledge of the field and summarized the most recent systematic reviews. We examined the impact on vaccine hesitancy by searching for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SDM interventions, conducted a meta-analysis and calculated a pooled odds ratio. Additional outcomes were reported in a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

SDM is viewed as the pinnacle of patient-centred care, supported by an ethical imperative and by empirical evidence of benefits. We found 10 RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. SDM interventions significantly increased vaccine uptake compared to control groups (odds ratio = 1.45; 95% confidence interval [1.17-1.80]; p < 0.01). Some RCTs also reported significantly decreased decisional conflict and increased decision confidence.

CONCLUSION

Future healthcare delivery systems will need to consider how to support the implementation of SDM. Interventions designed to facilitate this approach can represent a helpful, ethically defensible, strategy to increase vaccination rates.

Shared decision making: What is the work?

Cooperation has emerged as a fundamental characteristic of human society, and many argue that this ability is the basis for the phenomenal development in our capability as a species. When we focus our attention to the interactions that occur in healthcare, we inevitably notice power asymmetry due to unequal knowledge, experience, and status. However, as many have argued since the 1970s, there is an ethical imperative to respect the agency of individuals, offer information, collaborate, and support deliberation when difficult decisions arise. This process is particularly important when reasonable alternative courses of action exist and where the priorities and preferences of individuals would be expected to sway such decisions. This position article argues that this process, commonly described as shared decision making, involves work that is cognitive, emotional, and relational, and, particularly if people are ill, should have the underpinning goal of restoring autonomy. It covers the origin of the term and describes the core components; it describes how to do the cognitive, emotional, and relational work that is required, and offers a model to guide the process.

International experiences in the development and implementation of guideline-based quality indicators: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Evidence-based clinical guidelines play an important role in healthcare and can be a valuable source for quality indicators (QIs). However, the link between guidelines and QI is often neglected and methodological standards for the development of guideline-based QI are still lacking. The aim of this qualitative study was to get insights into experiences of international authors with developing and implementing guideline-based QI.

SETTING

We conducted semistructured interviews via phone or skype (September 2017-February 2018) with guideline authors developing guideline-based QI.

PARTICIPANTS

15 interview participants from eight organisations in six European and North American countries.

METHODS

Organisations were selected using purposive sampling with a maximum variation of healthcare settings. From each organisation a clinician and a methodologist were asked to participate. An interview guide was developed based on the QI development steps according to the 'Reporting standards for guideline-based performance measures' by the Guidelines International Network. Interviews were analysed using qualitative content analysis with deductive and inductive categories.

RESULTS

Interviewees deemed a programmatic approach, involvement of representative stakeholders with clinical and methodological knowledge and the connection to existing quality improvement strategies important factors for developing QI parallel to or after guideline development. Methodological training of the developing team and a shared understanding of the QI purpose were further seen conducive. Patient participation and direct patient relevance were inconsistently considered important, whereas a strong evidence base was seen essential. To assess measurement characteristics interviewees favoured piloting, but often missed implementation. Lack of measurability is still experienced a serious limitation, especially for qualitative aspects and individualised care.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that developing guideline-based QI can succeed either parallel to or following the guideline process with careful planning and instruction. Strategic partnerships seem key for implementation. Patient participation and relevance, measurement of qualitative aspects and piloting are areas for further development.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

German Clinical Trials Registry (DRKS00013006).