A Qualitative Analysis of Attending Physicians' Use of Shared Decision-Making: Implications for Resident Education

Systematic review of barriers, facilitators, and tools to promote shared decision making in the emergency department

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to systematically review all studies focusing on barriers, facilitators, and tools currently available for shared decision making (SDM) in emergency departments (EDs).

BACKGROUND

Implementing SDM in EDs seems particularly challenging, considering the fast-paced environment and sometimes life-threatening situations. Over 10 years ago, a previous review revealed only a few patient decision aids (PtDAs) available for EDs.

METHODS

Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane library, up to November 2023. Observational and interventional studies were included to address barriers or facilitators for SDM or to investigate effects of PtDAs on the level of SDM for patients visiting an ED.

RESULTS

We screened 1946 studies for eligibility, of which 33 were included. PtDAs studied in EDs address chest pain, syncope, analgesics usage, lumbar puncture, ureterolithiasis, vascular access, concussion/brain bleeding, head-CT choice, coaching for elderly people, and activation of patients with appendicitis. Only the primary outcome was meta-analyzed, showing that PtDAs significantly increased the level of SDM (18.8 on the 100-point OPTION scale; 95% CI 12.5-25.0). PtDAs also tended to increase patient knowledge, decrease decisional conflict and decrease health care services usage, with no obvious effect on overall patient satisfaction. Barriers and facilitators were identified on three levels: (1) patient level-emotions, health literacy, and their own proactivity; (2) clinician level-fear of medicolegal consequences, lack of SDM skills or knowledge, and their ideas about treatment superiority; and (3) system level-time constraints, institutional guidelines, and availability of PtDAs.

CONCLUSIONS

Circumstances in EDs are generally less favorable for SDM. However, PtDAs for conditions seen in EDs are helpful in overcoming barriers to SDM and are welcomed by patients. Even in EDs, SDM is feasible and supported by an increasing number of tools for patients and physicians.

Healthcare Professionals' Perceptions about the Implementation of Shared Decision-Making in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study from a Virtual Community of Practice

Background

The incorporation of shared decision making (SDM) is a central part of empowerment processes, as it facilitates greater activation on the part of patients, increasing the likelihood of them gaining control over their healthcare and developing skills to solve their health problems. Despite these benefits, there are still difficulties in the implementation of SDM among healthcare professionals due to internal and external factors related to the context and health systems.

Aim

To explore primary care professionals (PCPs)' perceptions of the SDM model, based on their preconceptions and experience in clinical practice.

Methods

A framework analysis was conducted on qualitative data derived from a virtual community practice forum, within a cluster-randomized clinical trial developed in the e-MPODERA project.

Results

The most important points in the opinions of the PCPs were: exploring the patients' values, preferences and expectations, providing them with and checking their understanding of up-to-date and evidence-based health information. The analysis revealed three themes: determinants of the implementation process of SDM, lack of consistency and dilemmas and benefits of PCP active listening, motivation and positive expectations of SDM.

Discussion

In our initial analysis, we examined the connections between the categories of the TDC model and its application in the primary care context. The categories related to the model reflect the theoretical understanding of professionals, while those related to perceptions of its application and use show certain discrepancies. These discrepancies could indicate a lack of understanding of the model and its real-world implications or insufficient commitment on the part of professionals or the organization to ensure its effective implementation.

Conclusions

Specific targeted training that addresses knowledge, attitudes and practice may resolve the aforementioned findings.

Internal Medicine Residents' Experience Performing Routine Assessment of What Matters Most to Patients Upon Hospital Admission

PROBLEM

Failure to elicit patients' values, goals, and priorities can result in missed opportunities to provide patient-centered care. Little is known about resident physicians' direct experience of eliciting patients' values, goals, and priorities and integrating them into routine hospital care.

INTERVENTION

In 2017, we asked resident physicians on general internal medicine wards rotations to elicit and document a "Personal History" from patients upon hospital admission, in addition to a traditional social history. We defined a Personal History as documenting "what matters most to the patient and why." The purpose of the Personal History was to understand and consider patients' values, goals, and priorities. We then conducted qualitative interviews of the resident physicians to understand their experiences eliciting and integrating patients' values, goals, and priorities in routine hospital care.

CONTEXT

We performed this exploratory intervention at a large high-volume urban hospital. Two teams from general medicine wards participated in the Personal History intervention. We conducted voluntary interviews of eligible residents (n = 14/15; 93%) about their experience after they completed their general wards rotations. Using the coproduction model, our aim was to explore how patients' self-expertise can be combined with physicians' medical expertise to achieve patient-centered care.

IMPACT

Four major themes were identified: 1) Taking a Personal History had value, and eliciting patients' self-expertise had the potential to change medical decision making, 2) Situational and relational factors created barriers to obtaining a Personal History, 3) Variability in buy-in with the proposed intervention affected effort, and 4) Meaningful Personal History taking could be an adaptive and longitudinal process. Perceived benefits included improved rapport with patients, helpful for patients with complex medical history, and improved physician-patient communication. Barriers included patient distress, lack of rapport, and responses from patients which did not add new insights. Accountability from attending physicians affected resident effort. Suggested future applications were for patients with serious illness, integration into electronic health records, and skills taught in medical education.

LESSONS LEARNED

Resident physicians had generally positive views of eliciting a Personal History from patients upon admission to the hospital. Overall, many residents conveyed the perceived ability to elicit and consider patient's values, goals, and priorities in certain situations (e.g., patient not in distress, adequate rapport, lack of competing priorities such as medical emergencies or overwhelming workloads). External factors, such as electronic health record design and accountability from attending physicians, may further promote residents' efforts to routinely incorporate patients' values, goals, and priorities in clinical care. Increasing familiarity among both resident physicians and patients in routinely discussing patients' values, goals, and priorities may facilitate patient-centered practice.

Establishing the Competency Development and Talent Cultivation Strategies for Physician-Patient Shared Decision-Making Competency Based on the IAA-NRM Approach

Shared decision making (SDM) is a collaborative process involving patients and their healthcare workers negotiating to reach a shared decision about medical care. However, various physician stakeholders (attending physicians, medical residents, and doctors in post-graduate years) may have different viewpoints on SDM processes. The purpose of this study is to explore the core competence of physicians in performing SDM tasks and to investigate the significant competency development aspects/criteria by applying the literature research and expert interviews. We adopt the IAA (importance awareness analysis) technique for different stakeholders to evaluate the status of competency development aspects/criteria and to determine the NRM (network relation map) based on the DEMATEL (decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory) technique. The study combines the IAA and NRM methods and suggests using the IAA-NRM approach to evaluate the adoption strategies and common suitable paths for different levels of physicians. Our findings reveal that SDM perception and practice is the primary influencer of SDM competence development for all stakeholders. The current model can help hospital administrators and directors of medical education understand the diverse stakeholders’ perspectives on the core competence of SDM tasks and determine common development plans. It provides strategic directions for SDM competency development and talent cultivation programs.

Why do medical residents prefer paternalistic decision making? An interview study

BACKGROUND

Although shared decision making is championed as the preferred model for patient care by patient organizations, researchers and medical professionals, its application in daily practice remains limited. We previously showed that residents more often prefer paternalistic decision making than their supervisors. Because both the views of residents on the decision-making process in medical consultations and the reasons for their 'paternalism preference' are unknown, this study explored residents' views on the decision-making process in medical encounters and the factors affecting it.

METHODS

We interviewed 12 residents from various specialties at a large Dutch teaching hospital in 2019-2020, exploring how they involved patients in decisions. All participating residents provided written informed consent. Data analysis occurred concurrently with data collection in an iterative process informing adaptations to the interview topic guide when deemed necessary. Constant comparative analysis was used to develop themes. We ceased data collection when information sufficiency was achieved.

RESULTS

Participants described how active engagement of patients in discussing options and decision making was influenced by contextual factors (patient characteristics, logistical factors such as available time, and supervisors' recommendations) and by limitations in their medical and shared decision-making knowledge. The residents' decision-making behavior appeared strongly affected by their conviction that they are responsible for arriving at the correct diagnosis and providing the best evidence-based treatment. They described shared decision making as the process of patients consenting with physician-recommended treatment or patients choosing their preferred option when no best evidence-based option was available.

CONCLUSIONS

Residents' decision making appears to be affected by contextual factors, their medical knowledge, their knowledge about SDM, and by their beliefs and convictions about their professional responsibilities as a doctor, ensuring that patients receive the best possible evidence-based treatment. They confuse SDM with acquiring informed consent with the physician's treatment recommendations and with letting patients decide which treatment they prefer in case no evidence based guideline recommendation is available. Teaching SDM to residents should not only include skills training, but also target residents' perceptions and convictions regarding their role in the decision-making process in consultations.

Ready for Prime Time? Using Normalization Process Theory to Evaluate Implementation Success of Personal Health Records Designed for Decision Making

Personal health records designed for shared decision making (SDM) have the potential to engage patients and provide opportunities for positive health outcomes. Given the limited number of published interventions that become normal practice, this preimplementation evaluation of an integrated SDM personal health record system (e-PHR) was underpinned by Normalization Process Theory (NPT). The theory provides a framework to analyze cognitive and behavioral mechanisms known to influence implementation success. A mixed-methods investigation was utilized to explain the work required to implement e-PHR and its potential to integrate into practice. Patients, care providers, and electronic health record (EHR) and clinical leaders (n = 27) offered a rich explanation of the implementation work. Reliability tests of the NPT-based instrument negated the use of scores for two of the four mechanisms. Participants indicated that e-PHR made sense as explained by two qualitative themes: game-changing technology and sensibility of change. Participants appraised e-PHR as explained by two themes: reflecting on value and monitoring and adapting. The combined qualitative and quantitative results for the other two NPT mechanisms corroborated. Participants strongly agreed (score = 4.6/5) with processes requiring an investment in commitment, explained by two themes: sharing ownership of the work and enabling involvement. Weak agreement (score = 3.6/5) was observed with processes requiring an investment in effort, explained by one theme: uncovering the challenge of building collective action, and three subthemes: assessing fit, adapting to change together, and investing in the change. Finally, participants strongly agreed (score = 4.5/5) that e-PHR would positively affect engagement in self-management decision-making in two themes: care is efficient, and care is patient-centered. Overall, successful integration of e-PHR will only be attained when systemic effort is invested to enact it. Additional investigation is needed to explore the collective action gaps to inform priorities and approaches for future implementation success. This research has implications for patients, care providers, EHR vendors, and the healthcare system for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of patient-centric services. Findings confirm the usefulness of NPT for planning and understanding implementation success of PHRs.

Barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making in hospitals from policy to practice: a systematic review

Background

Involving patients in their healthcare using shared decision-making (SDM) is promoted through policy and research, yet its implementation in routine practice remains slow. Research into SDM has stemmed from primary and secondary care contexts, and research into the implementation of SDM in tertiary care settings has not been systematically reviewed. Furthermore, perspectives on SDM beyond those of patients and their treating clinicians may add insights into the implementation of SDM. This systematic review aimed to review literature exploring barriers and facilitators to implementing SDM in hospital settings from multiple stakeholder perspectives.

Methods

The search strategy focused on peer-reviewed qualitative studies with the primary aim of identifying barriers and facilitators to implementing SDM in hospital (tertiary care) settings. Studies from the perspective of patients, clinicians, health service administrators, and decision makers, government policy makers, and other stakeholders (for example researchers) were eligible for inclusion. Reported qualitative results were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify behavioural barriers and facilitators to SDM.

Results

Titles and abstracts of 8724 articles were screened and 520 were reviewed in full text. Fourteen articles met inclusion criteria. Most studies (n = 12) were conducted in the last four years; only four reported perspectives in addition to the patient-clinician dyad. In mapping results to the TDF, the dominant themes were Environmental Context and Resources, Social/Professional Role and Identity, Knowledge and Skills, and Beliefs about Capabilities. A wide range of barriers and facilitators across individual, organisational, and system levels were reported. Barriers specific to the hospital setting included noisy and busy ward environments and a lack of private spaces in which to conduct SDM conversations.

Conclusions

SDM implementation research in hospital settings appears to be a young field. Future research should build on studies examining perspectives beyond the clinician-patient dyad and further consider the role of organisational- and system-level factors. Organisations wishing to implement SDM in hospital settings should also consider factors specific to tertiary care settings in addition to addressing their organisational and individual SDM needs.

Trial Registration

The protocol for the review is registered on the Open Science Framework and can be found at https://osf.io/da645/, DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/DA645.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-021-01142-y.

Assessing Application-Based Breastfeeding Education for Physicians and Nurses: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Physicians and nurses are expected to support breastfeeding mothers. However, there is a lack of standardized lactation education throughout training programs and hospitals. As a result, providers lack the necessary confidence and skills to guide mothers throughout the breastfeeding experience. The hands-on nature of breastfeeding management demands the implementation of application-based learning tools to improve skills retention and patient breastfeeding outcomes.

RESEARCH AIM

In this scoping review, we aimed to critically assess the types of application-based breastfeeding management learning tools reported within medical and nursing professions and the evaluation methods of learner and patient outcomes.

METHODS

The authors searched the literature to identify peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2018 with medical or nursing students, residents, or professionals as the target learner group in an application-based educational intervention. Both authors independently assessed the content in the resulting articles, with specific focus on teaching methods, curricular development, and the learning outcomes reported within each study.

RESULTS

Ten articles matched the inclusion criteria and were included in the final review, including five studies from the medical field and five from the field of nursing. Use of real patients was a common method for application-based skills training, followed by role playing and use of standardized patients. Teaching and evaluation methods varied widely across the studies.

CONCLUSION

The results align with existing literature in finding a dearth of high-quality studies assessing breastfeeding education among physicians and nurses. The variability in teaching and evaluation methods indicates a lack of standardization in breastfeeding education between institutions.

Shared Decision-making With Parents of Hospitalized Children: A Qualitative Analysis of Parents' and Providers' Perspectives

OBJECTIVES

Shared decision-making (SDM) is the pinnacle of patient-centered care and has been shown to improve health outcomes, especially for children with chronic medical conditions. However, parents perceive suboptimal involvement during hospitalization. The objective was to explore the perspectives of parents of hospitalized children and their hospital providers on facilitators and barriers to SDM in the hospital and identify strategies to increase SDM.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted by using semistructured interviews with parents of hospitalized children with and without complex chronic conditions and their pediatric hospital medicine faculty. Parents and faculty were matched and individually interviewed on the same day. Two investigators iteratively coded transcripts and identified themes using modified grounded theory, with an additional author reviewing themes.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven parents and 16 faculty participated in the interviews. Four themes emerged: (1) parents and providers value different components of SDM; (2) providers assume SDM is easier with parents of children with medical complexity; (3) factors related to providers, parents, patients, and family-centered rounds were identified as barriers to SDM; and (4) parents and providers identified strategies to facilitate SDM in the hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a discrepancy between parents' and providers' understanding of SDM, with parents most valuing their providers' ability to actively listen and explain the medical issue and options with them. There are many barriers that exist that make it difficult for both parties to participate. Several strategies related to family-centered rounds have been identified that can be implemented into clinical practice to mitigate these barriers.

Shared Decision Making for the Emergency Provider: Engaging Patients When Seconds Count

Introduction

Physicians need to be able to communicate the myriad of management options clearly to patients and engage them in their health care decisions, even in the fast-paced environment of the emergency department. Shared decision making (SDM) is an effective communication strategy for physicians to share diagnostic uncertainty, avoid potentially harmful tests, and solicit patients' preferences for their care. Role-playing with just-in-time feedback is an effective method to learn and practice SDM before having these conversations with patients.

Methods

This flipped classroom workshop featured precourse materials and an in-class session incorporating a short lecture outlining a framework for SDM, followed by role-playing through patient scenarios. Learners took turns playing the physician or patient role and received feedback on their communication skills while in the physician role. A faculty examiner subsequently assessed skill attainment using a simulated patient encounter and checklist of critical actions.

Results

The workshop was an interactive and effective way to teach SDM to 28 PGY 1 and PGY 2 emergency medicine residents. Two months after attending the workshop, over 75% of the first-year residents were able to complete all the elements of the SDM process in a simulated patient encounter; four residents required no prompting by the examiner.

Discussion

A communications workshop that incorporates role-playing with different patient encounters is an interactive way to teach SDM for the emergency setting. Residents early in their clinical training can benefit from learning and practicing SDM in a simulated setting.

Psychological predictors of medical residents' perspectives on shared decision-making with patients: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Shared Decision Making (SDM) is as ideal model for resident-patient relationship which may improve medical outcomes. Nevertheless, predictive psychological factors influencing residents' perspective regarding SDM are unclear. The current study investigated the relationship between two psychological factors, mental health and personality traits, and residents' views toward SDM.

METHOD

In a cross-sectional study, 168 medical residents of the Babol University of Medical Sciences studying in 13 field specialties were recruited. The residents completed three questionnaires including Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-Doc, physician version), General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12), and Big Five Personality (NEO-FFI).

RESULTS

Residents had an overall agreement of about 88% regarding SDM with patients. There was no significant difference between male and female residents in terms of the degree of agreement for SDM. Concerning SDM, there was no significant relationship either between residents' views and neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. In multivariate regression, mental health did not predict the SDM, but openness to experience negatively predicted residents' views concerning SDM (β = - 0.388, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The residents' personality trait of openness to experience was a significant negative predictor of SDM with patients. A better understanding of how psychological factors relate to residents' perspectives may help clinicians properly discuss the treatment options with the patient thereby encouraging them for SDM or to consider their own preferences.

A Qualitative Analysis of Patients' Perceptions of Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: "Let Me Know I Have a Choice"

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Despite increasing attention to the use of shared decision making (SDM) in the emergency department (ED), little is known about ED patients' perspectives regarding this practice. We sought to explore the use of SDM from the perspectives of ED patients, focusing on what affects patients' desired level of involvement and what barriers and facilitators patients find most relevant to their experience.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of ED patients or their proxies at two sites. An interview guide was developed from existing literature and expert consensus and based on a framework underscoring the importance of both knowledge and power. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in an iterative process by a three-person coding team. Emergent themes were identified, discussed, and organized.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients and proxies participated. The mean age of participants was 56 years (range, 20 to 89 years), and 13 were female. Participants were diverse in regard to race/ethnicity, education, number of previous ED visits, and presence of chronic conditions. All participants wanted some degree of involvement in decision making. Participants who made statements suggesting high self-efficacy and those who expressed mistrust of the health care system or previous negative experiences wanted a greater degree of involvement. Facilitators to involvement included familiarity with the decision at hand, physicians' good communication skills, and clearly delineated options. Some participants felt that their own relative lack of knowledge, compared to that of the physicians, made their involvement inappropriate or unwanted. Many participants had no expectation for SDM and although they did want involvement when asked explicitly, they were otherwise likely to defer to physicians without discussion. Many did not recognize opportunities for SDM in their clinical care.

CONCLUSIONS

This exploration of ED patients' perceptions of SDM suggests that most patients want some degree of involvement in medical decision making but more proactive engagement of patients by clinicians is often needed. Further research should examine these issues in a larger and more representative population.