Shared decision‐making in maternity care: Acknowledging and overcoming epistemic defeaters

Shared decision‐making involves health professionals and patients/clients working together to achieve true person‐centred health care. However, this goal is infrequently realized, and most barriers are unknown. Discussion between philosophers, clinicians, and researchers can assist in confronting the epistemic and moral basis of health care, with benefits to all. The aim of this paper is to describe what shared decision‐making is, discuss its necessary conditions, and develop a definition that can be used in practice to support excellence in maternity care. Discussion between the authors, with backgrounds in philosophy, clinical maternity care, health care management, and maternity care research, assisted the team to confront established norms in maternity care and challenge the epistemic and moral basis of decision‐making for caesarean section. The team concluded that shared decision‐making must start in pregnancy and continue throughout labour and birth, with equality in discourse facilitated by the clinician. Clinicians have a duty of care for the adequacy of women's knowledge, which can only be fulfilled when relevant knowledge is offered freely and when personal beliefs and biases that may impinge on decision‐making (defeaters) are disclosed. Informed consent is not shared decision‐making. Key barriers include existing cultural norms of “the doctor knows best” and “patient acquiescence” that prevent defeaters being acknowledged and discussed and can lead to legal challenges, overuse of medical intervention and, in some areas, obstetric violence. Shared decision‐making in maternity care can thus be defined as an enquiry by clinician and expectant woman aimed at deciding upon a course of care or none, which takes the form of a dialogue within which the clinician fulfils their duty of care to the client's knowledge by making available their complete knowledge (based on all types of evidence) and expertise, including an exposition of any relevant and recognized potential defeaters. Research to develop measurement tools is required.     

Therapist self‐disclosure and the problem of shared‐decision making

Therapist self‐disclosure is one of the most controversial topics in the history of psychotherapy. The controversies reflect some basic discussions regarding the nature of psychotherapy practice. In psychotherapy practice, a particular concern is the interaction between the psychotherapist and the patient. The expert‐patient interaction has been addressed in a novel framework for clinical practice called shared‐decision making. In this paper, we discuss the relationship between self‐disclosure and shared‐decision making. The chief aim is to illustrate some of the principles and practical problems with shared‐decision making by using therapist self‐disclosure as an example.     

Shared decision‐making in mental and behavioural health interventions

Elements of shared decision‐making (ie, collaboration, patient preferences, and working alliance) have long been discussed and studied in the field of clinical psychology; however, research indicates that shared decision‐making is not typically used in clinical practice. Instead, clinicians often rely on a paternalistic approach. In this article, we provide a narrative review of the existing research supporting shared decision‐making for mental and behavioural health concerns, we discuss several barriers that impede its use in actual clinical practice, and we provide recommendations for increasing shared decision‐making when working with patients.     

Reaching a shared understanding of shared decision making in health care: NICE's experience of scoping the shared decision making guideline

NICE's guideline on shared decision making, currently under development, endeavours to support shared decision making as part of routine health care practice. In this article, we summarize our learning to date, gained through the scoping of the guideline, on the key challenges that need to be addressed in the guideline. The production of a scope is the first stage in the development of a NICE guideline, setting the parameters for what will be considered in the guideline. The process for scoping the shared decision making guideline involved discussion with early recruited committee members and engagement with registered stakeholders, through both a workshop and formal consultation. Important, and sometimes divergent, viewpoints about shared decision making were revealed through this process. The key challenges centred on the issues of a need for a common definition of shared decision making, measurability, opportunities, barriers to implementation, and feasibility. Recognizing these challenges aided the refinement of the scope in terms of what the guideline will cover, draft questions and main outcomes for consideration.     

‘What the hell is water?’ How to use deliberate clinical inertia in common emergency department situations

Appropriate deliberate clinical inertia refers to the art of doing nothing as a positive clinical response. It includes shared decision‐making to improve patient care with the use of clinical judgement. We discuss common clinical scenarios where the use of deliberate clinical inertia can occur. The insertion of peripheral intravenous cannulae, investigating patients with suspected renal colic and the investigation of low risk chest pain are all opportunities for the thoughtful clinician to ‘stand there’ and use effective patient communication to avoid low value tests and procedures. Awareness is key to identifying these opportunities to practice deliberate clinical inertia, as many of the situations may be so much a part of our environment that they are hidden in plain view.     

Shared decision making: A dual‐layer model to tackling multimorbidity in primary care

It is common for primary care providers (PCPs) to manage complex multimorbidity. When caring for patients with multimorbidity, PCPs face challenges to tackle several issues within a short consultation in order to address patients' complex needs. Furthermore, some PCPs may lack access to a multidisciplinary team and need to manage multimorbidity within the confine of a PCP‐patient partnership only. Instead of attempting to address multiple health issues within a single consultation, it would be more feasible and time effective for PCPs and patients to jointly prioritize the health issue to focus on. Using the Malaysian primary care setting as a case study, a dual‐layer‐shared decision‐making approach is proposed whereby PCPs and patients make decisions on which disease(s) (layer 1) and treatment(s) (layer 2) to prioritize. This dual‐layer model aims to address the challenges of short consultation time and limited healthcare resources by encouraging PCPs and patients to discuss, negotiate, and agree on the decision during the consultation to ensure patients' health needs are addressed.     

Does shared decision making respect a patient's relational autonomy?

According to many of its proponents, shared decision making (“SDM”) is the right way to interpret the clinician‐patient relationship because it respects patient autonomy in decision‐making contexts. In particular, medical ethicists have claimed that SDM respects a patient's relational autonomy understood as a capacity that depends upon, and can only be sustained by, interpersonal relationships as well as broader health care and social conditions. This paper challenges that claim. By considering two primary approaches to relational autonomy, this paper argues that standard accounts of SDM actually undermine patient autonomy. It also provides an overview of the obligations generated by the principle of respect for relational autonomy that have not been captured in standard accounts of SDM and which are necessary to ensure consistency between clinical practice and respect for patient autonomy.     

Extubation versus tracheostomy in withdrawal of treatment—ethical,clinical, and legal perspectives

The provision of life-sustaining ventilation, such as tracheostomy to critically ill patients, is commonly performed. However, the utilization of tracheostomy or extubation after a withdrawal of treatment decision is debated. There is a dearth of practical information available to aid clinical decision making because withdrawal of treatment is a challenging scenario for all concerned. This is further complicated by medicolegal and ethical considerations. Care of the “hopelessly ill” patient should be based on daily evaluation and comfort making it impossible to fit into general algorithms. Although respect for autonomy is important in healthcare, it is limited for patients in an unconscious state. Beneficence remains the basis for withdrawing treatment in futile cases and underpins the “doctrine of double effect.” This article presents a relevant clinical case of hypoxic brain injury where a question of withdrawal of treatment arose and examines the ethical, clinical, and medicolegal considerations inherent in such cases, including beneficence, nonmaleficence, and the “sanctity of life doctrine.” In addition, the considerations of prognosis for recovery, patient autonomy, patient quality of life, and patient family involvement, which are central to decision making, are addressed. The varying legal frameworks that exist internationally regarding treatment withdrawal are also described. Good ethics needs sound facts, and despite the lack of legal foundation in several countries, withdrawal of treatment remains practiced, and the principles described within this article aim to aid clinician decision making during such complex and multifaceted end-of-life decisions.     

The content of advocacy in procedural pain care – patients’ and nurses’ perspectives

Title. The content of advocacy in procedural pain care ‐ patient’ and nurses’ Perspectives. Aim. This paper is a report of an exploration of the content of nursing advocacy from the point of view of patients and nurses in the context of procedural pain care. Background. Nursing advocacy is every nurse’s professional duty, grounded in patients’ legal and moral rights. Nevertheless, earlier research has approached advocacy as a whistle‐blowing event from the nurse’s perspective. Method. This cross‐sectional study was conducted with a cluster sample of otolaryngology patients (n = 405) and nurses (n = 118) in 11 hospital units in Finland during 2007. The data were collected using an instrument measuring the content of advocacy and analysed statistically. Results. Advocacy in procedural pain care is a process which takes place in the patient–nurse relationship through role identification in decision‐making about pain care. This prompts counselling and responding activities, which in turn lead to some degree of empowerment on the part of both patient and nurse. However, advocacy is partly dependent on the nurse’s own role identification: in the context of pain care it seems that the nurse’s pain care skills and influence over pain care plans are important factors in the decision to advocate or not. At best, patients have some role in decision‐making about their care; at worst, they are subjected to paternalism. Conclusions. Advocacy is an integral part of the nursing care process. It is important that this key ethical aspect of professional nursing is discussed in nursing education and systematically applied in nursing practice through on‐the‐job training, feedback and collaboration.     

Review article: A primer for clinical researchers in the emergency department: Part XI. Inertia before investigation: Pre‐test probability in emergency medicine

In this series, we address research topics in emergency medicine. Rational clinical decision making is based on knowledge of the disease prevalence, clinical assessment features and test characteristics such as sensitivity and specificity. The concept of pre‐test probability is important as it will allow the clinician and patient decide together if a ‘test threshold’ or ‘treatment threshold’ has been reached, or if further investigations are required to make such a decision. This research primer uses three case scenarios to explore these concepts.     

Factors influencing clinical decision making used by mental health nurses to provide provisional diagnosis: A scoping review

Medical diagnosis has traditionally been the role of medical officers. However, mental health nurses working in crisis/emergency settings within Australia are expected to provide a provisional diagnosis postassessment of a consumer. There is limited literature and understanding how mental health nurses develop a provisional diagnosis. In this scoping review, we aimed to first identify and describe the clinical decision‐making processes used by mental health nurses across a variety of clinical settings. Second, we sought to explore the factors influencing mental health nurse's diagnostic practice in a variety of settings. Literature was searched using CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PubMed, and ProQuest. Peer‐reviewed literature published between 2007 and 2017 was used for this scoping review. Two major themes were identified: clinical decision making (CDM) in mental health nursing and diagnostic practice in nursing. A combination of clinician, environmental, and patient factors were found to have influenced CDM. Furthermore, mental health nurses rely heavily on tacit knowledge when making clinical decisions. Little is known about the use of diagnostic practice in mental health nursing in Australia; however, the limited literature revealed an overlap between the factors which influence CDM and diagnostic practice, respectively. Further research is needed into the use of diagnostic practice in mental health nursing to develop frameworks to assist with CDM pertaining to application of provisional diagnosis by mental health nurses working in assessment environments.     

Supporting stroke patients' autonomy during rehabilitation

In a qualitative study, 22 stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation in three nursing homes were interviewed about constraints on and improvements in their autonomy and about approaches of health professionals regarding autonomy. The data were analysed using grounded theory, with a particular focus on the process of regaining autonomy. An approach by the health professionals that was responsive to changes in the patients' autonomy was found to be helpful for restoration of their autonomy. Two patterns in health professionals' approach appeared to be facilitatory: (1) from full support on admission through moderate support and supervision, to reduced supervision at discharge; and (2) from paternalism on admission through partial paternalism (regarding treatment) to shared decision making at discharge. The approach experienced by the patients did not always match their desires regarding their autonomy. Support and supervision were reduced over time, but paternalism was often continued too long. Additionally, the patients experienced a lack of information. Tailoring interventions to patients' progress in autonomy would stimulate their active participation in rehabilitation and in decision making, and would improve patients' preparation for autonomous living after discharge.     

The application of decision making concepts by nurse practitioners in general practice

The application of decision making concepts by nurse practitioners in general practice ¶This paper is concerned with the conceptual frameworks which could be applied to nurse practitioners in general practice in reaching decisions during patient consultations. Four strategies of decision making are explained within a practice context: hypothetico-deductive method, decision analysis, pattern recognition and intuition. The study uses retrospective verbalization and observation of 20 nurse practitioners working alongside general practitioners to explore decision making issues. The results of the study show that important factors relating to decision making include: the ability to recognize patterns in clinical situations to fit with patterns previously seen; an appreciation of the consequences of inappropriate action; and the ability to concentrate simultaneously on complex and sometimes masked patient cues as well as multiple treatment options.     

Evidence-based management in clinical governance

The aim of this paper is to describe a strategy--a partnership between a clinician manager and nurse academic--developed for the purpose of utilizing clinical governance literature to enhance management practice. The partnership is an initiative that has been implemented to fill a growing need for more collaboration between the tertiary health education and health industry sectors. The paper provides a brief overview of clinical governance and evidence-based management, and describes the partnership between the clinician manager and nurse academic. For the purposes of this paper 'clinician manager' refers to a health professional who also has an extensive management role in a health care organization. The benefits of this partnership in terms of the application of clinical governance literature to improved management decision making and practice concern the ability of clinician managers to have access to the most up-to-date research findings in terms of good clinical governance, and to be able to apply them in their management practice. Information about clinical governance, linked with evidence-based management and the application of clinical governance literature in the management of a health service is also provided. The authors argue that this is a useful initiative which could be adopted by health care managers and academics--with the aim of enhancing evidence-based management policy and decision making.     

Person‐centred shared decision making

While multiple versions of shared decision making (SDM) have been advanced, most share two seemingly essential elements: (a) SDM is primarily focused on treatment choices and (b) the clinician is primarily responsible for providing options while the patient contributes values and preferences. We argue that these two elements render SDM suboptimal for clinical practice. We suggest that SDM is better viewed as collaboration in all aspects of clinical care, with clinicians needing to fully engage with the patient's experience of illness and participation in treatment. SDM can only take place within an ongoing partnership between clinician and patient, both respecting the other as a person, not as part of an isolated encounter. Respect for the patient as a person goes beyond respect for their choice. Non‐interference is not the only way, or even the most important way, to respect patient autonomy. Knowing the patient as a person and providing an autonomy‐supportive context for care are crucial. That is, the clinician must know the patient well enough to be able to answer the patient's question “What would you do, if you were me?” This approach acknowledges clinicians as persons, requiring them to understand patients as persons. We provide examples of such a model of SDM and assert that this pragmatic method does not require excessive time or effort on the part of clinicians or patients but does require direct and particular knowledge of the patient that is often omitted from clinical decisions.     

Chinese familial tradition and Western influence: a case study in Singapore on decision making at the end of life

Decision making for an incompetent patient at the end of life is difficult for both family members and physicians alike. Often, palliative care teams are tasked with weaving through opinions, emotions, and goals in search for an amenable solution. Occasionally, these situations get challenging. We present the case of an elderly Chinese Singaporean with metastatic cancer, whose family and physicians had conflicting goals of care. The former was adamant on treating the patient's disease with an untested drug, whereas the latter aimed to treat his symptoms with more conventional medication. Drug-drug interactions prevented treatment with both. Beginning with a discussion of the patient's best interest, we delve into the Singaporean context to show how culture affects medical decision making. Confucianism and filial piety are the values on which this family's workings were based. In an analysis of what this entails, we attempt to explain the significant and assertive family involvement in the decision-making process and their insistence on using novel medications, having exhausted conventional interventions. Within this mix were Western influences, too. Through the Internet, family members have become more informed and empowered in decision making, wresting the traditional paternalistic role of physicians in favor of "patient autonomy." An understanding of such dynamic facets will help better tailor culturally appropriate approaches to such complex situations.     

Patient‐centred care through a broader lens: Supporting patient autonomy alongside moral deliberation

Patient‐centred care (PCC) is an essential component of high‐quality healthcare and shared decision‐making is its cornerstone. Yet, integrating the principles of PCC into healthcare practice is not always straightforward and shared decision‐making can be complicated and ethically demanding. While ethicists and academics routinely debate moral aspects of clinical care, such discussion among clinicians is less overt. In this paper, we use Emmanuel et al.’s deliberative model to provide a practical framework for considering ethical aspects of PCC and shared decision‐making. The model encourages us to appreciate PCC through a broader lens and consider patient autonomy alongside other moral obligations such as justice and the equitable distribution of finite resources. The model can be used by healthcare providers, patients and caregivers to facilitate dialogue and moral deliberation regarding the merit of their preferences and values; in this way, individualised care can be delivered without compromising other important ethical obligations.     

Substance use disorder and compulsory commitment to care: a care‐ethical decision‐making framework

In the era of deinstitutionalisation of psychiatric patients, steady or even increasing rates of compulsory commitment to care (CCC ) are an intriguing phenomenon to analyse. From a clinical, legal and ethical perspective, CCC continues to be a controversial practice in psychiatry, and perhaps even more so when applied to patients with severe substance use disorder (SUD ). Several reasons make it controversial. The lack of consensus about the benefits of CCC and professional disagreement about what mental illness and autonomy mean in the case of SUD make it difficult to apply ethically sound clinical decision‐making in CCC . Also, the medico‐legal framework underlying CCC use sometimes appears to foster the use of reductionist clinical evaluation. Layered on top of these issues is how stakeholders view coercion. There is a discrepancy between clinicians’ and patients’ perception of coercion, which leads to clinician–patient differences on whether CCC is necessary. Moreover, the way in which the evaluation is typically carried out influences patients’ perception of coercion and subsequently their motivation for participating fully in treatment. In this article, we explore the value of care ethics, often applied to care practices such as nursing, when applied to more procedural medical practices, such as decision‐making regarding CCC . The care‐ethical approach views decision‐making as part of a dynamic care process, within which the lived experience, interpretative dialogue and promotion of dignity are core features. Embracing this new framework means a paradigm shift in when the therapeutic relationship begins, namely, investing in it occurs while conducting an evaluation for a possible CCC procedure. Unlike in current typical evaluations, early cultivation of the therapeutic relationship enables the patient to participate in the definition of his needs, reduces perceived coercion and negative emotions and enhances treatment motivation. Finally, implications of this novel approach for clinical practice are formulated and discussed.