Shared decision making for the allergist

ObjectiveShared decision making (SDM) is becoming more commonly appreciated and used in medical practice as a way to empower patients who are facing treatment preference-sensitive conditions, such as allergic rhinitis, atopic dermatitis, food allergy, and persistent asthma. The purpose of this review is to educate the allergy health care provider about how SDM works and provide practical advice and allergist-specific SDM resources.Data SourcesPubMed and online patient decision aid resources.Study SelectionsStudies and reviews relevant to SDM and patient decision aids relevant to the allergy health care provider were selected for discussion.ResultsThere are ethical, practical, economic, and psychological imperatives for the implementation of quality SDM, particularly for chronic diseases. Many benefits and barriers of SDM have been identified and models have been developed to encourage implementation of quality SDM. For the allergy health care provider, SDM for asthma has been shown to improve adherence, outcomes, and patient satisfaction with care. Patient decision aids are useful tools for SDM and have recently been developed for allergen immunotherapy, severe asthma, and atopic dermatitis.ConclusionEffective SDM has been shown to improve adherence and lead to better outcomes. SDM should be universally implemented as a key component of patient-centered health care. Allergy health care providers should work with their patients to reach treatment decisions that align with their values and preferences.     

Healthcare professionals’ behaviour regarding the implementation of shared decision-making in screening programmes: A systematic review

ObjectiveTo explore the barriers to and facilitators of healthcare professionals’ implementation of SDM regarding screening programmes.MethodA systematic review was conducted in PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINHAL, and PsyscInfo. The barriers and facilitators identified were classified into three factors based on their origin: patients, healthcare system performance, and healthcare professionals themselves.ResultsEight studies were selected: seven related to cancer screening. The most significant facilitators were literacy and interest in active participation, both of which have their origins in patients. The most significant barriers identified for the first time in a systematic review were legal conflict, lack of remuneration and lack of flexibility in clinical guidelines in screening programmes.ConclusionThe results of this study show that there are differences between barriers and facilitators for SDM when it is applied in the context of healthy people who perform preventive activities, particularly screening, in contrast to general medical consultation contexts.Practical implicationsThe authors suggest that to advance in the practice of SDM, we need to develop and disseminate training documents. Further, SDM should be incorporated into clinical guidelines. There should be more studies focusing on healthcare professionals’ behaviour within the context of the uncertainty of screening programmes.     

Building ground for didactics in a patient decision aid for hip osteoarthritis. Exploring patient-related barriers and facilitators towards shared decision-making

ObjectiveThe aim of the present study was to explore patient-related barriers and facilitators towards shared decision-making (SDM) during routine orthopedic outpatient consultations as part of the process of developing a patient decision aid (PDA) for patients with hip osteoarthritis (OA).MethodsConsultations comprising nineteen hip OA patients referred to an orthopedic surgeon for treatment decision-making were observed, audio recorded and transcribed. Iterative thematic analysis proceeded, based on a taxonomy of generic patient-related barriers towards SDM grounded in the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB).ResultsA targeted taxonomy provided a structured overview of 26 factors influencing hip OA patients’ intention to engage in SDM. Patients’ perceived ability to change the agenda of the visit emerged as seminal factor and was added to the generic taxonomy.ConclusionUsing a TPB-based taxonomy, we were able to identify and structure generic and context specific SDM barriers. Addressing patients’ communication self-efficacy should be included as didactic feature in PDAs.Practice implicationsPDAs for hip OA should be designed for the broad spectrum of decision-making support needs occurring throughout the continuum of the disease. The provided taxonomy may contribute as guidance within implementation strategies that aim to support patients’ intentions to engage in SDM.     

Barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making in neonatal medicine: A systematic review and thematic synthesis of parental perceptions

ObjectivesSystematically review parental perceptions of shared decision-making (SDM) in neonatology, identifying barriers and facilitators to implementation.MethodsElectronic database (Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Scopus) and follow-up searches were conducted to identify qualitative studies. Data were extracted, thematically analysed and synthesised.ResultsSearches yielded 2445 papers, of which 25 were included. Thematic analysis identified six key themes. Key barriers included emotional crises experienced in the NICU setting, lack of medical information provided to parents to inform decision-making, inadequate communication of information, poor relationships with caregivers, lack of continuity in care, and perceived power imbalances between HCPs and parents. Key facilitators included clear, honest and compassionate communication of medical information, caring and empathetic caregivers, continuity in care, and tailored approaches that reflected parent’s desired level of involvement.ConclusionThe highly specialised environment, and the emotional crises experienced by parents impact significantly on their perceived capacity to engage in surrogate decision-making.Practice ImplicationsComplex and multi-factorial interventions that address the training needs of HCPs, and the emotional, informational and decision support needs of parents are needed. SDM skills training, improved information delivery, and integrated emotional and decisional support could help parents to become more involved in SDM for their infant.     

Adoption of a clinical decision support system to promote judicious use of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections in primary care

PurposeOveruse of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections (ARIs) in primary care is an established risk factor for worsening antimicrobial resistance. The “Reducing Inappropriate Prescribing of Antibiotics by Primary Care Clinicians” study is assessing the impact of a clinical decision support system (CDSS) on antibiotic prescribing for ARIs using a multimethod intervention to facilitate CDSS adoption. The purpose of this report is to describe use of the CDSS, as well as facilitators and barriers to its adoption, during the first year of the 15-month intervention.MethodsBetween January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2010, 39 providers in 9 practices in US states participated in this study. Quarterly EHR based audit and feedback, practice site visits for academic detailing, performance review and CDSS training, and “best-practice” dissemination during two meetings of study participants were used to facilitate CDSS adoption. Mixed methods were used to evaluate adoption of the CDSS. Using data extracted from the EHR, CDSS use for ARI was calculated. To determine facilitators and barriers of CDSS adoption, semi-structured group interviews were conducted with providers and staff at each practice.ResultsDuring the first year of implementation, the ABX-TRIP CDSS was used 14,086 times for ARI encounters. Overall, practice use of the CDSS during ARI encounters ranged from 39.4% to 77.2%. Median use of the CDSS for adult patients was 58.2% and 68.6% for pediatric patients. Key factors associated with CDSS adoption include the perception by providers that it assists with decision making and stimulates patient discussions, engagement of non-physician staff and an iterative CDSS development process.ConclusionsAdoption of a custom designed CDSS in the first year of implementation is promising. Successful implementation of such technology requires a focus not only on the technological solution itself, but on its integration with the entire clinical workplace.     

Making shared decisions in relation to planned caesarean sections: What are we up to?

ObjectiveTo map the literature in relation to shared decision making (SDM) for planned caesarean section (CS), particularly women’s experiences in receiving the information they need to make informed decisions, their knowledge of the risks and benefits of CS, the experiences and attitudes of clinicians in relation to SDM, and interventions that support women to make informed decisions.MethodsUsing a scoping review methodology, quantitative and qualitative evidence was systematically considered. To identify studies, PubMed, Maternity and Infant Care, MEDLINE, and Web of Science were searched for the period from 2008 to 2018.Results34 studies were included, with 9750 women and 3313 clinicians. Overall women reported limited SDM, and many did not have the information required to make informed decisions. Clinicians generally agreed with SDM, while recognising it often does not occur. Decision aids and educational interventions were viewed positively by women.ConclusionMany women were not actively involved in decision-making. Decision aids show promise as a SDM-enhancing tool. Studies that included clinicians suggest uncertainty regarding SDM, although willingness to engage.Practice implications: Moving from clinician-led decision-making to SDM for CS has potential to improve patient experiences, however this will require considerable clinician training, and implementation of SDM interventions.     

How does decision complexity affect shared decision making? An analysis of patient-provider antiretroviral initiation dialogue

ObjectivesThis study analyzed patient-provider dialogue regarding anti-retroviral therapy (ART) initiation, assessing the degree to which shared decision making (SDM) occurred.MethodsWe analyzed 24 audio-recorded dialogues between 14 HIV providers and their patients regarding ART initiation. We coded transcribed dialogues for seven SDM elements. We stratified dialogues into three levels of decision complexity (basic, intermediate, complex) based on patient CD4 counts and evaluated SDM criteria fulfillment at each level of decision complexity.ResultsThere were five basic, twelve intermediate, and seven complex decisions in our sample. While only two met the defined criteria for SDM, the mean number of SDM elements present increased with each level of decision complexity. Discussion of the clinical issue requiring the decision occurred most frequently (88%), while discussion of pros/cons (13%), patient’s understanding (21%), and decision alternatives (29%) occurred least frequently.Conclusion/Practice implicationsWhile few dialogues met the defined SDM criteria, providers are having conversations that respond to decision complexity. Clinicians should be aware that discussion of pros/cons, alternatives, and uncertainties are frequently skipped, even when these elements are clearly relevant, as in complex decisions. In addition, rhetorical questions to assess patient preferences and understanding are insufficient to fully engage patients in SDM.     

Patients’ perspectives on shared decision making in secondary mental healthcare in Taiwan: A qualitative study

ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to explore patient perspectives on shared decision making in secondary mental healthcare in Taiwan.MethodsQualitative semi-structured interviews were used to explore patient perspectives on shared decision making in secondary mental healthcare in Taiwan. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted from July to August 2017 with a purposive sample of twenty patients using halfway houses. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsAnalysis of the interviews identified two themes: barriers to shared decision making; facilitators of shared decision making. Patients perceived that they were not involved in decision making due to: the professional status of health professionals; negative perception of making decisions; and limited time resources. However, patients reported a desire to be involved and felt sufficient information exchange would be a necessary step towards collaboration/sharing decisions about treatment with clinicians.ConclusionThe findings provided an understanding of significant barriers to and facilitators of implementing shared decision making to aid further professional training and the development of national policies.Practice implicationsThe findings could be the basis for developing effective strategies to overcome barriers to shared decision making and improve the process quality of delivering shared decision making.     

Defining and implementing patient-centered care: An umbrella review

ObjectivesPatient- or person-centered care (PCC) integrates people’s preferences, values, and beliefs into health decision-making. Gaps exist for defining and implementing PCC; therefore, we aimed to identify core elements of PCC and synthesize implementation facilitators and barriers.MethodsWe conducted an overview of systematic reviews (umbrella review) and included peer-reviewed literature for adults in community/primary care settings. Two reviewers independently screened at Level 1 and 2, extracted data and appraised the quality of reviews. Three reviewers conducted a thematic analysis, and we present a narrative synthesis of findings.ResultsThere were 2371 citations screened, and 10 systematic reviews included. We identified 10 PCC definitions with common elements, such as patient empowerment, patient individuality, and a biopsychosocial approach. Implementation factors focused on communication, training healthcare providers, and organizational structure.ConclusionsWe provide a synthesis of key PCC elements to include in a future definition, and an overview of elements to consider for implementing PCC into practice. We extend existing literature by identifying clinician empowerment and culture change at the systems-level as two future areas to prioritize to enable routine integration of PCC into practice.Practice implicationsFindings may be useful for researchers and or health providers delivering and evaluating PCC.     

Implementation of newly adopted technology in acute care settings: a qualitative analysis of clinical staff

Abstract

Technologies are not always successfully implemented into practice. This study elicited experiences of acute care providers with the introduction of technology and identified barriers and facilitators in the implementation process. A qualitative study using one-on-one interviews among a purposeful sample of 19 physicians and nurses within 10 emergency departments and intensive care units was performed. Grounded theory, iterative data analysis and the constant comparative method were used to inductively generate ideas and build theories. Five major categories emerged: decision-making factors, the impact on practice, technology’s perceived value, facilitators and barriers to implementation. Barriers included negative experiences, age, infrequent use and access difficulties. A positive outlook, sufficient training, support staff and user friendliness were facilitators. This study describes strategies implicated in the successful implementation of newly adopted technology in acute care settings. Improved implementation methods and evaluation of implementation processes are necessary for successful adoption of new technology.     

Shared decision making: Physicians’ preferred role,usual role and their perception of its key components

ObjectiveTo investigate physicians’ preferred and usual roles in decision making in medical consultations, and their perception of shared decision making (SDM).MethodsA cross-sectional survey of 785 physicians in a large Dutch general teaching hospital was undertaken in June 2018, assessing their preferred and usual decision making roles (Control Preference Scale), and their view on SDM key components (SDMQ9 questionnaire).ResultsMost physicians (n = 232, 58%) preferred SDM, but more often performed paternalistic decision making (n = 121, 31%) in daily practice than they preferred (n = 80, 20%, p < 0.0001), most commonly because they judged the patient to be incapable of participating in decision making. Most physicians preferring SDM presented different options for treatment (n = 213, 92%) with their advantages and disadvantages (n = 209, 90%) but fewer made clear that a decision had to be made (n = 104, 45%) or explored the patient’s wish how to be involved in decision making (n = 80, 34%).ConclusionAlthough most physicians prefer SDM, they often revert to a paternalistic approach and tend to limit SDM to discussing treatment options.Practice implicationTeaching physicians in SDM should include raising awareness about discussing the decision process itself and help physicians to counter their tendency to revert to paternalistic decision making in daily practice.     

Shared decision making within goal setting in rehabilitation settings: A systematic review

ObjectiveTo map out and synthesise literature that considers the extent of shared decision-making (SDM) within goal-setting in rehabilitation settings and explore participants’ views of this approach within goal-setting.MethodsFour databases were systematically searched between January 2005–September 2015. All articles addressing SDM within goal-setting involving adult rehabilitation patients were included. The literature was critically appraised followed by a thematic synthesis.ResultsThe search output identified 3129 studies and 15 articles met the inclusion criteria. Themes that emerged related to methods of SDM within goal-setting, participants’ views on SDM, perceived benefits of SDM, barriers and facilitators to using SDM and suggestions to improve involvement of patients resulting in a better process of goal-setting.ConclusionsThe literature showed various levels of patient involvement existing within goal-setting however few teams adopted an entirely patient-centred approach. However, since the review has identified clear value to consider SDM within goal-setting for rehabilitation, further research is required and practice should consider educating both clinicians and patients about this approach.Practice implicationsTo enhance the use of SDM within goal-setting in rehabilitation it is likely clinicians and patients will require further education on this approach. For clinicians this could commence during their training at undergraduate level.     

What makes difficult decisions so difficult?: An activity theory analysis of decision making for physicians treating children with medical complexity

ObjectiveShared Decision-Making (SDM) has been advocated as an ideal model of decision-making in the medical encounter. Much of the research into SDM has focused on measuring if SDM is happening, or facilitating SDM by developing specific models and tools. Understanding SDM as an activity in context, has remained mostly absent from the research. This study sought to garner details on the actions, judgements and motives that comprise the activity of making a decision, in the context of a shared process between physicians and families of Children with Medical Complexity (CMC).Methods11 physicians who treat CMC were interviewed. Activity Theory framework was employed to understand the complexity of the decision-making process in context.ResultsAmbiguous information, conflicting rules, and beliefs on roles all contribute to the difficulty of decision-making. A decision is achieved by allocating the decision to one party.ConclusionLack of tools, rules or beliefs that would assist sharing the decision between the physician and patient/family, contributes to the need to allocate the decision to one party.Practice ImplicationIn developing SDM policies and tools, one must consider all aspects of the SDM activity system, and how they influence each other and the activity as a whole.     

An integrative review of stakeholder views on Advance Care Directives (ACD): Barriers and facilitators to initiation,documentation, storage,and implementation

ObjectiveTo examine the views and experiences of patients and their health care providers on developing advance care planning (ACP) and advance care directives (ACD); and determine barriers and facilitators to ACD development, storage, and use, including implications for people with communication disability.MethodAn integrative review of 93 studies, analysed according to their content themes.ResultsContent themes encapsulated the initiation, documentation, and implementation stages of ACP/ACD. Lack of guidance for initiating and supporting ACP/ACD impedes discussions, and both patients and healthcare providers avoid discussions owing to fear of dying and reluctance to think about end-of-life.ConclusionsThere are several barriers and facilitators to the initiation of ACP discussions, documentation and implementation of ACD, and little research exploring the views of legal professionals on the development, storage, or use of ACP documents. Further research is needed to explore the timing and responsibility of both legal and health professionals in initiating and supporting ACP discussions.Practice ImplicationsIt is important for healthcare providers to raise ACP discussions regularly so that patients have time to make informed advance care decisions. Storage of the document in an electronic health record might facilitate better access to and implementation of patients’ end-of-life care decisions.     

Remote shared decision making through telemedicine: A systematic review of the literature

ObjectivesTo assess the extent to which shared decision making (SDM) can take place in telemedicine (remote SDM).MethodsWe searched Medline, Cochrane, and Scopus from 2010 until August 7th, 2020 for articles on remote SDM in the care of any patient using any technology. We also conducted a search for telemedicine articles citing key reports on SDM outcome measures. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, reviewed full text eligible studies, and synthesized their content using thematic analysis.ResultsOf the 12 eligible articles, most were European with patients with chronic disease or mental and behavioral health. 8 articles used synchronous remote SDM and 1 used asynchronous remote SDM. Themes related to interactional workability of both telemedicine technologies and SDM emerged, namely access to broadband, digital literacy, and satisfaction with the convenience of remote visits.ConclusionsTelemedicine technologies may foster virtual interactions that support remote SDM, which, in turn, may promote productive patient-clinician interactions and patient-centered care.Practice implicationsDigitally-mediated consultations surged amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. The extent to which SDM frameworks developed for in-person use need any adaptation for remote SDM remains unclear. Investment in innovation, design, implementation, and effectiveness research to advance remote SDM are needed.     

The submissive silence of others: Examining definitions of shared decision making

ObjectiveOur aim was to use critical discourse analysis (CDA) to examine the most widely cited definitions of shared decision making so that we can evaluate how language is used to position participants. Based on our conceptual understanding, we presumed that shared decision making involves acts of communication where processes are collaborative.MethodsWe used a CDA lens to closely examine the phrases, semantics, syntax, implied functions, and the social actions proposed in SDM definition texts. We conducted a systematic search guided by the PRISMA guidelines, to identify the most widely cited definitions of SDM.ResultsA total of 72 studies met our inclusion criteria. While SDM is not consistently defined, it was striking to find that clinicians are constructed as active whereas patients were viewed to be passive participants. The definitions construct SDM to be a gift that the clinician has the power to offer, and the relationship in the definitions appears asymmetric, in which only one party seems to speak.ConclusionsThe SDM definitions examined convey a process characterized by a clinician who speaks, while a patient mostly listens, and is invited to contribute. An alternative definition might be constructed through references to joint activity via sentences in active voice.Practice implicationsClinicians may be influenced by definitions of SDM that reinforce the positionality of active speaker versus passive recipient. Clearer definitions that address the constructs of power and roles may help support the implementation of SDM.     

Opportunities and limitations of shared decision making in multidisciplinary tumor conferences with patient participation – A qualitative interview study with providers

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to examine opportunities and limitations of shared decision making in multidisciplinary tumor conferences with patient participation from the providers’ perspective in breast and gynecological cancer centers.MethodsSemi-structured guideline-based expert interviews were conducted with providers from breast and gynecological cancer centers with and without patient participation in multidisciplinary tumor conferences. Interviews were transcribed, anonymized and analyzed using qualitative content analysis.ResultsThe providers (n = 30) reported that some process steps of shared decision making can be implemented in limited form and under certain conditions in multidisciplinary tumor conferences with patient participation. Above all, patients can potentially ask questions and contribute individual additional information and their preferences.ConclusionThis study contributes first insights into the implementation of shared decision making in multidisciplinary tumor conferences with patient participation. From the providers’ perspective, the implementation of shared decision making seems difficult under the current circumstances. Further studies, using patient experiences, participative observations or interventional designs, are required.Practice ImplicationsDespite the limited implementation of shared decision making in tumor conferences, patient participation can be advantageous as it can allow patients to ask questions and contribute individual additional information as well as their preferences.