Provider perspectives on the utility of a colorectal cancer screening decision aid for facilitating shared decision making

Background Decision aids for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening have been shown to enable patients to identify a preferred screening option, but the extent to which such tools facilitate shared decision making (SDM) from the perspective of the provider is less well established. Objective Our goal was to elicit provider feedback regarding the impact of a CRC screening decision aid on SDM in the primary care setting. Methods Cross‐sectional survey. Participants Primary care providers participating in a clinical trial evaluating the impact of a novel CRC screening decision aid on SDM and adherence. Main outcomes Perceptions of the impact of the tool on decision‐making and implementation issues. Results Twenty‐nine of 42 (71%) eligible providers responded, including 27 internists and two nurse practitioners. The majority (>60%) felt that use of the tool complimented their usual approach, increased patient knowledge, helped patients identify a preferred screening option, improved the quality of decision making, saved time and increased patients’ desire to get screened. Respondents were more neutral is their assessment of whether the tool improved the overall quality of the patient visit or patient satisfaction. Fewer than 50% felt that the tool would be easy to implement into their practices or that it would be widely used by their colleagues. Conclusion Decision aids for CRC screening can improve the quality and efficiency of SDM from the provider perspective but future use is likely to depend on the extent to which barriers to implementation can be addressed.     

Observing decision‐making in the general practice consultation: who makes which decisions?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate opportunities for, and types of decision making in the general practice (primary care) consultation, and examine differences in skills of those doctors who are successful at meeting their patients' preferences and those who are less successful. DESIGN: Observation study of doctor-patient consultations in general practice. PARTICIPANTS: Patients attending for routine appointments in 12 general practice surgeries across Oxfordshire. METHODS: A total of 212 doctor-patient consultations were video-recorded. The patients involved completed a questionnaire to elicit their perceptions of how decisions were made. The video-taped recordings were coded with a new instrument, the Evidence Based Patient Choice Instrument (EBPCI), to classify the number and type of decision-making opportunities arising during each consultation. A total of 149 recordings were coded using the Oxbridge Rating Scale to assess the doctors' consultation styles. RESULTS: There was a range of decision-making opportunities in addition to those involving medical treatment. With the exception of 'fitness for work', decisions were generally 'doctor led'. There was only moderate agreement between patient perceptions of their level of involvement in decision making and the objective ratings using the EBPCI. There was wide variation in the ability of doctors to meet their patients' preferences for involvement. CONCLUSIONS: There are many decisions made in primary care consultations, in addition to those about medical treatments, in which patients could be involved to a greater extent than they currently are. Some doctors are significantly better than others at meeting different patients' preferences for their decision-making role. Patients' perceptions of shared decision making appears to be influenced by the doctors' general consultation skills.     

The role of doctor's opinion in shared decision making: what does shared decision making really mean when considering invasive medical procedures?1

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to gain understanding about patients' perspectives on decision making in the context of invasive medical interventions and whether patients' decision-making preferences influenced the type of information they desired to be provided by physicians. DESIGN: Questionnaire study of consecutive patients in a university-based general medicine clinic. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were presented with a randomized list of three types of information that physicians could provide (risk, benefit and physician's opinion on whether they should undergo the procedure). Patients were asked whether they preferred patient-based, physician-based, or shared decision making and then were asked to select which one or combination of these three information types was most important to them in their own decision making. Patients were also asked to self-report on how many invasive procedures they had undergone in their own lives. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 202 consecutive patients (mean age = 65.1 years, SD = 12.3, range 28-88; mean education 13.3 years, SD 2.9, range 2-23). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient reports. RESULTS: Of the 202 patients, two patients reported no decision-making preference. These two patients were excluded from the analysis. Of the 200 remaining patients, 62.5% (125/200) preferred shared, 22.5%(45/200) preferred physician-based, and 15.5% (31/200) preferred patient-based decision making. More than half of all subjects chose physician opinion as the most important type of information for decision making. Older patients (odds ratio 1.028; confidence interval 1.003-1.053) were more likely to have ranked the doctor's opinion as the most important in their decision making for invasive medical interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Although most patients want to share decision making with their physicians regarding invasive procedures, the majority of these patients report relying on the doctor's opinion on whether to undergo the procedure as the most important information in their own decision making.     

Achieving involvement: process outcomes from a cluster randomized trial of shared decision making skill development and use of risk communication aids in general practice

BACKGROUND: A consulting method known as 'shared decision making' (SDM) has been described and operationalized in terms of several 'competences'. One of these competences concerns the discussion of the risks and benefits of treatment or care options-'risk communication'. Few data exist on clinicians' ability to acquire skills and implement the competences of SDM or risk communication in consultations with patients. OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to evaluate the effects of skill development workshops for SDM and the use of risk communication aids on the process of consultations. METHODS: A cluster randomized trial with crossover was carried out with the participation of 20 recently qualified GPs in urban and rural general practices in Gwent, South Wales. A total of 747 patients with known atrial fibrillation, prostatism, menorrhagia or menopausal symptoms were invited to a consultation to review their condition or treatments. Half the consultations were randomly selected for audio-taping, of which 352 patients attended and were audio-taped successfully. After baseline, participating doctors were randomized to receive training in (i) SDM skills or (ii) the use of simple risk communication aids, using simulated patients. The alternative training was then provided for the final study phase. Patients were allocated randomly to a consultation during baseline or intervention 1 (SDM or risk communication aids) or intervention 2 phases. A randomly selected half of the consultations were audio-taped from each phase. Raters (independent, trained and blinded to study phase) assessed the audio-tapes using a validated scale to assess levels of patient involvement (OPTION: observing patient involvement), and to analyse the nature of risk information discussed. Clinicians completed questionnaires after each consultation, assessing perceived clinician-patient agreement and level of patient involvement in decisions. Multilevel modelling was carried out with the OPTION score as the dependent variable, and rater, consultation and clinician levels of data, standardized by rater within clinician. RESULTS: Following each of the interventions, the clinicians significantly increased their involvement of patients in decision making (OPTION score increased by 10.6 following risk communication training [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.9 -13.3; P < 0.001] and by 12.9 after SDM skill development (95% CI 10 -15.8, P < 0.001), a moderate effect size. The level of involvement achieved by the risk communication aids was significantly increased by the subsequent introduction of the skill development workshops (7.7 increase in OPTION score, 95% CI 3.4-12; P < 0.001). The alternative sequence (skills followed by risk communication aids) did not achieve this effect. The use of most risk information formats increased after the provision of specific risk communication aids (P < 0.001). Clinicians using the risk communication tools perceived significantly higher patient and clinician agreement on treatment (P < 0.001), patient satisfaction with information (P < 0.01), clinician satisfaction with decision (P < 0.01) and general overall satisfaction with the consultation (P < 0.001) than those who were exposed to SDM skill development workshops. CONCLUSIONS: These clinicians were able to acquire the skills to implement SDM competences and to use risk communication aids. Each intervention provided independent effects. Further progress towards greater patient involvement in health care decision making is possible, and skill development in this area should be incorporated into postgraduate professional development programmes.     

Shared decision making in consultations for hypertension: Qualitative study in general practice

BackgroundHypertension is mainly managed in primary care. Shared decision making is widely recommended as an approach to treatment decision making. However, no studies have investigated; in detail, what happens during primary care consultations for hypertension.AimTo understand patients’ and clinicians’ experience of shared decision making for hypertension in primary care, in order to propose how it might be better supported.DesignLongitudinal qualitative study.SettingFive general practices in south‐west England.MethodInterviews with a purposive sample of patients with hypertension, and with the health‐care practitioners they consulted, along with observations of clinical consultations, for up to 6 appointments. Interviews and consultations were audio‐recorded and observational field notes taken. Data were analysed thematically.ResultsForty‐six interviews and 18 consultations were observed, with 11 patients and nine health‐care practitioners (five GPs, one pharmacist and three nurses). Little shared decision making was described by participants or observed. Often patients’ understanding of their hypertension was limited, and they were not aware there were treatment choices. Consultations provided few opportunities for patients and clinicians to reach a shared understanding of their treatment choices. Opportunities for patients to engage in choices were limited by structured consultations and the distribution of decisions across consultations.ConclusionFor shared decision making to be better supported, consultations need to provide opportunities for patients to learn about their condition, to understand that there are treatment choices, and to discuss these choices with clinicians.Patient or Public ContributionA patient group contributed to the design of this study.     

A design process for using normative models in shared decision making: a case study in the context of prenatal testing

Background

Shared decision making (SDM) encourages the patient to play a more active role in the process of medical consultation and its primary objective is to find the best treatment for a specific patient. Recent findings, however, show that patient preferences cannot be easily or accurately judged on the basis of communicative exchange during routine office visits, even for patients who seek to expand their role in medical decision making (MDM).

Objective

The objective of this study is to improve the quality of patient–physician communication by developing a novel design process for SDM and then demonstrating, through a case study, the applicability of this process in enabling the use of a normative model for a specific medical situation.

Design

Our design process goes through the following stages: definition of medical situation and decision problem, development/identification of normative model, adaptation of normative model, empirical analysis and development of decision support systems (DSS) tools that facilitate the SDM process in the specific medical situation.

Case study

This study demonstrates the applicability of the process through the implementation of the general normative theory of MDM under uncertainty for the medical–financial dilemma of choosing a physician to perform amniocentesis.

Discussion

The use of normative models in SDM raises several issues, such as the goal of the normative model, the relation between the goals of prediction and recommendation, and the general question of whether it is valid to use a normative model for people who do not behave according to the model''s assumptions.     

How should patients behave to facilitate shared decision making – the doctors’ view

Objective To study how physicians feel about patients’ efforts to be engaged in shared decision making (SDM). Study setting and design Survey of physicians from distinctly different medical disciplines (238 psychiatrists and 169 vascular surgeons). Participants were requested to judge which patient behaviours they find helpful and which behaviours detrimental for SDM. Results Psychiatrists and surgeons had rather positive attitudes about active patient behaviours. However, there were quite a few patient behaviours (e.g. searching the Internet, being assertive towards the doctor) which provoked ambivalent or negative attitudes. Discussion and conclusions Physicians are generally quite open towards active patient behaviour in the consultation. They, however, do consider it as less helpful and become more annoyed if patients insist on their preferences and doubt their doctors’ recommendations. Physicians must realize that SDM implies giving up decisional power and try to be more flexible in their interactions with patients.     

Assessing patients’ involvement in decision making during the nutritional consultation with a dietitian

Background Shared decision making (SDM) represents an interesting approach to optimize the impact of dietary treatment, but there is no evidence that SDM is commonly integrated into diet‐related health care. Objective To assess the extent to which dietitians involve patients in decisions about dietary treatment. Methods We audiotaped dietitians conducting nutritional consultations with their patients, and we transcribed the tapes verbatim. Three trained raters independently evaluated the content of the nutritional consultations using a coding frame based on the 12 items of the French‐language version of the OPTION scale, a validated and reliable third‐observer instrument designed to assess patients’ involvement by examining specific health professionals’ behaviours. Coding was facilitated by the qualitative research software NVivo 8. We assessed internal consistency with Cronbach’s alpha and inter‐rater reliability with the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results Of the 40 dietitians eligible to participate in the study, 19 took part. We recruited one patient per participating dietitian. The overall mean OPTION score was 29 ± 8% [range, 0% (no patient involvement in the decision] to 100% [high patient involvement)]. The mean duration of consultations was 50 ± 26 min. The OPTION score was positively correlated with the duration of the consultation (r = 0.65, P < 0.01). Internal consistency and inter‐rater reliability were both good (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.72; ICC = 0.65). Conclusion This study is the first to use a framework based on the OPTION scale to report on dietitians’ involvement of patients in decisions about patients’ dietary treatment. The results suggest that involvement is suboptimal. Interventions to increase patients’ involvement in diet‐related decision making are indicated.