Why Shared Decision Making Matters.

Shared decision making is a hallmark of Magnet® organizations. Although the terminology can vary, the essence is the same: nurses at all levels, and in all settings, need to be a part of the decision making structure and process. Their voices, along with those of their interprofessional colleagues, ensure a culture of accountability. During times of financial challenges, trimming shared decision making councils may seem an easy place to save money. However, eliminating the councils may lead to increased unintentional costs. This month's Magnet Perspectives takes a closer look at the benefits of shared decision making and its enduring value.

Palliative Renal Care and the Covid-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Palliative care is an approach aimed at relieving suffering, controlling symptoms and seeking to improve quality of life. It must be offered in conjunction with standard treatment for any disease that threatens the continuation of life, such as a Covid-19 infection. DISCUSSION: The bioethical principles and strategies used by palliative medicine can assist nephrologists in the care of patients with renal dysfunction, who face the difficulties of isolation at the beginning and follow-up of dialysis in outpatient treatment, and those who are at risk for a more serious disease progress. Some of them: - a Shared decision making, which enables the patient and family to participate as facilitators in the systematization of the team's reasoning, in addition to respecting the principle of autonomy; - Symptom Management: which should be a priority to ensure relief of suffering even in times of social isolation; - Communication skills: making it possible to alleviate suffering in announcing bad news or complex decisions through communication techniques;; - Bereavement assistance: which in acute situations such as the pandemic, causing unexpected losses, the importance of sympathy from healthcare professionals becomes even greater. CONCLUSION: The principles of palliative care are essential to face the challenges of a planet-wide crisis, which raises human suffering in all dimensions, and which requires the construction of strategies that can keep patients assisted, comfortable and with measures proportional to their clinical condition and preferences.

The art of shared decision making.

ABSTRACT: Now more than ever, we know that there is uncertainty in medicine. Over the past 2 years, we have witnessed the evolution of knowledge that occurs in medicine and how this informs medical recommendations. Similarly, we have learned that patients have varying levels of risk tolerance, goals, and values. Although this is not a new reality, the COVID-19 pandemic has put it on display. Shared decision making is a tool for clinicians to use that recognizes this reality, honors the individuality of each patient, and guides us to the best decision for each patient.

Shared Decision-Making in General Surgery: Prospective Comparison of Telemedicine vs In-Person Visits.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has accelerated a shift toward virtual telemedicine appointments with surgeons. While this form of healthcare delivery has potential benefits for both patients and surgeons, the quality of these interactions remains largely unstudied. We hypothesize that telemedicine visits are associated with lower quality of shared decision-making. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a mixed-methods, prospective, observational cohort trial. All patients presenting for a first-time visit at general surgery clinics between May 2021 and June 2022 were included. Patients were categorized by type of visit: in-person vs telemedicine. The primary outcome was the level of shared decision-making as captured by top box scores of the CollaboRATE measure. Secondary outcomes included quality of shared decision-making as captured by the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire and satisfaction with consultation survey. An adjusted analysis was performed accounting for potential confounders. A qualitative analysis of open-ended questions for both patients and practitioners was performed. RESULTS: During a 13-month study period, 387 patients were enrolled, of which 301 (77.8%) underwent in-person visits and 86 (22.2%) underwent telemedicine visits. The groups were similar in age, sex, employment, education, and generic quality-of-life scores. In an adjusted analysis, a visit type of telemedicine was not associated with either the CollaboRATE top box score (odds ratio 1.27; 95% CI 0.74 to 2.20) or 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (ß -0.60; p = 0.76). Similarly, there was no difference in other outcomes. Themes from qualitative patient and surgeon responses included physical presence, time investment, appropriateness for visit purpose, technical difficulties, and communication quality. CONCLUSIONS: In this large, prospective study, there does not appear to be a difference in quality of shared decision making in patients undergoing in-person vs telemedicine appointments.

Increasing socioeconomically disadvantaged patients' engagement in breast cancer surgery decision-making through a shared decision-making intervention (A231701CD): protocol for a cluster randomised clinical trial.

INTRODUCTION: Socioeconomic disparities for breast cancer surgical care exist. Although the aetiology of the observed socioeconomic disparities is likely multifactorial, patient engagement during the surgical consult is critical. Shared decision-making may reduce health disparities by addressing barriers to patient engagement in decision-making that disproportionately impact socioeconomically disadvantaged patients. In this trial, we test the impact of a decision aid on increasing socioeconomically disadvantaged patients' engagement in breast cancer surgery decision-making. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multisite randomised trial is conducted through 10 surgical clinics within the National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP). We plan a stepped-wedge design with clinics randomised to the time of transition from usual care to the decision aid arm. Study participants are female patients, aged ≥18 years, with newly diagnosed stage 0-III breast cancer who are planning breast surgery. Data collection includes a baseline surgeon survey, baseline patient survey, audio-recording of the surgeon-patient consultation, a follow-up patient survey and medical record data review. Interviews and focus groups are conducted with a subset of patients, surgeons and clinic stakeholders. The effectiveness of the decision aid at increasing patient engagement (primary outcome) is evaluated using generalised linear mixed-effects models. The extent to which the effect of the decision aid intervention on patient engagement is mediated through the mitigation of barriers is tested in joint linear structural equation models. Qualitative interviews explore how barriers impact engagement, especially for socioeconomically disadvantaged women. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol has been approved by the National Cancer Institute Central Institutional Review Board, and Certificate of Confidentiality has been obtained. We plan to disseminate the findings through journal publications and national meetings, including the NCORP network. Our findings will advance the science of medical decision-making with the potential to reduce socioeconomic health disparities. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT03766009).

Antecedents and consequences of shared decision making for patients with chronic kidney diseases: A cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Chronic kidney disease (CKD) has a strong negative impact on patients. Finding ways to improve CKD patients' conditions by shared decision-making is receiving much attention. However, little attention has been paid to influencing antecedents and effects of shared decision-making. Meanwhile, as advanced technologies bring in new communication devices, effects of different types of communications used in shared decision-making need to be addressed. OBJECTIVE: This study proposes a research framework to determine the influencing antecedents of shared decision-making, and to evaluate the effects of shared decision-making on patient outcomes when they are computer-mediated and when the decision-makers communicate face-to-face. METHODS: A cross-section survey was conducted and a total of 48 valid samples were obtained. The participants were CKD Stage III, IV, or V patients who had received medical treatment in a hospital in Taiwan. The collected data were subjected to an independent t-test and partial least squares analysis to validate the research framework. RESULTS: Doctor-patient communication (DPC) and doctor-patient relationship (DPR) have no significant direct impact on patient outcomes. Nevertheless, both DPC and DPR significantly impact shared decision-making which in turn impacts patient outcomes. Moreover, patients who use computer-mediated communication were found to have significantly higher perceptions of shared decision-making than those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence and prevalence of end-stage renal disease in Taiwan are among the highest in the world. The results of this study can serve as a reference for hospitals to improve CKD patients' outcomes. Meanwhile, during the COVID-19 pandemic, this study suggested hospitals should encourage shared decision-making with computer-mediated communication to ensure that patients receive proper treatment and have the desired outcomes.

What matters most to patients with severe aortic stenosis when choosing treatment? Framing the conversation for shared decision making.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend including the patient's values and preferences when choosing treatment for severe aortic stenosis (sAS). However, little is known about what matters most to patients as they develop treatment preferences. Our objective was to identify, prioritize, and organize patient-reported goals and features of treatment for sAS. METHODS: This multi-center mixed-methods study conducted structured focus groups using the nominal group technique to identify patients' most important treatment goals and features. Patients separately rated and grouped those items using card sorting techniques. Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analyses generated a cognitive map and clusters. RESULTS: 51 adults with sAS and 3 caregivers with experience choosing treatment (age 36-92 years) were included. Participants were referred from multiple health centers across the U.S. and online. Eight nominal group meetings generated 32 unique treatment goals and 46 treatment features, which were grouped into 10 clusters of goals and 11 clusters of features. The most important clusters were: 1) trust in the healthcare team, 2) having good information about options, and 3) long-term outlook. Other clusters addressed the need for and urgency of treatment, being independent and active, overall health, quality of life, family and friends, recovery, homecare, and the process of decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: These patient-reported items addressed the impact of the treatment decision on the lives of patients and their families from the time of decision-making through recovery, homecare, and beyond. Many attributes had not been previously reported for sAS. The goals and features that patients' value, and the relative importance that they attach to them, differ from those reported in clinical trials and vary substantially from one individual to another. These findings are being used to design a shared decision-making tool to help patients and their clinicians choose a treatment that aligns with the patients' priorities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, Trial ID: NCT04755426, Trial URL https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04755426.

Different patients, different preferences: A multicenter assessment of patients' personality traits and anxiety in shared decision making.

OBJECTIVE: Patient-centered care and shared decision making (SDM) are generally recognized as the gold standard for medical consultations, especially for preference-sensitive decisions. However, little is known about psychological patient characteristics that influence patient-reported preferences. We set out to explore the role of personality and anxiety for a preference-sensitive decision in bladder cancer patients (choice of urinary diversion, UD) and to determine if anxiety predicts patients' participation preferences. METHODS: We recruited a sample of bladder cancer patients (N = 180, primarily male, retired) who awaited a medical consultation on radical cystectomy and their choice of UD. We asked patients to fill in a set of self-report questionnaires before this consultation, including measures of treatment preference, personality (BFI-10), anxiety (STAI), and participation preference (API and API-Uro), as well as sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Most patients (79%) indicated a clear preference for one of the treatment options (44% continent UD, 34% incontinent UD). Patients who reported more conscientiousness were more likely to prefer more complex methods (continent UD). The majority (62%) preferred to delegate decision making to healthcare professionals. A substantial number of patients reported elevated anxiety (32%), and more anxiety was predictive of higher participation preference, specifically for uro-oncological decisions (ß = 0.207, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings provide insight into the role of psychological patient characteristics for SDM. Aspects of personality such as conscientiousness influence treatment preferences. Anxiety contributes to patients' motivation to be involved in pertinent decisions. Thus, personality and negative affect should be considered to improve SDM.

Factors influencing decisions about whether to participate in health research by people of diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds: a realist review.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and refine a programme theory that explains factors that influence decisions to take part in health research by people of diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds. DESIGN: Realist review following a sequence of five steps: (a) scoping search and identification of programme theory; (b) evidence searching; (c) critical appraisal and data extraction; (d) organisation of evidence and (e) refinement of programme theory. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Documents (including peer-reviewed articles, grey literature, websites, reports and conference papers) either full text, or a section of relevance to the overarching research question were included. DATA SOURCES: EMBASE, Medline, Web of Science, Psych Info, Google and Google Scholar were searched iteratively between May and August 2020. Search strategy was refined for each database providing a broad enough review for building of programme theory. ANALYSIS: Data from eligible documents was extracted to build understanding of the factors that influence decision-making. Data were mapped to create a data matrix according to context (C), mechanism (M), outcome (O), configurations (C) (CMOCs) for the process of informed consent, to aid interpretation and produce final programme theory. RESULTS: 566 documents were screened and 71 included. Final programme theory was underpinned by CMOCs on processes influencing decisions to take part in research. Key findings indicate the type of infrastructure required, for example, resources, services and policies, to support inclusion in health research, with a greater need to increase the social presence of researchers within communities, improve cultural competency of individuals and organisations, reduce the complexity of participant information, and provide additional resources to support adaptive processes and shared decision making. CONCLUSION: The review indicates the need for a more inclusive research infrastructure that facilitates diverse participation in health research through incorporating adaptive processes that support shared decision making within the informed consent process and in the conduct of research projects.

Shared decision-making in Malaysia: Legislation, patient involvement, implementation and the impact of COVID-19.

Shared decision making (SDM) activities in Malaysia began around 2010. The rise in the numbers of patients with chronic disease in Malaysia underscores a growing need for doctors to practice patient-centred care and SDM as more Malaysians come into regular contact with health decision-making scenarios. Recent guidelines for medical professionalism have emphasized that options and risks be discussed in consultations, especially for procedures with risk of adverse outcomes. Although SDM is not legally required, principles of SDM are applied in legal judgements on informed consent. Research on SDM has grown to include the adoption of patient and public involvement in research, an increased emphasis on incorporating local cultural values in SDM, and implementation of SDM in Malaysia's health system and organizational culture. While COVID-19 hindered the progress of SDM research, one positive development was that vaccination choices heightened public consciousness about personal decisional autonomy and the need to discuss pros and cons with doctors before making a medical decision.

The Behavioral Factors That Influence Person-Centered Social Care: A Literature Review and Conceptual Framework.

The last decade has seen numerous policy reforms to emplace person-centered social care. Consequently, the public has been given more information, choice, and autonomy to decide how best they want to be cared for later in life. Despite this, adults generally fail to plan or prepare effectively for their future care needs. Understanding the behavioral antecedents of person-centered decision-making is thus critical for addressing key gaps in the provision of quality social care. To this end, we conducted a literature review of the psychological and health sciences with the aim of identifying the aspects that influence person-centered decision-making in social care. Using an established theoretical framework, we distilled nine behavioral factors-knowledge, competency, health, goal clarity, time discounting, familiarity, cognitive biases, cognitive overload, and emotion-associated with "Capability," "Opportunity," "Motivation," and "Behavior" that explained person-centered decision-making in social care. These factors exist to different degrees and change as a person ages, gradually impacting their ability to obtain the care they want. We discuss the role of carers and the promise of shared decision-making and conclude by advocating a shift from personal autonomy to one that is shared with carers in the delivery of quality social care.

Professionals' views on shared decision-making in severe aortic stenosis.

OBJECTIVE: To provide insight into professionals' perceptions of and experiences with shared decision-making (SDM) in the treatment of symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS). METHODS: A semistructured interview study was performed in the heart centres of academic and large teaching hospitals in the Netherlands between June and December 2020. Cardiothoracic surgeons, interventional cardiologists, nurse practitioners and physician assistants (n=21) involved in the decision-making process for treatment of severe AS were interviewed. An inductive thematic analysis was used to identify, analyse and report patterns in the data. RESULTS: Four primary themes were generated: (1) the concept of SDM, (2) knowledge, (3) communication and interaction, and (4) implementation of SDM. Not all respondents considered patient participation as an element of SDM. They experienced a discrepancy between patients' wishes and treatment options. Respondents explained that not knowing patient preferences for health improvement hinders SDM and complicating patient characteristics for patient participation were perceived. A shared responsibility for improving SDM was suggested for patients and all professionals involved in the decision-making process for severe AS. CONCLUSIONS: Professionals struggle to make highly complex treatment decisions part of SDM and to embed patients' expectations of treatment and patients' preferences. Additionally, organisational constraints complicate the SDM process. To ensure sustainable high-quality care, professionals should increase their awareness of patient participation in SDM, and collaboration in the pathway for decision-making in severe AS is required to support the documentation and availability of information according to the principles of SDM.

Discussing around a virtual fire: Citizen engagement in a shared Decision-Making conference.

An online conference was organized to promote the Interprofessional Shared Decision-Making model and maximize its dissemination among stakeholders (citizens, health care providers, administrative staffs, policy makers, academics) in Canada. The goal was to enhance knowledge of and engagement in shared decision-making in a patient-oriented research, since shared decision-making has been hampered by reduced face-to-face contact, fear of infection, and overworked health professionals due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Therefore, we share a summary of what has been done to engage citizens in shared decision-making and to inform the interprofessional community about active citizen engagement in an online conference.

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

BACKGROUND: The interest in shared decision making (SDM) and the use of patient decision aids have increased significantly. Research indicates that this approach has benefits, and yet, implementation remains a challenge. To illustrate this development, we focus on vaccine hesitancy which has become a serious public health challenge during the COVID-19 pandemic. Various strategies have been used in healthcare, with limited success, to help patients overcome vaccine hesitancy. It is unclear whether SDM interventions can increase vaccination rates. AIMS: Our aim was two-fold: to provide an overview of SDM and the use of patient decision aids and to determine the effect of SDM interventions on vaccine uptake. METHODS: To provide an overview, we drew on our knowledge of the field and summarized the most recent systematic reviews. We examined the impact on vaccine hesitancy by searching for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SDM interventions, conducted a meta-analysis and calculated a pooled odds ratio. Additional outcomes were reported in a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: SDM is viewed as the pinnacle of patient-centred care, supported by an ethical imperative and by empirical evidence of benefits. We found 10 RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. SDM interventions significantly increased vaccine uptake compared to control groups (odds ratio = 1.45; 95% confidence interval [1.17-1.80]; p < 0.01). Some RCTs also reported significantly decreased decisional conflict and increased decision confidence. CONCLUSION: Future healthcare delivery systems will need to consider how to support the implementation of SDM. Interventions designed to facilitate this approach can represent a helpful, ethically defensible, strategy to increase vaccination rates.

Cancer Australia consensus statement on COVID-19 and cancer care: embedding high value changes in practice.

INTRODUCTION: Driven by the need to reduce risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and optimise use of health system resources, while maximising patient outcomes, the COVID-19 pandemic has prompted unprecedented changes in cancer care. Some new or modified health care practices adopted during the pandemic will be of long term value in improving the quality and resilience of cancer care in Australia and internationally. The Cancer Australia consensus statement is intended to guide and enhance the delivery of cancer care during the pandemic and in a post-pandemic environment. This article summarises the full statement, which is available at https://www.canceraustralia.gov.au/covid-19/covid-19-recovery-implications-cancer-care. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: The statement is informed by a desktop literature review and input from cancer experts and consumers at a virtual roundtable, held in July 2020, on key elements of cancer care that changed during the pandemic. It describes targeted strategies (at system, service, practitioner and patient levels) to retain, enhance and embed high value changes in practice. Principal strategies include: implementing innovative models of care that are digitally enabled and underpinned by clear governance, policies and procedures to guide best practice cancer care; enabling health professionals to deliver evidence-based best practice and coordinated, person-centred cancer care; and empowering patients to improve health literacy and enhancing their ability to engage in informed, shared decision making. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THIS STATEMENT: Widespread adoption of high value health care practices across all levels of the cancer control sector will be of considerable benefit to the delivery of optimal cancer care into the future.

Telehealth-Based Family Conferences with Implementation of Shared Decision Making Concepts and Humanistic Communication Approach: A Mixed-Methods Prospective Cohort Study.

Smartphone-enabled, telehealth-based family conferences represent an attractive and safe alternative to deliver communication during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, some may fear that the therapeutic relationship might be filtered due to a lack of direct human contact. The study aims to explore whether shared decision-making model combining VALUE (Value family statements, Acknowledge emotions, Listen, Understand the patient as a person, Elicit questions) and PLACE (Prepare with intention, Listen intently and completely, Agree on what matters most, Connect with the patient's story, Explore emotional cues) framework can help physicians respond empathetically to emotional cues and foster human connectedness in a virtual context. Twenty-five virtual family conferences were conducted in a national medical center in Taiwan. The expression of verbal emotional distress was noted in 20% of patients and 20% of family members, while nonverbal distress was observed in 24% and 28%, respectively. On 10-point Likert scale, the satisfaction score was 8.7 ± 1.5 toward overall communication and 9.0 ± 1.1 on meeting the family's needs. Adopting SDM concepts with VALUE and PLACE approaches helps physicians foster connectedness in telehealth family conferences. The model has high participant satisfaction scores and may improve healthcare quality among the pandemic.