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.

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 Dermatology: A Scoping Review.

Importance: Shared decision-making (SDM) can improve the quality of care for patients. The extent to which this tool has been used and the evidence supporting its use in dermatology have not been systematically examined. Objective: To perform a scoping review of the literature regarding SDM in dermatology. Evidence Review: Searches of Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Sciverse Scopus, and EBM Reviews were conduced on July 11, 2019, and March 6, 2020. There were no limits on date, type of article, language, or subject for the initial search. A total of 1673 titles and abstracts were screened by 2 independent reviewers in the Covidence mixed-methods platform. Forty-one full-text studies were assessed for eligibility. For inclusion, articles needed to include a dermatologic diagnosis as well as discussion of SDM or patient decision aids. Two independent reviewers screened 29 full-text articles for inclusion and extracted qualitative data using a set of 26 predefined codes. Qualitative coding was applied to excerpts to categorize the article, define and describe advantages and disadvantages of SDM, understand patient and physician requests for SDM, and discuss methods of implementation. Findings: Despite a small number of articles on SDM (n = 29) in dermatology, the selected literature provided consistent messages regarding the importance of SDM for dermatology and a number of strategies and tools for implementation. Medical dermatology was the most common subspecialty studied, with melanoma, psoriasis, and connective tissue diseases most examined. Only 5 publications introduced SDM tools specifically for dermatologic conditions; of these, only 2 tools were validated. Barriers to implementation that were cited included time and a lack of training for clinicians, although the literature also provided potential solutions to these issues. All articles emphasized the value of SDM for both patients and physicians. Conclusions and Relevance: The literature regarding SDM in dermatology consistently suggests that it is a useful tool for providing patient-centered care. Established tools have been proposed since 2012. More research is needed to implement better practices, especially in dermatologic subspecialties. However, there are substantial suggestions from the literature for strategies and tools with which to begin a shared decision-making practice.

Impacts of the COVID-19 outbreak on visits and treatments for patients with ureteral stones in a general hospital emergency department.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 is a challenge for both patients and physicians in emergency department (ED). This study was aimed to report the impacts of the COVID-19 outbreak on visits and treatments for patients with ureteral stones in a general hospital ED. METHODS: The patients with ureteral stones were collected from 24 January to 24 March 2020 during the COVID-19 outbreak in Beijing. Two periods were divided for study: 24 January to 24 February (Period 1) and 25 February to 24 March (Period 2). Data on patients' characteristics, attendance, visual analog scale (VAS) scores, stone features, and final treatment choices were retrieved from the computer and compared with the data in the same periods in 2019. RESULTS: The study included 376 patients with ureteral stones during the COVID-19 outbreak periods in 2020 and 343 patients during the same periods in 2019. Compared with the same periods in 2019, the number of patients with ureteral stones was less in Period 1 (137 vs 163) but had a rebound phenomenon in Period 2 (239 vs 180). The visit frequency was significantly reduced (2.6 ± 0.4 vs 3.6 ± 0.8, p < 0.01) and the VAS scores and the onset time increased (7.7 ± 1.3 vs 5.5 ± 1.6, p < 0.01; 7.4 ± 1.8 vs 8.2 ± 1.5, p < 0.01, respectively) in Period 1. More patients chose oral analgesics medication to release from renal colic in the COVID-19 outbreak period instead of ESWL and intravenous analgesics medication (Period 1, 54.0% vs 20.2%, p < 0.01; Period 2, 20.9% vs 13.3%, p = 0.044; respectively). However, the percentage of patients underwent endoscopy surgery in outbreak period showed no significant difference compared with that in 2019. CONCLUSION: These results showed that the COVID-19 outbreak can directly affect the visits and final treatment choices for patients with ureteral stones.

Rapid review of decision-making for place of care and death in older people: lessons for COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) has affected the functioning and capacity of healthcare systems worldwide. COVID-19 has also disproportionately affected older adults. In the context of COVID-19, decision-making surrounding place of care (PoC) and place of death (PoD) in older adults involves significant new challenges. AIMS: To explore key factors that influence PoC and PoD decisions in older adults. A secondary aim was to investigate key factors that influence the process and outcome of these decisions in older adults. To apply findings from current evidence to the context of COVID-19. METHODS: Rapid review of reviews, undertaken using WHO guidance for rapid reviews for the production of actionable evidence. Data extracted was synthesised using narrative synthesis, with thematic analysis and tabulation. RESULTS: 10 papers were included for full data extraction. These papers were published between 2005 and 2020. Papers included discussed actual PoD, as well as preferred. Results were divided into papers that explored the process of decision-making, and those that explored decision-making outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The process and outcomes of decision-making for older people are affected by many factors-all of which have the potential to influence both patients and caregivers experience of illness and dying. Within the context of COVID-19, such decisions may have to be made rapidly and be reflexive to changing needs of systems and of families and patients.

Approach to dyspnoea in pregnancy in the COVID-19 era.

IMPORTANCE: Dyspnoea and hypoxia in pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic may be due to causes other than SARS Co-V-2 infection which should not be ignored. Shared decision-making regarding early delivery is paramount. OBJECTIVE: To highlight and discuss the differential diagnoses of dyspnoea and hypoxia in pregnant women and to discuss the risks versus benefit of delivery for maternal compromise. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Case series of two pregnant women who presented with dyspnoea and hypoxia during the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: Two pregnant women presented with dyspnoea and hypoxia. The first case had COVID-19 infection in the 3rd trimester. The second case had an exacerbation of asthma without concurrent COVID-19. Only the first case required intubation and delivery. Both recovered and were discharged home. Conclusion and relevance: Our two cases highlight the importance of making the correct diagnosis and timely decision-making to consider if delivery for maternal compromise is warranted. Whilst COVID-19 is a current healthcare concern other differential diagnoses must still be considered when pregnant women present with dyspnoea and hypoxia.

Aligning diagnostics to the point-of-care: lessons for innovators, evaluators and decision-makers from tuberculosis and HIV.

Diagnostics, including those that work at point-of-care, are an essential part of successful public health responses to infectious diseases and pandemics. Yet, they are not always used or fit intended use settings. This paper reports on key insights from a qualitative study on how those engaged with developing and implementing new point-of-care (POC) diagnostics for tuberculosis (TB) and HIV ensure these technologies work at POC. Ethnographic fieldwork between 2015 and 2017 consisting of 53 semistructured interviews with global stakeholders and visits to workshops, companies, and conferences was combined with 15 semistructured interviews with stakeholders in India including providers, decision-makers, scientists and developers and visits to companies, clinics and laboratories. Our results show how developers and implementer of HIV and TB POC diagnostics aim to know and align their diagnostics to elements in more settings than just intended use, but also the setting of the developer, the global intermediaries, the bug/disease and the competitor. Actors and elements across these five settings define what a good diagnostic is, yet their needs might conflict or change and they are difficult to access. Aligning diagnostics to the POC requires continuous needs assessment throughout development and implementation phases as well as substantive, ongoing investment in relationships with users. The flexibility required for such continuous realigning and iteration clashes with established evaluation procedures and business models in global health and risks favouring certain products over others. The paper concludes with suggestions to strengthen this alignment work and applies this framework to research needs in the wake of COVID-19.

Management of Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer During a Pandemic: Impact of Treatment Delay on Survival Outcomes for Patients Treated With Definitive Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy.

INTRODUCTION: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, providers and patients must engage in shared decision making to ensure that the benefit of early intervention for muscle-invasive bladder cancer exceeds the risk of contracting COVID-19 in the clinical setting. It is unknown whether treatment delays for patients eligible for curative chemoradiation (CRT) compromise long-term outcomes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We used the National Cancer Data Base to investigate whether there is an association between a ≥ 90-day delay from transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURBT) in initiating CRT and overall survival. We included patients with cT2-4N0M0 muscle-invasive bladder cancer from 2004 to 2015 who underwent TURBT and curative-intent concurrent CRT. Patients were grouped on the basis of timing of CRT: ≤ 89 days after TURBT (earlier) vs. ≥ 90 and < 180 days after TURBT (delayed). RESULTS: A total of 1387 (87.5%) received earlier CRT (median, 45 days after TURBT; interquartile range, 34-59 days), and 197 (12.5%) received delayed CRT (median, 111 days after TURBT; interquartile range, 98-130 days). Median overall survival was 29.0 months (95% CI, 26.0-32.0) versus 27.0 months (95% CI, 19.75-34.24) for earlier and delayed CRT (P = .94). On multivariable analysis, delayed CRT was not associated with an overall survival difference (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.87-1.27; P = .60). CONCLUSION: Although these results are limited and require validation, short, strategic treatment delays during a pandemic can be considered on the basis of clinician judgment.

Shared Surgical Decision Making in the Era of COVID-19: Lessons From Hurricane Katrina.

The COVID-19 pandemic has challenged every surgical discipline. Lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina have informed our department's management of the current crisis. That experience impressed upon us a profound appreciation for shared decision making in the face of scarce resources, an evolving clinical context, and potential harm to patients and health care workers. To that end, we have formed a Resource Utilization Committee to prospectively review all nonemergent surgical cases during the current crisis. This has allowed "state-of-the-pandemic" otolaryngologic care in a real-time, collaborative, and high-information setting. In addition, to protect our patients and health care workers, it has influenced our institution's thoughtful application of COVID testing and the use of personal protective equipment.

Deferring Elective Urologic Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Patients' Perspective.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the perspective of urological patients on the possibility to defer elective surgery due to the fear of contracting COVID-19. METHODS: All patients scheduled for elective urological procedures for malignant or benign diseases at 2 high-volume centers were administered a questionnaire, through structured telephone interviews, between April 24 and 27, 2020. The questionnaire included 3 questions: (1) In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, would you defer the planned surgical intervention? (2) If yes, when would you be willing to undergo surgery? (3) What do you consider potentially more harmful for your health: the risk of contracting COVID-19 during hospitalization or the potential consequences of delaying surgical treatment? RESULTS: Overall, 332 patients were included (51.5% and 48.5% in the oncology and benign groups, respectively). Of these, 47.9% patients would have deferred the planned intervention (33.3% vs 63.4%; P < .001), while the proportion of patients who would have preferred to delay surgery for more than 6 months was comparable between the groups (87% vs 80%). These answers were influenced by patient age and American Society of Anesthesiologists score (in the Oncology group) and by the underlying urological condition (in the benign group). Finally, 182 (54.8%) patients considered the risk of COVID-19 potentially more harmful than the risk of delaying surgery (37% vs 73%; P < .001). This answer was driven by patient age and the underlying disease in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings reinforce the importance of shared decision-making before urological surgery, leveraging patients' values and expectations to refine the paradigm of evidence-based medicine during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

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.