Saving Shared Decision-Making.

Shared decision making for high-risk surgery

Shared decision making (SDM) is a core element in the meeting between patient and healthcare professionals, but has proved difficult to implement and sustain in routine clinical practice. One of five Danish regions set out to succeed and to develop a model that ensures lasting SDM based on learnings from large-scale real-world implementation initiatives that go beyond the 'barriers' and 'facilitators' research approach. This paper describes this process and development of a generic implementation model, SDM:HOSP. This project was carried out in the Region of Southern Denmark with five major hospital units. Based on existing theory of SDM, SDM implementation, implementation science and improvement methodology, a process of four phases were described; development of conceptual elements, field-testing, evaluation, and development of the final implementation model. The conceptual elements developed aimed to prepare leaders, train SDM teachers, teach clinicians to perform SDM, support development of patient decision aids, and support systematic planning, execution and follow-up. Field testing was done including continuous participant evaluations and an overall evaluation after one year. Data from field testing and learnings from the implementation process, illustrated the need for a dynamic and easy adjustable model. The final SDM:HOSP model included four themes; i)Training of Leaders, ii) Training of Teachers and Clinicians, iii) Decision Helper, and iv) 'Process', each with details in three levels, 1) shared elements, 2) recommendations, and 3) local adaption. A feasible and acceptable model for implementation of SDM across hospitals and departments that accounts for different organizations and cultures was developed. The overall design can easily be adapted to other organizations and can be adjusted to fit the specific organization and culture. The results from the ongoing and overall evaluation suggest promising avenues for future work in further testing and research of the usability of the model.

Shared decision making (SDM) is a collaborative process involving both healthcare providers and patients in making medical decisions, which gains increasing prominence in healthcare practice. But evidence on the level of SDM in medical practice and barriers as well as stimulus during the SDM implementation among aesthetic dermatologists is limited in China. From July to August 2023, 1938 dermatologists were recruited online in China. Data were collected through an electronic questionnaire covering: (1) demographic features; (2) SDM questionnaire physician version (SDM-Q-Doc); and (3) stimulus and barriers in SDM implementation. Logistic regression was applied to explore factors associated with SDM practice, barriers, and stimulus of SDM implementation, respectively. The 1938 dermatologists included 1329 females (68.6%), with an average age of 35 years. The total SDM score ranged from 0 to 45, with a median value of 40 (IQR: 35-44), and the median stimulus score and barriers scores were 28 (IQR: 24-32) and 19 (IQR: 13-26), respectively. The prevalence of good SDM was 27.2%, logistic regression indicated that female dermatologists (odds ratio, OR=1.21, 95% confidence interval, CI: 0.96-1.51), and dermatologists with more years of aesthetic practice had a higher proportion of good SDM practice (OR was 1.44 for 5-9 years, 1.58 for 10-15 years and 1.77 for over 15 years). Moreover, female dermatologists and dermatologists with higher education level and serviced in private settings had lower barrier scores; female dermatologists and dermatologists with more years of aesthetic practice had higher stimulus scores. Chinese aesthetic dermatologists appear to implement SDM at an active level, with more stimulus and less barriers in SDM implementation. The integration of SDM into clinical practice among dermatologists is beneficial both for patients and dermatologists. Moreover, SDM practice should be strongly promoted and enhanced during medical aesthetics, especially among male dermatologists, dermatologists with less working experience, and those who work at public institutions.

The effects of shared decision making on health outcomes, health care quality, cost, and consultation time: An umbrella review

The aim of this study was to identify potential implementation interventions to increase the uptake of shared decision making (SDM) in clinical practice in New South Wales (NSW) Health. The Agency for Clinical Innovation hosted a full-day SDM masterclass in May 2017 and 53 attendees completed a survey to identify barriers to implementing SDM. The Theoretical Domains Framework, COM-B ('capability', 'opportunity', motivation' and 'behaviour') Model and Behaviour Change Wheel were used to conduct a theoretical analysis of the barriers and identify potential interventions to increase the uptake of SDM. This was supplemented by a purposive review of articles about current international efforts to facilitate SDM. From the theoretical analysis, 9 of the 14 theoretical domains were considered relevant to implementing SDM in the NSW Health context. Multi-faceted interventions including education, training, enablement, modelling, incentivisation, persuasion and environmental restructuring were identified as potential ways to increase SDM. The review of international articles identified communication and marketing, patient and public involvement, research, training, legislation, patient decision aids, service provision, clinical champions, financial incentives and policy as interventions being used to increase the uptake of SDM internationally. Based on current perceptions about barriers for SDM implementation in NSW Health, initial efforts should focus on workforce skills development, motivation, communication and marketing, service provision and creating receptive work environments. Investments into facilitating SDM will require an ongoing commitment to enhancing patient experience, evidence translation and reducing unwarranted variations in care.

BackgroundAlthough shared decision making (SDM) is key to delivering patient-centred care, there are barriers to GPs implementing SDM in practice. SDM training is undergoing development by organisations, including the Royal College of General Practitioners. However, GPs’ perceptions of the delivery of SDM training in general practice remain largely unexplored.AimTo explore GPs’ perceptions of teaching methods in SDM training.Design and settingQualitative study of GPs with teaching roles at the University of Exeter Medical School.MethodPurposive sampling recruited 14 GPs. Semi-structured interviews explored their SDM educational experiences. Data were analysed using thematic framework analysis.ResultsThree themes were identified. The GPs described role-play, receiving feedback, and on-the-job learning as modes of delivering SDM training that mostly informed their SDM in clinical practice positively. Learning from knowledgeable individuals and using realistic patient cases were perceived as beneficial components of SDM learning, although most learning occurred implicitly through reflections on their clinical experiences. The GPs identified that their training on SDM should reflect the uncertainty that is present when sharing decisions with patients in real-life general practice consultations. GPs also identified the targeting of individual GPs’ SDM learning needs and explanation of the potential benefits of SDM on consultation outcomes as important methods to facilitate the implementation of SDM in practice.ConclusionTo the authors’ knowledge, this is the first UK study to explore GPs’ perceptions of SDM training and provide recommendations for practice. As SDM occurs in partnership with patients, further research should obtain and incorporate patients’ views alongside those of GPs in the evaluation of future programmes.

Introduction. An important goal of palliative care is improving the quality of life of patients and their partners/families. To attain this goal, requirements and preferences of patients need to be discussed, preferably through shared decision making (SDM). This enhances patient autonomy and patient-centeredness, requiring active participation by patients. This is demanding for palliative patients, and even more so for patients with limited health literacy (LHL). This study aimed to examine SDM in practice and assess health care professionals’ perspectives on their own SDM. Methods. An explanatory sequential mixed methods design was used. Video recordings were gathered cross-sectionally of palliative care consultations with LHL patients (n = 36) conducted by specialized palliative care clinicians and professionals integrating a palliative approach. The consultations were observed for SDM using the OPTION5 instrument. Potential determinants of SDM were examined using multilevel analysis. Sequentially, stimulated recall interviews were conducted assessing the perspectives of professionals on their SDM (n = 19). Interviews were examined using deductive thematic content analysis. Results. The average SDM score in practice was moderate, varying greatly between professionals, as shown by the multilevel analysis and by varying degrees of perceived patient involvement in SDM mentioned in the interviews. To improve this, professionals recommended 1) continuously discussing all options with patients, 2) allowing time for patients to talk, and 3) using strategic timing for involving patients in SDM. Discussion. The implementation of SDM for people with LHL in palliative care varies in quality and needs improvement. SDM needs to be enhanced in this care domain because decisions are complex and demanding for LHL patients. Future research is needed that focuses on supporting strategies for comprehensible SDM, best practices, and organizational adaptations.

Patients with diabetes mellitus often have several medical problems and carry a burden imposed by their illness and treatment. Health care often ignores the values, preferences and context of patients, leading to treatments that do not fit into patients’ overwhelmed lives. Shared Decision Making (SDM) emerges as a way to answer the question: “What’s best for the patient?”. SDM promotes an empathic conversation between patients and clinicians that integrates the best evidence available with their values, preferences and context. We discuss three SDM approaches for patients with diabetes: one focused on sharing information, another on making choices, and a third one on helping patients and clinicians to talk about how to address the problems of living with diabetes and its comorbidities. Despite the benefits demonstrated in studies conducted in the U.S. and Europe, the implementation of SDM continues to be a challenge. In Latin America, healthcare and socio-economic conditions render the implementation of SDM more challenging. Research aimed to respond to this challenge is necessary. Meanwhile, clinicians can practice SDM by sharing evidence-based information, giving voice to patients’ values and preferences in making choices, and creating empathic conversations aimed at decisions aligned with patients’ context, dreams, goals, and life expectations.

Bariatric surgery is the most effective treatment for patients suffering from obesity-related comorbidities. There is little data regarding how patients choose one particular bariatric procedure over another. This study aimed to better define the relationship between preferences of patients considering bariatric surgery and the procedure patients undergo. A bilingual questionnaire was administered to all prospective patients seen between March 1 and August 31, 2012. The questionnaire assessed basic knowledge of bariatric surgery (based on the information seminar) as well as patient preferences of the various outcomes and complications for sleeve gastrectomy, gastric bypass, and gastric banding. One hundred seventy-two patients completed the questionnaire. Fifty-eight percent of patients chose "maximum weight loss" as the most important outcome, and 65 % chose "leak" as the most concerning complication. Subgroup analysis of patients with diabetes revealed that 58 % chose "curing diabetes" as the most important outcome. Nineteen percent of patients were either not sure which procedure they wanted or changed their decision after consultation with the surgeon. The decision to choose one bariatric procedure over another is complex and is based on factors beyond absolute patient preferences. Although maximum weight loss is a commonly reported preference for patients seeking bariatric surgery, patients with diabetes are more focused on diabetes remission. Most patients have already decided which procedure to undergo prior to surgeon consultation. Patients may benefit from shared decision making, which integrates patient values and preferences along with current medical evidence to assist in the complex bariatric surgery selection process.

Shared decision making (SDM) is now accepted as an evidence-based practice. However, its implementation has lagged. To date, SDM implementation efforts have comprised both direct efforts to incorporate core SDM principles into clinicians’ communication patterns and efforts to implement other interventions, like patient decision aids, as mechanisms that facilitate SDM. Applying implementation science to SDM implementation offers opportunities to improve SDM implementation efforts through systematic identification of barriers and facilitators and the application of evidence-based implementation strategies. Examples of successful SDM implementation strategies to date include practice facilitation/coaching, revising clinical team members’ roles to redistribute workloads, training of the clinical team, and cyclical small tests of change. Next steps for the field include comprehensive description of implementation strategies in reports of SDM implementation efforts, more attention to patients as interested and involved parties in SDM implementation, and more widespread availability of evidence-based tools (e.g. patient decision aids) that support SDM across clinical contexts.

Purposeful SDM: A problem-based approach to caring for patients with shared decision making

IntroductionIn Switzerland, primary care physicians (PCP) often disregard guideline recommendations and prescribe antibiotics to treat self-limiting infections,1–3 but when PCPs who participated in quality circles (QC) were informed by the...

Rationale: Shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended in guidelines and required by Medicare, yet it is seldom achieved in practice. The best approach for implementing SDM for LCS remains unknown, and the 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force calls for implementation research to increase uptake of SDM for LCS. Objectives: To develop a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and recommended outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS. Methods: The American Thoracic Society and VA Health Services Research and Development Service convened a multistakeholder committee with expertise in SDM, LCS, patient-centered care, and implementation science. During a virtual State of the Art conference, we reviewed evidence and identified research questions to address barriers to implementing SDM for LCS, as well as outcome constructs, which were refined by writing group members. Our committee (n = 34) then ranked research questions and SDM effectiveness outcomes by perceived importance in an online survey. Results: We present our committee's consensus on three topics important to implementing SDM for LCS: 1) foundational principles for the best practice of SDM for LCS; 2) stakeholder rankings of 22 implementation research questions; and 3) recommended outcomes, including Proctor's implementation outcomes and stakeholder rankings of SDM effectiveness outcomes for hybrid implementation-effectiveness studies. Our committee ranked questions that apply innovative implementation approaches to relieve primary care providers of the sole responsibility of SDM for LCS as highest priority. We rated effectiveness constructs that capture the patient experience of SDM as most important. Conclusions: This statement offers a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS.

Time to rise to the challenge of truly implementing patient-centered care and shared decision-making in Israel: The educational and policy mission

IntroductionIntegrating outcome information in shared decision-making (SDM) can enhance its effectiveness. The Breast Cancer Surveillance Decision Aid (BCS-PtDA) supports SDM about (personalized) surveillance and integrates personal risk estimations of the...