Search

The Shared Decision-Making (SDM) Process scale (scored 0-4) uses 4 questions about decision-making behaviors: discussion of options, pros, cons, and preferences. We use data from mail surveys of patients who made surgical decisions at 9 clinical sites and a national web survey to assess the reliability and validity of the measure to assess shared decision-making at clinical sites. Patients at sites using decision aids to promote shared decision-making for hip, knee, back, or breast cancer surgery had significantly higher scores than national cross-section samples of surgical patients for 3 of 4 comparisons and significantly higher scores for both comparisons with “usual care sites.” Reliability was supported by an intra-class correlation at the clinical site level of 0.93 and an average correlation of SDM scores for knee and hip surgery patients treated at the same sites of 0.56. The results document the reliability and validity of the measure to assess the degree of shared decision-making for surgical decisions at clinical sites.

Objective:To identify the degree to which shared decision making (SDM) is occurring for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) considering aortic valve replacement (AVR) as measured by the Shared Decision Making Process (SDMP) measure.Methods:Patient eligibility was ascertained via the electronic medical record. Eligible patients were between 18-85, spoke English, were diagnosed with severe AS, either had no prior AVR or had AVR more than 6 months prior, and were at low to intermediate risk for surgical AVR (SAVR). Patients were ineligible if they had a concomitant disease of the aorta or another heart valve that required intervention. Eligible patients were approached in either the Interventional Cardiology or Cardiac Surgery clinic after the respective visit and asked to complete the Shared Decision Making Process (SDMP) Measure, which includes 6 questions with a total score ranging from 0-4. The questions focus on if options were presented (yes/no), preferences elicited (yes/no), and if the pros and cons of transcatheter AVR (TAVR) and SAVR were discussed (?a lot?, ?some?, ?a little?, or ?not at all?). A higher score indicates greater shared decision making occurred.Results:Of 60 enrolled patients, 59 (98%) returned their survey. Most patients were recruited after the visit with an interventional cardiologist (68%, 40 of 59). The average age was 72 years (SD=7 years), all patients were white, 67.8% (40 of 59) were men, and 82.1% (46 of 56) had more than a high school education. There was a trend toward patients reporting higher SDMP scores if patients were recruited in the cardiac surgery clinic (M=3.0, SD=0.7) when compared to those recruited in the interventional cardiology clinic (M=2.6, SD=1.1; t(57)=1.4, p=.164, d=.39). Nearly all (96.6%, 57 of 59) patients stated they were presented with different options to treat their AS and 88.1% (52 of 59) reported discussing the pros of TAVR while 78.0% (46 of 59) discussed SAVR ?some? or ?a lot.? Conversely, fewer patients stated they discussed the cons of TAVR (57.6%, 34 of 59) or SAVR (49.2%, 29 of 59) ?some? or ?a lot.? Most patients stated they were asked what they wanted to do to treat their AS (64.4%, 38 of 59).Conclusions:One third of patients did not recall being asked for their preference?a key component of shared decision making conversations. Given the importance of patients being well informed in this preference sensitive decision context, future work should seek to understand both how this multidisciplinary approach may benefit patients, and how to ensure the downsides of options and patient preferences are discussed during the visit.