Search

Background: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusions: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Shared decision-making (SDM) refers to the collaboration between patients and their healthcare providers to make clinical decisions based on evidence and patient preferences, often supported by patient decision aids (PDAs). This study explored practitioner experiences of SDM in a context where SDM has been successfully implemented. Specifically, we focused on practitioners' perceptions of SDM as a paradigm, factors influencing implementation success, and outcomes. Methods: We used a qualitative approach to examine the experiences and perceptions of 10 Danish practitioners at a cancer hospital experienced in SDM implementation. A semi-structured interview format was used and interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data was analyzed through thematic analysis. Results: Prior to SDM implementation, participants had a range of attitudes from skeptical to receptive. Those with more direct long-term contact with patients (such as nurses) were more positive about the need for SDM. We identified four main factors that influenced SDM implementation success: raising awareness of SDM behaviors among clinicians through concrete measurements, supporting the formation of new habits through reinforcement mechanisms, increasing the flexibility of PDA delivery, and strong leadership. According to our participants, these factors were instrumental in overcoming initial skepticism and solidifying new SDM behaviors. Improvements to the clinical process were reported. Sustaining and transferring the knowledge gained to other contexts will require adapting measurement tools. Conclusions: Applying SDM in clinical practice represents a major shift in mindset for clinicians. Designing SDM initiatives with an understanding of the underlying behavioral mechanisms may increase the probability of successful and sustained implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The objective of this International Patient Decision Aids Standard (IPDAS) review is to update and synthesize theoretical and empirical evidence on how balanced information can be presented and measured in patient decision aids (PtDAs). Methods: A multidisciplinary team conducted a scoping review using 2 search strategies in multiple electronic databases evaluating the ways investigators defined and measured the balance of information provided about options in PtDAs. The first strategy combined a search informed by the Cochrane Review of the Effectiveness of Decision Aids with a search on balanced information. The second strategy repeated the search published in the 2013 IPDAS update on balanced presentation. Results: Of 2450 unique citations reviewed, the full text of 168 articles was screened for eligibility. Sixty-four articles were included in the review, of which 13 provided definitions of balanced presentation, 8 evaluated mechanisms that may introduce bias, and 42 quantitatively measured balanced with methods consistent with the IPDAS criteria in PtDAs. The revised definition of balanced information is, "Objective, complete, salient, transparent, evidence-informed, and unbiased presentation of text and visual information about the condition and all relevant options (with important elements including the features, benefits, harms and procedures of those options) in a way that does not favor one option over another and enables individuals to focus attention on important elements and process this information." Conclusions: Developers can increase the balance of information in PtDAs by informing their structure and design elements using the IPDAS checklist. We suggest that new PtDA components pertaining to balance be evaluated for cognitive bias with experimental methods as well by objectively evaluating patients' and content experts' beliefs from multiple perspectives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: A patient decision aid (PtDA) is often developed and evaluated to support shared decision making (SDM) and a patient‐centred approach. In this study, a PtDA template was developed to support two different preference sensitive decisions: adjuvant therapy for breast cancer and diagnostic workup for lung cancer. The aim of the study was to explore whether a PtDA improved SDM and supported a patient‐centred approach from an observational point of view. Methods: Real‐life observations were conducted using the validated observational instrument OPTION 12. Three nurses conducted observations of consultations in two different clinical settings. The study consisted of a baseline cohort (phase 1) and an intervention cohort (phase 2). In phase 1, standard consultations were observed. Subsequently, the PtDA was introduced, and in phase 2, consultations with the clinician using the PtDA were observed. Results: Twenty‐nine observations were conducted in phase 1 and 24 in phase 2. Using a PtDA increased the overall OPTION score significantly (P < .0001), both in decisions on adjuvant treatment for breast cancer and on diagnostic workup of lung cancer. Items in the OPTION instrument regarding systematic conversation to obtain SDM had a higher increase of scores compared to items regarding a patient‐centred approach. Conclusion: Real‐life observations and the use of a validated observational tool provided comprehensive knowledge as to how a PtDA affects SDM in consultations. Applying a PtDA resulted in a significant overall increase of SDM behaviour in decisions on adjuvant treatment after breast cancer surgery and diagnostic workup in case of a small suspicion of lung cancer. In conclusion, the PtDA supports SDM in consultations independently of type of decision and department. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Shared decision making (SDM) and use of patient decision aids (PtDAs) are key components in patient-centered care in relapsed ovarian cancer. This paper describes the development and implementation process of PtDAs into a clinical routine in three departments., Methods: Two PtDAs were developed in collaboration between patients and clinicians. Acceptability and usability of the PtDAs were tested on clinicians and patients using items from the internationally validated questionnaire "Preparation for Decision Making Scale"., Results: Ten patients and 15 clinicians participated in the study. Most patients indicated that PtDAs would be helpful as preparation for the decision-making process with the clinicians. Ten (75%) of the clinicians responded that the PtDAs helped the patients to understand the benefits and disadvantages of each treatment option. Generally, the clinicians indicated that they would use SDM if they had a PtDA tailored to the clinical situation., Conclusions: Two PtDAs were systematically developed, tested, and implemented thereby supporting an SDM intervention. The PtDAs are still in use at the participating departments., Innovation: This study was successful in reusing a generic template for a patient decision aid (PtDA) developed at one institution and implemented in two other institutions. This was guided by a well-described systematic development process for PtDAs., Competing Interests: The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.