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]

Objective: The objective of this study was to describe the impact on patient-reported outcomes of introducing Shared Decision Making (SDM) and a Patient Decision Aid (PtDA) in the initial process of lung cancer diagnostics.Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study, where a control cohort was consulted according to usual clinical practice. After introducing SDM through a PtDA and training of the staff, the SDM cohort was enrolled in the study. All patients completed four questionnaires: the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) before and after the consultation, the CollaboRATE scale after the consultation, and the Decision Regret Scale (DRS).Results: Patients exposed to SDM and a PtDA had significantly improved DCS scores after the consultation compared to the control group (a difference of 10.26, p = 0.0128) and significantly lower DRS scores (a difference of 8.98, p = 0.0197). Of the 82 control patients and 52 SDM patients 29% and 54%, respectively, gave the maximum score on the CollaboRATE scale (Pearson's chi2 8.0946, p = 0.004).Conclusion: The use of SDM and a PtDA had significant positive impact on patient-reported outcomes.Practice Implications: Our results may encourage the increased uptake of SDM in the initial process of lung cancer diagnostics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Legal and Political Landscape in Shared Decision Making: Current Danish legislation empowers patients in securing their rights, but there are no present legislative developments in Denmark to support patient involvement. Policy initiatives within health care, however, show positive trends by, for example, including recommendations for shared decision making (SDM) in national clinical guidelines and the allocation of resources to fund projects in SDM. Within the last five years, three out of five regions have launched centers in patient involvement and SDM to focus on training, implementation of patient decision aids (PtDAs) and to foster the cultural change in SDM. A national dissemination of a template for easy building of PtDAs accessible via an online platform is one of the latest initiatives., The Way Forward: Although the political discourse on SDM is gathering speed, an unclear definition and purpose of SDM is a barrier to real-life implementation. Politicians, leaders and clinicians seem to be moving at different paces and in different directions and are lacking consensus on SDM as a paradigm requiring training, leadership and a patient-centered mindset., Conclusion: Many relevant initiatives are underway. However, SDM is also challenged by the lack of legislation and a central push for real SDM implementation in Denmark., (Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier GmbH.)

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., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.