Search

Patient:innenzentrierung ist ein wichtiges Merkmal qualitativ hochwertiger Gesundheitsversorgung. Das integrative Modell der Patient:innenzentrierung beschreibt insgesamt 15 Dimensionen. Ein zentraler Aspekt ist die partizipative Entscheidungsfindung (PEF), die das gemeinsame Vereinbaren von diagnostischen oder therapeutischen Entscheidungen zwischen Arzt bzw. Arztin und Patient:in beschreibt. Viele Patient:innen mit Krebs wunschen sich eine PEF, jedoch nur ein Teil dieser Patient:innen erlebt diese in ihrer Versorgung. Verschiedene Interventionen konnen die Umsetzung von PEF im Gesprach zwischen Arzt bzw. Arztin und Patient:in fordern (z. B. Kommunikationstrainings fur Arzt:innen, Entscheidungshilfen, „question prompt lists“). Allerdings existiert eine Reihe von Faktoren auf der Ebene von Gesundheitseinrichtungen und des Gesundheitssystems, die die Umsetzung von PEF beeinflussen. Erste Ergebnisse aus Implementierungsstudien zur Forderung von PEF zeigen ein gemischtes Bild und verdeutlichen die Komplexitat der erfolgreichen Implementierung von PEF in der onkologischen Versorgung und in anderen Settings.

The main focus of this paper is to describe the development and current state of policy, research and implementation of patient-centered care (PCC) and shared decision-making (SDM) in Germany. What is the current state in health policy? Since 2013, the Law on Patients' Rights has standardized all rights and responsibilities regarding medical care for patients in Germany. This comprises the right to informed decisions, comprehensive and comprehensible information, and decisions based on a clinician-patient partnership. In addition, reports and action plans such as the German Ethics Council's report on patient well-being, the National Health Literacy Action Plan, or the National Cancer Plan emphasize and foster PCC and SDM on a policy level. There are a number of public organizations in Germany that support PCC and SDM. How are patients and the public involved in health policy and research? Publishers and funding agencies increasingly demand patient and public involvement. Numerous initiatives and organizations are involved in publicizing ways to engage patients and the public. Also, an increasing number of public and research institutions have established patient advisory boards. How is PCC and SDM taught? Great progress has been made in introducing SDM into the curricula of medical schools and other health care providers' (HCPs) schools (e.g., nursing, physical therapy). What is the German research agenda? The German government and other public institutions have constantly funded research programs in which PCC and SDM are important topics. This yielded several large-scale funding initiatives and helped to develop SDM training programs for HCPs in different fields of health care and information materials. Recently, two implementation studies on SDM have been conducted. What is the current uptake of PCC and SDM in routine care, and what implementation efforts are underway? Compared to the last country report from 2017, PCC and SDM efforts in policy, research and education have been intensified. However, many steps are still needed to reliably implement SDM in routine care in Germany. Specifically, the further development and uptake of decision tools and countrywide SDM trainings for HCPs require further efforts. Nevertheless, an increasing number of decision support tools - primarily with support from health insurance funds and other public agencies - are to be implemented in routine care. Also, recent implementation efforts are promising. For example, reimbursement by health insurance companies of hospital-wide SDM implementation is being piloted. A necessary next step is to nationally coordinate the gathering and provision of the many PCC and SDM resources available.

Background Measurement of physicians' competence in shared decision making (SDM) remains challenging with frequent disagreement between assessment methods. Objective To conceptualize and measure physicians' SDM competence as an organized network of behavioural skills and to determine whether processing patient-reported data according to this model can be used to predict observer-rated competence. Design Secondary analysis of an observational study. Setting and participants Primary and specialty outpatient care physicians and consecutively recruited adult patients with a chronic condition who faced a treatment decision with multiple acceptable choices. Measures Network parameters constructed from patients' assessment of physicians' SDM skills as measured by the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and observer-rated SDM competence of physicians measured by three widely used observer-rated instruments. Results 29 physicians (12 female, 17 male; mean age 50.3 years) recruited 310 patients (59.4% female, 40.6% male; mean age 54.0 years) facing a decision mainly regarding type 2 diabetes (36.4%), chronic back pain (32.8%) or depressive disorder (26.8%). Although most investigated skills were interrelated, elicitation of the patient's treatment preferences showed the strongest associations with the other skills. Network parameters of this skill were also decisive in predicting observer-rated competence. Correlation between predicted competence scores and observer-rated measurements ranged from 0.710 to 0.785. Conclusions Conceptualizing physicians' SDM competence as a network of interacting skills enables the measurement of observer-rated competence using patient-reported data. In addition to theoretical implications for defining and training medical competences, the findings open a new way to measure physicians' SDM competence under routine conditions.

Background Patients are often not actively engaged in medical encounters. Short interventions like Ask 3 Questions (Ask3Q) can increase patient participation in decision-making. Up to now, Ask3Q was not available in German. Objective To translate Ask3Q and evaluate its acceptability and feasibility. Methods We translated and adapted several English versions of Ask3Q using a team translation protocol and cognitive interviews. Acceptability and feasibility of the final German Ask3Q version were assessed via focus groups and interviews with patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs). Data were analysed via qualitative content analysis. Results Translation and adaptation were successful. Participants of focus groups and interviews perceived Ask3Q as a tool to empower patients to ask more questions. Moreover, it was seen as a guideline for physicians not to forget conveying important information. Several characteristics of patients, HCPs, the clinical setting and the intervention were identified as facilitators and barriers for an effective implementation of Ask3Q. Conclusion We provide the German version of Ask3Q. According to participants, implementation of Ask3Q in the German healthcare system is feasible. Future studies should evaluate if positive effects of Ask3Q can be replicated for patient participation and communication behaviour of HCPs in Germany.

Background: We aimed to analyze preferred and perceived levels of patients’ involvement in treatment decision-making in a representative sample of cancer patients.Material and Methods: We conducted...

IntroductionFor women with unintended pregnancy, access to high-quality care has been found limited due to social stigma and legal restrictions, especially when seeking abortion. To foster person-centeredness (PC), recognising the experiences and needs of women is the first premise. This study aims to (1) identify relevant dimensions of PC (2) evaluate PC in healthcare and social support services, (3) develop recommendations for further actions in healthcare and social support services for women with unintended pregnancy.Methods and analysisWe will use a mixed-methods approach. Phase 1: expert workshops with 10–15 healthcare professionals and counsellors and semistructured interviews with 15–20 women with unintended pregnancy will be conducted to assess the relevance of PC dimensions. Phase 2: quantitative assessment of PC dimensions within healthcare and support services will be conducted. We aim to include 600 women with an unintended pregnancy (1) until 24 weeks of pregnancy or (2) who sought abortion within the past 8 weeks, over three measurement points within 12 months. To deepen the results, semistructured interviews will be conducted. Phase 3: a workshop with 10–15 experts and an online survey with 100–150 experts will be used to indicate recommendations. Participants will be gained through relevant care facilities. An ethical advisory board and an advisory board of affected women will be involved throughout the study.Ethics and disseminationThe study will be carried out in accordance to the latest version of the Helsinki Declaration of the World Medical Association and principles of good scientific practice. The study was approved by the Local Psychological Ethics Committee of the University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany (LPEK-0260). Written informed consent will be sought prior to study participation. The study results will be disseminated in scientific journals, through collaboration partners and plain language press releases.

Purpose Shared decision-making is currently not widely implemented in breast cancer care. Encounter decision aids support shared decision-making by helping patients and physicians compare treatment options. So far, little was known about adaptation needs for translated encounter decision aids, and encounter decision aids for breast cancer treatments were not available in Germany. This study aimed to adapt and evaluate the implementation of two encounter decision aids on breast cancer treatments in routine care. Methods We conducted a multi-phase qualitative study: (1) translation of two breast cancer Option Grid™ decision aids; comparison to national clinical standards; cognitive interviews to test patients’ understanding; (2) focus groups to assess acceptability; (3) testing in routine care using participant observation. Data were analysed using qualitative content analysis. Results Physicians and patients reacted positively to the idea of encounter decision aids, and reported being interested in using them; patients were most receptive. Several adaptation cycles were necessary. Uncertainty about feasibility of using encounter decision aids in clinical settings was the main physician-reported barrier. During real-world testing (N = 77 encounters), physicians used encounter decision aids in one-third of potentially relevant encounters. However, they did not use the encounter decision aids to stimulate dialogue, which is contrary to their original scope and purpose. Conclusions The idea of using encounter decision aids was welcomed, but more by patients than by physicians. Adaptation was a complex process and required resources. Clinicians did not follow suggested strategies for using encounter decision aids. Our study indicates that production of encounter decision aids alone will not lead to successful implementation, and has to be accompanied by training of health care providers. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00404-018-5035-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Shared decision-making (SDM) between patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) is a key component of patient-centred care. To implement SDM in clinical practice and to evaluate its effects, it is helpful to know about HCPs’ perception of SDM barriers. The measure IcanSDM was developed in Canada and assesses the perception of SDM barriers. To our knowledge, no equivalent measure exists in German. Therefore, the aim of this study was to translate and adapt the IcanSDM measure to be used by a German speaking population and evaluate its psychometric properties. Methods This is a cross-sectional psychometric study based on a secondary analysis of baseline data from a SDM implementation study. The original 8-item IcanSDM was translated into German using a team translation protocol. We assessed comprehensibility via cognitive interviews with n = 11 HCPs. Based on results of cognitive interviews, the translated IcanSDM version was revised. Two hundred forty-two HCPs filled out the measure. Psychometric analysis included acceptance (completion rate), item characteristics (response distribution, skewness, item difficulties, corrected item-total correlations, inter-item correlations), factorial structure (confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), model fit), and internal consistency (Cronbach’s α). Results We translated and adapted the German IcanSDM successfully except for item 8, which had to be revised after the cognitive interviews. Completion rate was 98%. Skewness of the items ranged between −.797 and 1.25, item difficulties ranged between 21.63 and 70.85, corrected item-total-correlations ranged between .200 and .475, inter-item correlations ranged between .005 and .412. Different models based on CFA results did not provide a valid factorial structure. Cronbach’s α ranged between .563 and .651 for different factor models. Conclusion We provide the first German measure for assessing perception of SDM barriers by HCPs. The German IcanSDM is a brief measure with good acceptance. However, we found unsatisfying psychometric properties, which were comparable to results of the original scale. In a next step, the IcanSDM should be further developed and modified and predictive validity should be evaluated.

Background: We aimed to analyze preferred and perceived levels of patients’ involvement in treatment decision-making in a representative sample of cancer patients. Material and Methods: We conducted a multicenter, epidemiological cross-sectional study with a stratified random sample based on the incidence of cancer diagnoses in Germany. Data were collected between January 2008 and December 2010. Analyses were undertaken between 2017 and 2019. We included 5889 adult cancer patients across all cancer entities and disease stages from 30 acute care hospitals, outpatient facilities, and cancer rehabilitation clinics in five regions in Germany. We used the Control Preferences Scale to assess the preferred level of involvement and the nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire to assess the perceived level of involvement. Results: About 4020 patients (mean age of 58 years, 51% female) completed the survey. Response rate was 68.3%. About a third each preferred patient-led, shared, or physician-led decision-making. About 50.7% perceived high levels, about a quarter each reported moderate (26.0%) or low (24.3%) levels of shared decision-making. Sex, age, relationship status, education, health care setting, and tumor entity were linked to preferred and/or perceived decision-making. Of those patients who preferred active involvement, about 50% perceived high levels of shared decision-making. Conclusion: The majority of patients with cancer wanted to be involved in medical decisions. Many patients perceived a high level of shared decision-making. However, many patients’ level of involvement did not fit their preference. This study provides a solid basis for efforts to improve shared decision-making in German cancer care.

ObjectivePatient-centredness (PC) has particularly grown in relevance in health services research as well as in politics and there has been much research on its conceptualisation. However, conceptual work neglected the patients’ perspective. Thus, it remains unclear which dimensions of PC matter most to patients. This study aims to assess relevance and current degree of implementation of PC from the perspective of chronically ill patients in Germany.MethodsWe conducted a Delphi study. Patients were recruited throughout Germany using community-based strategies (eg, newspapers and support groups). In round 1, patients rated relevance and implementation of 15 dimensions of PC anonymously. In round 2, patients received results of round 1 and were asked to re-rate their own results. Participants had to have at least one of the following chronic diseases: cancer, cardiovascular disease, mental disorder or musculoskeletal disorder. Furthermore, patients had to be at least 18 years old and had to give informed consent prior to participation.Results226 patients participated in round 1, and 214 patients in round 2. In both rounds, all 15 dimensions were rated highly relevant, but currently insufficiently implemented. Most relevant dimensions included ‘patient safety’, ‘access to care’ and ‘patient information’. Due to small sizes of subsamples between chronic disease groups, differences could not be computed. For the other subgroups (eg, single disease vs multi-morbidity), there were no major differences.ConclusionThis is one of the first studies assessing PC from patients’ perspective in Germany. We showed that patients consider every dimension of PC relevant, but currently not well implemented. Our results can be used to foster PC healthcare delivery and to develop patient-reported experience measures to assess PC of healthcare in Germany.

Background Shared decision-making (SDM) is poorly implemented in routine care, despite being promoted by health policies. No reviews have solely focused on an in-depth synthesis of the literature around organizational- and system-level characteristics (i.e., characteristics of healthcare organizations and of healthcare systems) that may affect SDM implementation. A synthesis would allow exploration of interventions to address these characteristics. The study aim was to compile a comprehensive overview of organizational- and system-level characteristics that are likely to influence the implementation of SDM, and to describe strategies to address those characteristics described in the literature. Methods We conducted a scoping review using the Arksey and O’Malley framework. The search strategy included an electronic search and a secondary search including gray literature. We included publications reporting on projects that promoted implementation of SDM or other decision support interventions in routine healthcare. We screened titles and abstracts, and assessed full texts for eligibility. We used qualitative thematic analysis to identify organizational- and system-level characteristics. Results After screening 7745 records and assessing 354 full texts for eligibility, 48 publications on 32 distinct implementation projects were included. Most projects (N = 22) were conducted in the USA. Several organizational-level characteristics were described as influencing the implementation of SDM, including organizational leadership, culture, resources, and priorities, as well as teams and workflows. Described system-level characteristics included policies, clinical guidelines, incentives, culture, education, and licensing. We identified potential strategies to influence the described characteristics, e.g., examples how to facilitate distribution of decision aids in a healthcare institution. Conclusions Although infrequently studied, organizational- and system-level characteristics appear to play a role in the failure to implement SDM in routine care. A wide range of characteristics described as supporting and inhibiting implementation were identified. Future studies should assess the impact of these characteristics on SDM implementation more thoroughly, quantify likely interactions, and assess how characteristics might operate across types of systems and areas of healthcare. Organizations that wish to support the adoption of SDM should carefully consider the role of organizational- and system-level characteristics. Implementation and organizational theory could provide useful guidance for how to address facilitators and barriers to change. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0731-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectivesTo translate the Organisational Readiness for Implementing Change measure into German and assess its psychometric properties.DesignCross-sectional psychometric study based on secondary analysis of baseline data from a shared decision-making implementation study.SettingThree departments within one academic cancer centre in Hamburg, Germany.ParticipantsFor comprehensibility assessment of the translated ORIC version, we conducted cognitive interviews with healthcare professionals (HCPs, n=11). Afterwards, HCPs (n=230) filled out the measure.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe original English version of the ORIC was translated into German using a team translation protocol. Based on comprehensibility assessment via cognitive interviews with HCPs, the translated version was revised. We analysed acceptance (completion rate), factorial structure (exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), model fit), item characteristics (item difficulties, corrected item-total correlations, inter-item correlations) and internal consistency (Cronbach’s α).ResultsTranslation and cognitive testing of the German ORIC was successful except for item 10, which showed low comprehensibility as part of content validity in cognitive interviews. Completion rate was >97%. EFA and CFA provided a one-factorial structure. Item difficulties ranged between 55.98 and 65.32, corrected item-total-correlation ranged between 0.665 and 0.774, inter-item correlations ranged between 0.434 and 0.723 and Cronbach’s α was 0.93.ConclusionsThe German ORIC is a reliable measure with high completion rates and satisfying psychometric properties. A one-factorial structure of the German ORIC was confirmed. Item 10 showed limited comprehensibility and therefore reduces content validity of the measure. The German ORIC can be used to analyse organisational readiness for change as a precursor for implementation success of various interventions.

CONSORT extension for cluster trials checklist. (DOCX 28Â kb)

Protocol. (PDF 129 kb)

Electronic searches. (PDF 24 kb)

Background The quality of decision-making in multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) depends on the quality of information presented and the quality of team processes. Few studies have examined these factors using a standardized approach. The aim of this study was to objectively document the processes involved in decision-making in MDTMs, document the outcomes in terms of whether a treatment recommendation was given (none vs. singular vs. multiple), and to identify factors related to type of treatment recommendation. Methods An adaptation of the observer rating scale Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Metric for the Observation of Decision-Making (MDT-MODe) was used to assess the quality of the presented information and team processes in MDTMs. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and mixed logistic regression analysis. Results N = 249 cases were observed in N = 29 MDTMs. While cancer-specific medical information was judged to be of high quality, psychosocial information and information regarding patient views were considered to be of low quality. In 25% of the cases no, in 64% one, and in 10% more than one treatment recommendations were given (1% missing data). Giving no treatment recommendation was associated with duration of case discussion, duration of the MDTM session, quality of case history, quality of radiological information, and specialization of the MDTM. Higher levels of medical and treatment uncertainty during discussions were found to be associated with a higher probability for more than one treatment recommendation. Conclusions The quality of different aspects of information was observed to differ greatly. In general, we did not find MDTMs to be in line with the principles of patient-centered care. Recommendation outcome varied substantially between different specializations of MDTMs. The quality of certain information was associated with the recommendation outcome. Uncertainty during discussions was related to more than one recommendation being considered. Time constraints were found to play an important role. Some of those aspects seem modifiable, which offers possibilities for the reorganization of MDTMs. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-017-3768-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective This study aimed a) to investigate knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported use of shared decision-making (SDM) among physiotherapists in Germany, b) to explore their association with demographic characteristics, and c) to assess barriers to the implementation of SDM. Methods We assessed above mentioned domains using an online survey. Two-level logistic regression models were used to examine factors associated with knowledge, attitudes and self-reported use of SDM. Results 60.5% of a total sample of 357 participants reported to have had no knowledge on SDM before participating in the survey. Attitudes towards SDM were mostly positive, half of all participants expressed a preference for SDM. About two thirds of all participants reported to use a rather paternalistic approach in routine care. Knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported use of SDM were associated with several demographic characteristics. Conclusion SDM was perceived as an appropriate concept in physiotherapy. However, missing knowledge and limited self-reported use of SDM in routine care on the one hand and positive attitudes towards SDM on the other hand indicate a need for action. Practice implications In order to emphasize the use of SDM in physiotherapy efforts need to be undertaken in research, clinical practice and health policy.

Adapted version of the MDT-MODe: Rating scale for the quality of decision-making processes in MDTMs. (PDF 185 kb)

Frequencies of ratings for case-level variables. (Nâ =â 249 cases). (PDF 14.8 kb)

Shared decision making (SDM) is particularly relevant in oncology, where complex treatment options with varying side effects may lead to meaningful changes in the patient's quality of life. For several years, health policies have called for the implementation of SDM, but SDM remains poorly implemented in routine clinical practice. Implementation science has highlighted the importance of assessing stakeholders' needs to inform the development of implementation programs. Thus, the aim of the present study was to assess different stakeholders' needs regarding the implementation of SDM in routine care.A qualitative study using focus groups and interviews was conducted. Focus groups were carried out with junior physicians, senior physicians, nurses and other healthcare providers (HPCs) (e.g. psycho-oncologists, physiotherapists), patients and family members. Head physicians as well as other HPCs in management positions were interviewed. Audiotapes of focus groups and interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using content analysis.Six focus groups with a total of n = 42 stakeholders as well as n = 17 interviews were conducted. Focus groups and interviews revealed five main categories of needs to be fulfilled in order to achieve a better implementation of SDM in routine cancer care: 1) changes in communication, 2) involvement of other parties, 3) a trustful patient-physician relationship, 4) culture change and 5) structural changes. Stakeholders discussed four clusters of intervention strategies that could foster the implementation of SDM in routine cancer care: 1) clinician-mediated interventions, 2) patient-mediated interventions, 3) provision of patient information material and 4) the establishment of a patient advocate.Study results show that stakeholders voiced a diversity of needs to foster implementation of SDM in routine cancer care, of which some can be directly addressed by intervention strategies. Present results can be used to develop an implementation program to foster SDM in routine cancer care.

Background Despite an increased awareness of shared decision-making (SDM) and its prominent position on the health policy agenda, its implementation in routine care remains a challenge in Germany. In order to overcome this challenge, it is important to understand healthcare providers’ views regarding SDM and to take their perspectives and opinions into account in the development of an implementation program. The present study aimed at exploring a) the attitudes of different healthcare providers regarding SDM in oncology and b) their experiences with treatment decisions in daily practice. Material and Methods A qualitative study was conducted using focus groups and individual interviews with different healthcare providers at the University Cancer Center Hamburg, Germany. Focus groups and interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using conventional content analysis and descriptive statistics. Results N = 4 focus groups with a total of N = 25 participants and N = 17 individual interviews were conducted. Attitudes regarding SDM varied greatly between the different participants, especially concerning the definition of SDM, the attitude towards the degree of patient involvement in decision-making and assumptions about when SDM should take place. Experiences on how treatment decisions are currently made varied. Negative experiences included time and structural constraints, and a lack of (multidisciplinary) communication. Positive experiences comprised informed patients, involvement of relatives and a good physician-patient relationship. Conclusion The results show that German healthcare providers in oncology have a range of attitudes that currently function as barriers towards the implementation of SDM. Also, their experiences on how decision-making is currently done reveal difficulties in actively involving patients in decision-making processes. It will be crucial to take these attitudes and experiences seriously and to subsequently disentangle existing misconceptions in future implementation programs.

IntroductionThe impact of patient centredness (PC) in healthcare has grown over the years. However, conceptualisations of PC are heterogeneous. Existing patient-reported measures of PC have shown inconsistencies and shortcomings. This impedes the comparison of results across studies. To foster PC, it is important to know which dimensions matter most to patients and to be able to measure its current extent from the patients’ perspective. This study aims (1) to assess relevance of dimensions of PC from the patients’ perspective, (2) to develop and psychometrically test a core set of patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) assessing PC and (3) to investigate the feasibility of implementation of this core set in routine healthcare.Methods and analysisA mixed-methods approach will be used. In phase 1, 200 patients will assess the relevance of the dimensions of PC in a Delphi study using a plain language description. In phase 2, the core set of PREMs will be developed through literature reviews, focus groups, key informant interviews and content validity ratings. The core set will be tested psychometrically in a cross-sectional study with 2000 inpatient and outpatients with different chronic conditions (ie, cancer, cardiovascular diseases, mental disorders and musculoskeletal disorders). In phase 3, the feasibility of implementation of the core set will be assessed through semistructured interviews with healthcare practitioners after piloting in routine care. Furthermore, an expert workshop will be held on how to foster implementation.Ethics and disseminationThe study will be carried out in accordance to the latest version of the Helsinki Declaration of the World Medical Association and principles of good scientific practice. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Association Hamburg, Germany (study ID: PV5724). The study results will be disseminated in scientific journals and through collaboration partners and plain language press releases.

ObjectivesShared decision-making has continuously gained importance over the last years. However, few studies have investigated the current state of shared decision-making implementation in routine cancer care. This study aimed to investigate how treatment decisions are made in routine cancer care and to explore barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making using an observational approach (three independent observers). Furthermore, the study aimed to extend the understanding of current decision-making processes beyond the dyadic physician–patient interaction.DesignCross-sectional qualitative study using participant observation with semistructured field notes, which were analysed using qualitative content analysis as described by Hsieh and Shannon.Setting and participantsField notes from participant observations were collected at n=54 outpatient consultations and during two 1-week-long observations at two inpatient wards in different clinics of one comprehensive cancer centre in Germany.ResultsMost of the time, either one physician alone or a group of physicians made the treatment decisions. Patients were seldom actively involved. Patients who were ‘active’ (ie, asked questions, demanded participation, opposed treatment recommendations) facilitated shared decision-making. Time pressure, frequent alternation of responsible physicians and poor coordination of care were the main observed barriers for shared decision-making. We found high variation in decision-making behaviour between different physicians as well as the same physician with different patients.ConclusionMost of the time physicians made the treatment decisions. Shared decision-making was very rarely implemented in current routine cancer care. The entire decision-making process was not observed to follow the principles of shared decision-making. However, some aspects of shared decision-making were occasionally incorporated. Individual as well as organisational factors were found to influence the degree of shared decision-making. If future routine cancer care wishes to follow the principles of shared decision-making, strategies are needed to foster shared decision-making in routine cancer care.