Shared decision-making in medicine: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m I added a reference to Harvey Fineberg, head of IOM's paper on how shared decision making is an option, not a decree
copyedit, fix reference...
Line 27: Line 27:
Although patients who are involved in decision making about their health have better outcomes,<ref name="Stacey, Bennet, Barry, Col Eden, et al.">{{cite journal|last=Stacey|first=D|coauthors=Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Col NF, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Légaré F, Thomson R|title=Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions|journal=Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews|year=2011|issue=10|page=CD001431|doi=10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub3|url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub3/abstract}}</ref> healthcare professionals often do not involve them in these decisions.<ref name="Elwyn, Edwards, Wensing, Hood, Atwell, Grol">{{cite journal|last=Elwyn|first=G|coauthors=Edwards A, Wensing M, Hood K, Atwell C, Grol R|title=Shared decision making: developing the OPTION scale for measuring patient involvement|journal=Qual Saf Health Care|year=2003|month=Apr|volume=12|issue=2|pages=93–99|doi=10.1136/qhc.12.2.93|pmid=12679504|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12679504?dopt=Abstract}}</ref> A Cochrane review <ref name="Légaré, Ratté, Stacey, et al.">{{cite journal|last=Légaré|first=F|coauthors=Ratté, S; Stacey, D; Kryworuchko, J; Gravel, K; Graham, ID; Turcotte, S|title=Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals.|journal=The Cochrane database of systematic reviews|date=2010 May 12|issue=5|pages=CD006732|pmid=20464744}}</ref> has synthesized the body of evidence about different interventions that can be used to help healthcare professionals adopt practices to better involve their patients in the process of making decisions about their health. In this review of studies testing interventions to help healthcare professionals adopt practices to better involve their patients in the process of making decisions, there were five studies that were identified. This review found that educational meetings, giving healthcare professionals feedback, giving healthcare professionals learning materials, and using patient decision aids are some interventions that have been tried and might be helpful. However, the review could not determine from the available studies which of these interventions were best. The review <ref name="Légaré, Ratté, Stacey, et al." /> makes some suggestions for how research studies could better evaluate healthcare professionals involving patients in the process of making decisions about their health so that we can understand this better in the future. There is also a need for greater conceptual clarity. Involving patients in decisions is by definition a processual event, that might occur over time and in many encounters. Much of the literature seems to assume that achieving shared decision making is a matter of distributing information-rich interventions.
Although patients who are involved in decision making about their health have better outcomes,<ref name="Stacey, Bennet, Barry, Col Eden, et al.">{{cite journal|last=Stacey|first=D|coauthors=Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Col NF, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Légaré F, Thomson R|title=Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions|journal=Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews|year=2011|issue=10|page=CD001431|doi=10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub3|url=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub3/abstract}}</ref> healthcare professionals often do not involve them in these decisions.<ref name="Elwyn, Edwards, Wensing, Hood, Atwell, Grol">{{cite journal|last=Elwyn|first=G|coauthors=Edwards A, Wensing M, Hood K, Atwell C, Grol R|title=Shared decision making: developing the OPTION scale for measuring patient involvement|journal=Qual Saf Health Care|year=2003|month=Apr|volume=12|issue=2|pages=93–99|doi=10.1136/qhc.12.2.93|pmid=12679504|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12679504?dopt=Abstract}}</ref> A Cochrane review <ref name="Légaré, Ratté, Stacey, et al.">{{cite journal|last=Légaré|first=F|coauthors=Ratté, S; Stacey, D; Kryworuchko, J; Gravel, K; Graham, ID; Turcotte, S|title=Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals.|journal=The Cochrane database of systematic reviews|date=2010 May 12|issue=5|pages=CD006732|pmid=20464744}}</ref> has synthesized the body of evidence about different interventions that can be used to help healthcare professionals adopt practices to better involve their patients in the process of making decisions about their health. In this review of studies testing interventions to help healthcare professionals adopt practices to better involve their patients in the process of making decisions, there were five studies that were identified. This review found that educational meetings, giving healthcare professionals feedback, giving healthcare professionals learning materials, and using patient decision aids are some interventions that have been tried and might be helpful. However, the review could not determine from the available studies which of these interventions were best. The review <ref name="Légaré, Ratté, Stacey, et al." /> makes some suggestions for how research studies could better evaluate healthcare professionals involving patients in the process of making decisions about their health so that we can understand this better in the future. There is also a need for greater conceptual clarity. Involving patients in decisions is by definition a processual event, that might occur over time and in many encounters. Much of the literature seems to assume that achieving shared decision making is a matter of distributing information-rich interventions.


An important observation about shared decision making comes from Harvey Feinberg, Head of the Institute of Medicine (IOM). In his commentary on a paper reviewing shared decision making practices in Israel <http://www.ijhpr.org/content/1/1/5/>, Prof. Fineberg noted that medical decision making should ideally be shaped by the particular needs and preferences of the patient, which may be to share in decision making, or at times call for a physician to assume full responsibility for decisions or, at the other extreme, to support and guide a patient who wishes to decide autonomously on what to do. This suggests that, just as with interventions, which need to match the patient's style and preferences, patient's preferences for degree of involvement also need to be taken into account and respected.
Harvey Feinberg, Head of the Institute of Medicine, suggested that shared decision making should be shaped by the particular needs and preferences of the patient, which may be to share in decision making, or at times call for a physician to assume full responsibility for decisions or, at the other extreme, to support and guide a patient who wishes to decide autonomously on what to do.<ref name="Feinberg">{{cite doi|10.1186/2045-4015-1-6}}</ref> This suggests that, just as with interventions, which need to match the patient's style and preferences, patient's preferences for degree of involvement also need to be taken into account and respected.<ref name="Feinberg"/>
<ref> Harvey V. Fineberg. From shared decision making to patient-centered decision making
Israel Journal of Health Policy Research 2012, 1:6 doi:10.1186/2045-4015-1-6</ref>


==See also==
==See also==

Revision as of 17:24, 16 December 2013

Shared Decision Making (SDM) is an approach where clinicians and patients communicate together using the best available evidence when faced with the task of making decisions, where patients are supported to deliberate about the possible attributes and consequences of options, to arrive at informed preferences in making a determination about the best action and which respects patient autonomy, where this is desired, ethical and legal.

One of the first instances where the term ‘shared decision making’ was used was in a report entitled the ‘President's Commission for The Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical Research.[1] This work built on the increasing interest in patient-centredness and an increasing emphasis on recognising patient autonomy in health care interactions since the 1970s.[2][3]

Charles described a set of principles for shared decision making, stating “that at least two participants, the clinician and patient be involved; that both parties share information; that both parties take steps to build a consensus about the preferred treatment; and that an agreement is reached on the treatment to implement".[4] These principles rely on an eventual arrival at an agreement but this final principle is not fully accepted by others in the field.[5] The view that it is acceptable to agree to disagree is also regarded as an acceptable outcome of shared decision making.[6]

Elwyn described a set of competences for shared decision making, which are composed of the steps of defining the problem which requires a decision, the portrayal of equipoise and the uncertainty about the best course of action, thereby leading to the requirement to provide information about the attributes of available options and support a deliberation process.[7] An assessment scale to measure the extent to which clinicians involve patients in decision making has been developed[8] and translated into Dutch, Chinese, French, German, Spanish and Italian.[9] A talk model has been recently proposed, composed of three different phases: team, option and decision talk. In the first of these phases, clinicians' work to create a supportive relationship with the patient as they introduce the idea of recognizing the existence of alternative actions (options) - this is to form a team with the patient and their family. In the second phase, the work is to introduce the options in a clear way, describing and explaining the probabilities of benefits and harms that might be likely - this is option talk. In the last phase, patients' preferences are constructed, elicited and integrated - this is decision talk. A shorter 5-item version of the Observer OPTION measure has been published based on this model. [10]

Many researchers and practitioners in this field meet every two years at the International Shared Decision Making (ISDM) Conference, which have been held at Oxford in 2001, Swansea in 2003, Ottawa in 2005, Freiburg in 2007, Boston in 2009, Maastricht in 2011, and Lima, Peru in 2013. Shared decision making is also closely associated with the use of decision support interventions, also known as decision aids. Much of the research and implementation studies to date are contained in the following publication: Shared Decision Making in Healthcare: Evidence-based Patient Choice. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.[11]

In December 2010 a Salzburg Global Seminar focused on "The Greatest Untapped Resource in Healthcare? Informing and Involving Patients in Decisions about Their Medical Care." Powerful conclusions emerged among the 58 participants from 18 countries: not only is it ethically right that patients should be involved more closely in decisions about their own medical care and the risks involved, it is practical – through careful presentation of information and the use of decision aids/pathways – and it brings down costs. Unwarranted practice variations – where one area may have many more interventions than another, but with no better outcomes – are reduced, sometimes dramatically. So why is it that this ‘win-win’ approach is not better understood? Following the seminar the participants created the Salzburg Statement on Shared Decision Making launched in London by the BMJ, one of the world’s leading medical journals, and released to the press worldwide to stimulate attention and debate.[12]

The National Shared Decision Making Programme in the UK

The aim of the Right Care Shared Decision Making Programme is to embed Shared Decision Making in NHS care. This is part of the wider ambition to promote patient centred care, to increase patient choice, autonomy and involvement in clinical decision making and make “no decision about me, without me” a reality. The Shared Decision Making programme is part of the Quality Improvement Productivity and Prevention (QIPP) Right Care programme. In 2012, the programme entered an exciting new phase and, through three workstreams, is aiming to embed the practice of shared decision making among patients and those who support them, and among health professionals and their educators.[13] One of the components of the National Programme is the work of the Advancing Quality Alliance (AQuA) - who are tasked with creating a receptive culture for shared decision making with patients and health professionals.

An evaluation of this programme was published recently:

Why do clinicians not refer patients to online decision support tools? Interviews with front line clinics in the NHS. Elwyn G, Rix A, Holt T, Jones D. BMJ Open. 2012 Nov 29;2(6). doi:pii: e001530. 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001530. Print 2012.

The implementation of shared decision making

Although patients who are involved in decision making about their health have better outcomes,[14] healthcare professionals often do not involve them in these decisions.[15] A Cochrane review [16] has synthesized the body of evidence about different interventions that can be used to help healthcare professionals adopt practices to better involve their patients in the process of making decisions about their health. In this review of studies testing interventions to help healthcare professionals adopt practices to better involve their patients in the process of making decisions, there were five studies that were identified. This review found that educational meetings, giving healthcare professionals feedback, giving healthcare professionals learning materials, and using patient decision aids are some interventions that have been tried and might be helpful. However, the review could not determine from the available studies which of these interventions were best. The review [16] makes some suggestions for how research studies could better evaluate healthcare professionals involving patients in the process of making decisions about their health so that we can understand this better in the future. There is also a need for greater conceptual clarity. Involving patients in decisions is by definition a processual event, that might occur over time and in many encounters. Much of the literature seems to assume that achieving shared decision making is a matter of distributing information-rich interventions.

Harvey Feinberg, Head of the Institute of Medicine, suggested that shared decision making should be shaped by the particular needs and preferences of the patient, which may be to share in decision making, or at times call for a physician to assume full responsibility for decisions or, at the other extreme, to support and guide a patient who wishes to decide autonomously on what to do.[17] This suggests that, just as with interventions, which need to match the patient's style and preferences, patient's preferences for degree of involvement also need to be taken into account and respected.[17]

See also

References

  1. ^ President's Advisory Commission on Consumer Protection and Quality in the Health Care Industry (1998). "Quality First: Better Health Care for All Americans".
  2. ^ Engel GL (1980). "The clinical application of the biopsychosocial model". Am J Psychiatry. 137 (5): 535–44. PMID 7369396. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  3. ^ Levenstein JH (1984). "The patient-centred general practice consultation". South African Family Practice. 5: 276–82.
  4. ^ Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T (1997). "Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango)". Soc Sci Med. 44 (5): 681–92. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(96)00221-3. PMID 9032835. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  5. ^ Makoul G, Clayman ML (2006). "An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters". Patient Educ Couns. 60 (3): 301–12. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2005.06.010. PMID 16051459. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  6. ^ Elwyn G, Edwards A, Kinnersley P (1999). "Shared decision-making in primary care: the neglected second half of the consultation". Br J Gen Pract. 49 (443): 477–82. PMC 1313449. PMID 10562751. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  7. ^ Elwyn G, Edwards A, Kinnersley P, Grol R (2000). "Shared decision making and the concept of equipoise: the competences of involving patients in healthcare choices". Br J Gen Pract. 50 (460): 892–9. PMC 1313854. PMID 11141876. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  8. ^ Elwyn G, Hutchings H, Edwards A, Rapport F, Wensing M, Cheung WY, Grol R (2005). "The OPTION scale: measuring the extent that clinicians involve patients in decision-making tasks". Health Expect. 8 (1): 34–42. doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2004.00311.x. PMID 15713169. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  9. ^ "Option Instrument".
  10. ^ Elwyn G, Tsulukidze M, Edwards A, Légaré F, Newcombe R (2013). "Using a 'talk' model of shared decision making to propose an observation-based measure: Observer option5 Item". Patient Educ Couns. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2013.08.005.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  11. ^ Elwyn, Glyn; Edwards, Adrian (2009). Shared decision-making in health care: Achieving evidence-based patient choice (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-954627-4.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  12. ^ Salzburg Global Seminar (2011-03-22). "The Salzburg Statement on Shared Decision Making". BMJ. Retrieved 28 March 2011.
  13. ^ "NHS Shared Decision Making Programme". Retrieved 29 December 2012.
  14. ^ Stacey, D (2011). "Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (10): CD001431. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub3. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  15. ^ Elwyn, G (2003). "Shared decision making: developing the OPTION scale for measuring patient involvement". Qual Saf Health Care. 12 (2): 93–99. doi:10.1136/qhc.12.2.93. PMID 12679504. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  16. ^ a b Légaré, F (2010 May 12). "Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals". The Cochrane database of systematic reviews (5): CD006732. PMID 20464744. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  17. ^ a b Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1186/2045-4015-1-6, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with |doi=10.1186/2045-4015-1-6 instead.

External links

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shared_decision-making_in_medicine&oldid=586364832"