Problem‐based shared decision making: The role of canonical SDM steps

Abstract Objective To evaluate the extent to which the canonical steps of shared decision making (SDM) take place in clinical encounters in practice and across SDM forms. Methods We assessed 100 randomly selected video‐recorded primary care encounters, obtained as part of a randomized trial of an SDM intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes. Two coders, working independently, noted each instance of SDM, classified it as one of four problem‐based forms to SDM (weighing alternatives, negotiating conflicting issues, solving problems, or developing existential insight), and noted the occurrence and timing of each of the four canonical SDM steps: fostering choice awareness, providing information, stating preferences, and deciding. Descriptive analyses sought to determine the relative frequency of these steps across each of the four SDM forms within each encounter. Results There were 485 SDM steps noted (mean 4.85 steps per encounter), of which providing information and stating preferences were the most common. There were 2.7 (38 steps in 14 encounters) steps per encounter observed in encounters with no discernible SDM form, 3.4 (105 steps in 31 encounters) with one SDM form, 5.2 (129 steps in 25 encounters) with two SDM forms, and 7.1 (213 steps in 30 encounters) when ≥3 SDM forms were observed within the encounter. The prescribed order of the four SDM steps was observed in, at best, 16 of the 100 encounters. Stating preferences was a common step when weighing alternatives (38%) or negotiating conflicts (59.3%) but less common when solving problems (29.2%). The distribution of SDM steps was similar to usual care with or without the SDM intervention. Conclusion The normative steps of SDM are infrequently observed in their prescribed order regardless of whether an SDM intervention was used. Some steps are more likely in some SDM forms but no pattern of steps appears to distinguish among SDM forms. Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01293578

Co-creating sensible care plans using shared decision making: Patients’ reflections and observations of encounters

Objective: To evaluate how the use of a within-encounter SDM tool (compared to usual care in a randomized trial) contributes to care plans that make sense to patients with atrial fibrillation considering anticoagulation. Methods: In a planned subgroup of the trial, 123 patients rated post-encounter how much sense their decided-upon care plan made to them and explained why. We explored how sense ratings related to observed patient involvement (OPTION12), patient's decisional conflict, and adherence to their plan based on pharmacy records. We analyzed patient motives using Burke's pentad. Results: Plan sensibility was similarly high in both arms (Usual care n = 62: mean 9.4/10 (SD 1.0) vs SDM tool n = 61: 9.2/10 (SD 1.5); p =.8), significantly and weakly correlated to decisional conflict (rho = −0.28, p =.002), but not to OPTION12 or adherence. Plans made sense to most patients given their known efficacy, safety and what is involved in implementing them. Conclusion: Adding an effective intervention to promote SDM did not affect how much, or why, care plans made sense to patients receiving usual care, nor patient adherence to them. Practice Implications: Evaluating the extent to which care plans make sense can improve SDM assessments, particularly when SDM extends beyond selecting from a menu of options

Paths of Emergency Department Care: Development of a Decision Aid to Facilitate Shared Decision Making in Goals of Care Discussions in the Acute Setting

Background Goals of care (GOC) conversations in the emergency department (ED) are often a brief discussion of code status rather than a patient-oriented dialogue. We aimed to develop a guide to facilitate conversations between ED clinicians and patients to elicit patient values and establish goals for end-of-life care, while maintaining ED efficiency. Paths of ED Care , a conversation guide, is the product of this work. Design A multidisciplinary/multispecialty group used recommended practices to adapt a GOC conversation guide for ED patients. ED clinicians used the guide and provided feedback on content, design, and usability. Patient-clinician interactions were recorded for discussion analysis, and both were surveyed to inform iterative refinement. A series of discussions with patient representatives, multidisciplinary clinicians, bioethicists, and health care designers yielded feedback. We used a process similar to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards and provide comparison to these. Results A conversation guide, eight pages with each page 6 by 6 inches in dimension, uses patient-oriented prompts and includes seven sections: 1) evaluation of patient/family understanding of disease, 2) explanation of possible trajectories, 3) introduction to different pathways of care, 4) explanation of pathways, 5) assessment of understanding and concerns, 6) code status, and 7) personalized summary. Limitations Recruitment of sufficient number of patients/providers to the project was the primary limitation. Methods are limited to qualitative analysis of guide creation and feasibility without quantitative analysis. Conclusions Paths of ED Care is a guide to facilitate patient-centered shared decision making for ED patients, families, and clinicians regarding GOC. This may ensure care concordant with patients’ values and preferences. Use of the guide was well-received and facilitated meaningful conversations between patients and providers