Leveraging the timing and frequency of patient decision aids in longitudinal shared decision‐making: A narrative review and applied model

Abstract Introduction Shared decision‐making (SDM) is intended to increase patient‐centredness of medical decision‐making for patients with acute and chronic conditions. Concurrently, patient decision aids (PtDAs) can supplement SDM by providing information to guide communication between patients and healthcare providers. Because of the prevalence of chronic conditions, where decisions may be extended or recurring, we sought to explore how effectively these tools have been leveraged in this context. Methods We conducted a narrative review of the literature on both SDM and PtDAs, searching PubMed and Boston University's library database search tool for English‐language articles published from January 2005 until March 2021. Additional search terms focused on temporality. Drawing from our findings, we developed a combined framework to highlight areas for future research using the discussion of end‐of‐life decisions as an exemplar to illustrate its relevance to chronic care contexts. Results After screening 57 articles, we identified 25 articles that fulfilled the inclusion criteria on SDM, PtDA use and temporality for chronic care. The literature on SDM highlighted time outside of the medical visit and opportunity to include outside decision partners as important elements of the process. PtDAs were commonly evaluated for process‐related and proximal outcomes, but less often for distal outcomes. Early evidence points to the value of comparative outcome evaluation based on the timing of PtDA distribution. Conclusion Our review of the literature on SDM and PtDAs reveals less attention to the timing of PtDAs relative to that of SDM. We highlight the need for further study of timing in PtDA use to improve longitudinal SDM for chronic care. The model that we propose in our discussion provides a starting point for future research on PtDA efficacy. Patient or Public Contribution Five patient consultants provided input and feedback on the development and utility of our model

Development and validation of a tool to understand health care professionals' attitudes towards deprescribing (HATD) in older adults with limited life expectancy

BackgroundUnderstanding the perspective of health care professionals (HCPs) is significant to the implementation of deprescribing in older adults with limited life expectancy (LLE) but a tool to assess this is lacking.ObjectiveThis study aimed to develop and validate a survey tool for assessing HCPs attitudes towards deprescribing (HATD) in older adults with LLE.MethodsAn online survey was used to collect data to determine the psychometric properties of a 49-item questionnaire generated from literature review, expert opinion and pretesting. 108 HCPs (doctors, nurses and pharmacists) with experience or interest in palliative care or a member of a palliative care team/organisation completed the survey.ResultsPrincipal component analysis of the participants' data resulted in a 23-item questionnaire structured in five factors, named HATD tool. The factors were related to concerns about deprescribing (7 items), perceived burden of medications on patients (7 items), organisational support for deprescribing (4 items), assurance to deprescribing (2 items) and perceived involvement of patients in medication management (3 items). The HATD tool had valid descriptive statistics (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure: 0.708; Bartlett's test of sphericity: p 0.05: 39%). The reliability statistics of all the factors were ≥0.750 for both Cronbach's alpha (α) and composite reliability (CR) except for the patient-involvement factor (α = 0.644 but CR = 0.787).ConclusionsThe 23-itemed HATD tool is a valid and reliable tool to assess the attitudes and beliefs of HCPs towards deprescribing in older adults with LLE in the Australian setting

Addressing clinician moral distress: Implications from a mixed methods evaluation during Covid-19.

Clinician moral distress has been documented over the past several decades as occurring within numerous healthcare disciplines, often in relation to clinicians' involvement in patients' end-of-life decision-making. The resulting harms impact clinician well-being, patient well-being, and healthcare system functioning. Given Covid-19's catastrophic death toll and associated demands on end-of-life decision-making processes, the pandemic represents a particularly important context within which to understand clinician moral distress. Thus, we conducted a convergent mixed methods study to examine its prevalence, associations with clinicians' demographic and professional characteristics, and contributing circumstances among Veterans Health Administration (VA) clinicians. The study, conducted in April 2021, consisted of a cross-sectional on-line survey of VA clinicians at 20 VA Medical Centers with professional jurisdiction to place life-sustaining treatment orders working who were from a number of select specialties. The survey collected quantitative data on respondents' demographics, clinical practice characteristics, attitudes and behaviors related to goals of care conversations, intensity of moral distress during "peak-Covid," and qualitative data via an open-ended item asking for respondents to describe contributing circumstances if they had indicated any moral distress. To understand factors associated with heightened moral distress, we analyzed quantitative data using bivariate and multivariable regression analyses and qualitative data using a hybrid deductive/inductive thematic approach. Mixed methods analysis followed, whereby we compared the quantitative and qualitative datasets and integrated findings at the analytic level. Out of 3,396 eligible VA clinicians, 323 responded to the survey (9.5% adjusted response rate). Most respondents (81%) reported at least some moral distress during peak-Covid. In a multivariable logistic regression, female gender (OR 3.35; 95% CI 1.53-7.37) was associated with greater odds of moral distress, and practicing in geriatrics/palliative care (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.18-0.87) and internal medicine/family medicine/primary care (OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.22-0.98) were associated with reduced odds of moral distress compared to medical subspecialties. From the 191 respondents who completed the open-ended item, five qualitative themes emerged as moral distress contributors: 1) patient visitation restrictions, 2) anticipatory actions, 3) clinical uncertainty related to Covid, 4) resource shortages, and 5) personal risk of contracting Covid. Mixed methods analysis found that quantitative results were consistent with these last two qualitative themes. In sum, clinician moral distress was prevalent early in the pandemic. This moral distress was associated with individual-, system-, and situation-level contributors. These identified contributors represent leverage points for future intervention to mitigate clinician moral distress and its negative outcomes during future healthcare crises and even during everyday clinical care

Survey instrument.

Clinician moral distress has been documented over the past several decades as occurring within numerous healthcare disciplines, often in relation to clinicians’ involvement in patients’ end-of-life decision-making. The resulting harms impact clinician well-being, patient well-being, and healthcare system functioning. Given Covid-19’s catastrophic death toll and associated demands on end-of-life decision-making processes, the pandemic represents a particularly important context within which to understand clinician moral distress. Thus, we conducted a convergent mixed methods study to examine its prevalence, associations with clinicians’ demographic and professional characteristics, and contributing circumstances among Veterans Health Administration (VA) clinicians. The study, conducted in April 2021, consisted of a cross-sectional on-line survey of VA clinicians at 20 VA Medical Centers with professional jurisdiction to place life-sustaining treatment orders working who were from a number of select specialties. The survey collected quantitative data on respondents’ demographics, clinical practice characteristics, attitudes and behaviors related to goals of care conversations, intensity of moral distress during “peak-Covid,” and qualitative data via an open-ended item asking for respondents to describe contributing circumstances if they had indicated any moral distress. To understand factors associated with heightened moral distress, we analyzed quantitative data using bivariate and multivariable regression analyses and qualitative data using a hybrid deductive/inductive thematic approach. Mixed methods analysis followed, whereby we compared the quantitative and qualitative datasets and integrated findings at the analytic level. Out of 3,396 eligible VA clinicians, 323 responded to the survey (9.5% adjusted response rate). Most respondents (81%) reported at least some moral distress during peak-Covid. In a multivariable logistic regression, female gender (OR 3.35; 95% CI 1.53–7.37) was associated with greater odds of moral distress, and practicing in geriatrics/palliative care (OR 0.40; 95% CI 0.18–0.87) and internal medicine/family medicine/primary care (OR 0.46; 95% CI 0.22–0.98) were associated with reduced odds of moral distress compared to medical subspecialties. From the 191 respondents who completed the open-ended item, five qualitative themes emerged as moral distress contributors: 1) patient visitation restrictions, 2) anticipatory actions, 3) clinical uncertainty related to Covid, 4) resource shortages, and 5) personal risk of contracting Covid. Mixed methods analysis found that quantitative results were consistent with these last two qualitative themes. In sum, clinician moral distress was prevalent early in the pandemic. This moral distress was associated with individual-, system-, and situation-level contributors. These identified contributors represent leverage points for future intervention to mitigate clinician moral distress and its negative outcomes during future healthcare crises and even during everyday clinical care.</div

Deprescribing medications among patients with multiple prescribers: A socioecological model

Deprescribing is the intentional dose reduction or discontinuation of a medication. The development of deprescribing interventions should take into consideration important organizational, interprofessional, and patient-specific barriers that can be further complicated by the presence of multiple prescribers involved in a patient's care. Patients who receive care from an increasing number of prescribers may experience disruptions in the timely transfer of relevant healthcare information, increasing the risk of exposure to drug-drug interactions and other medication-related problems. Furthermore, the fragmentation of healthcare information across health systems can contribute to the refilling of discontinued medications, reducing the effectiveness of deprescribing interventions. Thus, deprescribing interventions must carefully consider the unique characteristics of patients and their prescribers to ensure interventions are successfully implemented. In this special article, an international working group of physicians, pharmacists, nurses, epidemiologists, and researchers from the United States Deprescribing Research Network (USDeN) developed a socioecological model to understand how multiple prescribers may influence the implementation of a deprescribing intervention at the individual, interpersonal, organizational, and societal level. This manuscript also includes a description of the concept of multiple prescribers and outlines a research agenda for future investigations to consider. The information contained in this manuscript should be used as a framework for future deprescribing interventions to carefully consider how multiple prescribers can influence the successful implementation of the service and ensure the intervention is as effective as possible

STROBE statement—checklist of items that should be included in reports of observational studies.

STROBE statement—checklist of items that should be included in reports of observational studies.</p