Decision making for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in pediatric, adolescent, and young adult patients with a hemoglobinopathy: shared or not?

Transplantation and immunomodulatio

Delphi Study to Reach International Consensus Among Vascular Surgeons on Major Arterial Vascular Surgical Complications

Background: The complications discussed with patients by surgeons prior to surgery vary, because no consensus on major complications exists. Such consensus may improve informed consent and shared decision-making. This study aimed to achieve consensus among vascular surgeons on which complications are considered ‘major’ and which ‘minor,’ following surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA), carotid artery disease (CAD) and peripheral artery disease (PAD). Methods: Complications following vascular surgery were extracted from Cochrane reviews, national guidelines, and reporting standards. Vascular surgeons from Europe and North America rated complications as major or minor on five-point Likert scales via an electronic Delphi method. Consensus was reached if ≥ 80% of participants scored 1 or 2 (minor) or 4 or 5 (major). Results: Participants reached consensus on 9–12 major and 6–10 minor complications per disease. Myocardial infarction, stroke, renal failure and allergic reactions were considered to be major complications of all three diseases. All other major complications were treatment specific or dependent on disease severity, e.g., spinal cord ischemia, rupture following AAA repair, stroke for CAD or deep wound infection for PAD. Conclusion: Vascular surgeons reached international consensus on major and minor complications following AAA, CAD and PAD treatment. This consensus may be helpful in harmonizing the information patients receive and improving standardization of the informed consent procedure. Since major complications differed between diseases, consensus on disease-specific complications to be discussed with patients is necessary

Systematic review of shared decision-making in surgery

Background: Multiple treatment options are generally available for most diseases. Shared decision-making (SDM) helps patients and physicians choose the treatment option that best fits a patient's preferences. This review aimed to assess the extent to which SDM is applied during surgical consultations, and the metrics used to measure SDM and SDM-related outcomes. Methods: This was a systematic review of observational studies and clinical trials that measured SDM during consultations in which surgery was a treatment option. Embase, MEDLINE and CENTRAL were searched. Study selection, quality assessment and data extraction were conducted by two investigators independently. Results: Thirty-two articles were included. SDM was measured using nine different metrics. Thirty-six per cent of 13 176 patients and surgeons perceived their consultation as SDM, as opposed to patient- or surgeon-driven. Surgeons more often perceived the decision-making process as SDM than patients (43·6 versus 29·3 per cent respectively). SDM levels scored objectively using the OPTION and Decision Analysis System for Oncology instruments ranged from 7 to 39 per cent. Subjective SDM levels as perceived by surgeons and patients ranged from 54 to 93 per cent. Patients experienced a higher level of SDM during consultations than surgeons (93 versus 84 per cent). Twenty-five different SDM-related outcomes were reported. Conclusion: At present, SDM in surgery is still in its infancy, although surgeons and patients both think of it favourably. Future studies should evaluate the effect of new interventions to improve SDM during surgical consultations, and its assessment using available standardized and validated metrics

The current level of shared decision-making in anesthesiology: an exploratory study

Abstract Background Shared decision-making (SDM) seeks to involve both patients and clinicians in decision-making about possible health management strategies, using patients’ preferences and best available evidence. SDM seems readily applicable in anesthesiology. We aimed to determine the current level of SDM among preoperative patients and anesthesiology clinicians. Methods We invited 115 consecutive preoperative patients, visiting the pre-assessment outpatient clinic of the department of Anesthesiology at the Academic Medical Center of Amsterdam. Inclusion criteria were patients who needed surgery in the arms, lower abdomen or legs, and in whom three anesthesia techniques were feasible. The SDM-level of the consultation was scored objectively by independent observers who judged audio-recordings of the consultation using the OPTION5-scale, ranging from 0% (no SDM) to 100% (optimum SDM), as well as subjectively by patients (using the SDM-Q-9 and CollaboRATE questionnaires) and clinicians (SDM-Q-Doc questionnaire). Objective and subjective SDM-levels were assessed on five-point and six-point Likert scales, respectively. Both scores were expressed as percentages. Results Data of 80 patients could be analysed. Objective SDM-scores were low (30.5%). Subjective scores of the SDM-Q-9 and CollaboRATE were high among patients (91.7% and 96.3%, respectively) and among clinicians (SDM-Q-Doc; 84.3%). Apparently, they appreciated satisfaction rather than SDM, being poorly aware of what SDM entails. Conclusion The level of SDM in an outpatient anesthesiology clinic where preoperative patients receive information about various possible anesthesia options, was found to be low. Thus, there is room for improving the level of SDM. Some suggestions are given how this can be achieved

Comparison of the CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires to appreciate the patient-reported level of shared decision-making

OBJECTIVE: To compare CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires when appreciating patient-perceived level of shared decision-making (SDM) in doctor-patient consultations. METHODS: Data were harvested from five separate studies on SDM, conducted in three university and one large community hospital in the Netherlands, using Dutch versions of both questionnaires. CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 scores were expressed as percentages. Correlation was assessed using Spearman's Rho coefficient. Bland&Altman analysis was used to assess the degree of agreement. Top scores were calculated to assess possible ceiling effects. RESULTS: The five studies included 442 patients. Median CollaboRATE scores (88.9%, IQR 81.5-100%) were significantly higher (p < 0.001) than SDM-Q-9 scores (80.0%, IQR 64.4-100%). Correlation was moderate (Rho=0.53, p < 0.001). A systematic, 12.5-point higher score was found across the range of scores when using CollaboRATE. Top scores for CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 were present in 37.5% and 17% of questionnaires, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, CollaboRATE and SDM-Q-9 questionnaires showed a high level of patient-perceived SDM. However, CollaboRATE only moderately correlated with SDM-Q-9 and had a stronger ceiling effect. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: When choosing a SDM-measurement tool, its benefits and limitations should be weighed. These metrics should be combined with objective scores of SDM, as these may differ from the patients' subjective interpretation

The current level of shared decision-making in anesthesiology: an exploratory study

Shared decision-making (SDM) seeks to involve both patients and clinicians in decision-making about possible health management strategies, using patients' preferences and best available evidence. SDM seems readily applicable in anesthesiology. We aimed to determine the current level of SDM among preoperative patients and anesthesiology clinicians. We invited 115 consecutive preoperative patients, visiting the pre-assessment outpatient clinic of the department of Anesthesiology at the Academic Medical Center of Amsterdam. Inclusion criteria were patients who needed surgery in the arms, lower abdomen or legs, and in whom three anesthesia techniques were feasible. The SDM-level of the consultation was scored objectively by independent observers who judged audio-recordings of the consultation using the OPTION(5)-scale, ranging from 0% (no SDM) to 100% (optimum SDM), as well as subjectively by patients (using the SDM-Q-9 and CollaboRATE questionnaires) and clinicians (SDM-Q-Doc questionnaire). Objective and subjective SDM-levels were assessed on five-point and six-point Likert scales, respectively. Both scores were expressed as percentages. Data of 80 patients could be analysed. Objective SDM-scores were low (30.5%). Subjective scores of the SDM-Q-9 and CollaboRATE were high among patients (91.7% and 96.3%, respectively) and among clinicians (SDM-Q-Doc; 84.3%). Apparently, they appreciated satisfaction rather than SDM, being poorly aware of what SDM entails. The level of SDM in an outpatient anesthesiology clinic where preoperative patients receive information about various possible anesthesia options, was found to be low. Thus, there is room for improving the level of SDM. Some suggestions are given how this can be achieve

Shared Decision Making in Vascular Surgery: An Exploratory Study

Shared decision making (SDM) is a process in which patients and their doctors collaborate in choosing a suitable treatment option by incorporating patient values and preferences, as well as the best available evidence. Particularly in vascular surgery, several conditions seem suitable for SDM because there are multiple treatment options. The objective of this study was to assess the degree of SDM behaviour in vascular surgery. Vascular surgeons of four Dutch hospitals selected consultations with patients who were facing a treatment decision. Immediately after the consultation, patients and surgeons completed the (subjective) SDM Q-9 and SDM Q-doc questionnaires respectively, to appreciate the perceived level of SDM behaviour. Two evaluators independently and objectively rated SDM behaviour in the audiotaped consultations, using the Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION-12) scale. Nine vascular surgeons and three vascular surgeons in training conducted 54 consultations. The patients' median SDM Q-9 score was high, 93% (IQR 79-100%), and 16/54 (29.6%) of them gave the maximum score. The surgeons' median score was also high, 84% (IQR 73-92%), while 4/54 (7.4%) gave the maximum score. In contrast, mean OPTION score was 31% (SD 11%). Surgeons hardly ever asked the patients for their preferred approach to receive information, whether they had understood the provided information, and how they would like to be involved in SDM. Currently, objective SDM behaviour among vascular surgeons is limited, even though the presented disorders allow for SDM. Hence, SDM in vascular surgical consultations could be improved by increasing the patients' and surgeons' awareness and knowledge about the concept of SD

Systematic review of reporting benefits and harms of surgical interventions in randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND: Standardized reporting methods facilitate comparisons between studies. Reporting of data on benefits and harms of treatments in surgical RCTs should support clinical decision-making. Correct and complete reporting of the outcomes of clinical trials is mandatory to appreciate available evidence and to inform patients properly before asking informed consent. METHODS: RCTs published between January 2005 and January 2017 in 15 leading journals comparing a surgical treatment with any other treatment were reviewed systematically. The CONSORT checklist, including the extension for harms, was used to appraise the publications. Beneficial and harmful treatment outcomes, their definitions and their precision measures were extracted. RESULTS: Of 1200 RCTs screened, 88 trials were included. For the differences in effect size of beneficial outcomes, 68 per cent of the trials reported a P value only but not a 95 per cent confidence interval. For harmful effects, this was 67 per cent. Only five of the 88 trials (6 per cent) reported a number needed to treat, and no study a number needed to harm. Only 61 per cent of the trials reported on both the beneficial and harmful outcomes of the intervention studied in the same paper. CONCLUSION: Despite CONSORT guidelines, current reporting of benefits and harms in surgical trials does not facilitate clear communication of treatment outcomes with patients. Researchers, reviewers and journal editors should ensure proper reporting of treatment benefits and harms in trials