Dataset Information

Decision dissonance: evaluating an approach to measuring the quality of surgical decision making.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Good decision making has been increasingly cited as a core component of good medical care, and shared decision making is one means of achieving high decision quality. If it is to be a standard, good measures and protocols are needed for assessing the quality of decisions. Consistency with patient goals and concerns is one defining characteristic of a good decision. A new method for evaluating decision quality for major surgical decisions was examined, and a methodology for collecting the needed data was developed.

Methods

For a national probability sample of fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries who had a coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), a lumpectomy or a mastectomy for breast cancer, or surgery for prostate cancer during the last half of 2008, a mail-survey of selected patients was carried out about one year after the procedures. Patients' goals and concerns, knowledge, key aspects of interactions with clinicians, and feelings about the decisions were assessed. A decision dissonance score was created that measured the extent to which patient ratings of goals ran counter to the treatment received. The construct and predictive validity of the decision dissonance score was then assessed.

Results

When data were averaged across all four procedures, patients with more knowledge and those who reported more involvement reported significantly lower Decision Dissonance Scores. Patients with lower Decision Dissonance Scores also reported more confidence in their decisions and feeling more positively about how the treatment turned out, and they were more likely to say that they would make the same decision again.

Conclusions

Surveying discharged surgery patients is a feasible way to evaluate decision making, and Decision Dissonance appears to be a promising approach to validly measuring decision quality.

SUBMITTER: Fowler FJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3615253 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Decision dissonance: evaluating an approach to measuring the quality of surgical decision making.

Fowler Floyd J FJ Gallagher Patricia M PM Drake Keith M KM Sepucha Karen R KR

Joint Commission journal on quality and patient safety 20130301 3

<h4>Background</h4>Good decision making has been increasingly cited as a core component of good medical care, and shared decision making is one means of achieving high decision quality. If it is to be a standard, good measures and protocols are needed for assessing the quality of decisions. Consistency with patient goals and concerns is one defining characteristic of a good decision. A new method for evaluating decision quality for major surgical decisions was examined, and a methodology for col ...[more]

PMID: 23516764

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite a national focus on post-acute care brought about by recent payment reforms, relatively little is known about how hospitalized older adults and their caregivers decide whether to go to a skilled nursing facility (SNF) after hospitalization.ObjectiveWe sought to understand to what extent hospitalized older adults and their caregivers are empowered to make a high-quality decision about utilizing an SNF for post-acute care and what contextual or process elements led to satisfaction with the outcome of their decision once in SNF.DesignQualitative inquiry using the Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF), a conceptual framework that describes key components of high-quality decision-making.ParticipantsThirty-two previously community-dwelling older adults (≥ 65 years old) and 22 caregivers interviewed at three different hospitals and three skilled nursing facilities.Main measuresWe used key components of the ODSF to identify elements of context and process that affected decision-making and to what extent the outcome was characteristic of a high-quality decision: informed, values based, and not associated with regret or blame.Key resultsThe most important contextual themes were the presence of active medical conditions in the hospital that made decision-making difficult, prior experiences with hospital readmission or SNF, relative level of caregiver support, and pressure to make a decision quickly for which participants felt unprepared. Patients described playing a passive role in the decision-making process and largely relying on recommendations from the medical team. Patients commonly expressed resignation and a perceived lack of choice or autonomy, leading to dissatisfaction with the outcome.ConclusionsUnderstanding and intervening to improve the quality of decision-making regarding post-acute care supports is essential for improving outcomes of hospitalized older adults. Our results suggest that simply providing information is not sufficient; rather, incorporating key contextual factors and improving the decision-making process for both patients and clinicians are also essential.

Project description:BackgroundSurgical patients incur preventable harm from cognitive and judgment errors made under time constraints and uncertainty regarding patients' diagnoses and predicted response to treatment. Decision analysis and techniques of reinforcement learning theoretically can mitigate these challenges but are poorly understood and rarely used clinically. This review seeks to promote an understanding of decision analysis and reinforcement learning by describing their use in the context of surgical decision-making.MethodsCochrane, EMBASE, and PubMed databases were searched from their inception to June 2019. Included were 41 articles about cognitive and diagnostic errors, decision-making, decision analysis, and machine-learning. The articles were assimilated into relevant categories according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines.ResultsRequirements for time-consuming manual data entry and crude representations of individual patients and clinical context compromise many traditional decision-support tools. Decision analysis methods for calculating probability thresholds can inform population-based recommendations that jointly consider risks, benefits, costs, and patient values but lack precision for individual patient-centered decisions. Reinforcement learning, a machine-learning method that mimics human learning, can use a large set of patient-specific input data to identify actions yielding the greatest probability of achieving a goal. This methodology follows a sequence of events with uncertain conditions, offering potential advantages for personalized, patient-centered decision-making. Clinical application would require secure integration of multiple data sources and attention to ethical considerations regarding liability for errors and individual patient preferences.ConclusionTraditional decision-support tools are ill-equipped to accommodate time constraints and uncertainty regarding diagnoses and the predicted response to treatment, both of which often impair surgical decision-making. Decision analysis and reinforcement learning have the potential to play complementary roles in delivering high-value surgical care through sound judgment and optimal decision-making.

Project description:Evidence-based public health gives public health practitioners the tools they need to make choices based on the best and most current evidence. An evidence-based public health training course developed in 1997 by the Prevention Research Center in St. Louis has been taught by a transdisciplinary team multiple times with positive results. In order to scale up evidence-based practices, a train-the-trainer initiative was launched in 2010.This study examines the outcomes achieved among participants of courses led by trained state-level faculty. Participants from trainee-led courses in four states (Indiana, Colorado, Nebraska, and Kansas) over three years were asked to complete an online survey. Attempts were made to contact 317 past participants. One-hundred forty-four (50.9 %) reachable participants were included in analysis. Outcomes measured include frequency of use of materials, resources, and other skills or tools from the course; reasons for not using the materials and resources; and benefits from attending the course. Survey responses were tabulated and compared using Chi-square tests.Among the most commonly reported benefits, 88 % of respondents agreed that they acquired knowledge about a new subject, 85 % saw applications for the knowledge to their work, and 78 % agreed the course also improved abilities to make scientifically informed decisions at work. The most commonly reported reasons for not using course content as much as intended included not having enough time to implement evidence-based approaches (42 %); other staff/peers lack training (34 %); and not enough funding for continued training (34 %). The study findings suggest that utilization of course materials and teachings remains relatively high across practitioner groups, whether they were taught by the original trainers or by state-based trainers.The findings of this study suggest that train-the-trainer is an effective method for broadly disseminating evidence-based public health principles. Train-the-trainer is less costly than the traditional method and allows for courses to be tailored to local issues, thus making it a viable approach to dissemination and scale up of new public health practices.

Dataset Information

Decision dissonance: evaluating an approach to measuring the quality of surgical decision making.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Decision dissonance: evaluating an approach to measuring the quality of surgical decision making.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets