Dataset Information

Implementing shared decision-making in interprofessional home care teams (the IPSDM-SW study): protocol for a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:The frail elderly in Canada face a tough decision when they start to lose autonomy: whether to stay at home or move to another location. This study seeks to scale up and evaluate the implementation of shared decision-making (SDM) in interprofessional (IP) home care teams caring for elderly clients or their caregivers facing a decision about staying at home or moving elsewhere. METHODS:A stepped wedge cluster randomised trial involving 8 Health and Social Service Centers (HSSCs) will be conducted with IP home care teams. HSSCs are the unit of randomisation. A decision guide will be passively distributed to all of the participating HSSCs at the beginning of the project. The participating HSSCs will then be randomised to 1 of 4 intervention start times, separated by 7-month intervals. The primary outcome is whether or not clients and caregivers assumed an active role in decision-making, assessed with a modified version of the Control Preferences Scale. The intervention, targeted at IP home care teams, consists of a 1.5 hour online tutorial and a 3.5 hour skills building workshop in IP SDM. Clients will be eligible for outcome assessment if they (1) are aged ?65; (2) are receiving care from the IP home care team of the enrolled HSSCs; (3) have made a decision about whether to stay at home or move to another location during the recruitment periods; (4) are able to read, understand and write French or English; (5) can give informed consent. If clients are not able to provide informed consent, their primary caregiver will become the eligible participant. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethics committee review approval has been obtained from the Multicenter Ethics Committee of CISSS-Laval. Results will be disseminated at conferences, on websites of team members and in peer-reviewed and professional journals intended for policymakers and managers. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02592525, Pre-results.

SUBMITTER: Legare F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5168494 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Implementing shared decision-making in interprofessional home care teams (the IPSDM-SW study): protocol for a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial.

Légaré France F Brière Nathalie N Stacey Dawn D Lacroix Guy G Desroches Sophie S Dumont Serge S Fraser Kimberly D KD Rivest Louis-Paul LP Durand Pierre J PJ Turcotte Stéphane S Taljaard Monica M Bourassa Henriette H Roy Lise L Painchaud Guérard Geneviève G

BMJ open 20161124 11

<h4>Introduction</h4>The frail elderly in Canada face a tough decision when they start to lose autonomy: whether to stay at home or move to another location. This study seeks to scale up and evaluate the implementation of shared decision-making (SDM) in interprofessional (IP) home care teams caring for elderly clients or their caregivers facing a decision about staying at home or moving elsewhere.<h4>Methods</h4>A stepped wedge cluster randomised trial involving 8 Health and Social Service Cente ...[more]

PMID: 27884857

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFrail older adults and caregivers need support from their home care teams in making difficult housing decisions, such as whether to remain at home, with or without assistance, or move into residential care. However, home care teams are often understaffed and busy, and shared decision-making training is costly. Nevertheless, overall awareness of shared decision-making is increasing. We hypothesized that distributing a decision aid could be sufficient for providing decision support without the addition of shared decision-making training for home care teams.ObjectiveWe evaluated the effectiveness of adding web-based training and workshops for care teams in interprofessional shared decision-making to passive dissemination of a decision guide on the proportion of frail older adults or caregivers of cognitively-impaired frail older adults reporting active roles in housing decision-making.MethodsWe conducted a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial with home care teams in 9 health centers in Quebec, Canada. Participants were frail older adults or caregivers of cognitively impaired frail older adults facing housing decisions and receiving care from the home care team at one of the participating health centers. The intervention consisted of a 1.5-hour web-based tutorial for the home care teams plus a 3.5-hour interactive workshop in interprofessional shared decision-making using a decision guide that was designed to support frail older adults and caregivers in making housing decisions. The control was passive dissemination of the decision guide. The primary outcome was an active role in decision-making among frail older adults and caregivers, measured using the Control Preferences Scale. Secondary outcomes included decisional conflict and perceptions of how much care teams involved frail older adults and caregivers in decision-making. We performed an intention-to-treat analysis.ResultsA total of 311 frail older adults were included in the analysis, including 208 (66.9%) women, with a mean age of 81.2 (SD 7.5) years. Among 339 caregivers of cognitively-impaired frail older adults, 239 (70.5%) were female and their mean age was 66.4 (SD 11.7) years. The intervention increased the proportion of frail older adults reporting an active role in decision-making by 3.3% (95% CI -5.8% to 12.4%, P=.47) and the proportion of caregivers of cognitively-impaired frail older adults by 6.1% (95% CI -11.2% to 23.4%, P=.49). There was no significant impact on the secondary outcomes. However, the mean score for the frail older adults' perception of how much health professionals involved them in decision-making increased by 5.4 (95% CI -0.6 to 11.4, P=.07) and the proportion of caregivers who reported decisional conflict decreased by 7.5% (95% CI -16.5% to 1.6%, P=.10).ConclusionsAlthough it slightly reduced decisional conflict for caregivers, shared decision-making training did not equip home care teams significantly better than provision of a decision aid for involving frail older adults and their caregivers in decision-making.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02592525; https://clinicaltrials.gov/show/NCT02592525.

Project description:The ethical argument that shared decision-making is "the right" thing to do, however laudable, is unlikely to change how healthcare is organized, just as evidence alone will be an insufficient factor: practice change is governed by factors such as cost, profit margin, quality, and efficiency. It is helpful, therefore, when evaluating new approaches such as shared decision-making to conceptualize potential consequences in a way that is broad, long-term, and as relevant as possible to multiple stakeholders. Yet, so far, evaluation metrics for shared decision-making have been mostly focused on short-term outcomes, such as cognitive or affective consequences in patients. The goal of this article is to hypothesize a wider set of consequences, that apply over an extended time horizon, and include outcomes at interactional, team, organizational and system levels, and to call for future research to study these possible consequences.To date, many more studies have evaluated patient decision aids rather than other approaches to shared decision-making, and the outcomes measured have typically been focused on short-term cognitive and affective outcomes, for example knowledge and decisional conflict. From a clinicians perspective, the shared decision-making process could be viewed as either intrinsically rewarding and protective, or burdensome and impractical, yet studies have not focused on the impact on professionals, either positive or negative. At interactional levels, group, team, and microsystem, the potential long-term consequences could include the development of a culture where deliberation and collaboration are regarded as guiding principles, where patients are coached to assess the value of interventions, to trade-off benefits versus harms, and assess their burdens-in short, to new social norms in the clinical workplace. At organizational levels, consistent shared decision-making might boost patient experience evaluations and lead to fewer complaints and legal challenges. In the long-term, shared decision-making might lead to changes in resource utilization, perhaps to reductions in cost, and to modification of workforce composition. Despite the gradual shift to value-based payment, some organizations, motivated by continued income derived from achieving high volumes of procedures and contacts, will see this as a negative consequence.We suggest that a broader conceptualization and measurement of shared decision-making would provide a more substantive evidence base to guide implementation. We outline a framework which illustrates a hypothesized set of proximal, distal, and distant consequences that might occur if collaboration and deliberation could be achieved routinely, proposing that well-informed preference-based patient decisions might lead to safer, more cost-effective healthcare, which in turn might result in reduced utilization rates and improved health outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making (SDM) is preferred by many patients in cancer care. However, despite scientific evidence and promotion by health policy makers, SDM implementation in routine health care lags behind. This study aimed to evaluate an empirically and theoretically grounded implementation program for SDM in cancer care.MethodsIn a stepped wedge design, three departments of a comprehensive cancer center sequentially received the implementation program in a randomized order. It included six components: training for health care professionals (HCPs), individual coaching for physicians, patient activation intervention, patient information material/decision aids, revision of quality management documents, and reflection on multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs). Outcome evaluation comprised four measurement waves. The primary endpoint was patient-reported SDM uptake using the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire. Several secondary implementation outcomes were assessed. A mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted to evaluate reach and fidelity. Data were analyzed using mixed linear models, qualitative content analysis, and descriptive statistics.ResultsA total of 2,128 patient questionnaires, 559 questionnaires from 408 HCPs, 132 audio recordings of clinical encounters, and 842 case discussions from 66 MDTMs were evaluated. There was no statistically significant improvement in the primary endpoint SDM uptake. Patients in the intervention condition were more likely to experience shared or patient-lead decision-making than in the control condition (d=0.24). HCPs in the intervention condition reported more knowledge about SDM than in the control condition (d = 0.50). In MDTMs the quality of psycho-social information was lower in the intervention than in the control condition (d = - 0.48). Further secondary outcomes did not differ statistically significantly between conditions. All components were implemented in all departments, but reach was limited (e.g., training of 44% of eligible HCPs) and several adaptations occurred (e.g., reduced dose of coaching).ConclusionsThe process evaluation provides possible explanations for the lack of statistically significant effects in the primary and most of the secondary outcomes. Low reach and adaptations, particularly in dose, may explain the results. Other or more intensive approaches are needed for successful department-wide implementation of SDM in routine cancer care. Further research is needed to understand factors influencing implementation of SDM in cancer care.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov, NCT03393351 , registered 8 January 2018.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Shared decision-making (SDM) has become increasingly important in health care. However, despite scientific evidence, effective implementation strategies, and a prominent position on the health policy agenda, SDM is not widely implemented in routine practice so far. Therefore, we developed a program for routine implementation of SDM in oncology by conducting an analysis of the current state and a needs assessment in a pilot study based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Based on these results, the main aim of our current study is to evaluate the process and outcome of this theoretically and empirically grounded multicomponent implementation program designed to foster SDM in routine cancer care. METHODS:We use a stepped wedge design, a variant of the cluster randomized controlled trial. The intervention to be implemented is SDM. Three participating clinics of one comprehensive cancer center will be randomized and receive the multicomponent SDM implementation program in a time-delayed sequence. The program consists of the following strategies: (a) SDM training for health care professionals, (b) individual coaching for physicians, (c) patient activation strategy, (d) provision of patient information material and decision aids, (e) revision of the clinics' quality management documents, and (f) critical reflection of current organization of multidisciplinary team meetings. We will conduct a mixed methods outcome and process evaluation. The outcome evaluation will consist of four measurement points. The primary outcome is adoption of SDM, measured by the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire. A range of other implementation outcomes will be assessed (i.e., acceptability, readiness for implementing change, appropriateness, penetration). The implementation process will be evaluated using stakeholder interviews and field notes. This will allow adapting interventions if necessary. DISCUSSION:This study is the first large study on routine implementation of SDM conducted in German cancer care. We expect to foster implementation of SDM at the enrolled clinics. Insights gained from this study, using a theoretically and empirically grounded approach, can inform other SDM implementation studies and health policy developments, both nationally and internationally. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03393351 . Registered 8 January 2018.

Project description:BackgroundThe primary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) events is often less intense in persons at higher CV risk and vice versa. Clinical practice guidelines recommend that clinicians and patients use shared decision making (SDM) to arrive at an effective and feasible prevention plan that is congruent with each person's CV risk and informed preferences. However, SDM does not routinely happen in practice. This study aims to integrate into routine care an SDM decision tool (CV PREVENTION CHOICE) at three diverse healthcare systems in the USA and study strategies that foster its adoption and routine use.MethodsThis is a mixed method, hybrid type III stepped wedge cluster randomized study to estimate (a) the effectiveness of implementation strategies on SDM uptake and utilization and (b) the extent to which SDM results in prevention plans that are risk-congruent. Formative evaluation methods, including clinician and stakeholder interviews and surveys, will identify factors likely to impact feasibility, acceptability, and adoption of CV PREVENTION CHOICE as well as normalization of CV PREVENTION CHOICE in routine care. Implementation facilitation will be used to tailor implementation strategies to local needs, and implementation strategies will be systematically adjusted and tracked for assessment and refinement. Electronic health record data will be used to assess implementation and effectiveness outcomes, including CV PREVENTION CHOICE reach, adoption, implementation, maintenance, and effectiveness (measured as risk-concordant care plans). A sample of video-recorded clinical encounters and patient surveys will be used to assess fidelity. The study employs three theoretical approaches: a determinant framework that calls attention to categories of factors that may foster or inhibit implementation outcomes (the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research), an implementation theory that guides explanation or understanding of causal influences on implementation outcomes (Normalization Process Theory), and an evaluation framework (RE-AIM).DiscussionBy the project's end, we expect to have (a) identified the most effective implementation strategies to embed SDM in routine practice and (b) estimated the effectiveness of SDM to achieve feasible and risk-concordant CV prevention in primary care.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04450914 . Posted June 30, 2020 TRIAL STATUS: This study received ethics approval on April 17, 2020. The current trial protocol is version 2 (approved February 17, 2021). The first subject had not yet been enrolled at the time of submission.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Surgical treatments are being offered to more patients than ever before, and increasingly to high-risk patients (typically multimorbid and over 75). Shared decision making is seen as essential practice. However, little is currently known about what 'good' shared decision making involves nor how it applies in the context of surgery for high-risk patients. This new study aims to identify how high-risk patients, their families and clinical teams negotiate decision making for major surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Focusing on major joint replacement, colorectal and cardiac surgery, we use qualitative methods to explore how patients, their families and clinicians negotiate decision making (including interactional, communicative and informational aspects and the extent to which these are perceived as shared) and reflect back on the decisions they made. Phase 1 involves video recording 15 decision making encounters about major surgery between patients, their carers/families and clinicians; followed by up to 90 interviews (with the same patient, carer and clinician participants) immediately after a decision has been made and again 3-6 months later. Phase 2 involves focus groups with a wider group of (up to 90) patients and (up to 30) clinicians to test out emerging findings and inform development of shared decision making scenarios (3-5 summary descriptions of how decisions are made). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study forms the first part in a 6-year programme of research, Optimising Shared decision-makIng for high-RIsk major Surgery (OSIRIS). Ethical challenges around involving patients at a challenging time in their lives will be overseen by the programme steering committee, which includes strong patient representation and a lay chair. In addition to academic outputs, we will produce a typology of decision making scenarios for major surgery to feed back to patients, professionals and service providers and inform subsequent work in the OSIRIS programme.

Project description:BACKGROUND:DOLCE (Improving Decision making On Location of Care with the frail Elderly and their caregivers) was a post-intervention clustered randomised trial (cRT) to assess the effect of training home care teams on interprofessional shared decision-making (IP-SDM). Alongside the cRT, we sought to monitor healthcare providers' level of behavioural intention to engage in an IP-SDM approach and to identify factors associated with this intention. METHODS:We conducted two cross-sectional surveys in the province of Quebec, Canada, one each at cRT entry and exit. Healthcare providers (e.g. nurses, occupational therapists and social workers) in the 16 participating intervention and control sites self-completed an identical paper-based questionnaire at entry and exit. Informed by the Integrated model for explaining healthcare professionals' clinical behaviour by Godin et al. (2008), we assessed their behavioural intention to engage in IP-SDM to support older adults and caregivers of older adults with cognitive impairment to make health-related housing decisions. We also assessed psychosocial variables underlying their behavioural intention and collected sociodemographic data. We used descriptive statistics and linear mixed models to account for clustering. RESULTS:Between 2014 and 2016, 271 healthcare providers participated at study entry and 171 at exit. At entry, median intention level was 6 in a range of 1 (low) to 7 (high) (Interquartile range (IQR): 5-6.5) and factors associated with intention were social influence (??=?0.27, P?<? 0.0001), beliefs about one's capabilities (??=?0.43, P?<? 0.0001), moral norm (??=?0.31, P?<? 0.0001) and beliefs about consequences (??=?0.21, P?<? 0.0001). At exit, median intention level was 5.5 (IQR: 4.5-6.5). Factors associated with intention were the same but did not include moral norm. However, at exit new factors were kept in the model: working in rehabilitation (??=?-?0.39, P?=?0.018) and working as a technician (??=?-?0.41, P?=?0.069) (compared to as a social worker). CONCLUSION:Intention levels were high but decreased from entry to exit. Factors associated with intention also changed from study entry to study exit. These findings may be explained by the major restructuring of the health and social care system that took place during the 2 years of the study, leading to rapid staff turnover and organisational disturbance in home care teams. Future research should give more attention to contextual factors and design implementation interventions to withstand the disruption of system- and organisational-level disturbances. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02244359). Registered on September 19th, 2014.

Project description:BackgroundDecision Boxes are summaries of the most important benefits and harms of health interventions provided to clinicians before they meet the patient, to prepare them to help patients make informed and value-based decisions. Our objective is to explore the barriers and facilitators to using Decision Boxes in clinical practice, more precisely factors stemming from (1) the Decision Boxes themselves, (2) the primary healthcare team (PHT), and (3) the primary care practice environment.Methods/designA two-phase mixed methods study will be conducted. Eight Decision Boxes relevant to primary care, and written in both English and in French, will be hosted on a website together with a tutorial to introduce the Decision Box. The Decision Boxes will be delivered as weekly emails over a span of eight weeks to clinicians of PHTs (family physicians, residents and nurses) in five primary care clinics located across two Canadian provinces. Using a web-questionnaire, clinicians will rate each Decision Box with the Information Assessment Method (cognitive impacts, relevance, usefulness, expected benefits) and with a questionnaire based on the Theory of Planned Behavior to study the determinants of clinicians' intention to use what they learned from that Decision Box in their patient encounter (attitude, social norm, perceived behavioral control). Web-log data will be used to monitor clinicians' access to the website. Following the 8-week intervention, we will conduct semi-structured group interviews with clinicians and individual interviews with clinic administrators to explore contextual factors influencing the use of the Decision Boxes. Data collected from questionnaires, focus groups and individual interviews will be combined to identify factors potentially influencing implementation of Decision Boxes in clinical practice by clinicians of PHTs.ConclusionsThis project will allow tailoring of Decision Boxes and their delivery to overcome the specific barriers identified by clinicians of PHTs to improve the implementation of shared decision making in this setting.

Dataset Information

Implementing shared decision-making in interprofessional home care teams (the IPSDM-SW study): protocol for a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial.

Publications

Implementing shared decision-making in interprofessional home care teams (the IPSDM-SW study): protocol for a stepped wedge cluster randomised trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets