Dataset Information

The Learning Curve for Shared Decision-making in Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Shared decision-making (SDM) is widely advocated for patients with valvular heart disease yet is not integrated into the heart team model for patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis. Decision aids (DAs) have been shown to improve patient-centered outcomes and may facilitate SDM.

Objective

To determine whether the repeated use of a DA by heart teams is associated with greater SDM, along with improved patient-centered outcomes and clinician attitudes about DAs.

Design, setting, and participants

This mixed-methods study included a nonrandomized pre-post intervention and clinician interviews. It was conducted between April 30, 2015, and December 7, 2017, with quantitative analysis performed between January 12, 2017, and May 26, 2017, within 2 academic medical centers in northern New England among 35 patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis who were at high to prohibitive risk for surgery. The qualitative analysis was performed between August 6, 2018, and May 7, 2019. The Severe Aortic Stenosis Decision Aid was delivered by 6 clinicians, with patients choosing between transcatheter aortic valve replacement and medical management.

Main outcomes and measures

Clinician SDM performance was measured using the Observer OPTION5 scale with dual-independent coding of audiotaped clinic visits. Previsit and postvisit surveys measured the patient's knowledge, satisfaction, and decisional conflict. Audiotaped clinician interviews were coded, and qualitative thematic analysis was performed.

Results

Six male clinicians and 35 patients (19 of 34 women [55.9%; 1 survey was missing]; mean [SD] age, 85.8 [7.8] years) participated in the study. Shared decision-making increased stepwise with repeated use of the DA (mean [SD] Observer OPTION5 scores: usual care, 17.9 [7.6]; first use of a DA, 60.5 [30.9]; fifth use of a DA, 79.0 [8.4]; P?Conclusion and relevanceIn a mixed-methods pilot study, use of a DA for severe aortic stenosis by heart team clinicians was associated with improved SDM and patient-centered outcomes. However, in qualitative interviews, heart team clinicians did not perceive a significant benefit of the DA, and therefore sustained implementation is unlikely. This pilot study of SDM clarifies new research directions for heart teams.

SUBMITTER: Coylewright M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7160688 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Learning Curve for Shared Decision-making in Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis.

Coylewright Megan M O'Neill Elizabeth E Sherman Ariel A Gerling Megan M Adam Kaavya K Xu Keren K Grande Stuart W SW Dauerman Harold L HL Dodge Shayne E SE Sobti Navjot Kaur NK Saunders Catherine H CH Schott Stacey L SL Elwyn Glyn G Durand Marie-Anne MA

JAMA cardiology 20200401 4

<h4>Importance</h4>Shared decision-making (SDM) is widely advocated for patients with valvular heart disease yet is not integrated into the heart team model for patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis. Decision aids (DAs) have been shown to improve patient-centered outcomes and may facilitate SDM.<h4>Objective</h4>To determine whether the repeated use of a DA by heart teams is associated with greater SDM, along with improved patient-centered outcomes and clinician attitudes about DAs.<h4>Desig ...[more]

PMID: 31995126

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGuidelines recommend including the patient's values and preferences when choosing treatment for severe aortic stenosis (sAS). However, little is known about what matters most to patients as they develop treatment preferences. Our objective was to identify, prioritize, and organize patient-reported goals and features of treatment for sAS.MethodsThis multi-center mixed-methods study conducted structured focus groups using the nominal group technique to identify patients' most important treatment goals and features. Patients separately rated and grouped those items using card sorting techniques. Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analyses generated a cognitive map and clusters.Results51 adults with sAS and 3 caregivers with experience choosing treatment (age 36-92 years) were included. Participants were referred from multiple health centers across the U.S. and online. Eight nominal group meetings generated 32 unique treatment goals and 46 treatment features, which were grouped into 10 clusters of goals and 11 clusters of features. The most important clusters were: 1) trust in the healthcare team, 2) having good information about options, and 3) long-term outlook. Other clusters addressed the need for and urgency of treatment, being independent and active, overall health, quality of life, family and friends, recovery, homecare, and the process of decision-making.ConclusionsThese patient-reported items addressed the impact of the treatment decision on the lives of patients and their families from the time of decision-making through recovery, homecare, and beyond. Many attributes had not been previously reported for sAS. The goals and features that patients' value, and the relative importance that they attach to them, differ from those reported in clinical trials and vary substantially from one individual to another. These findings are being used to design a shared decision-making tool to help patients and their clinicians choose a treatment that aligns with the patients' priorities.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, Trial ID: NCT04755426, Trial URL https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04755426.

Project description:Background: Despite clear indications for intervention, therapeutic decision-making for elderly patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis (AS) remains a complex issue due to the wide variation in individual risk profiles and the involvement of patients' subjective preferences. We aimed to investigate the reasons leading to the decisions against intervention and the consequences thereof on survival. Methods: Data were derived from the China Elderly Valve Disease (China-DVD) Cohort Study on patients aged ≥60-year-old with severe symptomatic AS consecutively enrolled between September to December 2016. Patients were analyzed according to the initial therapeutic decisions made by consensus between patients and physicians at the time of the index evaluation: intervention group (patients who were evaluated as suitable for intervention and accepted the treatment proposal); patient-refusal group (patients who were evaluated as suitable for intervention but refused due to subjective preferences); physician-deny group (patients who were denied intervention by physicians after evaluation). The least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO)-penalized logistic regression model was used to identify the factors associated with physicians' decisions against intervention. Twelve-month survival was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards models, with multivariate adjustment using inverse probability weighting (IPW). Results: Among the enrolled 456 elderly patients with severe symptomatic AS, 52 (11.4%) patients refused intervention and 49 (10.7%) patients were denied intervention by their physicians. LASSO-penalized logistic regression model identified that reduced left ventricular ejection fraction and increased EuroSCORE-II were strongly associated with physicians' decisions against intervention. At 12-month follow-up, only 8 (15.4%) patients who initially refused the intervention proposal underwent the subsequent intervention, with an average delay of 195 days. Patients' initial decisions against intervention were significantly associated with 12-month mortality, even after IPW adjustment (Hazard ratio: 2.61; 95% confidence interval: 1.09-6.20; P = 0.031). Conclusions: The decision against intervention was taken in about one-fifth of elderly patients with symptomatic severe AS, half of which were due to patients' subjective preferences. Surgical risk remains the primary concern for physicians when making therapeutic decisions. Elderly patients' initial decisions against intervention have a profound impact on subsequent intervention rates and prognosis, and therefore should be treated as a "risk factor" at the subjective level. Clinical Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02865798, China elDerly Valve Disease (China-DVD) cohort study (NCT02865798).

Project description:BackgroundMultiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic autoimmune inflammatory, demyelinating, and neurodegenerative disease affecting young adults. People with MS are highly interested in engaging in physical symptom management and decision-making but are often not actively engaged in symptom management discussions. Research examining the benefit of shared decision-making in the management of physical MS symptoms is sparse.ObjectivesThis study aimed to identify and synthesize the evidence on the use of shared decision-making in physical MS symptom management.DesignThis study is a systematic review of published evidence on the use of shared decision-making in physical MS symptom management.Data sources and methodsMEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, and CENTRAL databases were searched in April 2021, June 2022, and April 2, 2023, for primary, peer-reviewed studies of shared decision-making in the management of MS physical symptoms. Citations were screened, data extracted, and study quality assessed according to Cochrane guidelines for systematic reviews, including risk of bias assessment. Statistical synthesis of the included study results was not appropriate; results were summarized in a nonstatistical manner using the vote-counting method to estimate beneficial versus harmful effects.ResultsOf 679 citations, 15 studies met the inclusion criteria. Six studies addressed shared decision-making in the management of pain, spasms, neurogenic bladder, fatigue, gait disorder, and/or balance issues, and nine studies addressed physical symptoms in general. One study was a randomized controlled trial; most studies were observational studies. All study results and study author conclusions indicated that shared decision-making is important to the effective management of physical MS symptoms. No study results suggested that shared decision-making was harmful or delayed the management of physical MS symptoms.ConclusionReported results consistently indicate that shared decision-making is important in effective MS symptomatic care. Further rigorous randomized controlled trials are warranted to investigate the effectiveness of shared decision-making associated with MS physical symptomatic care.RegistrationPROSPERO: CRD42023396270.

Project description:BackgroundShared decision-making (SDM) is widely recommended and required by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid for patients considering lung cancer screening (LCS).ObjectiveWe examined clinicians' communication practices and perceived barriers of SDM for LCS at three medical centers with established screening programs.DesignMulticenter qualitative study of clinicians participating in LCS.ApproachWe performed semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed and analyzed using directed content analysis, guided by a theoretical model of patient-clinician communication.ParticipantsWe interviewed 24 clinicians including LCS coordinators (2), pulmonologists (3), and primary care providers (17), 4 of whom worked for the LCS program, a thoracic surgeon, and a radiologist.ResultsAll clinicians agreed with the goal of SDM, to ensure the screening decision was congruent with the patient's values. The depth and type of information presented by each clinician role varied considerably. LCS coordinators presented detailed information including numeric estimates of benefit and harm. Most PCPs explained the process more generally, focusing on logistics and the high rate of nodule detection. No clinician explicitly elicited values or communication preferences. Many PCPs tailored the conversation based on their implicit understanding of patients' values and preferences, gained from past experiences. PCPs reported that time, lack of detailed personal knowledge of LCS, and patient preferences were barriers to SDM. Many clinicians perceived that a significant proportion of patients were not interested in specific percentages and preferred to receive a clinician recommendation.ConclusionsOur results suggest that clinicians support the goal of SDM for LCS decisions but PCPs may not perform some of its elements. The lack of completion of some elements, such as PCPs' lack of in-depth information exchange, may reflect perceived patient preferences for communication. As LCS is implemented, further research is needed to support a personalized, patient-centered approach to produce better outcomes.

Dataset Information

The Learning Curve for Shared Decision-making in Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis.

Importance

Objective

Design, setting, and participants

Main outcomes and measures

Results

Publications

The Learning Curve for Shared Decision-making in Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets