Dataset Information

Patient and physician perspectives on shared decision-making for coronary procedures in people with chronic kidney disease: a patient-oriented qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and heart disease face challenging treatment decisions. We sought to explore the perceptions of patients and physicians about shared decision-making for coronary procedures for people with CKD, as well as opinions about strategies and tools to improve these decisions.

Methods

We partnered with 4 patients with CKD and 1 caregiver to design and conduct a qualitative descriptive study using semi-structured interviews and content analysis. Patient participants with CKD and either acute coronary syndrome or cardiac catheterization in the preceding year were recruited from a provincial cardiac registry, cardiology wards and clinics in Calgary between March and September 2018. Cardiologists from the region also participated in the study. Data analysis emphasized identifying, organizing and describing themes found within the data.

Results

Twenty patients with CKD and 10 cardiologists identified several complexities related to bidirectional information exchange needed for shared decision-making. Themes identified by both patients and physicians included challenges synthesizing best evidence, variable patient knowledge seeking, timeliness in the acute care setting and influence of roles on decision-making. Themes identified by physicians related to processes and tools to help support shared decision-making in this setting included personalization to reflect the variability of risks and heterogeneity of patient preferences as well as allowing for physicians to share their clinical judgment.

Interpretation

There are complexities related to bidirectional information exchange between patients with CKD and their physicians for shared decision-making about coronary procedures. Processes and tools to facilitate shared decision-making in this setting require personalization and need to be time sensitive.

SUBMITTER: Finlay J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7867031 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient and physician perspectives on shared decision-making for coronary procedures in people with chronic kidney disease: a patient-oriented qualitative study.

Finlay Juli J Wilson Todd T Javaheri Pantea Amin PA Pearson Winnie W Connolly Carol C Elliott Meghan J MJ Graham Michelle M MM Norris Colleen M CM Wilton Stephen B SB James Matthew T MT

CMAJ open 20201001 4

<h4>Background</h4>Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and heart disease face challenging treatment decisions. We sought to explore the perceptions of patients and physicians about shared decision-making for coronary procedures for people with CKD, as well as opinions about strategies and tools to improve these decisions.<h4>Methods</h4>We partnered with 4 patients with CKD and 1 caregiver to design and conduct a qualitative descriptive study using semi-structured interviews and content a ...[more]

PMID: 33303572

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Guidelines recommend, and Medicare requires, shared decision-making between patients and clinicians before referring individuals at high risk of lung cancer for chest CT screening. However, little is known about the extent to which shared decision-making about lung cancer screening is achieved in real-world settings. OBJECTIVE:To characterize patient and clinician impressions of early experiences with communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening and perceived barriers to achieving shared decision-making. DESIGN:Qualitative study entailing semi-structured interviews and focus groups. PARTICIPANTS:We enrolled 36 clinicians who refer patients for lung cancer screening and 49 patients who had undergone lung cancer screening in the prior year. Participants were recruited from lung cancer screening programs at four hospitals (three Veterans Health Administration, one urban safety net). APPROACH:Using content analysis, we analyzed transcripts to characterize communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening. Our analysis focused on the recommended components of shared decision-making (information sharing, deliberation, and decision aid use) and barriers to achieving shared decision-making. KEY RESULTS:Clinicians varied in the information shared with patients, and did not consistently incorporate decision aids. Clinicians believed they explained the rationale and gave some (often purposely limited) information about the trade-offs of lung cancer screening. By contrast, some patients reported receiving little information about screening or its trade-offs and did not realize the CT was intended as a screening test for lung cancer. Clinicians and patients alike did not perceive that significant deliberation typically occurred. Clinicians perceived insufficient time, competing priorities, difficulty accessing decision aids, limited patient comprehension, and anticipated patient emotions as barriers to realizing shared decision-making. CONCLUSIONS:Due to multiple perceived barriers, patient-clinician conversations about lung cancer screening may fall short of guideline-recommended shared decision-making supported by a decision aid. Consequently, patients may be left uncertain about lung cancer screening's rationale, trade-offs, and process.

Project description:BackgroundFollowing passage of the Patient Self Determination Act in 1990, health care institutions that receive Medicare and Medicaid funding are required to inform patients of their right to make their health care preferences known through execution of a living will and/or to appoint a surrogate-decision maker. We evaluated the impact of external factors and perceived patient preferences on physicians' decisions to honor or forgo previously established advance directives (ADs). In addition, physician views regarding legal risk, patients' ability to comprehend complexities involved with their care, and impact of medical costs related to end-of-life care decisions were explored.MethodsAttendees of two Mayo Clinic continuing medical education courses were surveyed. Three scenarios based in part on previously court-litigated matters assessed impact of external factors and perceived patient preferences on physician compliance with patient-articulated wishes regarding resuscitation. General questions measured respondents' perception of legal risk, concerns over patient knowledge of idiosyncrasies involved with their care, and impact medical costs may have on compliance with patient preferences. Responses indicating strength of agreement or disagreement with statements were treated as ordinal data and analyzed using the Cochran Armitage trend test.ResultsThree hundred eighty-eight of 951 surveys were completed (41% response rate). Eighty percent reported they were likely to honor a patient's AD despite its 5 year age. Fewer than half (41%) would honor the AD of a patient in ventricular fibrillation who had expressed a desire to "pass away in peace." Few (17%) would forgo an AD following a family's request for continued resuscitative treatment. A majority (52%) considered risk of liability to be lower when maintaining someone alive against their wishes than mistakenly failing to provide resuscitative efforts. A large percentage (74%) disagreed that patients could not appreciate complexities surrounding their care while 69% agreed that costs should never impact a physician's decision as to whether to comply with a patient's AD.ConclusionsOur findings highlight the impact, albeit small, external factors have on physician AD compliance. Most respondents based their decision on the clinical situation at hand and interpretation of the patient's initial wishes and preferences expressed by the AD.

Project description:BackgroundWork participation is an important determinant of public health; being unemployed leads to a decrease in an individual's health. In the Netherlands, people with a work disability can apply for disability benefits, in which people also receive support to return to work (RTW). A method, currently used in the medical sector, that can include both the perspective of the reintegration professional and of the individual in the process of RTW, is shared decision making (SDM). In this article we explore to what extent reintegration professionals currently use SDM, and to what extent they prefer to use SDM in their ideal interaction with clients.MethodsWe performed semi-structured interviews with fourteen reintegration professionals from four different municipalities. The transcripts were coded according to content analysis, applying open and axial coding.ResultsReintegration professionals emphasised the importance of having a good relationship with clients, of building trust and collaborating as a team. They did not inform their clients that they could be part of the decision-making process, or discussed a shared goal. Although professionals did emphasise the importance of aligning their approach with the preferences of the client and though they tried to offer some choice options, they did not mention available options, discussed the pros and cons of these options or evaluated decisions with their clients. Furthermore, they did not mention any of these aspects in their ideal interaction with clients.ConclusionsSDM has a potential value, because all professionals underline the importance of having an alliance with clients, collaborating as a team, and striving to align their approach with the preferences of the client. However, professionals currently perform a limited set of SDM steps. Additional knowledge and skills are needed for both reintegration professionals and municipalities so that professionals can consider and reflect on the value of using SDM, or SDM steps, in supporting RTW. Providing clients with knowledge and skills seems necessary to facilitate both self-management and SDM.

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.

Project description:IntroductionRegular physical activity (PA) is recommended by all type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) management guidelines. The OPADIA study aimed to determine whether using a specific patient questionnaire (Optima-PA©) could help T2DM patients increase their PA by leading to better physician-patient communication and improved levels of shared decision making concerning Specific, Measurable, Acceptable, Realistic, Timely (SMART)-PA micro-objectives.MethodsPhysicians participating in this multicentre, prospective, randomised, real-life study were allocated to a standard group (T2DM patients managed according to usual clinical practice, n = 24) or the OPTIMA-PA group (additional use of the questionnaire, n = 30). The main outcome was the percentage of inclusion visits ending with the setting up of at least one SMART-PA micro-objective. Other outcomes were the impact of the OPTIMA-PA questionnaire on patient perceptions of shared decision making (ENTRED questionnaire) and the impact of the OPTIMA-PA questionnaire and establishing SMART-PA micro-objectives as well as patient-perceived physician empathy (ENTRED questionnaire) and GP aptitude for patient-centredness (SEPCQ scores) on patient PA levels over a 3-month period (IPAQ-SF scores).ResultsOne hundred twenty-two patients were included in the standard group and 134 in the OPTIMA-PA group. Unexpectedly, more inclusion visits ended with SMART-PA micro-objectives being set up in the standard group (p < 0.001): 81.1% (n = 99/122) versus 59.7% (n = 80/134). However, fewer patients in the OPTIMA-PA group felt that GPs made decisions alone (32% versus 60%; p < 0.0001). Positive correlations were also observed between GP patient-centredness and patient-perceived GP empathy or increased patient PA over the study period.ConclusionAlthough the OPTIMA-PA questionnaire did not directly promote setting up of SMART-PA micro-objectives in T2DM patients, the OPADIA study demonstrated that this tool was effective at improving patient-physician relationships by increasing patient involvement in therapeutic decision making. Our study also highlighted the importance of GP aptitude for patient-centredness for improving PA in T2DM patients.

Dataset Information

Patient and physician perspectives on shared decision-making for coronary procedures in people with chronic kidney disease: a patient-oriented qualitative study.

Background

Methods

Results

Interpretation

Publications

Patient and physician perspectives on shared decision-making for coronary procedures in people with chronic kidney disease: a patient-oriented qualitative study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets