Dataset Information

Assessing the quality of shared decision making for elective orthopedic surgery across a large healthcare system: cross-sectional survey study

ABSTRACT:

Background

Clinical guidelines recommend engaging patients in shared decision making for common orthopedic procedures; however, limited work has assessed what is occurring in practice. This study assessed the quality of shared decision making for elective hip and knee replacement and spine surgery at four network-affiliated hospitals.

Methods

A cross-sectional sample of 875 adult patients undergoing total hip or knee joint replacement (TJR) for osteoarthritis or spine surgery for lumbar herniated disc or lumbar spinal stenosis was selected. Patients were mailed a survey including measures of Shared Decision Making (SDMP scale) and Informed, Patient-Centered (IPC) decisions. We examined decision-making across sites, surgeons, and conditions, and whether the decision-making measures were associated with better health outcomes. Analyses were adjusted for clustering of patients within surgeons.

Results

Six hundred forty-six surveys (74% response rate) were returned with sufficient responses for analysis. Patients who had TJR reported lower SDMP scores than patients who had spine surgery (2.2 vs. 2.8; p < 0.001). Patients who had TJR were more likely to make IPC decisions (OA = 70%, Spine = 41%; p < 0.001). SDMP and IPC scores varied widely across surgeons, but the site was not predictive of SDMP scores or IPC decisions (all p > 0.09). Higher SDMP scores and IPC decisions were associated with larger improvements in global health outcomes for patients who had TJR, but not patients who had spine surgery.

Conclusions

Measures of shared decision making and decision quality varied among patients undergoing common elective orthopedic procedures. Routine measurement of shared decision making provides insight into areas of strength across these different orthopedic conditions as well as areas in need of improvement.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12891-021-04853-x.

SUBMITTER: Valentine K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8605511 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Purpose We examined whether an educational, shared-decision-making tool designed to empower patients, individualize pain management, and maximize use of nonopioid, over-the-counter analgesics reduces opioid use and waste while maintaining adequate pain relief. Methods We developed an educational, shared-decision-making tool regarding postoperative pain medication for outpatient hand surgery. Patients randomized to groups with and without the tool were surveyed for 4 weeks after surgery. Survey variables included Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System pain intensity and pain interference scores, as well as the number of oxycodone or over-the-counter pills taken. Results were compared using chi-squared, Wilcoxon rank-sum, and Welch’s t tests. Results Fifty-three patients participated: 25 in the shared-tool group and 28 in the no-tool group. The mean age was 60 years, with more women in the no-tool group than the shared-tool group (n =17 versus 11, respectively). The shared-tool group averaged 6.4 prescribed oxycodone pills, versus 10 for the no-tool group (P < .01). The median numbers of oxycodone pills taken the first week after surgery were 2 (interquartile range, 6) for the shared-tool group and 3 (interquartile range, 6) for the no-tool group (P = .97). Patient-reported outcome measures for pain intensity and pain interference were not significantly different for weeks 1, 3, and 4 after surgery. Pain interference was significantly lower in week 2 in the shared-tool group (difference, −4.4; 95% confidence interval, −8.57 to −0.30; P = .04). Conclusions The shared-tool group had equivalent or better pain control and were prescribed a lower number of opioid pain pills than the no-tool group. Both groups used nonopioid medications, with no difference in the types of over-the-counter medications used. Shared decision-making strategies could be applied to other outpatient orthopedic surgical settings, and may reduce the amount of opioids prescribed without compromising pain control. Type of study/level of evidence Therapeutic II.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough research findings consistently find poor communication about medical procedures to be a key predictor of patient complaints, compensation claims, and malpractice lawsuits ("complaints"), there is insufficient evidence to determine if greater patient involvement could actually affect the inclination to complain.ObjectivesWe conducted an experimental case vignette survey that explores whether greater patient involvement in decision-making is likely to influence the intention to complain given different decisions and consequences.MethodsRandomized, national case vignette survey with various levels of patient involvement, decisions, and outcomes in a representative Danish sample of men. We used prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening in men aged 45 to 70 years as the intervention illustrated in 30 different versions of a mock clinical encounter. Versions differed in the amount of patient involvement, the decision made (PSA test or no PSA test), and the clinical outcomes (no cancer detected, detection of treatable cancer, and detection of non-treatable cancer). We measured respondents' inclination to complain about care in response to the scenarios on a 5-point Likert scale (from 1: very unlikely to 5: very likely).ResultsThe response rate was 30% (6,756 of 22,288). Across all scenarios, the likelihood of complaint increased if the clinical outcome was poor (untreatable cancer). Compared with scenarios that involved shared decision-making (SDM), neutral information, or nudging in favor of screening, the urge to complain increased if the patient was excluded from decision-making or if the doctor had nudged the patient to decline screening (mean Likert differences .12 to .16, p < .001). With neutral involvement or nudging in favor of intervention, the desire to complain depended highly on the decision reached and on the patient's course. This dependence was smaller with SDM.ConclusionsGreater patient involvement in decision-making appears to be associated with less intention to complain about health care, with SDM resulting in the greatest reduction in complaint likelihood.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Waiting times for elective treatments, including elective surgery, are a source of public concern and therefore are on policy makers' agenda. The long waiting times have often been tackled through the allocation of additional resources, in an attempt to reduce them, but results are not straightforward. At the same time, researchers have reported wide geographical variations in the provision of elective care not driven by patient needs or preferences but by other factors. The paper analyses the relationship between waiting times and treatment rates for nine high-volume elective surgical procedures in order to support decision making regarding the availability of these services for the citizens. Using the framework already proposed for the diagnostic services, we identify different patterns that can be followed to align the supply with patient needs in the Italian context. METHODS:After measuring the waiting times and the treatment rates for nine procedures in the 34 districts in Tuscany, we performed correlation analyses. Then, we plotted the results in a matrix cross-checking waiting times and rates. By doing so, we identified four different contexts that require a second step analysis to tackle unwarranted geographical variations and ensure timely care to patients. Finally, for each district and elective surgical procedure, we measured the economic impact of the different treatment rates in order to evaluate whether there are any supply criticalities and eventually some room for maneuver. We also included active and passive mobility of patients. RESULTS:The results show a high degree of variation both in treatment rates and waiting times, especially for the orthopaedic procedures: knee replacement, knee arthroscopy and hip replacement. The analysis performed for the nine interventions shows that the 34 districts are in varying positions in the waiting time-treatment rate matrix, suggesting that there is no straightforward relationship between rates and waiting times. Each combination in the matrix may have different determinants that require healthcare managers to adopt diversified strategies. The decision making process needs to be supported by a two-level analysis: the first one to put in place the matrix that cross-checks waiting times and treatment rates, the second one to analyse the characteristics of each quadrant and the improvement actions that can be proposed. CONCLUSIONS:In Italy, waiting times in elective surgical services are a main policy issue with a relevant geographical variation. Our analysis reveals that this variation is due to multiple elements. In order to avoid simplistic approaches that do not solve the problem but often lead to increased expenditure, policy makers and healthcare managers should follow a two-step strategy firstly identifying the type of context and secondly analysing the impact of elements such as resource productivity, resource availability, patients' preferences and care appropriateness. Only in some cases it is required to increase the service supply.

Project description:IntroductionShared decision making (SDM) has been advocated as a key component of person-centred care and recovery from mental illness. Although the principles of SDM have been well documented, there is a lack of guidance about how to accomplish SDM in mental healthcare. The objective of the present protocol is to describe the methods for an umbrella review to determine the effectiveness elements of SDM interventions for persons diagnosed with a mental illness. An umbrella review's key characteristic is that it only considers for inclusion the highest level of evidence, namely other systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Methods and analysisElectronic searches will be performed in CINAHL, PubMed, Scopus, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus and Ovid PsycINFO. Based on Joanna Briggs Institute recommended guidelines, review articles will be included if they were published between 2010 and 2021. This approach will help identify current and emerging evidence-based treatment options in mental illness. Included articles will be assessed for quality using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 tool and ratings of the quality of evidence in each review. Presentation of results will align with guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 statement. Findings will be stratified by mode of intervention and implementation characteristics and will inform development of SDM taxonomy in mental healthcare.Ethics and disseminationThis umbrella review will focus on the analysis of secondary data and does not require ethics approval. Findings will be disseminated widely to clinicians, researchers and services users via journal publication, conference presentations and social media. The results will contribute to the conceptualisation and understanding of effective SDM interventions in mental healthcare and to improving the quality of SDM for individuals with a mental illness.Prospero registration numberCRD42020190700.