Do consultants do what they say they do? Observational study of the extent to which clinicians involve their patients in the decision-making process.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
To assess whether consultants do what they say they do in reaching decisions with their patients.Design
Cross-sectional analysis of hospital outpatient encounters, comparing consultants' self-reported usual decision-making style to their actual observed decision-making behaviour in video-recorded encounters.Setting
Large secondary care teaching hospital in the Netherlands.Participants
41 consultants from 18 disciplines and 781 patients.Primary and secondary outcome measure
With the Control Preference Scale, the self-reported usual decision-making style was assessed (paternalistic, informative or shared decision making). Two independent raters assessed decision-making behaviour for each decision using the Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION)5 instrument ranging from 0 (no shared decision making (SDM)) to 100 (optimal SDM).Results
Consultants reported their usual decision-making style as informative (n=11), shared (n=16) and paternalistic (n=14). Overall, patient involvement was low, with mean (SD) OPTION5 scores of 16.8 (17.1). In an unadjusted multilevel analysis, the reported usual decision-making style was not related to the OPTION5 score (p>0.156). After adjusting for patient, consultant and consultation characteristics, higher OPTION5 scores were only significantly related to the category of decisions (treatment vs the other categories) and to longer consultation duration (p<0.001).Conclusions
The limited patient involvement that we observed was not associated with the consultants' self-reported usual decision-making style. Consultants appear to be unconsciously incompetent in shared decision making. This can hinder the transfer of this crucial communication skill to students and junior doctors.
SUBMITTER: Driever EM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8734018 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe occurrence of shared decision making (SDM) in daily practice remains limited. Various patient characteristics have been suggested to potentially influence the extent to which clinicians involve patients in SDM.ObjectiveTo assess associations between patient characteristics and the extent to which clinicians involve patients in SDM.MethodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of data pooled from 10 studies comparing the care of adult patients with (intervention) or without (control) a within-encounter SDM conversation tool. We included studies with audio(-visual) recordings of clinical encounters in which decisions about starting or reconsidering treatment were discussed.Main measuresIn the original studies, the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making 12-items (OPTION12 item) scale was used to code the extent to which clinicians involved patients in SDM in clinical encounters. We conducted multivariable analyses with patient characteristics (age, gender, race, education, marital status, number of daily medications, general health status, health literacy) as independent variables and OPTION12 as a dependent variable.ResultsWe included data from 1,614 patients. The between-arm difference in OPTION12 scores was 7.7 of 100 points (P < 0.001). We found no association between any patient characteristics and the OPTION12 score except for education level (p = 0.030), an association that was very small (2.8 points between the least and most educated), contributed mostly by, and only significant in, control arms (6.5 points). Subanalyses of a stroke prevention trial showed a positive association between age and OPTION12 score (P = 0.033).ConclusionsMost characteristics showed no association with the extent to which clinicians involved patients in SDM. Without an SDM conversation tool, clinicians devoted more efforts to involve patients with higher education, a difference not observed when the tool was used.HighlightsMost sociodemographic patient characteristics show no association with the extent to which clinicians involve patients in shared decision making.Clinicians devoted less effort to involve patients with lower education, a difference that was not observed when a shared decision-making conversation tool was used.SDM conversation tools can be useful for clinicians to better involve patients and ensure patients get involved equally regardless of educational background.
| S-EPMC10988989 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe decision whether to initiate intensive care for the critically ill patient involves ethical questions regarding what is good and right for the patient. It is not clear how referring doctors negotiate these issues in practice. The aim of this study was to describe and understand consultants' experiences of the decision-making process around referral to intensive care.DesignQualitative interviews were analysed according to a phenomenological hermeneutical method.Setting and participantsConsultant doctors (n=27) from departments regularly referring patients to intensive care in six UK hospitals.ResultsIn the precarious and uncertain situation of critical illness, trust in the decision-making process is needed and can be enhanced through the way in which the process unfolds. When there are no obvious right or wrong answers as to what ought to be done, how the decision is made and how the process unfolds is morally important. Through acknowledging the burdensome doubts in the process, contributing to an emerging, joint understanding of the patient's situation, and responding to mutual moral duties of the doctors involved, trust in the decision-making process can be enhanced and a shared moral responsibility between the stake holding doctors can be assumed.ConclusionThe findings highlight the importance of trust in the decision-making process and how the relationships between the stakeholding doctors are crucial to support their moral responsibility for the patient. Poor interpersonal relationships can damage trust and negatively impact decisions made on behalf of a critically ill patient. For this reason, active attempts must be made to foster good relationships between doctors. This is not only important to create a positive working environment, but a mechanism to improve patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC7993217 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A growing number of elderly patients with end-stage renal disease start dialysis. We examined elderly (?65 years) patients' views about their decision-making experience after starting dialysis in comparison with patients aged 50-64 years, and patients ?49 years.Ninety-nine patients from 15 outpatient dialysis centers in North Carolina, USA completed a semi-structured interview asking them about the context of decision-making and their decision-making experience, and a 10-item investigator-developed Informed Decision-Making (IDM) questionnaire with binary response options (yes/no).While IDM scores were low for all three groups (<5 out of 10), they were significantly lower for the older group compared to the other two younger groups (p = 0.02). A significantly lower percentage of the older group said that the doctor explained underlying conditions that led to kidney failure (p = 0.04), the impact of dialysis on daily life (p = 0.04), and the life-long need for dialysis (p < 0.01), and that the doctor tried to make sure the patient understood the information (p = 0.01). Also a significantly higher percentage of elderly patients felt the decision was made by the doctor rather than on their own or with their family, or collaboratively with the doctor (p = 0.04).Informed decision-making is significantly poorer in patients aged 65 years or older than in younger patients. Clinicians should communicate clearly about the benefits and burdens of dialysis to older adults and provide an opportunity for them to understand the significant trade-offs that dialysis may require.
| S-EPMC4130809 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe quality of decision-making in multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) depends on the quality of information presented and the quality of team processes. Few studies have examined these factors using a standardized approach. The aim of this study was to objectively document the processes involved in decision-making in MDTMs, document the outcomes in terms of whether a treatment recommendation was given (none vs. singular vs. multiple), and to identify factors related to type of treatment recommendation.MethodsAn adaptation of the observer rating scale Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Metric for the Observation of Decision-Making (MDT-MODe) was used to assess the quality of the presented information and team processes in MDTMs. Data was analyzed using descriptive statistics and mixed logistic regression analysis.ResultsN?=?249 cases were observed in N?=?29 MDTMs. While cancer-specific medical information was judged to be of high quality, psychosocial information and information regarding patient views were considered to be of low quality. In 25% of the cases no, in 64% one, and in 10% more than one treatment recommendations were given (1% missing data). Giving no treatment recommendation was associated with duration of case discussion, duration of the MDTM session, quality of case history, quality of radiological information, and specialization of the MDTM. Higher levels of medical and treatment uncertainty during discussions were found to be associated with a higher probability for more than one treatment recommendation.ConclusionsThe quality of different aspects of information was observed to differ greatly. In general, we did not find MDTMs to be in line with the principles of patient-centered care. Recommendation outcome varied substantially between different specializations of MDTMs. The quality of certain information was associated with the recommendation outcome. Uncertainty during discussions was related to more than one recommendation being considered. Time constraints were found to play an important role. Some of those aspects seem modifiable, which offers possibilities for the reorganization of MDTMs.
| S-EPMC5693525 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Shared decision making (SDM) and decision aids (DAs) increase patients' involvement in health care decisions and enhance satisfaction with their choices. Studies of SDM and DAs have primarily occurred in academic centers and large health systems, but most primary care is delivered in smaller practices, and over 20% of Americans live in rural areas, where poverty, disease prevalence, and limited access to care may increase the need for SDM and DAs.To explore perceptions and practices of rural primary care clinicians regarding SDM and DAs.Cross-sectional survey. Setting and Participants Primary care clinicians affiliated with the Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network.Surveys were returned by 181 of 231 eligible participants (78%); 174 could be analyzed. Two-thirds of participants were physicians, 84% practiced family medicine, and 55% were male. Sixty-five percent of respondents were unfamiliar with the term shared decision making, but following definition, 97% reported that they found the approach useful for conditions with multiple treatment options. Over 90% of clinicians perceived helping patients make decisions regarding chronic pain and health behavior change as moderate/hard in difficulty. Although 69% of respondents preferred that patients play an equal role in making decisions, they estimate that this happens only 35% of the time. Time was reported as the largest barrier to engaging in SDM (63%). Respondents were receptive to using DAs to facilitate SDM in print- (95%) or web-based formats (72%), and topic preference varied by clinician specialty and decision difficulty.Rural clinicians recognized the value of SDM and were receptive to using DAs in multiple formats. Integration of DAs to facilitate SDM in routine patient care may require addressing practice operation and reimbursement.
| S-EPMC3665512 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMany decisions around vascular access for haemodialysis warrant a collaborative treatment decision-making process, involving both clinician and patient. Yet, patients' experiences in this regard have been suboptimal. Although clinical practice guidelines could facilitate collaborative decision making, they often focus on the clinicians' side of the process, while failing to address the patients' perspective. The objective of this study was to explore and compare kidney patients' and clinicians' views on what vascular access-related decisions deserved priority for developing guidelines that will contribute to optimizing collaborative decision making.MethodsIn the context of updating their vascular access guideline, European Renal Best Practice surveyed an international panel of 85 kidney patients, 687 nephrologists, 194 nurses, and 140 surgeons/radiologists. In an electronic questionnaire, respondents rated 42 vascular access-related topics on a 5-point Likert scale. Based on mean standardized ratings, we compared priority ratings between patients and each clinician group.ResultsSelection of access type and site, as well as prevention of access infections received top priority across all respondent groups. Patients generally assigned higher priority to decisions regarding managing adverse effects of arteriovenous access and patient involvement in care, while clinicians more often prioritized decisions around sustaining patients' access options, technical aspects of access creation, and optimizing fistula maturation and patency.ConclusionApart from identifying the most pressing knowledge gaps, our study provides pointers for developing guidelines that may improve healthcare professionals' understanding of when to involve patients along the vascular access pathway.
| S-EPMC4494812 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background. Although effective interventions for shared decision making (SDM) exist, there is a lack of uptake of these tools into clinical practice. "Nudges," which draw on behavioral economics and target automatic thinking processes, are used by policy makers to influence population-level behavior change. Nudges have not been applied in the context of SDM interventions but have potential to influence clinician motivation, a primary barrier to long-term adoption of SDM tools. Objective. Describe, evaluate, and propose recommendations for the use of a behavioral economics framework (MINDSPACE) on clinician motivation and behavior during implementation of a validated decision aid (DA) for left ventricular assist device at nine hospitals. Methods. Qualitative thematic analysis of process notes from stakeholder meetings during the first 6 months of implementation to identify examples of how the MINDSPACE framework was operationalized. Quantitative implementation progress was evaluated using the RE-AIM framework. Results. MINDSPACE components were translated into concrete approaches that leveraged influential stakeholders, fostered ownership over the DA and positive emotional associations, spread desirable norms across sites, and situated the DA within established default processes. DA reach to eligible patients increased from 9.8% in the first month of implementation to 70.0% in the sixth month. Larger gains in reach were observed following meetings using MINDSPACE approaches. Limitations. The MINDSPACE framework does not capture all possible influences on behavior and responses to nudges may differ across populations. Conclusions. Behavioral economics can be applied to implementation science to foster uptake of SDM tools by increasing clinician motivation. Our recommendations can help other researchers effectively apply these approaches in real-world settings when there are often limited incentives and opportunities to change organizational- or structural-level factors.
| S-EPMC7227151 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesHospital administrators are seeking to improve efficiency in medical consultation services, yet whether consultants make decisions to provide more or less care is unknown. We examined how medical consultants account for prior consultants' care when determining whether to provide intensive consulting care or sign off in the treatment of complex surgical inpatients. We applied three distinct theoretical frameworks in the interpretation of our results.MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of consultants' care intensity, measured alternately using a dummy variable for providing two or more days consulting (versus one) and a continuous measure of total days consulting, with 100% Medicare claims data from 2007-2010. Our analytic samples included consults for beneficiaries undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (n = 61,785) or colectomy (n = 33,460) in general acute care hospitals. We compared the care intensity of consultants who observed different patterns of consulting care before their initial consults using ordinary least squares regression models at the patient-physician dyad level, controlling for patient comorbidity and many other patient- and physician-level factors as well as hospital region and year fixed effects.ResultsConsultants were less likely to provide intensive consulting care with each additional prior consultant on the case (1.2-1.7 percent) or if a prior consultant rendered intensive consulting care (20.6-21.5 percent) but more likely when prior consults were more concentrated across consultants (2.9-3.1 percent). Effects on consultants' total days consulting were similar.ConclusionOn average, consultants appeared to calibrate their care intensity for individual patients to maximize their value to all patients. Interventions for improving consulting care efficiency should seek to facilitate (not constrain) consultants' decision-making processes.
| S-EPMC6126672 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAppropriate tools are essential to support a clinician's decision to refer very preterm infants to developmental resources. Streamlining the use of developmental assessment or screening tools to make clinical decisions offers an alternative methodology to help to choose the most effective way to assess this very high-risk population.ObjectiveTo examine the influence of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire-3rd edition (ASQ3) and the Bayley Scales of Infant Development-3rd edition (Bayley-III) scores within a clinically-based decision-making process.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study includes children born at less than 29 weeks gestation who had completed both psychologist-administered Bayley-III and physician-observed ASQ3 assessments at 18 months corrected age. Theoretical referral decisions (TRDs) based on each assessment results were formulated, using cut-off scores between the lower first and second standard deviation values and below the lower second standard deviation values. TRDs to refer to developmental resources were evaluated in light of the multidisciplinary team's actual final integrated decisions (FID).ResultsComplete data was available for 67 children. The ASQ3 and the Bayley-III had similar predictive value for the FID, with comparable kappa values. Comparisons of the physicians' and psychologists' TRDs with the FIDs demonstrated that the ASQ3 in conjunction with the medical and socio-familial findings predicted 93% of referral decisions.ConclusionTaking into consideration potential methodological biases, the results suggest that either ASQ3 or Bayley-III, along with socio-environmental, medical and neurological assessment, are sufficient to guide the majority of clinicians' decisions regarding referral for specialty services. This retrospective study suggests that the physician-supervised ASQ3 may be sufficient to assess children who had been extremely preterm infants for referral purposes. The findings need to be confirmed in a larger, well-designed prospective study to minimize and account for potential sources of bias.
| S-EPMC5289417 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In the setting of a complex critical illness, preference-sensitive decision making-choosing between two or more reasonable treatment options-can be difficult for patients, families, and clinicians alike. A common challenge to making high-quality decisions in this setting is a lack of critical information access and sharing among participants. Decision aids-brochures, web applications, and videos-are a major focus of current research because mounting evidence suggests they can improve decision-making quality and enhance collaborative shared decision making. However, many decision aids have important limitations, including a relatively narrow capacity for personalization, an inability to gather and generate clinical data, a focus on only a single disease or treatment, and high developmental costs. To address these issues and to help guide future research, we propose a model of "universal" electronic decision support that can be easily adapted by clinicians and patients/families for whatever decision is at hand. In this scalable web-based platform, a general shared decision-making core structure would accommodate simple, interchangeable disease and treatment information modules. The format and content of the system could be adapted to decisional participants' unique characteristics, abilities, and needs. Universal decision support can better standardize a decisional approach and also allow a unique degree of personalization within a framework of shared decision making. We also discuss potential criticisms of this approach as well as strategies that can overcome them in a critical illness setting.
| S-EPMC4214132 | biostudies-other