Barriers and facilitators to implement shared decision making in multidisciplinary sciatica care: a qualitative study

Background

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common preventable cause of mortality in hospitalized medical patients. Despite rigorous randomized trials generating strong recommendations for anticoagulant use to prevent VTE, nearly 40% of medical patients receive inappropriate thromboprophylaxis. Knowledge-translation strategies are needed to bridge this gap.

Methods

We conducted a 16-week pilot cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) to determine the proportion of medical patients that were appropriately managed for thromboprophylaxis (according to the American College of Chest Physician guidelines) within 24 hours of admission, through the use of a multicomponent knowledge-translation intervention. Our primary goal was to determine the feasibility of conducting this study on a larger scale. The intervention comprised clinician education, a paper-based VTE risk assessment algorithm, printed physicians’ orders, and audit and feedback sessions. Medical wards at six hospitals (representing clusters) in Ontario, Canada were included; three were randomized to the multicomponent intervention and three to usual care (i.e., no active strategies for thromboprophylaxis in place). Blinding was not used.

Results

A total of 2,611 patients (1,154 in the intervention and 1,457 in the control group) were eligible and included in the analysis. This multicomponent intervention did not lead to a significant difference in appropriate VTE prophylaxis rates between intervention and control hospitals (appropriate management rate odds ratio = 0.80; 95% confidence interval: 0.50, 1.28; p = 0.36; intra-class correlation coefficient: 0.022), and thus was not considered feasible. Major barriers to effective knowledge translation were poor attendance by clinical staff at education and feedback sessions, difficulty locating preprinted orders, and lack of involvement by clinical and administrative leaders. We identified several factors that may increase uptake of a VTE prophylaxis strategy, including local champions, support from clinical and administrative leaders, mandatory use, and a simple, clinically relevant risk assessment tool.

Conclusions

Hospitals allocated to our multicomponent intervention did not have a higher rate of medical inpatients appropriately managed for thromboprophylaxis than did hospitals that were not allocated to this strategy.     

Effective continuing professional development for translating shared decision making in primary care: A study protocol

Background

There is growing interest in the use of cognitive, behavioural, and organisational theories in implementation research. However, the extent of use of theory in implementation research is uncertain.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of use of theory in 235 rigorous evaluations of guideline dissemination and implementation studies published between 1966 and 1998. Use of theory was classified according to type of use (explicitly theory based, some conceptual basis, and theoretical construct used) and stage of use (choice/design of intervention, process/mediators/moderators, and post hoc/explanation).

Results

Fifty-three of 235 studies (22.5%) were judged to have employed theories, including 14 studies that explicitly used theory. The majority of studies (n = 42) used only one theory; the maximum number of theories employed by any study was three. Twenty-five different theories were used. A small number of theories accounted for the majority of theory use including PRECEDE (Predisposing, Reinforcing, and Enabling Constructs in Educational Diagnosis and Evaluation), diffusion of innovations, information overload and social marketing (academic detailing).

Conclusions

There was poor justification of choice of intervention and use of theory in implementation research in the identified studies until at least 1998. Future research should explicitly identify the justification for the interventions. Greater use of explicit theory to understand barriers, design interventions, and explore mediating pathways and moderators is needed to advance the science of implementation research.     

MAPPIN'SDM--the multifocal approach to sharing in shared decision making

Background

The wide scale permeation of health care by the shared decision making concept (SDM) reflects its relevance and advanced stage of development. An increasing number of studies evaluating the efficacy of SDM use instruments based on various sub-constructs administered from different viewpoints. However, as the concept has never been captured in operable core definition it is quite difficult to link these parts of evidence.This study aims at investigating interrelations of SDM indicators administered from different perspectives.

Method

A comprehensive inventory was developed mapping judgements from different perspectives (observer, doctor, patient) and constructs (behavior, perception) referring to three units (doctor, patient, doctor-patient-dyad) and an identical set of SDM-indicators. The inventory adopted the existing approaches, but added additional observer foci (patient and doctor-patient-dyad) and relevant indicators hitherto neglected by existing instruments. The complete inventory comprising a doctor-patient-questionnaire and an observer-instrument was applied to 40 decision consultations from 10 physicians from different medical fields. Convergent validities were calculated on the basis of Pearson correlation coefficients.

Results

Reliabilities for all scales were high to excellent. No correlations were found between observer and patients or physicians neither for means nor for single items. Judgements of doctors and patients were moderately related. Correlations between the observer scales and within the subjective perspectives were high. Inter-perspective agreement was not related to SDM performance or patient activity.

Conclusion

The study demonstrates the contribution to involvement made by each of the relevant perspectives and emphasizes the need for an inter-subjective approach regarding SDM measurement.     

Implementation of shared decision making by physician training to optimise hypertension treatment. Study protocol of a cluster-RCT

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Hypertension is one of the key factors causing cardiovascular diseases which make up the most frequent cause of death in industrialised nations. However about 60% of hypertensive patients in Germany treated with antihypertensives do not reach the recommended target blood pressure. The involvement of patients in medical decision making fulfils not only an ethical imperative but, furthermore, has the potential of higher treatment success. One concept to enhance the active role of patients is shared decision making. Until now there exists little information on the effects of shared decision making trainings for general practitioners on patient participation and on lowering blood pressure in hypertensive patients. METHODS: In a cluster-randomised controlled trial 1800 patients receiving antihypertensives will be screened with 24 h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring in their general practitioners' practices. Only patients who have not reached their blood pressure target (approximately 1200) will remain in the study (T1 -- T3). General practitioners of the intervention group will take part in a shared decision making-training after baseline assessment (T0). General practitioners of the control group will treat their patients as usual. Primary endpoints are change of systolic blood pressure and change of patients' perceived participation. Secondary endpoints are changes of diastolic blood pressure, knowledge, medical adherence and cardiovascular risk. Data analysis will be performed with mixed effects models. DISCUSSION: The hypothesis underlying this study is that shared decision making, realised by a shared decision making training for general practitioners, activates patients, facilitates patients' empowerment and contributes to a better hypertension control. This study is the first one that tests this hypothesis with a (cluster-) randomised trial and a large sample size.Trial registrationWHO International Clinical Trials: http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/Trial.aspx?TrialID=DRKS00000125.     

Using the Value of Information to improve conservation decision making

Conservation decisions are challenging, not only because they often involve difficult conflicts among outcomes that people value, but because our understanding of the natural world and our effects on it is fraught with uncertainty. Value of Information (VoI) methods provide an approach for understanding and managing uncertainty from the standpoint of the decision maker. These methods are commonly used in other fields (e.g. economics, public health) and are increasingly used in biodiversity conservation. This decision‐analytical approach can identify the best management alternative to select where the effectiveness of interventions is uncertain, and can help to decide when to act and when to delay action until after further research. We review the use of VoI in the environmental domain, reflect on the need for greater uptake of VoI, particularly for strategic conservation planning, and suggest promising areas for new research. We also suggest common reporting standards as a means of increasing the leverage of this powerful tool. The environmental science, ecology and biodiversity categories of the Web of Knowledge were searched using the terms ‘Value of Information,’ ‘Expected Value of Perfect Information,’ and the abbreviation ‘EVPI.’ Google Scholar was searched with the same terms, and additionally the terms decision and biology, biodiversity conservation, fish, or ecology. We identified 1225 papers from these searches. Included studies were limited to those that showed an application of VoI in biodiversity conservation rather than simply describing the method. All examples of use of VOI were summarised regarding the application of VoI, the management objectives, the uncertainties, the models used, how the objectives were measured, and the type of VoI. While the use of VoI appears to be on the increase in biodiversity conservation, the reporting of results is highly variable, which can make it difficult to understand the decision context and which uncertainties were considered. Moreover, it was unclear if, and how, the papers informed management and policy interventions, which is why we suggest a range of reporting standards that would aid the use of VoI. The use of VoI in conservation settings is at an early stage. There are opportunities for broader applications, not only for species‐focussed management problems, but also for setting local or global research priorities for biodiversity conservation, making funding decisions, or designing or improving protected area networks and management. The long‐term benefits of applying VoI methods to biodiversity conservation include a more structured and decision‐focused allocation of resources to research.     

Designing a strategy to implement cost-effective blood transfusion management in elective hip and knee arthroplasties: A study protocol

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Total hip and knee arthroplasties are two of the most commonly performed procedures in orthopedic surgery. Different blood-saving measures (BSMs) are used to reduce the often-needed allogenic blood transfusions in these procedures. A recent large randomized controlled trial showed it is not cost effective to use the BSMs of erythropoietin and perioperative autologous blood salvage in elective primary hip and knee arthroplasties. Despite dissemination of these study results, medical professionals keep using these BSMs. To actually change practice, an implementation strategy is needed that is based on a good understanding of target groups and settings and the psychological constructs that predict behavior of medical professionals. However, detailed insight into these issuses is lacking. Therefore, this study aims to explore which groups of professionals should be targeted at which settings, as well as relevant barriers and facilitators that should be taken into acount in the strategy to implement evidence-based, cost-effective blood transfusion management and to de-implement BSMs. METHODS: The study consists of three phases. First, a questionnaire survey among all Dutch orthopedic hospital departments and independent treatment centers (n?=?99) will be conducted to analyze current blood management practice. Second, semistructured interviews will be held among 10 orthopedic surgeons and 10 anesthesiologists to identify barriers and facilitators that are relevant for the uptake of cost-effective blood transfusion management. Interview questions will be based on the Theoretical Domains Interview framework. The interviews will be followed by a questionnaire survey among 800 medical professionals in orthopedics and anesthesiology (400 professionals per discipline) in which the identified barriers and facilitators will be ranked by frequency and importance. Finally, an implementation strategy will be developed based on the results from the previous phases, using principles of intervention mapping and an expert panel. DISCUSSION: The developed strategy for cost-effective blood transfusion management by de-implementing BSMs is likely to reduce costs for elective hip and knee arthroplasties. In addition, this study will lead to generalized knowledge regarding relevant factors for the de-implementation of non-cost-effective interventions and insight in the differences between implementation and de-implementation strategies.     

Patients' and observers' perceptions of involvement differ. Validation study on inter-relating measures for shared decision making

Objective

Patient involvement into medical decisions as conceived in the shared decision making method (SDM) is essential in evidence based medicine. However, it is not conclusively evident how best to define, realize and evaluate involvement to enable patients making informed choices. We aimed at investigating the ability of four measures to indicate patient involvement. While use and reporting of these instruments might imply wide overlap regarding the addressed constructs this assumption seems questionable with respect to the diversity of the perspectives from which the assessments are administered.

Methods

The study investigated a nested cohort (N = 79) of a randomized trial evaluating a patient decision aid on immunotherapy for multiple sclerosis. Convergent validities were calculated between observer ratings of videotaped physician-patient consultations (OPTION) and patients'' perceptions of the communication (Shared Decision Making Questionnaire, Control Preference Scale & Decisional Conflict Scale).

Results

OPTION reliability was high to excellent. Communication performance was low according to OPTION and high according to the three patient administered measures. No correlations were found between observer and patient judges, neither for means nor for single items. Patient report measures showed some moderate correlations.

Conclusion

Existing SDM measures do not refer to a single construct. A gold standard is missing to decide whether any of these measures has the potential to indicate patient involvement.

Practice Implications

Pronounced heterogeneity of the underpinning constructs implies difficulties regarding the interpretation of existing evidence on the efficacy of SDM. Consideration of communication theory and basic definitions of SDM would recommend an inter-subjective focus of measurement.

Trial Registration

Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN25267500.     

Biometry has to improve the quality of decision making both in biomedical research and in clinical practice

The leading principles of biometrical design, evaluation and decision making in biomedicine can be summarized as follows: (1) formulation of the problem to be solved and of the specific question(s) to be answered; (2) definition of the population in study, ways of sampling and manoeuvres (treatments); (3) determining the kind and number of variables (time intervals of measurement, investigated biomedical parameters); (4) performing the pilot study if necessary (to arrange randomized blocks, to form hypotheses); (5) formulation of zero (alternative) hypothesis, setting the values of alpha(beta) risk; (6) ordering the sample sizes; (7) testing the type of statistical distribution and the homoscedasticity of the obtained data; (8) calculation of the point and interval (confidence, tolerance) estimates; (9) performing the chosen tests, e.g. on the significance of differences or correlations; and (10) the conclusions for science and practice, with eventual return to point (1) on a higher level of knowledge.     

Opportunistic versus life-cycle-oriented decision making in multi-loop recovery: an eco-eco study on disposed vehicles

Purpose  

Multinational companies have recently been encouraged by government policies to implement Extended Producer Responsibility. One objective is to stimulate high-level recovery, and the other is to introduce life cycle thinking. This paper studies decision making in recovery, comparing opportunistic decision making with short-term profit maximization (usually leading to one loop) versus a life-cycle perspective (leading to multiple loops). The question is (1) which business benefits this brings as well as reduction of environmental impact and (2) whether companies should be inclined to think multi-loop and if so how governments could stimulate this.     

Competence to make decisions: the psychology of deliberate decision making

This paper examines the psychological structure of mental competence, conceived of as competence in deliberate decision making. Analysis of that structure may be useful in understanding mental incompetence, as it occurs among some elderly persons. Mental competence not only depends on a number of cognitive abilities, such as foreseeing consequences, but also on the intactness of emotions, insight in one's own emotions, and abilities for emotion regulation.     

Medical malpractice: a case study in medical and legal decision making

The conference was organized in part to dispel some of the misinformation that interferes with cooperative efforts of attorneys and physicians to redress the malpractice situation. During discussion of the hypothetical case, participants identified how medical decision-making responsibilities were allocated among health care providers caring for the patient. Panel members suggested ways in which medical decision making might be affected by non-medical factors such as third-party reimbursement (e.g., selection of inpatient or outpatient setting, the opportunity to discuss issues related to informed consent prior to the day of a procedure) and potential malpractice litigation (e.g., documentation in charts, use of diagnostic procedures). The characterization of decision-making roles and responsibilities differed somewhat for purposes of malpractice litigation; that is, which caregivers might be named as defendants. Panel members reconstructed the development of the medical incident into a legal case. Plaintiff's attorney commented that it is often a hospital employee who advises the family to consult an attorney and described some of the constraints on information gathering (e.g., the rule of "discovery" requiring that suit be filed before defendants can be forced to give statements about what happened, insurance contract provisions prohibiting physicians from talking without legal counsel present to persons who indicate that they plan to file suit). He also briefly explained the rationale for the contingency fee arrangement in these cases. Describing the role of the medical expert witness and the need to review the medical record, he outlined the process of deciding whether to pursue a malpractice case. In making this decision, plaintiff's attorney evaluates the facts to identify issues in the case, to determine if there are deviations from the standard of care, and to try to predict jury reaction. If a suit is filed, defense attorneys employed by the hospital, insurance company, or individual defendants will decide, based on facts including coverage limits, possible publicity, and likelihood of successful prosecution, whether the case should be settled and for what amount. Interests represented by the defense attorneys differ and may affect settlement strategies. Physician feelings of concern for the patient/family or desire for vindication will, to varying degrees, be factors in the decision to try or settle a case. Panel members explored several important policy issues. Among these were the effect of malpractice cases on doctor-patient communications and ethical issues concerning expert witnesses.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)