Abstract 397: Shared Decision Making In Cardiology: Measures Of Shared Decision Making In Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis Considering Valve Replacement

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
KD Valentine ◽  
Felisha Marques ◽  
Alexandra Selberg ◽  
Laura Flannery ◽  
Nathaniel Langer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cardiac Surgery ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Interventional Cardiology ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Concomitant Disease ◽  
Shared Decision

Objective: To identify the degree to which shared decision making (SDM) is occurring for patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) considering aortic valve replacement (AVR) as measured by the Shared Decision Making Process (SDMP) measure. Methods: Patient eligibility was ascertained via the electronic medical record. Eligible patients were between 18-85, spoke English, were diagnosed with severe AS, either had no prior AVR or had AVR more than 6 months prior, and were at low to intermediate risk for surgical AVR (SAVR). Patients were ineligible if they had a concomitant disease of the aorta or another heart valve that required intervention. Eligible patients were approached in either the Interventional Cardiology or Cardiac Surgery clinic after the respective visit and asked to complete the Shared Decision Making Process (SDMP) Measure, which includes 6 questions with a total score ranging from 0-4. The questions focus on if options were presented (yes/no), preferences elicited (yes/no), and if the pros and cons of transcatheter AVR (TAVR) and SAVR were discussed (“a lot”, “some”, “a little”, or “not at all”). A higher score indicates greater shared decision making occurred. Results: Of 60 enrolled patients, 59 (98%) returned their survey. Most patients were recruited after the visit with an interventional cardiologist (68%, 40 of 59). The average age was 72 years (SD=7 years), all patients were white, 67.8% (40 of 59) were men, and 82.1% (46 of 56) had more than a high school education. There was a trend toward patients reporting higher SDMP scores if patients were recruited in the cardiac surgery clinic (M=3.0, SD=0.7) when compared to those recruited in the interventional cardiology clinic (M=2.6, SD=1.1; t(57)=1.4, p=.164, d=.39). Nearly all (96.6%, 57 of 59) patients stated they were presented with different options to treat their AS and 88.1% (52 of 59) reported discussing the pros of TAVR while 78.0% (46 of 59) discussed SAVR “some” or “a lot.” Conversely, fewer patients stated they discussed the cons of TAVR (57.6%, 34 of 59) or SAVR (49.2%, 29 of 59) “some” or “a lot.” Most patients stated they were asked what they wanted to do to treat their AS (64.4%, 38 of 59). Conclusions: One third of patients did not recall being asked for their preference—a key component of shared decision making conversations. Given the importance of patients being well informed in this preference sensitive decision context, future work should seek to understand both how this multidisciplinary approach may benefit patients, and how to ensure the downsides of options and patient preferences are discussed during the visit.

Professionals’ views on shared decision-making in severe aortic stenosis

Heart ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. heartjnl-2021-320194
Author(s):  
Judith J A M van Beek-Peeters ◽  
Jop B L van der Meer ◽  
Miriam C Faes ◽  
Annemarie J B M de Vos ◽  
Martijn W A van Geldorp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Patient Participation ◽  
Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Shared Responsibility ◽  
Health Improvement ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Shared Decision

ObjectiveTo provide insight into professionals’ perceptions of and experiences with shared decision-making (SDM) in the treatment of symptomatic patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS).MethodsA semistructured interview study was performed in the heart centres of academic and large teaching hospitals in the Netherlands between June and December 2020. Cardiothoracic surgeons, interventional cardiologists, nurse practitioners and physician assistants (n=21) involved in the decision-making process for treatment of severe AS were interviewed. An inductive thematic analysis was used to identify, analyse and report patterns in the data.ResultsFour primary themes were generated: (1) the concept of SDM, (2) knowledge, (3) communication and interaction, and (4) implementation of SDM. Not all respondents considered patient participation as an element of SDM. They experienced a discrepancy between patients’ wishes and treatment options. Respondents explained that not knowing patient preferences for health improvement hinders SDM and complicating patient characteristics for patient participation were perceived. A shared responsibility for improving SDM was suggested for patients and all professionals involved in the decision-making process for severe AS.ConclusionsProfessionals struggle to make highly complex treatment decisions part of SDM and to embed patients’ expectations of treatment and patients’ preferences. Additionally, organisational constraints complicate the SDM process. To ensure sustainable high-quality care, professionals should increase their awareness of patient participation in SDM, and collaboration in the pathway for decision-making in severe AS is required to support the documentation and availability of information according to the principles of SDM.

Shared decision making in older patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis: a systematic review

Heart ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 106 (9) ◽  
pp. 647-655 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judith J A M van Beek-Peeters ◽  
Elsemieke H M van Noort ◽  
Miriam C Faes ◽  
Annemarie J B M de Vos ◽  
Martijn W A van Geldorp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Older Patients ◽  
Severe Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Informal Caregivers ◽  
Information Support ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Goals ◽  
Informal Information

This review provides an overview of the status of shared decision making (SDM) in older patients regarding treatment of symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (SSAS). The databases Embase, Medline Ovid, Cinahl and Cochrane Dare were searched for relevant studies from January 2002 to May 2018 regarding perspectives of professionals, patients and caregivers; aspects of decision making; type of decision making; application of the six domains of SDM; barriers to and facilitators of SDM. The systematic search yielded 1842 articles, 15 studies were included. Experiences of professionals and informal caregivers with SDM were scarcely found. Patient refusal was a frequently reported result of decision making, but often no insight was given into the decision process. Most studies investigated the ‘decision’ and ‘option’ domains of SDM, yet no study took all six domains into account. Problem analysis, personalised treatment aims, use of decision aids and integrating patient goals in decisions lacked in all studies. Barriers to and facilitators of SDM were ‘individualised formal and informal information support’ and ‘patients’ opportunity to use their own knowledge about their health condition and preferences for SDM’. In conclusion, SDM is not yet common practice in the decision making process of older patients with SSAS. Moreover, the six domains of SDM are not often applied in this process. More knowledge is needed about the implementation of SDM in the context of SSAS treatment and how to involve patients, professionals and informal caregivers.

scholarly journals Implementation of shared decision-making for aortic stenosis: Development of a patient decision aid

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
S Lauck ◽  
B Borregaard ◽  
K Lewis ◽  
I De Souza
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Aortic Valve ◽  
Aortic Stenosis ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Valve Replacement ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Patient Decision

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background  People living with aortic stenosis (AS) experience poor quality of life (QOL), repeat hospitalizations, and a poor prognosis in the absence of valve replacement. There is increasing equipoise in the evidence supporting the use of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients likely to derive survival and QOL benefit. A transition to a palliative approach may be a better option in the setting of excessive frailty and comorbid burden. Shared decision-making (SDM) is a bidirectional exchange between patients and health care providers that enables an information exchange about the best available evidence and decisions that consider patients" priorities. The goal is to inform and empower patients to participate in choosing the right decision. Patient decision aids (PDAs) are designed to support the process of SDM and help guide these conversation. To date, Canadians living with AS have not had access to a validated PDA.  Study Design   We will report on the design of the SharEd DEcision-MaKing for AS (SEEK-AS) study that aims to refine and comprehensively evaluate a set of PDAs and to build capacity for SDM through a unique partnership of patient and clinical knowledge users, multidisciplinary health care providers and researchers, and policy-makers. We will summarize the pilot work completed to obtain a debrief of patient resources used in all Canadian provinces, the draft development of a PDA in concert with a health policy initiative, and the design of an electronic platform to individualize risk in real time during a consultation. We will outline the components of SEEK-AS and the use of a cross-provincial comparative case study design to investigate how to establish an effective and sustainable approach for the implementation of the PDAs using the Knowledge-to-Action conceptual framework.  Implications  There is a pressing need for the development of evidence-based tools to strengthen the integration of patients" perspectives in the treatment of complex valvular heart disease given the rapid pace of change in technology, indications and practice. The study of the implementation of innovative strategies to achieve this goal is essential to accelerate the pace of change in clinical care.

Toward Optimal Decision Making among Vulnerable Patients Referred for Cardiac Surgery: A Qualitative Analysis of Patient and Provider Perspectives

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (5) ◽  
pp. 600-610 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan A. Gainer ◽  
Janet Curran ◽  
Karen J. Buth ◽  
Jennie G. David ◽  
Jean-Francois Légaré ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cardiac Surgery ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Consent Process ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Provider Perspectives ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
The Impact

Objectives. Comprehension of risks, benefits, and alternative treatment options has been shown to be poor among patients referred for cardiac interventions. Patients’ values and preferences are rarely explicitly sought. An increasing proportion of frail and older patients are undergoing complex cardiac surgical procedures with increased risk of both mortality and prolonged institutional care. We sought input from patients and caregivers to determine the optimal approach to decision making in this vulnerable patient population. Methods. Focus groups were held with both providers and former patients. Three focus groups were convened for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (CABG), Valve, or CABG +Valve patients ≥ 70 y old (2-y post-op, ≤ 8-wk post-op, complicated post-op course) (n = 15). Three focus groups were convened for Intermediate Medical Care Unit (IMCU) nurses, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) nurses, surgeons, anesthesiologists and cardiac intensivists (n = 20). We used a semi-structured interview format to ask questions surrounding the informed consent process. Transcribed audio data was analyzed to develop consistent and comprehensive themes. Results. We identified 5 main themes that influence the decision making process: educational barriers, educational facilitators, patient autonomy and perceived autonomy, patient and family expectations of care, and decision making advocates. All themes were influenced by time constraints experienced in the current consent process. Patient groups expressed a desire to receive information earlier in their care to allow time to identify personal values and preferences in developing plans for treatment. Both groups strongly supported a formal approach for shared decision making with a decisional coach to provide information and facilitate communication with the care team. Conclusions. Identifying the barriers and facilitators to patient and caretaker engagement in decision making is a key step in the development of a structured, patient-centered SDM approach. Intervention early in the decision process, the use of individualized decision aids that employ graphic risk presentations, and a dedicated decisional coach were identified by patients and providers as approaches with a high potential for success. The impact of such a formalized shared decision making process in cardiac surgery on decisional quality will need to be formally assessed. Given the trend toward older and frail patients referred for complex cardiac procedures, the need for an effective shared decision making process is compelling.

The role of a shared decision-making process in paediatric epilepsy surgery

2021 ◽  
Vol 429 ◽  
pp. 119162
Author(s):  
Michelle Gratton ◽  
Bonnie Wooten ◽  
Sandrine Deribaupierre ◽  
Andrea Andrade
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Epilepsy Surgery ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Paediatric Epilepsy

scholarly journals Shared decision making for the initiation and continuation of dialysis: a proposal from the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kazuyoshi Okada ◽  
Ken Tsuchiya ◽  
Ken Sakai ◽  
Takahiro Kuragano ◽  
Akiko Uchida ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Japanese Society ◽  
Healthcare Management ◽  
Maintenance Hemodialysis ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Healthcare Team ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Dialysis Therapy ◽  
Terminal Stage

Abstract Background In Japan, forgoing life-sustaining treatment to respect the will of patients at the terminal stage is not stipulated by law. According to the Guidelines for the Decision-Making Process in Terminal-Stage Healthcare published by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare in 2007, the Japanese Society for Dialysis Therapy (JSDT) developed a proposal that was limited to patients at the terminal stage and did not explicitly cover patients with dementia. This proposal for the shared decision-making process regarding the initiation and continuation of maintenance hemodialysis was published in 2014. Methods and results In response to changes in social conditions, the JSDT revised the proposal in 2020 to provide guidance for the process by which the healthcare team can provide the best healthcare management and care with respect to the patient's will through advance care planning and shared decision making. For all patients with end-stage kidney disease, including those at the nonterminal stage and those with dementia, the decision-making process includes conservative kidney management. Conclusions The proposal is based on consensus rather than evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. The healthcare team is therefore not guaranteed to be legally exempt if the patient dies after the policies in the proposal are implemented and must respond appropriately at the discretion of each institution.

scholarly journals 023 PP: INVOLVING PATIENTS AND CARERS IN RESEARCH: THE EXPERIENCE OF OLDER PEOPLE IN THE SHARED DECISION-MAKING PROCESS IN ADVANCED KIDNEY CARE a

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (Suppl 2) ◽  
pp. bmjopen-2017-016492.41
Author(s):  
N Thomas ◽  
K Jenkins ◽  
S Datta ◽  
R Endacott ◽  
J Kent ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Older People ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Shared Decision
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document