A prospective study of shared decision-making in brain tumor surgery.

Szczegóły
Abstrakt

Tytuł:: A prospective study of shared decision-making in brain tumor surgery.
Autorzy:: Leu S; Department of Neurosurgery, Wessex Neurological Centre, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, UK. .; Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Basel, Spitalstrasse 21, 4031, Basel, Switzerland. .
Cahill J; Department of Neurosurgery, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK.; The National Centre for Stereotactic Radiosurgery, Sheffield, South Yorkshire, UK.
Grundy PL; Department of Neurosurgery, Wessex Neurological Centre, University Hospital Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, UK.
Źródło:: Acta neurochirurgica [Acta Neurochir (Wien)] 2023 Jan; Vol. 165 (1), pp. 15-25. Date of Electronic Publication: 2022 Dec 28.
Typ publikacji:: Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Język:: English
Imprint Name(s):: Original Publication: Wien, Springer.
MeSH Terms:: Patient Participation*
Attitude of Health Personnel*
Humans ; Prospective Studies ; Patient Satisfaction ; Decision Making
References:: Barr PJ, Forcino RC, Thompson R, Ozanne EM, Arend R, Castaldo MG, O’Malley AJ, Elwyn G (2017) Evaluating CollaboRATE in a clinical setting: analysis of mode effects on scores, response rates and costs of data collection. BMJ Open 7:e014681. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014681. (PMID: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014681)
Barr PJ, Thompson R, Walsh T, Grande SW, Ozanne EM, Elwyn G (2014) The psychometric properties of CollaboRATE: a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of the shared decision-making process. J Med Internet Res 16:e2. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3085. (PMID: 10.2196/jmir.3085)
Barr PJ, Thompson R, Walsh T, Grande SW, Ozanne EM, Elwyn G (2015) Correction: the psychometric properties of CollaboRATE: a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of the shared decision-making process. J Med Internet Res 17:e32. https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.4272. (PMID: 10.2196/jmir.4272)
Berkowitz J, Martinez-Camblor P, Stevens G, Elwyn G (2021) The development of incorpoRATE: a measure of physicians’ willingness to incorporate shared decision making into practice. Patient Educ Couns 104:2327–2337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2021.02.040. (PMID: 10.1016/j.pec.2021.02.040)
Braintrust UK. https://brainstrust.org.uk . Accessed 20 Jul 2022.
Brodney S, Fowler FJ, Barry MJ, Chang Y, Sepucha K (2019) Comparison of three measures of shared decision making: SDM Process_4, CollaboRATE, and SURE Scales. Med Decis Making 39:673–680. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X19855951. (PMID: 10.1177/0272989X19855951)
Cahill J, Zilidis G, Grundy P (2018) SHARED DECISION MAKING, THE BRIDGE BETWEEN PATERNALISM AND AUTONOMY. Neuro Oncol 20(Suppl 5):v354. https://doi.org/10.1093/neuonc/noy129.047. (PMID: 10.1093/neuonc/noy129.047)
Care Quality Commission (2016) Adult inpatient survey. Available from: http://www.cqc.org.uk/publications/surveys/adult-inpatient-survey-2016 . Accessed 16 May 2021.
De Las CC, Mundal I, Betancort M, Lara-Cabrera ML (2020) Assessment of shared decision-making in community mental health care: validation of the CollaboRATE. Int J Clin Health Psychol 20:262–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2020.06.004. (PMID: 10.1016/j.ijchp.2020.06.004)
Díaz JL, Barreto P, Gallego JM, Barbero J, Bayés R, Barcia JA (2009) Proper information during the surgical decision-making process lowers the anxiety of patients with high-grade gliomas. Acta Neurochir (Wien) 151:357–362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-009-0195-7. (PMID: 10.1007/s00701-009-0195-7)
El-Jawahri A, Podgurski LM, Eichler AF, Plotkin SR, Temel JS, Mitchell SL, Chang Y, Barry MJ, Volandes AE (2010) Use of video to facilitate end-of-life discussions with patients with cancer: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 28:305–310. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.24.7502. (PMID: 10.1200/JCO.2009.24.7502)
Elwyn G, Barr PJ, Grande SW, Thompson R, Walsh T, Ozanne EM (2013) Developing CollaboRATE: a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of shared decision making in clinical encounters. Patient Educ Couns 93:102–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2013.05.009. (PMID: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.05.009)
Elwyn G, Frosch DL, Kobrin S (2016) Implementing shared decision-making: consider all the consequences. Implement Sci 11:114. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0480-9. (PMID: 10.1186/s13012-016-0480-9)
Elwyn G, Lloyd A, Joseph-Williams N, Cording E, Thomson R, Durand MA, Edwards A (2013) Option Grids: shared decision making made easier. Patient Educ Couns 90:207–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2012.06.036. (PMID: 10.1016/j.pec.2012.06.036)
Fay M, Grande SW, Donnelly K, Elwyn G (2016) Using Option Grids: steps toward shared decision-making for neonatal circumcision. Patient Educ Couns 99:236–242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2015.08.025. (PMID: 10.1016/j.pec.2015.08.025)
Fowler FJ, Gerstein BS, Barry MJ (2013) How patient centered are medical decisions?: Results of a national survey. JAMA Intern Med 173:1215–1221. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.6172. (PMID: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.6172)
Health Foundation (2013) Implementing shared decision making: clinical teams' experiences of implementing shared decision making as part of the MAGIC programme. Learning Report (April 2013). Health Foundation, Great Britain.
Health Foundation (2013) The MAGIC programme: An independent evaluation of the MAGIC (Making good decisions in collaboration) improvement programme. Health Foundation.
Hurley EA, Bradley-Ewing A, Bickford C, Lee BR, Myers AL, Newland JG, Goggin K (2019) Measuring shared decision-making in the pediatric outpatient setting: psychometric performance of the SDM-Q-9 and CollaboRATE among English and Spanish speaking parents in the US Midwest. Patient Educ Couns 102:742–748. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2018.10.015. (PMID: 10.1016/j.pec.2018.10.015)
IBM Corp. (2020) IBM SPSS Statistics for Macintosh, Version 27.0. IBM Corp, Armonk, NY.
Joseph-Williams N, Lloyd A, Edwards A, Stobbart L, Tomson D, Macphail S, Dodd C, Brain K, Elwyn G, Thomson R (2017) Implementing shared decision making in the NHS: lessons from the MAGIC programme. BMJ 357:j1744. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j1744. (PMID: 10.1136/bmj.j1744)
legislation.gov.uk (2012) Health and Social Care Act, London: HMSO Available from: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/7/contents/enacted ; .
Lin SC, Tam KW, Yen JY, Lu MC, Chen EY, Kuo YT, Lin WC, Chen SH, Loh EW, Chen SY (2020) The impact of shared decision making with patient decision aids on the rotavirus vaccination rate in children: a randomized controlled trial. Prev Med 141:106244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106244. (PMID: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106244)
Medical Protection Society (2015) New judgement on consent. Available from: http://www.medicalprotection.org/uk/for-members/news/news/2015/03/20/new-judgment-on-patient-consent . Accessed 18 Apr 2021.
Mulley AG, Trimble C, Elwyn G (2012) Stop the silent misdiagnosis: patients’ preferences matter. BMJ 345:e6572. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.e6572. (PMID: 10.1136/bmj.e6572)
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2021) Shared Decision Making. [NICE Guideline No. 197]. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng197 . Accessed 31 Oct 2021.
NHS England. Aqua: Advancing Quality Alliance. https://aqua.nhs.uk . Accessed 20 Mar 2022.
NHS England (2017) GP patient survey. Available from: https://www.gp-patient.co.uk . Accessed 16 May 2021.
NICE guideline (NG99) 2018: Brain Tumours (primary) and brain metastases in adults (2018).
OptionGrid . https://optiongrid.ebsco.com . Accessed 29 Aug 2022.
Paskins Z, Torres Roldan VD, Hawarden AW, Bullock L, Meritxell Urtecho S, Torres GF, Morera L, Espinoza Suarez NR, Worrall A, Blackburn S, Chapman S, Jinks C, Brito JP (2020) Quality and effectiveness of osteoporosis treatment decision aids: a systematic review and environmental scan. Osteoporos Int 31:1837–1851. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-020-05479-w. (PMID: 10.1007/s00198-020-05479-w)
PDSA cycles. https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/qsir-pdsa-cycles-model-forimprovement.pdf . Accessed 31 Aug 2022.
Politi MC, Studts JL, Hayslip JW (2012) Shared decision making in oncology practice: what do oncologists need to know? Oncologist 17:91–100. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2011-0261. (PMID: 10.1634/theoncologist.2011-0261)
Posner KL, Severson J, Domino KB (2015) The role of informed consent in patient complaints: reducing hidden health system costs and improving patient engagement through shared decision making. J Healthc Risk Manag 35:38–45. https://doi.org/10.1002/jhrm.21200. (PMID: 10.1002/jhrm.21200)
Ruiz Yanzi MV, Barani MS, Franco JVA, Vazquez Peña FR, Terrasa SA, Kopitowski KS (2019) Translation, transcultural adaptation, and validation of two questionnaires on shared decision making. Health Expect 22:193–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12842. (PMID: 10.1111/hex.12842)
Scholl I, Kobrin S, Elwyn G (2020) “All about the money?” A qualitative interview study examining organizational- and system-level characteristics that promote or hinder shared decision-making in cancer care in the United States. Implement Sci 15:81. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-020-01042-7. (PMID: 10.1186/s13012-020-01042-7)
Seal RP, Kynaston J, Elwyn G, Smith PE (2014) Using an Option Grid in shared decision making. Pract Neurol 14:54–56. https://doi.org/10.1136/practneurol-2013-000666. (PMID: 10.1136/practneurol-2013-000666)
Sferra SR, Cheng JS, Boynton Z, DiSesa V, Kaiser LR, Ma GX, Erkmen CP (2021) Aiding shared decision making in lung cancer screening: two decision tools. J Public Health (Oxf) 43:673–680. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdaa063. (PMID: 10.1093/pubmed/fdaa063)
Shinkunas LA, Klipowicz CJ, Carlisle EM (2020) Shared decision making in surgery: a scoping review of patient and surgeon preferences. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 20:190. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-020-01211-0. (PMID: 10.1186/s12911-020-01211-0)
Sorensen von Essen H, Piil K, Dahl Steffensen K, Rom Poulsen F (2020) Shared decision making in high-grade glioma patients-a systematic review. Neurooncol Pract 7:589–598. https://doi.org/10.1093/nop/npaa042. (PMID: 10.1093/nop/npaa042)
United States (1982) President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. Making Health Care Decisions. The Ethical and Legal Implications of Informed Consent in the Patient–Practitioner Relationship. U S Code Annot U S Title 42 Sect. 300v as added 1978.
van Weert JC, van Munster BC, Sanders R, Spijker R, Hooft L, Jansen J (2016) Decision aids to help older people make health decisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 16:45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-016-0281-8. (PMID: 10.1186/s12911-016-0281-8)
Yen RW, Durand MA, Harris C, Cohen S, Ward A, O’Malley AJ, Schubbe D, Saunders CH, Elwyn G (2020) Text-only and picture conversation aids both supported shared decision making for breast cancer surgery: analysis from a cluster randomized trial. Patient Educ Couns 103:2235–2243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2020.07.015. (PMID: 10.1016/j.pec.2020.07.015)
Yu L, Li P, Yang S, Guo P, Zhang X, Liu N, Wang J, Zhang W (2020) Web-based decision aids to support breast cancer screening decisions: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Comp Eff Res 9:985–1002. https://doi.org/10.2217/cer-2020-0052. (PMID: 10.2217/cer-2020-0052)
Contributed Indexing:: Keywords: Decision aid; Glioma; Metastases; Shared decision-making; Treatment options
Entry Date(s):: Date Created: 20221228 Date Completed: 20230117 Latest Revision: 20240325
Update Code:: 20240325
PubMed Central ID:: PMC9795149
DOI:: 10.1007/s00701-022-05451-z
PMID:: 36576561
: Czasopismo naukowe

Full Text Finder

Purpose: Shared decision-making (SDM) is a key tenet of personalized care and is becoming an essential component of informed consent in an increasing number of countries. The aim of this study is to analyze patient and healthcare staff satisfaction with the SDM process before and after SDM was officially introduced as the standard of care. Decision grids are important tools in the SDM process, and we developed them for three different types of intracranial tumors.
Methods: This prospective study was conducted in a high-volume neuro-oncological center on all consecutive eligible patients undergoing consideration of treatment for intracranial glioma and metastases. Twenty-two patients participated before and 74 after the introduction of SDM. Six and 5 staff members respectively participated in the analysis before and after team training and the introduction of SDM. The main outcome was patient and healthcare staff satisfaction with the SDM process.
Results: Patients reported high satisfaction with the SDM process before (mean CollaboRATE score 26 of 27 points) and after (mean CollaboRATE score 26.3 of 27 points, p = 0.23) the introduction of SDM. Interestingly, staff attitude toward SDM improved significantly from 61.68 before to 90.95% after the introduction of SDM (p-value < 0.001). Decision grids that were developed for three different types of intracranial tumors are presented.
Conclusions: Team training in SDM and the introduction of techniques into daily practice can increase staff satisfaction with the SDM process. High levels of patient satisfaction were observed before, with a non-significant increase after the introduction of SDM. Decision grids are an important tool to facilitate the conveyance and understanding of complex information and to achieve SDM in daily clinical practice.
(© 2022. The Author(s).)

Informacja