Explore the vast range of titles available.

Vascular access planning guidelines have shifted from a fistula-centered to a patient-centered approach. We advocate for expansion of the shared decision-making dyad between the nephrology team and patient to include other vascular access planning stakeholders. We propose earlier and consistent interprofessional collaboration facilitates more constructive discussions that could improve outcomes.

Background Health professionals in home care work in interprofessional teams. Yet most training in decision support assumes a one-on-one relationship with patients. We assessed the impact of an in-person training session in interprofessional shared decision-making (IP-SDM) on home care professionals’ intention to adopt this approach. Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of a cluster stepped-wedge trial using a before-and-after study design. We collected data among home care professionals from November 2016 to February 2018 in 9 health and social services centers in Quebec, Canada. The intervention was an in-person IP-SDM training session. Intention to engage in IP-SDM pre- and post-session (dependent variable) was compared using a continuing professional development evaluation scale (CPD-Reaction) informed by the Godin’s Integrated Behavioral Model for health professionals. We also assessed socio-demographic and psychosocial variables (beliefs about capabilities, beliefs about consequences, social influence and moral norm). We performed bivariate and multivariate analysis to identify factors influencing post-intervention intention. We used the STROBE reporting guidelines for observational studies to report our results. Results Of 134 respondents who provided complete pairs of questionnaires (pre- and post-), most were female (90.9%), mean age was 42 (± 9.3) years and 66.9% were social workers. Mean intention scores decreased from 5.84 (± 1.19) to 5.54 (± 1.35) (Mean difference = -0.30 ± 1.16; p  = 0.02). Factors associated with higher intention post-intervention were social influence (ß = 0.34, p  = 0.01) and belief about capabilities (ß = 0.49, p  < 0.01). Conclusion After in-person IP-SDM training, healthcare professionals’ intention to engage in IP-SDM decreased. However, the scope of this decrease is probably not clinically significant. Due to their association with intention, beliefs about capabilities, which translate into having a sense of self-competency in the new clinical behavior, and social influences, which translate into what important others think one should be doing, could be targets for future research aiming to implement IP-SDM in home care settings.

Palliative care teams provide support to patients and their caregivers during terminal illness, which requires interprofessional collaboration. One of the foundational skills is to assist patients with decision-making. This can be facilitated through interprofessional shared decision-making (IP-SDM). So far, IP-SDM education frameworks have only been used to a limited extent in the area of palliative care. This study aims to explore perceptions and practices of faculty members, health professionals, and students toward IP-SDM education in palliative care and to indicate associated factors to implement an IP-SDM in undergraduate health professions education in palliative care settings. We used a cross-sectional study design in which the data was obtained via an online self-administered questionnaire adapted from existing validated tools. The questionnaire was distributed to faculty members and health professionals (n = 125) and students (n = 334) at King Abdulaziz Medical City in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. The sampling technique was a non-probability convenience sampling. Bivariate statistics, such as independent sample -tests, one-way ANOVA, correlation coefficient, and linear multiple regression were conducted. The response rate was 54% (85 faculty members and health professionals and 164 students). Perceptions on IP-SDM did not differ between participants. From those who had previous experience with IP-SDM, the mean practices score was slightly higher for faculty members and health professionals (M = 83.1, SD = 15.9) than for students (M = 74.1, SD = 11.5), which was significant (p < 0.05). Factors such as gender, age, discipline, nationality, level of education, years of study, and previous experience that were associated with perceptions and practices were varied among participants. The findings show high levels of perception with low levels of practice of IP-SDM in palliative care. Other factors that could be associated with the topic should be addressed in further studies.

Background DOLCE (Improving Decision making On Location of Care with the frail Elderly and their caregivers) was a post-intervention clustered randomised trial (cRT) to assess the effect of training home care teams on interprofessional shared decision-making (IP-SDM). Alongside the cRT, we sought to monitor healthcare providers’ level of behavioural intention to engage in an IP-SDM approach and to identify factors associated with this intention. Methods We conducted two cross-sectional surveys in the province of Quebec, Canada, one each at cRT entry and exit. Healthcare providers (e.g. nurses, occupational therapists and social workers) in the 16 participating intervention and control sites self-completed an identical paper-based questionnaire at entry and exit. Informed by the Integrated model for explaining healthcare professionals’ clinical behaviour by Godin et al. (2008), we assessed their behavioural intention to engage in IP-SDM to support older adults and caregivers of older adults with cognitive impairment to make health-related housing decisions. We also assessed psychosocial variables underlying their behavioural intention and collected sociodemographic data. We used descriptive statistics and linear mixed models to account for clustering. Results Between 2014 and 2016, 271 healthcare providers participated at study entry and 171 at exit. At entry, median intention level was 6 in a range of 1 (low) to 7 (high) (Interquartile range (IQR): 5–6.5) and factors associated with intention were social influence (β = 0.27, P  <  0.0001), beliefs about one’s capabilities (β = 0.43, P  <  0.0001), moral norm (β = 0.31, P  <  0.0001) and beliefs about consequences (β = 0.21, P  <  0.0001). At exit, median intention level was 5.5 (IQR: 4.5–6.5). Factors associated with intention were the same but did not include moral norm. However, at exit new factors were kept in the model: working in rehabilitation (β = − 0.39, P  = 0.018) and working as a technician (β = − 0.41, P  = 0.069) (compared to as a social worker). Conclusion Intention levels were high but decreased from entry to exit. Factors associated with intention also changed from study entry to study exit. These findings may be explained by the major restructuring of the health and social care system that took place during the 2 years of the study, leading to rapid staff turnover and organisational disturbance in home care teams. Future research should give more attention to contextual factors and design implementation interventions to withstand the disruption of system- and organisational-level disturbances. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT02244359 ). Registered on September 19th, 2014.

Background As new therapies for Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) are entering the market, shared decision making (SDM) will become increasingly important. Therefore, this study aimed to understand (1) Belgian stakeholders’ knowledge and perceptions of SDM in DMD treatment decision making, (2) the current state of SDM implementation in DMD in Belgium, examining the role of all involved parties, and (3) the barriers and facilitators for SDM in DMD in the Belgian context. Methods In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews with the multidisciplinary team (MDT) of individuals with DMD ( n  = 18) and caregivers thereof ( n  = 11) were conducted in Belgium. Qualitative data was analyzed thematically using the framework method. Results Most caregivers were unfamiliar with the term SDM, while MDT members were aware of it but struggled to define it consistent with existing literature. Despite acknowledging some drawbacks, participants valued SDM as an important process in DMD care, noting its presence in current practice. However, both MDT members and caregivers sometimes questioned the necessity of SDM due to limited treatment options available. Consequently, decision making predominantly relied on (child) neurologists sharing information and seeking consent from caregivers and individuals with DMD for a proposed treatment. Participants highlighted the important role of the MDT, with each professional contributing its unique expertise to SDM. To reduce existing barriers and enhance the SDM process, participants called for clear and transparent information regarding different treatment options, including clinical trials, and detailed information on how treatments might affect patients’ daily life. Conclusion This study identified an increased need for easily understandable information, particularly regarding DMD care in general, but also about clinical trials covering new and emerging therapies. Developing specific evidence-based tools could support stakeholders’ understanding of this information, thereby enhancing implementation of the SDM process in DMD care. Further, as the treatment landscape of DMD evolves, it will become increasingly important for patients to be supported by an MDT, as they can provide information on clinical trials (e.g., study coordinators), emotional support (e.g., psychologists, nurses), and decisional guidance (e.g., neurologist).

Background: Strong evidence supports beginning stroke rehabilitation as soon as the patient’s medical status has stabilized and continuing following discharge from acute care. However, adherence to rehabilitation treatments over the rehabilitation phase has been shown to be suboptimal. Objective: The aim of this study is to assess the impact of a telerehabilitation platform on stroke patients’ adherence to a rehabilitation plan and on their level of reintegration into normal social activities, in comparison with usual care. The primary outcome is patient adherence to stroke rehabilitation (up to 12 weeks), which is hypothesized to influence reintegration into normal living. Secondary outcomes for patients include functional recovery and independence, depression, adverse events related to telerehabilitation, use of services (up to 6 months), perception of interprofessional shared decision making, and quality of services received. Interprofessional collaboration as well as quality of interprofessional shared decision making will be measured with clinicians. Methods: In this interrupted time series with a convergent qualitative component, rehabilitation teams will be trained to develop rehabilitation treatment plans that engage the patient and family, while taking advantage of a telerehabilitation platform to deliver the treatment. The intervention will be comprised of 220 patients who will take part in stroke telerehabilitation with an interdisciplinary group of clinicians (telerehabilitation group) versus face-to-face standard of care (control group: n=110 patients). Results: Our Research Ethics Board approved the study in June 2020. Data collection for the control group is underway, with another year planned before we begin the intervention phase. Conclusions: This study will contribute to the minimization of both knowledge and practice gaps, while producing robust, in-depth data on the factors related to the effectiveness of telerehabilitation in a stroke rehabilitation continuum. Findings will inform best practice guidelines regarding telecare services and the provision of telerehabilitation, including recommendations for effective interdisciplinary collaboration regarding stroke rehabilitation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04440215; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04440215 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/32134

Background Shared decision making (SDM) is highly relevant in oncology and cancer care, yet its application within multiple myeloma (MM) remains underexplored. This study aims to (1) investigate SDM implementation in MM clinical practice, (2) assess the role of various stakeholders next to haematologists in the SDM process, and (3) identify barriers and potential solutions to SDM implementation in MM care. Methods This qualitative study consisted of semi-structured interviews with patients ( n  = 39), haematologists ( n  = 15), and haematology nurses ( n  = 5) from nine countries in Europe and Israel. Interviews were analysed thematically. Results MM patients expressed diverse preferences for involvement in treatment decisions, emphasising the importance of receiving information, engaging in discussions, and having their opinions considered. However, participants reported varied experiences regarding the application of SDM. While most haematologists believed SDM was consistently attempted, patients frequently indicated that their preferences, concerns, and desired level of involvement were not explicitly solicited. Discussions about the option of no treatment were notably under-discussed, as observed by patients and acknowledged by haematologists. Patients uniformly reported that the assessment of their preferred information-seeking approach was consistently overlooked, a critical step in SDM. Haematology nurses, the multidisciplinary team, family members, and patient organisations were found to play an invaluable role in the SDM process, each having their own complementary role alongside haematologists. Barriers to SDM implementation included haematologists’ reluctance to inform or involve patients, patients’ emotional status, lack of reliable patient-focused information, absence of haematology nurses, and time constraints. Patient decision aids (PtDAs) were perceived as tools to facilitate SDM, with a majority of participants expressing positive attitudes towards them, recognising their value in specific contexts. Conclusion While SDM is partially applied in MM care, there remains room for improvement. This can be done by amplifying the role of haematology nurses and other multidisciplinary team members in the SDM process. Additionally, efforts should focus on increasing the role of patient organisations in raising awareness about SDM and empowering patients to actively participate in SDM. The recommendations derived from this study along with the insights for PtDA development can serve as an initial stride towards increasing SDM implementation in MM care.

BackgroundClinicians’ satisfaction with encounter decision aids is an important component in facilitating implementation of these tools. We aimed to determine the impact of decision aids supporting shared decision making (SDM) during the clinical encounter on clinician outcomes.MethodsWe searched nine databases from inception to June 2017. Randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of decision aids used during clinical encounters with an unaided control group were eligible for inclusion. Due to heterogeneity among included studies, we used a narrative evidence synthesis approach.ResultsTwenty-five papers met inclusion criteria including 22 RCTs and 3 qualitative or mixed-methods studies nested in an RCT, together representing 23 unique trials. These trials evaluated healthcare decisions for cardiovascular prevention and treatment (n=8), treatment of diabetes mellitus (n=3), treatment of osteoporosis (n=2), treatment of depression (n=2), antibiotics to treat acute respiratory infections (n=3), cancer prevention and treatment (n=4) and prenatal diagnosis (n=1). Clinician outcomes were measured in only a minority of studies. Clinicians’ satisfaction with decision making was assessed in only 8 (and only 2 of them showed statistically significantly greater satisfaction with the decision aid); only three trials asked if clinicians would recommend the decision aid to colleagues and only five asked if clinicians would use decision aids in the future. Outpatient consultations were not prolonged when a decision aid was used in 9 out of 13 trials. The overall strength of the evidence was low, with the major risk of bias related to lack of blinding of participants and/or outcome assessors.ConclusionDecision aids can improve clinicians’ satisfaction with medical decision making and provide helpful information without affecting length of consultation time. Most SDM trials, however, omit outcomes related to clinicians’ perspective on the decision making process or the likelihood of using a decision aid in the future.

Primary care needs to be patient-centered, integrated, and interprofessional to help patients with complex needs manage the burden of medication-related problems. Considering the growing problem of polypharmacy, increasing attention has been paid to how and when medication-related decisions should be coordinated across multidisciplinary care teams. Improved knowledge on how integrated electronic health records (EHRs) can support interprofessional shared decision-making for medication therapy management is necessary to continue improving patient care. The objective of our study was to examine how physicians and pharmacists understand and communicate patient-focused medication information with each other and how this knowledge can influence the design of EHRs. This study is part of a broader cross-Canada study between patients and health care providers around how medication-related decisions are made and communicated. We visited community pharmacies, team-based primary care clinics, and independent-practice family physician clinics throughout Ontario, Nova Scotia, Alberta, and Quebec. Research assistants conducted semistructured interviews with physicians and pharmacists. A modified version of the Multidisciplinary Framework Method was used to analyze the data. We collected data from 19 pharmacies and 9 medical clinics and identified 6 main themes from 34 health care professionals. First, Interprofessional Shared Decision-Making was not occurring and clinicians made decisions based on their understanding of the patient. Physicians and pharmacists reported indirect Communication, incomplete Information specifically missing insight into indication and adherence, and misaligned Processes of Care that were further compounded by EHRs that are not designed to facilitate collaboration. Scope of Practice examined professional and workplace boundaries for pharmacists and physicians that were internally and externally imposed. Physicians decided on the degree of the Physician-Pharmacist Relationship, often predicated by colocation. We observed limited communication and collaboration between primary care providers and pharmacists when managing medications. Pharmacists were missing key information around reason for use, and physicians required accurate information around adherence. EHRs are a potential tool to help clinicians communicate information to resolve this issue. EHRs need to be designed to facilitate interprofessional medication management so that pharmacists and physicians can move beyond task-based work toward a collaborative approach.