Article

Patient decision aids in joint replacement surgery: a literature review and an opinion survey of consultant orthopaedic surgeons.

Department of Medical Oncology, Northern Centre for Cancer Treatment, Newcastle General Hospital, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
Annals of The Royal College of Surgeons of England (Impact Factor: 1.22). 05/2008; 90(3):198-207. DOI: 10.1308/003588408X285748
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Patient decision aids could facilitate shared decision-making in joint replacement surgery. However, patient decision aids are not routinely used in this setting.
With a view to developing a patient decision aid for UK hip/knee joint replacement practice, we undertook a systematic search of the literature for evidence on the use of shared decision-making and patient decision aids in orthopaedics, and a national survey of consultant orthopaedic surgeons on the potential acceptability and feasibility of patient decision aids.
We found little published evidence regarding shared decision-making or patient decision aids in orthopaedics. In the survey, 362 of 639 (57%) randomly selected consultant orthopaedic surgeons responded. Respondents appear representative of consultant orthopaedic surgeons in the UK. Of 272 valid responses, 79% (95% CI, 73-85%) thought patient decision aids a good or excellent idea. There was consensus on the potential helpfulness of patient decision aids and core content. A booklet to take home was the preferred medium/practice model.
Despite the increased emphasis on patient involvement in decision-making, there is little evidence in the medical literature relating to shared decision-making or the use of patient decision aids in orthopaedic surgery. Further research in this area of clinical practice is required. Our survey shows that consultant orthopaedic surgeons in the UK are generally positive about the use of patient decision aids for joint replacement surgery. Survey results could inform future development of patient decision aids for joint replacement practice in the UK.

Full-text

Available from: Hilary A Llewellyn-Thomas, Jun 08, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
109 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Choice of hospital based on comparative performance information (CPI) was introduced for Dutch healthcare consumers at least 5 years ago, but CPI use has not yet become commonplace. Our aim was to assess the role of patients¿ expectations regarding variation in the quality of hospital care in determining whether they search for CPI.MethodsA questionnaire (for a cross-sectional survey) was distributed to 475 orthopaedic patients in a consecutive sample, who underwent primary hip or knee replacement in a university, teaching, or community hospital between September 2009 and July 2010.ResultsOf the 302 patients (63%) who responded, 13% reported searching for CPI to help them choose a hospital. People who expected quality differences between hospitals (67%) were more likely to search for CPI (OR =3.18 [95% CI: 1.02¿9.89]; p <0.04) than those who did not. Quality differences were most often expected in hospital reputation, distance, and accessibility. Patients who did not search for CPI stated that they felt no need for this type of information.Conclusion Patients¿ expectations regarding variation in quality of care are positively related to their reported search for CPI. To increase the relevance of CPI for patients, future studies should explore the underlying reasoning of patients about meaningful quality-of-care variation between hospitals.
    BMC Health Services Research 12/2014; 14(1):617. DOI:10.1186/s12913-014-0617-y · 1.66 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background There is a lack of practical research frameworks to guide the development of patient decision aids [PtDAs]. This paper described how a PtDA was developed using the International Patient Decision Aids (IPDAS) guideline and UK Medical Research Council (UKMRC) frameworks to support patients when making treatment decisions in type 2 diabetes mellitus.Methods This study used mixed methods to develop a PtDA for use in a UK general practice setting. A 10-member expert panel was convened to guide development and patients and clinicians were also interviewed individually using semi-structured interview guides to identify their decisional needs. Current literature was reviewed systematically to determine the best available evidence. The Ottawa Decision Support Framework was used to guide the presentation of the information and value clarification exercise. An iterative draft-review-revise process by the research team and review panel was conducted until the PtDA reached content and format `saturation¿. The PtDA was then pilot-tested by users in actual consultations to assess its acceptability and feasibility. The IPDAS and UKMRC frameworks were used throughout to inform the development process.ResultsThe PANDAs PtDA was developed systematically and iteratively. Patients and clinicians highlighted the needs for information, decisional, emotional and social support, which were incorporated into the PtDA. The literature review identified gaps in high quality evidence and variations in patient outcome reporting. The PtDA comprised five components: background of the treatment options; pros and cons of each treatment option; value clarification exercise; support needs; and readiness to decide.Conclusions This study has demonstrated the feasibility of combining the IPDAS and the UKMRC frameworks for the development and evaluation of a PtDA. Future studies should test this model for developing PtDAs across different decisions and healthcare contexts.
    BMC Health Services Research 10/2014; 14(1):503. DOI:10.1186/s12913-014-0503-7 · 1.66 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: While some studies have identified patient readiness as a key component in their decision whether to have total joint replacement surgery (TJR), none have examined how patients determine their readiness for surgery. The study purpose was to explore the concept of patient readiness and describe the factors patients consider when assessing their readiness for TJR.
    BMC Health Services Research 10/2014; 14(1):454. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-14-454 · 1.66 Impact Factor