Silvia KA, Ozanne EM, Sepucha KRImplementing breast cancer decision aids in community sites: barriers and resources. Health Expect 11(1): 46-53
To assess the feasibility of implementing four patient decision aids (PtDAs) for early stage breast cancer treatment decisions into routine clinical care in community settings.
There is very limited information available about implementing decision aids into routine clinical practice and most of this information is based on academic centres; more information is needed about implementing them into routine clinical practice in community settings.
Structured individual interviews.
Providers from 12 sites, including nine community hospitals, a community oncology centre and two academic centres.
Usage data, barriers to and resources for implementing the PtDAs.
Nine of the 12 sites were using the PtDAs with patients. All of the sites were lending the PtDAs to patients, usually without a formal sign-out system. The keys to successful implementation included nurses' and social workers' interest in distributing the PtDAs and the success of the lending model. Barriers that limited or prevented sites from using the PtDA included a lack of physician support, a lack of an organized system for distributing the PtDAs and nurses' perceptions about patients' attitude towards participation in decision making.
It is feasible to implement PtDAs for early stage breast cancer into routine clinical care in community settings, even with few resources available.
Figures in this publication
Available from: Glyn Elwyn
- "There are also reports that clinicians may not trust or agree with the content of DESIs [23,34,38]. Some professionals were reported to hold the view that patients did not want decisional responsibility when facing difficult diagnoses  and that DESIs were in “competition” with other information designed for patients, suggesting that the intended aim of the DESIs, (i.e., to support patients in engaging in decisions), was not always understood [23,31,34]. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Two decades of research has established the positive effect of using patient-targeted decision support interventions: patients gain knowledge, greater understanding of probabilities and increased confidence in decisions. Yet, despite their efficacy, the effectiveness of these decision support interventions in routine practice has yet to be established; widespread adoption has not occurred. The aim of this review was to search for and analyze the findings of published peer-reviewed studies that investigated the success levels of strategies or methods where attempts were made to implement patient-targeted decision support interventions into routine clinical settings.
An electronic search strategy was devised and adapted for the following databases: ASSIA, CINAHL, Embase, HMIC, Medline, Medline-in-process, OpenSIGLE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Social Services Abstracts, and the Web of Science. In addition, we used snowballing techniques. Studies were included after dual independent assessment.
After assessment, 5322 abstracts yielded 51 articles for consideration. After examining full-texts, 17 studies were included and subjected to data extraction. The approach used in all studies was one where clinicians and their staff used a referral model, asking eligible patients to use decision support. The results point to significant challenges to the implementation of patient decision support using this model, including indifference on the part of health care professionals. This indifference stemmed from a reported lack of confidence in the content of decision support interventions and concern about disruption to established workflows, ultimately contributing to organizational inertia regarding their adoption.
It seems too early to make firm recommendations about how best to implement patient decision support into routine practice because approaches that use a 'referral model' consistently report difficulties. We sense that the underlying issues that militate against the use of patient decision support and, more generally, limit the adoption of shared decision making, are under-investigated and under-specified. Future reports from implementation studies could be improved by following guidelines, for example the SQUIRE proposals, and by adopting methods that would be able to go beyond the 'barriers' and 'facilitators' approach to understand more about the nature of professional and organizational resistance to these tools. The lack of incentives that reward the use of these interventions needs to be considered as a significant impediment.
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 11/2013; 13 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S14. DOI:10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S14 · 1.83 Impact Factor
Available from: Glyn Elwyn
- "The findings from this study deepen our understanding of implementation challenges already published. Frequently cited issues about health professionals’ lack of understanding about how to operationalize SDM [6,9,24-26] combined with evidence that some health professionals view patient involvement in decision making as inappropriate [8,27] and that poor teamwork hinders implementation [26,28], emphasize the need for ‘coherence.’ Health professionals’ lack of trust in the content of decision support tools [6,8,25,29,30] may be related to low participation in the development and use of such tools. "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Implementing shared decision making into routine practice is proving difficult, despite considerable interest from policy-makers, and is far more complex than merely making decision support interventions available to patients. Few have reported successful implementation beyond research studies. MAking Good Decisions In Collaboration (MAGIC) is a multi-faceted implementation program, commissioned by The Health Foundation (UK), to examine how best to put shared decision making into routine practice. In this paper, we investigate healthcare professionals' perspectives on implementing shared decision making during the MAGIC program, to examine the work required to implement shared decision making and to inform future efforts.
The MAGIC program approached implementation of shared decision making by initiating a range of interventions including: providing workshops; facilitating development of brief decision support tools (Option Grids); initiating a patient activation campaign ('Ask 3 Questions'); gathering feedback using Decision Quality Measures; providing clinical leads meetings, learning events, and feedback sessions; and obtaining executive board level support. At 9 and 15 months (May and November 2011), two rounds of semi-structured interviews were conducted with healthcare professionals in three secondary care teams to explore views on the impact of these interventions. Interview data were coded by two reviewers using a framework derived from the Normalization Process Theory.
A total of 54 interviews were completed with 31 healthcare professionals. Partial implementation of shared decision making could be explained using the four components of the Normalization Process Theory: 'coherence,' 'cognitive participation,' 'collective action,' and 'reflexive monitoring.' Shared decision making was integrated into routine practice when clinical teams shared coherent views of role and purpose ('coherence'). Shared decision making was facilitated when teams engaged in developing and delivering interventions ('cognitive participation'), and when those interventions fit with existing skill sets and organizational priorities ('collective action') resulting in demonstrable improvements to practice ('reflexive monitoring'). The implementation process uncovered diverse and conflicting attitudes toward shared decision making; 'coherence' was often missing.
The study showed that implementation of shared decision making is more complex than the delivery of patient decision support interventions to patients, a portrayal that often goes unquestioned. Normalizing shared decision making requires intensive work to ensure teams have a shared understanding of the purpose of involving patients in decisions, and undergo the attitudinal shifts that many health professionals feel are required when comprehension goes beyond initial interpretations. Divergent views on the value of engaging patients in decisions remain a significant barrier to implementation.
Implementation Science 09/2013; 8(1):102. DOI:10.1186/1748-5908-8-102 · 4.12 Impact Factor
Available from: Dominick L Frosch
- "community-based health care organizations in urban, suburban and rural communities . The goal of these projects is to test different models for integrating DAs and SDM into healthcare workflows and patient-provider interactions so they become a part of routine care    . "
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Shared decision making in the United States has become an important element in health policy debates. The recently passed federal health care reform legislation includes several key provisions related to shared decision making (SDM) and patient decision support. Several states have passed or are considering legislation that incorporates SDM as a key component of improved health care provision. Research on SDM is funded by a range of public and private organizations. Non-profit, for-profit, academic and government organizations are developing decision support interventions for numerous conditions. Some interventions are publicly available; others are distributed to patients through health insurance and healthcare providers. A significant number of clinical implementation projects are underway to test and evaluate different ways of incorporating SDM and patient decision support into routine clinical care. Numerous professional organizations are advocating for SDM and social networking efforts are increasing their advocacy as well. Policy makers are intrigued by the potential of SDM to improve health care provision and potentially lower costs. The role of shared decision making in policy and practice will be part of the larger health care reform debate.
Zeitschrift für Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen 01/2011; 105(4):305-12. DOI:10.1016/j.zefq.2011.04.004
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.