Interventions for increasing the use of shared decision making by healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made by the patient, significant others, or both with one or more healthcare professionals. However, it has not yet been widely adopted in practice. This is the second update of this Cochrane review. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals. We considered interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and five other databases on 15 June 2017. We also searched two clinical trials registries and proceedings of relevant conferences. We checked reference lists and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and non-randomized trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions for increasing the use of SDM in which the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer-based or patient-reported measures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 87 studies (45,641 patients and 3113 healthcare professionals) conducted mainly in the USA, Germany, Canada and the Netherlands. Risk of bias was high or unclear for protection against contamination, low for differences in the baseline characteristics of patients, and unclear for other domains.Forty-four studies evaluated interventions targeting patients. They included decision aids, patient activation, question prompt lists and training for patients among others and were administered alone (single intervention) or in combination (multifaceted intervention). The certainty of the evidence was very low. It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.13 to 1.22; 4 studies; N = 424) or reported by patients (SMD 0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.48; 9 studies; N = 1386; risk difference (RD) -0.09, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.01; 6 studies; N = 754), reduce decision regret (SMD -0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.19; 1 study; N = 212), improve physical (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 116) or mental health-related quality of life (QOL) (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 116), affect consultation length (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.39 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 224) or cost (SMD 0.82, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.22; 1 study; N = 105).It is uncertain if interventions targeting patients when compared with interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.88, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.37; 3 studies; N = 271) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.24; 11 studies; N = 1906); (RD 0.03, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.08; 10 studies; N = 2272); affect consultation length (SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.29 to -0.00; 1 study; N = 39) or costs. No data were reported for decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL.Fifteen studies evaluated interventions targeting healthcare professionals. They included educational meetings, educational material, educational outreach visits and reminders among others. The certainty of evidence is very low. It is uncertain if these interventions when compared with usual care increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 0.70, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.19; 6 studies; N = 479) or reported by patients (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.20; 5 studies; N = 5772); (RD 0.01, 95%C: -0.03 to 0.06; 2 studies; N = 6303); reduce decision regret (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.51; 1 study; N = 326), affect consultation length (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.81; 1 study, N = 175), cost (no data available) or physical health-related QOL (SMD 0.16, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.36; 1 study; N = 359). Mental health-related QOL may slightly improve (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.49; 1 study, N = 359; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain if interventions targeting healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.30, 95% CI -1.19 to 0.59; 1 study; N = 20) or reported by patients (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.58; 2 studies; N = 1459) as the certainty of the evidence is very low. There was insufficient information to determine the effect on decision regret, physical or mental health-related QOL, consultation length or costs.Twenty-eight studies targeted both patients and healthcare professionals. The interventions used a combination of patient-mediated and healthcare professional directed interventions. Based on low certainty evidence, it is uncertain whether these interventions, when compared with usual care, increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD 1.10, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.79; 6 studies; N = 1270) or reported by patients (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.28; 7 studies; N = 1479); (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.19; 2 studies; N = 266); improve physical (SMD 0.08, -0.37 to 0.54; 1 study; N = 75) or mental health-related QOL (SMD 0.01, -0.44 to 0.46; 1 study; N = 75), affect consultation length (SMD 3.72, 95% CI 3.44 to 4.01; 1 study; N = 36) or costs (no data available) and may make little or no difference to decision regret (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.33; 1 study; low-certainty evidence).It is uncertain whether interventions targeting both patients and healthcare professionals compared to interventions of the same type increase SDM whether measured by observation (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -1.17 to 0.60; 1 study; N = 20); (RD -0.04, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.04; 1 study; N = 134) or reported by patients (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.32; 1 study; N = 150 ) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. There was insuffient information to determine the effects on decision regret, physical or mental health-related quality of life, or consultation length or costs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is uncertain whether any interventions for increasing the use of SDM by healthcare professionals are effective because the certainty of the evidence is low or very low.

Evaluation of the CPR video decision aid with patients with end stage renal disease.

BACKGROUND: People with end stage renal disease (ESRD) face important health-related decisions concerning end-of-life care and the use of life-support technologies. While people often want to be involved in making decisions about their health, there are many challenges. People with advanced illness may have limited or wavering ability to participate fully in decision-making conversations - or lack decisional capacity for making decisions. Additionally, they may have a limited understanding of CPR and tend to receive inconsistent information on the process and outcome of CPR. Unfortunately, these discussions are often avoided. Shared decision-making approaches are an approach to overcoming these challenges. The objectives of this research was to design, test, and analyze a novel CPR video decision aid (VDA) with nephrology patients and their families in a clinical setting. METHODS: The Interprofessional Shared Decision-making Model was used as a framework to guide the research. A prospective quasi-experimental design included pre/posttest measures of knowledge and confidence in decision-making, and posttest only measure of uncertainty about the decision. RESULTS: Participant knowledge about CPR increased from a mean score of 4.8/9 (standard deviation [SD] = 1.65) before viewing the video to 7.5/9 (SD = 1.40) (p = 0.000) after viewing the video. Decisional self-efficacy improved slightly from 84% pre intervention (SD 17.04, range 20-100) to 86% after the intervention (SD 14.13, range 39-100) (p = 0.005) for patient participants. Before the intervention, most patients (43/49; 86%) had an order to have CPR in the physician orders and very few (7/49; 14%) had an order not to have CPR. Immediately after viewing the CPR-VDA and completing the values clarification worksheet, fewer 28/49 (57%) chose to have CPR, 13 (27%) chose not to have CPR and 8 (16%) were unsure. CONCLUSIONS: The CPR-VDA was feasible and acceptable to patients with ESRD, their families and the healthcare team. The CPR-VDA positively affected decision-making: improving patient and family knowledge about CPR, clarity of values, patients' decisional self-efficacy, the congruence between documented physician's orders and patient choice, quality of communication about CPR, while reducing decisional conflict (uncertainty) amongst patients, families, and physicians.

Canadian hospital nurses' roles in communication and decision-making about goals of care: An interpretive description of critical incidents.

BACKGROUND: Nurses in acute medical units are uniquely positioned to support goals of care communication. Further understanding of nurse and physician perceptions about hospital nurses' actual and possible roles was required to improve goals of care communication. OBJECTIVE: To critically examine nurse and physician perceptions of the nurse's role in communication with seriously ill patients and their families. DESIGN: We focus on the qualitative component of a mixed method study. We employed an interpretive descriptive approach informed by Flanagan's critical incident technique. SETTINGS: Participants were recruited from the acute medical units at three tertiary care hospitals in three Canadian provinces. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty participants provided interviews (10 from each site): 12 nurses, 9 staff physicians and 9 medical resident physicians. METHODS: Participants' described "critical incidents" they considered as "excellent" or "poor" or "usual" practice. Interviews, were audiotaped and transcribed. Team-based analysis used constant comparison and triangulation to identify healthcare team members' roles in goals of care communication. RESULTS: We identified two major themes from 120 critical incidents: 1) the ambiguous nature of the nurse's role in formal, physician-led, decision-making communication, and 2) embedded in care serious illness communication. Physicians understood nurses' supportive role in relation to their own communication practices that culminated in decisions about care; nurses' reported their roles were determined by unit routines, physician practices and preferences, and their self-confidence in supporting decision-making. Nurses described their unique role in facilitating informal and spontaneous communication with patients and families that was critical background work to physician-led goals of care communication. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses and physicians had different understandings, practices and beliefs about goals of care communication The value of nurses embedded in care work is key to supporting the interprofessional team's work during formal goals of care communication.

Parental decision making involvement and decisional conflict: a descriptive study.

BACKGROUND: Decisional conflict is a state of uncertainty about the best treatment option among competing alternatives and is common among adult patients who are inadequately involved in the health decision making process. In pediatrics, research shows that many parents are insufficiently involved in decisions about their child's health. However, little is known about parents' experience of decisional conflict. We explored parents' perceived decision making involvement and its association with parents' decisional conflict. METHOD: We conducted a descriptive survey study in a pediatric tertiary care hospital. Our survey was guided by validated decisional conflict screening items (i.e., the SURE test). We administered the survey to eligible parents after an ambulatory care or emergency department consultation for their child. RESULTS: Four hundred twenty-nine respondents were included in the analysis. Forty-eight percent of parents reported not being offered treatment options and 23% screened positive for decisional conflict. Parents who reported being offered options experienced less decisional conflict than parents who reported not being offered options (5% vs. 42%, p < 0.001). Further, parents with options were more likely to: feel sure about the decision (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02-1.15); understand the information (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.63-2.28); be clear about the risks and benefits (RR 1.12, 95% CI 1.05-1.20); and, have sufficient support and advice to make a choice (RR 1.07, 95% CI 1.03-1.11). CONCLUSION: Many parents in our sample experienced decisional conflict after their clinical consultation. Involving parents in the decision making process might reduce their risk of decisional conflict. Evidence based interventions that support parent decision making involvement, such as shared decision making, should be evaluated and implemented in pediatrics as a strategy to reduce parents' decisional conflict.

The Caregiver Contribution to Heart Failure Self-Care (CACHS): Further Psychometric Testing of a Novel Instrument.

Caregivers (CGs) contribute important assistance with heart failure (HF) self-care, including daily maintenance, symptom monitoring, and management. Until CGs' contributions to self-care can be quantified, it is impossible to characterize it, account for its impact on patient outcomes, or perform meaningful cost analyses. The purpose of this study was to conduct psychometric testing and item reduction on the recently developed 34-item Caregiver Contribution to Heart Failure Self-care (CACHS) instrument using classical and item response theory methods. Fifty CGs (mean age 63 years ±12.84; 70% female) recruited from a HF clinic completed the CACHS in 2014 and results evaluated using classical test theory and item response theory. Items would be deleted for low (<.05) or high (>.95) endorsement, low (<.3) or high (>.7) corrected item-total correlations, significant pairwise correlation coefficients, floor or ceiling effects, relatively low latent trait and item information function levels (<1.5 and p > .5), and differential item functioning. After analysis, 14 items were excluded, resulting in a 20-item instrument (self-care maintenance eight items; monitoring seven items; and management five items). Most items demonstrated moderate to high discrimination (median 2.13, minimum .77, maximum 5.05), and appropriate item difficulty (-2.7 to 1.4). Internal consistency reliability was excellent (Cronbach α = .94, average inter-item correlation = .41) with no ceiling effects. The newly developed 20-item version of the CACHS is supported by rigorous instrument development and represents a novel instrument to measure CGs' contribution to HF self-care. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) can reduce overuse of options not associated with benefits for all and respects patient rights, but has not yet been widely adopted in practice. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of interventions to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM. SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched for primary studies in The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Specialsied Register and PsycINFO for the period March 2009 to August 2012. We searched the Clinical Trials.gov registry and the proceedings of the International Shared Decision Making Conference. We scanned the bibliographies of relevant papers and studies. We contacted experts in the field to identify papers published after August 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating interventions to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM where the primary outcomes were evaluated using observer-based outcome measures (OBOM) or patient-reported outcome measures (PROM). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The three overall categories of intervention were: interventions targeting patients, interventions targeting healthcare professionals, and interventions targeting both. Studies in each category were compared to studies in the same category, to studies in the other two categories, and to usual care, resulting in nine comparison groups. Statistical analysis considered categorical and continuous primary outcomes separately. We calculated the median of the standardized mean difference (SMD), or risk difference, and range of effect across studies and categories of intervention. We assessed risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-nine studies were included, 38 randomised and one non-randomised controlled trial. Categorical measures did not show any effect for any of the interventions. In OBOM studies, interventions targeting both patients and healthcare professionals had a positive effect compared to usual care (SMD of 2.83) and compared to interventions targeting patients alone (SMD of 1.42). Studies comparing interventions targeting patients with other interventions targeting patients had a positive effect, as did studies comparing interventions targeting healthcare professionals with usual care (SDM of 1.13 and 1.08 respectively). In PROM studies, only three comparisons showed any effect, patient compared to usual care (SMD of 0.21), patient compared to another patient (SDM of 0.29) and healthcare professional compared to another healthcare professional (SDM of 0.20). For all comparisons, interpretation of the results needs to consider the small number of studies, the heterogeneity, and some methodological issues. Overall quality of the evidence for the outcomes, assessed with the GRADE tool, ranged from low to very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is uncertain whether interventions to improve adoption of SDM are effective given the low quality of the evidence. However, any intervention that actively targets patients, healthcare professionals, or both, is better than none. Also, interventions targeting patients and healthcare professionals together show more promise than those targeting only one or the other.

Interventions to support children's engagement in health-related decisions: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Children often need support in health decision-making. The objective of this study was to review characteristics and effectiveness of interventions that support health decision-making of children. METHODS: A systematic review. Electronic databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, CINAHL, PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and EMBASE) were searched from inception until March 2012. Two independent reviewers screened eligibility: a) intervention studies; b) involved supporting children (≤18 years) considering health-related decision(s); and c) measured decision quality or decision-making process outcomes. Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted by one author and verified by another using a standardized data extraction form. Quality appraisal was based on the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. RESULTS: Of 4313 citations, 5 studies were eligible. Interventions focused on supporting decisions about risk behaviors (n = 3), psycho-educational services (n = 1), and end of life (n = 1). Two of 5 studies had statistically significant findings: i) compared to attention placebo, decision coaching alone increased values congruence between child and parent, and child satisfaction with decision-making process (lower risk of bias); ii) compared to no intervention, a workshop with weekly assignments increased overall decision-making quality (higher risk of bias). CONCLUSIONS: Few studies have focused on interventions to support children's participation in decisions about their health. More research is needed to determine effective methods for supporting children's health decision-making.

Whose choice is it? Shared decision making in nephrology care.

Patients living with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are faced with numerous decisions across the trajectory of their illness. Shared decision making (SDM) offers a patient-centered approach to engage patients in decision making in meaningful ways. Using an SDM approach, patients and providers collaborate to make healthcare decisions by taking into account the best available empirical evidence, in conjunction with the patient's values, preferences, and individual circumstances. In this article, we outline the principles of SDM; highlight the broad range and context of decisions faced by patients living with ESRD; review decision-support interventions; and consider opportunities and challenges for implementing SDM into usual ESRD practice. A summary of current knowledge and areas for research and further investigation concludes the paper. Because nephrology team members spend a lot of time interacting with patients during treatments and follow-up care, they are well positioned to engage in SDM. Healthcare systems need innovation in communication to ensure the ethical application of important technological improvements in renal treatments, and to ensure that patient decision-support processes are available. SDM is a promising innovation to support the recalibration of care for patients living with end-stage renal disease.

A systematic development process for patient decision aids.

BACKGROUND: The original version of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) recommended that patient decision aids (PtDAs) should be carefully developed, user-tested and open to scrutiny, with a well-documented and systematically applied development process. We carried out a review to check the relevance and scope of this quality dimension and, if necessary, to update it. METHODS: Our review drew on three sources: a) published papers describing PtDAs evaluated in randomised controlled trials and included in the most recent Cochrane Collaboration review; b) linked papers cited in the trial reports that described how the PtDAs had been developed; and c) papers and web reports outlining the development process used by organisations experienced in developing multiple PtDAs. We then developed an extended model of the development process indicating the various steps on which documentation is required, as well as a checklist to assess the frequency with which each of the elements was publicly reported. RESULTS: Key features common to all patient decision aid (PtDA) development processes include: scoping and design; development of a prototype; 'alpha' testing with patients and clinicians in an iterative process; 'beta' testing in 'real life' conditions (field tests); and production of a final version for use and/or further evaluation. Only about half of the published reports on the development of PtDAs that we reviewed appear to have been field tested with patients, and even fewer had been reviewed or tested by clinicians not involved in the development process. Very few described a distribution strategy, and surprisingly few (17%) described a method for reviewing and synthesizing the clinical evidence. We describe a model development process that includes all the original elements of the original IPDAS criterion, expanded to include consideration of format and distribution plans as well as prototype development. CONCLUSIONS: The case for including each of the elements outlined in our model development process is pragmatic rather than evidence-based. Optimal methods for ensuring that each stage of the process is carried out effectively require further development and testing.

Coaching and guidance with patient decision aids: A review of theoretical and empirical evidence.

BACKGROUND: Coaching and guidance are structured approaches that can be used within or alongside patient decision aids (PtDAs) to facilitate the process of decision making. Coaching is provided by an individual, and guidance is embedded within the decision support materials. The purpose of this paper is to: a) present updated definitions of the concepts "coaching" and "guidance"; b) present an updated summary of current theoretical and empirical insights into the roles played by coaching/guidance in the context of PtDAs; and c) highlight emerging issues and research opportunities in this aspect of PtDA design. METHODS: We identified literature published since 2003 on shared decision making theoretical frameworks inclusive of coaching or guidance. We also conducted a sub-analysis of randomized controlled trials included in the 2011 Cochrane Collaboration Review of PtDAs with search results updated to December 2010. The sub-analysis was conducted on the characteristics of coaching and/or guidance included in any trial of PtDAs and trials that allowed the impact of coaching and/or guidance with PtDA to be compared to another intervention or usual care. RESULTS: Theoretical evidence continues to justify the use of coaching and/or guidance to better support patients in the process of thinking about a decision and in communicating their values/preferences with others. In 98 randomized controlled trials of PtDAs, 11 trials (11.2%) included coaching and 63 trials (64.3%) provided guidance. Compared to usual care, coaching provided alongside a PtDA improved knowledge and decreased mean costs. The impact on some other outcomes (e.g., participation in decision making, satisfaction, option chosen) was more variable, with some trials showing positive effects and other trials reporting no differences. For values-choice agreement, decisional conflict, adherence, and anxiety there were no differences between groups. None of these outcomes were worse when patients were exposed to decision coaching alongside a PtDA. No trials evaluated the effect of guidance provided within PtDAs. CONCLUSIONS: Theoretical evidence continues to justify the use of coaching and/or guidance to better support patients to participate in decision making. However, there are few randomized controlled trials that have compared the effectiveness of coaching used alongside PtDAs to PtDAs without coaching, and no trials have compared the PtDAs with guidance to those without guidance.

Clarifying values: an updated review.

BACKGROUND: Consensus guidelines have recommended that decision aids include a process for helping patients clarify their values. We sought to examine the theoretical and empirical evidence related to the use of values clarification methods in patient decision aids. METHODS: Building on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration's 2005 review of values clarification methods in decision aids, we convened a multi-disciplinary expert group to examine key definitions, decision-making process theories, and empirical evidence about the effects of values clarification methods in decision aids. To summarize the current state of theory and evidence about the role of values clarification methods in decision aids, we undertook a process of evidence review and summary. RESULTS: Values clarification methods (VCMs) are best defined as methods to help patients think about the desirability of options or attributes of options within a specific decision context, in order to identify which option he/she prefers. Several decision making process theories were identified that can inform the design of values clarification methods, but no single "best" practice for how such methods should be constructed was determined. Our evidence review found that existing VCMs were used for a variety of different decisions, rarely referenced underlying theory for their design, but generally were well described in regard to their development process. Listing the pros and cons of a decision was the most common method used. The 13 trials that compared decision support with or without VCMs reached mixed results: some found that VCMs improved some decision-making processes, while others found no effect. CONCLUSIONS: Values clarification methods may improve decision-making processes and potentially more distal outcomes. However, the small number of evaluations of VCMs and, where evaluations exist, the heterogeneity in outcome measures makes it difficult to determine their overall effectiveness or the specific characteristics that increase effectiveness.

Interventions for shared decision-making about life support in the intensive care unit: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals and families make decisions about the use of life support for patients in the intensive care unit (ICU), including decisions to withhold or withdraw life support at the end-of-life. Best practice guidelines recommend using a shared decision-making (SDM) approach to improve the quality of end-of-life decision-making but do not describe how this should be done in practice. AIMS: To know what elements of SDM had been tested to improve communication between healthcare professionals, patients, and their family about the decision. Trials relevant to our review assessed whether these interventions were more effective than usual care. METHODS: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials of SDM interventions for the decision about using life support, limiting the use of life support, or withdrawing life support for hospitalized patients. We searched databases from inception to January 2011. RESULTS: Of 3,162 publications, four unique trials were conducted between 1992 and 2005. Of four trials, three interventions were evaluated. Two studies of interventions including three of nine elements of SDM did not report improvements in communication. Two studies of the same ethics consultation, which included eight of nine elements of SDM, did not evaluate the benefit to communication. The interventions were not harmful; they decreased family member anxiety and distress, shortened intensive care unit stay, but did not affect patient mortality. IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH AND PRACTICE: Few studies have evaluated interventions to improve communication between healthcare professionals and patients/families when facing the decision about whether or not to use life support in the ICU. Interventions that include essential elements of SDM need to be more thoroughly evaluated in order to determine their effectiveness and health impact and to guide clinical practice.

"Now I get what's important" - Shifting philosophies of hospice society staff and trained volunteers involved in peer-facilitated Advance Care Planning workshops for the public.

OBJECTIVE: Community-led approaches can increase public engagement in Advance Care Planning (ACP). Better understanding of the experiences and perspectives of community staff and volunteers who host and facilitate community-led, peer-facilitated ACP workshops is valuable when considering the spread of these approaches. METHODS: Content analysis of qualitative data from community-based hospice societies delivering ACP workshops to the public in British Columbia: one-on-one interviews with 5 organizational representatives and focus groups with 13 peer facilitators. RESULTS: Three main categories emerged: 1) ACP is about 'Living well'; 2) Transitioning focus from legal forms to conversations; 3) Benefits to all involved. CONCLUSIONS: Community staff and volunteers acknowledge the role they could play in promoting ACP in their communities. They recognize the benefits to the facilitators and public participants from following a community-led approach that emphasizes the importance of ACP conversations over the completion of relevant legal forms. Additional potential benefits of this approach, as reported by the organizational representatives, are increased volunteer engagement, more community partnerships, and an enhanced organizational profile. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This community-led model can be a meaningful and approachable way to engage the public in ACP. Hospice societies are well positioned in the community to incorporate ACP workshops into their programming.

Community-led, peer-facilitated Advance Care Planning workshops prompt increased Advance Care Planning behaviors among public attendees.

Objective: Despite recognized benefits, engagement in Advance Care Planning (ACP) remains low. Research into peer-facilitated, group ACP interventions is limited. This study investigated the acceptability of community-led peer-facilitated ACP workshops for the public and whether these workshops are associated with increased knowledge, motivation and engagement in ACP behaviors. Methods: Peer-facilitators from 9 community organizations were recruited and trained to deliver free ACP workshops to members of the public with an emphasis on conversation. Using a cohort design, workshop acceptability and engagement in ACP behaviors was assessed by surveying public participants at the end of the workshop and 4-6 weeks later. Results: 217 participants returned post-workshop questionnaires, and 69 returned follow-up questionnaires. Over 90% of participants felt they gained knowledge across all 6 learning goals. Every ACP behavior saw a statistically significant increase in participant completion after 4-6 weeks. Almost all participants were glad they attended (94%) and would recommend the workshop to others (95%). Conclusion: This study revealed an association of peer-facilitated ACP workshops and completion of ACP behaviors in public participants. Innovation: This innovative approach supports investment in the spread of community-based, peer-facilitated ACP workshops for the public as important ACP promotion strategies.

Essential Elements to Implementing a Paramedic Palliative Model of Care: An Application of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

Background: Comfort care without transport to hospital was not traditionally a paramedic practice. The novel Paramedics Providing Palliative Care at Home Program includes a new clinical practice guideline, medications, a database to manage and share goals of care, and palliative care training. This study determined essential elements for implementation, scale, and spread of this Program. Methods: Deliberative dialogs, a qualitative method, were held with diverse stakeholders/experts in one province with the Program (Nova Scotia, March 2018) and one without (British Columbia, July 2018). The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) informed the discussion guide and was used in a framework analysis. Four team members analyzed the data independently; themes were derived by consensus with the broader research team. Results: CFIR constructs framed several key elements. Inter-sectoral communication is critical but challenged by privacy concerns and the siloed structure of the health system. Locally adapted training is an essential characteristic of the intervention; cost is a factor. A shift in mindset away from traditional paramedic roles is required; this can be facilitated by paramedic champions and a positive implementation climate. Early engagement of diverse stakeholders and planning for sustainability is key. Conclusion: This framework analysis using CFIR constructs can guide successful scale and spread of the program. The constructs of Outer setting: Cosmopolitanism; Characteristics of the intervention: Adaptability; Inner Setting: Implementation climate; and Processes: Engagement, and Planning, emerged as essential.

Continuing professional development for interprofessional teams supporting patients in healthcare decision making.

Healthcare professionals and organizations, policy makers, and the public are calling for safe and effective care that is centered on patients' needs, values, and preferences. The goals of interprofessional shared decision making and decision support are to help patients and professionals agree on choices that are effective, health promoting, realistic, and consonant with patients' and professionals' values and preferences. This requires collaboration among professionals and with patients and their family caregivers. Continuing professional development is urgently needed to help healthcare professionals acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitudes necessary to create and sustain a culture of collaboration. We describe a model that can be used to design, implement, and evaluate continuing education curricula in interprofessional shared decision making and decision support. This model aligns curricular goals, objectives, educational strategies, and evaluation instruments and strategies with desired learning and organizational outcomes. Educational leaders and researchers can institutionalize such curricula by linking them with quality improvement and patient safety initiatives.

Interprofessionalism and shared decision-making in primary care: a stepwise approach towards a new model.

Most shared decision-making (SDM) models within healthcare have been limited to the patient-physician dyad. As a first step towards promoting an interprofessional approach to SDM in primary care, this article reports how an interprofessional and interdisciplinary group developed and achieved consensus on a new interprofessional SDM model. The key concepts within published reviews of SDM models and interprofessionalism were identified, analysed, and discussed by the group in order to reach consensus on the new interprofessional SDM (IP-SDM) model. The IP-SDM model comprises three levels: the individual (micro) level and two healthcare system (meso and macro) levels. At the individual level, the patient presents with a health condition that requires decision-making and follows a structured process to make an informed, value-based decision in concert with a team of healthcare professionals. The model acknowledges (at the meso level) the influence of individual team members' professional roles including the decision coach and organizational routines. At the macro level it acknowledges the influence of system level factors (i.e. health policies, professional organisations, and social context) on the meso and individual levels. Subsequently, the IP-SDM model will be validated with other stakeholders.

The impact of a cardiopulmonary resuscitation video on reducing surrogates' anxiety: A pilot randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To test the primary hypothesis that a CPR video will reduce ICU patients' surrogates' anxiety when deciding code status, as measured by the Hamilton Anxiety Rating (HAM-A) Scale, as compared to the no video group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a prospective randomized control trial. Twenty-seven ICU patients' surrogates were enrolled in the study after receiving an ICU team-led code status discussion. After the enrollment, twelve surrogates were randomized to the video group and fifteen to the no video group. The primary outcome of anxiety was quantified using the HAM-A Scale. Demographic information, clinical data, and patients' provenance information (Home vs. Not Home) were collected. The patients' severity of illness was calculated using the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) Score. RESULTS: The HAM-A score in the video group was 5.65 points lower than in the no video group ([ß = -5.65, 95% CI -11.12 -0.18] P = 0.04). The statistically significant difference was maintained when adjusting for patients' SOFA Score and patients' provenance (P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: CPR video used to supplement ICU team-led code status discussions reduced surrogates' anxiety, as compared to no video. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03630965.

A meta-analysis of randomized control trials of home-based secondary prevention programs for coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND: A variety of different types of secondary prevention programs for coronary heart disease (CHD) exist. Home-based programs have become more common and may be more accessible or preferable to some patients. This review compared the benefits and costs of home-based programs with usual care and cardiac rehabilitation. METHODS: A meta-analysis following a systematic search of 19 databases, existing reviews, and references was designed. Studies evaluated home-based interventions that addressed more than one main CHD risk factor using a randomized trial with a usual care or cardiac rehabilitation comparison group with data extractable for CHD patients only and reported in English as a full article or thesis. RESULTS: Thirty-nine articles reporting 36 trials were reviewed. Compared with usual care, home-based interventions significantly improved quality of life [weighted mean difference: 0.23; 95% confidence interval (95% CI): 0.02-0.45], systolic blood pressure (weighted mean difference: -4.36 mmHg; 95% CI: -6.50 to -2.22), smoking cessation (difference in proportion: 14%; 95% CI: 0.02-0.26), total cholesterol (standardized mean difference: -0.33; 95% CI: -0.57 to -0.08), and depression (standardized mean difference: -0.33; 95% CI: -0.59 to -0.07). Effect sizes were small to moderate and trials were of low-to-moderate quality. Comparisons with cardiac rehabilitation could not be made because of the small number of trials and high levels of heterogeneity. CONCLUSION: Home-based secondary prevention programs for CHD are an effective and relatively low-cost complement to hospital-based cardiac rehabilitation and should be considered for stable patients less likely to access or adhere to hospital-based services.

Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) is a process by which a healthcare choice is made jointly by the practitioner and the patient and is said to be the crux of patient-centred care. Policy makers perceive SDM as desirable because of its potential to a) reduce overuse of options not clearly associated with benefits for all (e.g., prostate cancer screening); b) enhance the use of options clearly associated with benefits for the vast majority (e.g., cardiovascular risk factor management); c) reduce unwarranted healthcare practice variations; d) foster the sustainability of the healthcare system; and e) promote the right of patients to be involved in decisions concerning their health. Despite this potential, SDM has not yet been widely adopted in clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of interventions to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the following electronic databases up to 18 March 2009: Cochrane Library (1970-), MEDLINE (1966-), EMBASE (1976-), CINAHL (1982-) and PsycINFO (1965-). We found additional studies by reviewing a) the bibliographies of studies and reviews found in the electronic databases; b) the clinicaltrials.gov registry; and c) proceedings of the International Shared Decision Making Conference and the conferences of the Society for Medical Decision Making. We included all languages of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or well-designed quasi-experimental studies (controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series analyses) that evaluated any type of intervention that aimed to improve healthcare professionals' adoption of shared decision making. We defined adoption as the extent to which healthcare professionals intended to or actually engaged in SDM in clinical practice or/and used interventions known to facilitate SDM. We deemed studies eligible if the primary outcomes were evaluated with an objective measure of the adoption of SDM by healthcare professionals (e.g., a third-observer instrument). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two reviewers independently screened each abstract for inclusion and abstracted data independently using a modified version of the EPOC data collection checklist. We resolved disagreements by discussion. Statistical analysis considered categorical and continuous primary outcomes. We computed the standard effect size for each outcome separately with a 95% confidence interval. We evaluated global effects by calculating the median effect size and the range of effect sizes across studies. MAIN RESULTS: The reviewers identified 6764 potentially relevant documents, of which we excluded 6582 by reviewing titles and abstracts. Of the remainder, we retrieved 182 full publications for more detailed screening. From these, we excluded 176 publications based on our inclusion criteria. This left in five studies, all RCTs. All five were conducted in ambulatory care: three in primary clinical care and two in specialised care. Four of the studies targeted physicians only and one targeted nurses only. In only two of the five RCTs was a statistically significant effect size associated with the intervention to have healthcare professionals adopt SDM. The first of these two studies compared a single intervention (a patient-mediated intervention: the Statin Choice decision aid) to another single intervention (also patient-mediated: a standard Mayo patient education pamphlet). In this study, the Statin Choice decision aid group performed better than the standard Mayo patient education pamphlet group (standard effect size = 1.06; 95% CI = 0.62 to 1.50). The other study compared a multifaceted intervention (distribution of educational material, educational meeting and audit and feedback) to usual care (control group) (standard effect size = 2.11; 95% CI = 1.30 to 2.90). This study was the only one to report an assessment of barriers prior to the elaboration of its multifaceted intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this Cochrane review do not allow us to draw firm conclusions about the most effective types of intervention for increasing healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM. Healthcare professional training may be important, as may the implementation of patient-mediated interventions such as decision aids. Given the paucity of evidence, however, those motivated by the ethical impetus to increase SDM in clinical practice will need to weigh the costs and potential benefits of interventions. Subsequent research should involve well-designed studies with adequate power and procedures to minimise bias so that they may improve estimates of the effects of interventions on healthcare professionals' adoption of SDM. From a measurement perspective, consensus on how to assess professionals' adoption of SDM is desirable to facilitate cross-study comparisons.