Patients' and clinicians' views on shared decision making in cancer care: a qualitative study of Aotearoa New Zealand patients' and clinicians' perspectives.

AIMS: Oncology stakeholders' view on shared decision making (SDM) in Aotearoa New Zealand is not well described in the literature. This study aimed to explore the perspectives of patients, clinicians and other cancer care stakeholders on shared decision making, and how and why shared decision making in cancer care can be viable and appropriate for patients and healthcare providers. METHODS: Non-random, purposive sampling, combined with advertisement and snowball recruitment identified patient, whanau and healthcare provider participants for qualitative interviews. One-hour, semi-structured interviews were conducted to elicit perspectives on SDM. Data was analysed using Directed Content Analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-one participants were interviewed. SDM conceptualisations primarily concerned the sharing of information. Participants' stories highlighted patients' and whanau willingness to participate in making decisions about their care, to hold authority in this process, and to have their needs and preferences considered beyond the biomedical model. Patients and clinicians identified a range of factors moderating the extent of SDM, creating a gap between SDM expectations and practice. CONCLUSIONS: These data highlight the complexity of information needs in cancer care, and the discrepancy between patients' and their whanau and clinicians' views. This study increases our understanding of cancer stakeholders' expectations of SDM by highlighting various views on the meaning of SDM, informational needs and decision making engagement level. These findings can aid clinicians in creating space for patients to exercise their right to self-determination/rangatiratanga of health and wellbeing. Future work should explore approaches and implementations of SDM to facilitate an equitable experience of cancer care.

Clinical Performance Measures for Emergency Department Care for Adults With Intracranial Hemorrhage.

Though select inpatient-based performance measures exist for the care of patients with nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage, emergency departments lack measurement instruments designed to support and improve care processes in the hyperacute phase. To address this, we propose a set of measures applying a syndromic (rather than diagnosis-based) approach informed by performance data from a national sample of community EDs participating in the Emergency Quality Network Stroke Initiative. To develop the measure set, we convened a workgroup of experts in acute neurologic emergencies. The group considered the appropriate use case for each proposed measure: internal quality improvement, benchmarking, or accountability, and examined data from Emergency Quality Network Stroke Initiative-participating EDs to consider the validity and feasibility of proposed measures for quality measurement and improvement applications. The initially conceived set included 14 measure concepts, of which 7 were selected for inclusion in the measure set after a review of data and further deliberation. Proposed measures include 2 for quality improvement, benchmarking, and accountability (Last 2 Recorded Systolic Blood Pressure Measurements Under 150 and Platelet Avoidance), 3 for quality improvement and benchmarking (Proportion of Patients on Oral Anticoagulants Receiving Hemostatic Medications, Median ED Length of Stay for admitted patients, and Median Length of Stay for transferred patients), and 2 for quality improvement only (Severity Assessment in the ED and Computed Tomography Angiography Performance). The proposed measure set warrants further development and validation to support broader implementation and advance national health care quality goals. Ultimately, applying these measures may help identify opportunities for improvement and focus quality improvement resources on evidence-based targets.