Implementation of the three good questions-A feasibility study in Dutch hospital departments.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility of pragmatic implementation strategies for three good questions (in Dutch: Drie Goede Vragen; 3GV. What are my options; what are the risks and benefits related to these options; and what does this mean for my situation?) to increase shared decision-making (SDM) efforts in Dutch secondary care, and identify barriers and facilitators of implementation. METHODS: Convergent mixed-method design: pre-post surveys with patients attending one of six clinical departments in a Dutch Hospital, post-intervention interviews with patients and health-care professionals. Primary outcomes: feasibility (reach, use of 3GV). SECONDARY OUTCOMES: SDM, experiences with 3GV and decision making. Interviews focused on barriers and facilitators of 3GV use. Interviews were content coded and categorized into determinants of behaviour change. RESULTS: 35% of the respondents who had heard of 3GV (52%) used all three questions. 3GV use did not lead to more SDM (SDMQ9 M = Δ0.3;SE = 2.2) but patients felt empowered to decide (88%) and to SDM (86%). Barriers were as follows: time investment, other SDM projects and perception that the need to use 3GV differs per patient/consultation. Respondents preferred to use 3GV as they saw fit for the consultation, instead of literally asking them. Facilitators: easy, accessible information materials that can be flexibly used. CONCLUSION: Implementation of 3GV seemed feasible, although influenced by contextual characteristics (eg type of decisions, patients, on-going interventions). 3GV contributed to important elements of SDM, and respondents were willing to apply them in a way that suited their situation. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: We recommend continuation of current and new implementation strategies to enable 3GV implementation in secondary care.

Developing quality criteria for patient-directed knowledge tools related to clinical practice guidelines. A development and consensus study.

BACKGROUND: Patient-directed knowledge tools such as patient versions of guidelines and patient decision aids are increasingly developed to facilitate shared decision making. In this paper, we report how consensus was reached within the Netherlands on quality criteria for development, content and governance of these tools. METHOD: A 12-month development and consensus study. The consortium worked on four work packages: (a) reviewing existing criteria; (b) drafting the quality criteria; (c) safe-guarding the acceptability and feasibility of the draft criteria by participatory research in on-going tool development projects; and (d) gaining formal support from national stakeholders on the quality criteria. RESULTS: We reached consensus on a 8-step guidance; describing minimal quality criteria for (a) the team composition; (b) setting the scope; (c) identifying needs; (d) the content and format; (e) testing the draft; (f) finalizing and approval; (g) dissemination and application, and (h) ownership and revision. The participants of the on-going tool development projects were positive about the quality criteria in general, but divided as to the degree of detail. Whereas some expressed a clear desire for procedural standards, others felt that it would be sufficient to provide only general directions. Despite the different views as to the degree of detail, consensus was reached in three stakeholder meetings. DISCUSSION: We successfully collaborated with all stakeholders and achieved formal support from national stakeholders on a set of minimum criteria for the development process, content and governance of patient-directed knowledge tools.

Decision aids for patients facing a surgical treatment decision: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the evidence available on the effects of decision aids in surgery. BACKGROUND: When consenting to treatment, few patients adequately understand their treatment options. To help patients make deliberate treatment choices, decision aids provide evidence-based information on the disease, treatment options, and their associated benefits and harms. Although decision aids are not designed to direct patients toward a particular treatment option, it is possible that their introduction will change the proportion of patients that opt for surgery. METHODS: We searched electronic databases for studies that evaluated a decision aid in patients offered both surgery and alternative treatment options, regarding the effect on the actual treatment choices made. In addition, we documented effects on knowledge, decisional conflict, anxiety, quality of life, patient involvement, satisfaction, mortality, morbidity, and costs. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included. Overall, methodological study quality was good. Patients in the decision aid group less often chose to undergo invasive treatment [risk ratio = 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.95), had more knowledge about treatment options [mean difference = 8.99; 95% confidence interval, 3.20-14.78), and experienced less decisional conflict (mean difference = -5.04; 95% confidence interval, -7.10 to -2.99). Levels of anxiety and quality of life were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Offering a decision aid increases the number of patients who prefer conservative or less invasive treatment options. As decision aids improve patient knowledge and lower decisional conflict without raising anxiety levels, they have a place in surgery to help surgeons and patients achieve well-considered and shared treatment decisions.

Evidence-based practice: a survey among pediatric nurses and pediatricians.

This survey compared the attitude, awareness, and knowledge of pediatric nurses and pediatricians regarding evidence-based practice (EBP). Potential barriers were also investigated. Both nurses and pediatricians welcomed EBP (mean scores are 73.3 and 75.4 out of 100). Overall, 52% of the nurses and 36% of the pediatricians did not know relevant sources of information, and 62% of the nurses versus 19% of the pediatricians did not know common EBP terms. Time constraints and lack of knowledge were considered as major barriers. Recommendations include multilevel training and continuous exchange of information.

Fostering Patient Choice Awareness and Presenting Treatment Options Neutrally: A Randomized Trial to Assess the Effect on Perceived Room for Involvement in Decision Making.

PURPOSE: Shared decision making calls for clinician communication strategies that aim to foster choice awareness and to present treatment options neutrally, such as by not showing a preference. Evidence for the effectiveness of these communication strategies to enhance patient involvement in treatment decision making is lacking. We tested the effects of 2 strategies in an online randomized video-vignettes experiment. METHODS: We developed disease-specific video vignettes for rheumatic disease, cancer, and kidney disease showcasing a physician presenting 2 treatment options. We tested the strategies in a 2 (choice awareness communication present/absent) by 2 (physician preference communication present/absent) randomized between-subjects design. We asked patients and disease-naïve participants to view 1 video vignette while imagining being the patient and to report perceived room for involvement (primary outcome), understanding of treatment information, treatment preference, satisfaction with the consultation, and trust in the physician (secondary outcomes). Differences across experimental conditions were assessed using 2-way analyses of variance. RESULTS: A total of 324 patients and 360 disease-naïve respondents participated (mean age, 52 ± 14.7 y, 54% female, 56% lower educated, mean health literacy, 12 ± 2.1 on a 3-15 scale). The results showed that choice awareness communication had a positive (Mpresent = 5.2 v. Mabsent = 5.0, P = 0.042, η2partial = 0.006) and physician preference communication had no (Mpresent = 5.0 v. Mabsent = 5.1, P = 0.144, η2partial = 0.003) significant effect on perceived room for involvement in decision making. Physician preference communication steered patients toward preferring that treatment option (Mpresent = 4.7 v. Mabsent = 5.3, P = 0.006, η2partial = 0.011). The strategies had no significant effect on understanding, satisfaction, or trust. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first experimental evidence for a small effect of fostering choice awareness and no effect of physician preference on perceived room to participate in decision making. Physician preference steered patients toward preferring that option.

Attitudes, awareness, and barriers regarding evidence-based surgery among surgeons and surgical nurses.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based surgery (EBS) is stressed to increase efficiency and health care quality, but not all surgeons and surgical nurses use EBS in clinical practice. To define future tailor-made interventions to improve evidence-based behavior, the aim of this study was to determine the attitude and awareness among surgeons and surgical nurses as to the paradigm of EBS and the barriers experienced when practicing EBS. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, surgeons and surgical nurses at a university hospital in Amsterdam were invited to complete the BARRIERS scale and McColl et al. questionnaire. An evidence quiz was composed for the surgeons. RESULTS: Response rates were 67% (29/43) for surgeons and 60% (73/122) for nurses. Attitudes toward EBS were positive. Among the surgeons, 90% were familiar with EBS terms, whereas only 40% of the nurses were. Common barriers for surgeons were conflicting results (79%, 23/29) and the methodologic inadequacy of research reports (73%, 21/29); and for nurses they were unawareness of EBS (67%, 49/73) and unclear reported research (59%, 43/73). Only about half of the convincing evidence presented in the quiz was actually applied. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons have a positive attitude toward EBS and are familiar with EBS terminology, but conflicting results and methodologic shortcomings of research reports are major barriers to practicing EBS. Continual confrontations with available evidence through frequent critical appraisal meetings or grand rounds and using more aggregate sources of evidence are advocated. Nurses can probably benefit from EBS training focusing on basic skills. Finally, collaboration is needed among surgeons and nurses with the same zest about EBS.

Interpreting patient decisional conflict scores: behavior and emotions in decisions about treatment.

BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids facilitate treatment decisions. They are often evaluated in terms of their effect on decisional conflict, as measured by the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). It is unclear to what extent lower DCS scores are accompanied by observable patient behavior or emotions. OBJECTIVE: To help interpret DCS scores. DESIGN: In a Dutch university hospital, statements on behaviors or emotions during decision making were collected from asymptomatic aneurysm patients and healthy employees. Subsequently, they rated the intensity of decisional conflict that each statement expresses on a 1 to 10 scale. Selected statements were prospectively tested in aneurysm patients and cancer patients facing treatment dilemmas. MEASUREMENTS: Associations between patients' DCS scores and reported behavior and emotions were analyzed using logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Participants provided 363 statements on behaviors and emotions during decision making, of which 28 were mentioned more than 4 times. Nine forms of behavior and emotions were selected as they were graded with the least variable median ratings of intensity of decisional conflict. Among 100 patients facing a treatment dilemma, each point increase in DCS lowered their odds for "immediately making the decision" (odds ratio [OR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93-0.98), whereas the odds of "fretting regularly" (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.02-1.08) and "feeling nervous when thinking of the decision" (OR, 1.04; 95% CI, 1.01-1.06) where higher. CONCLUSIONS: A decrease in decisional conflict scores leads to less decision postponing behavior, fretting, and nervousness. Research should focus on which DCS scores are needed to make deliberate decisions and which scores hinder patients in decision making.

Long-term adherence to a local guideline on postoperative body temperature measurement: mixed methods analysis.

AIM: To find out whether a successful multifaceted implementation approach of a local evidence-based guideline on postoperative body temperature measurements (BTM) was persistent over time, and which factors influenced long-term adherence. METHODS: Mixed methods analysis. Patient records were retrospectively examined to measure guideline adherence. Data on influencing factors were collected in focus group meetings for nurses and a plenary meeting with an interactive questionnaire for doctors. RESULTS: Records from 102 surgical patients were studied, totalling 1226 BTM. According to the guideline, an indication for BTM was present in 55% (679/1226). Actually, BTM were taken in 60% (736/1226), of which 55% (403/736) was in accordance with the guideline. The overall adherence rate to the guideline was 50% (617/1226). Belief in the advantages of the guideline and strong staff support appeared to facilitate long-term adherence. Barriers were, the controversial nature of the guideline, the lack of self-efficacy among nurses and doctors as to clinical judgement to identify an infection when refraining from BTM, and a lack of management and staff doctor support. Furthermore, newly appointed nurses and doctors were trained to measure BTM during their initial medical or nursing education, which was in contradiction with the guideline. CONCLUSIONS: A multifaceted implementation strategy is not sufficient to maintain long-term adherence. To ensure long-term adherence, especially of controversial guidelines, adherence should be monitored and reported regularly over time. Strong staff support and leadership on all wards is crucial to maintain awareness. Medical and nursing curricula should include the pros and cons of taking BTM, combined with enhancing self-efficacy.

[Choosing between different treatment options: how should I inform my patients?]. / Kiezen tussen verschillende behandelopties; hoe informeer ik mijn patiënt?

Evidence-based medicine promotes the use of best available evidence to improve the transparency and quality of health care. The physician's clinical expertise and patient preferences are also important. Clear communication with the patient, based on available evidence from scientific research, is pivotal to making a balanced treatment choice, particularly when several equivalent treatment options are available. Although cure is obviously the aim of any medical intervention a certain risk of damage is always involved. Several verbal, numerical and graphical methods are available to inform the patient, with the aim of enabling the patient to make an informed choice when taking part in decisions on available treatment options. The aim should be to explain both beneficial and harmful effects of medical interventions in a straightforward manner. However, the amount and content of this information should be tailored to the patient's wishes.

Design and development of a decision aid to enhance shared decision making by patients with an asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm.

OBJECTIVE: To design, develop, and evaluate an evidence-based decision aid (DA) for patients with an asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) to inform them about the pros and cons of their treatment options (ie, surgery or watchful observation) and to help them make a shared decision. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team defined criteria for the desired DA as to design, medical content and functionality, particularly for elderly users. Development was according to the international standard (IPDAS). Fifteen patients with an AAA, who were either treated or not yet treated, evaluated the tool. RESULTS: A DA was developed to offer information about the disease, the risks and benefits of surgical treatment and watchful observation, and the individual possibilities and threats based on the patient's aneurysm diameter and risk profile. The DA was improved and judged favorably by physicians and patients. CONCLUSION: This evidence-based DA for AAA patients, developed according to IPDAS criteria, is likely to be a simple, user-friendly tool to offer patients evidence-based information about the pros and cons of treatment options for AAA, to improve patients' understanding of the disease and treatment options, and may support decision making based on individual values.