Mixed methods analysis of hospice staff perceptions and shared decision making practices in hospice.

PURPOSE: Shared decision making has been a long-standing practice in oncology and, despite a lack of research on the subject, is a central part of the philosophical foundation of hospice. This mixed methods study examined the perceptions of staff regarding shared decision making and their use of shared decision elements in hospice interdisciplinary team meetings. METHODS: The revised Leeds Attitude to Concordance scale (LatConII) was used to measure the attitudes of hospice staff toward shared decision making. Field notes and transcripts of hospice interdisciplinary team meetings that included family caregivers as participants were coded to identify 9 theory-driven shared decision making elements. The results were mixed in a matrix analysis comparing attitudes with practice. Three transcripts demonstrate the variance in the shared decision making process between hospice teams. RESULTS: Hospice staff reported overall positive views on shared decision making; however, these views differed depending on participants' age and position. The extent to which staff views were aligned with the observed use of shared decision making elements in hospice interdisciplinary team meetings varied. CONCLUSION: Policy and practice conditions can make shared decision making challenging during hospice interdisciplinary team meetings despite support for the process by staff. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is a sub-study of a parent study registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02929108).