Shared decision-making performance of general practice residents: an observational study combining observer, resident, and patient perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) is considered fundamental to person-centred care. However, applying SDM may be a challenge for residents in general practice, since it is a complex competence that requires the integration of knowledge and skills from several competency domains. OBJECTIVE: To support learning of SDM during medical residency, we aimed to gain insight in Dutch residents' observed and perceived SDM performance in general practice. METHODS: We evaluated residents' SDM performance from an observer, resident, and patient perspective. Consultations of first- and third-year residents were recorded. Trained observers used the validated Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION5) scale to assess observed SDM performance of residents in 98 actual recorded consultations. Perceived SDM performance was evaluated by residents and patients completing validated SDM questionnaires, supplemented with questions about (the context of) the consultation and perceived relevance of SDM immediately after the consultation. The data were analysed using descriptive statistics (mean, SD, minimums, and maximums) and explorative bivariate analyses. RESULTS: The residents' observed mean SDM performance was 19.1 (range, 0-100, SD = 10.9), mean resident self-reported SDM performance was 56.9 (range, 0-100, SD = 18.5), and mean patient-reported SDM performance was 73.3 (range, 0-100, SD = 26.8). We found a significant and positive correlation between observed SDM performance and residents' perceived relevance of SDM for the consultation (t = 4.571, P ≤ 0.001) and the duration of the consultation (r = 0.390, P ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that there is room for increasing awareness of the potential incongruence between observed and perceived SDM performance during medical residency, in order to facilitate the implementation of SDM in clinical practice.

THE PROBLEM: Shared decision making is an important process in which healthcare professional and patient work together to reach a decision on how to solve a health problem. This decision should include patients' needs and what matters most to them. We investigated if consultations between general practitioners in training (i.e. residents) and their patients demonstrate shared decision making. The research methods: We asked the residents and patients to respond to questions on their experience of shared decision making right after the consultation. We recorded 98 consultations of residents with their patients. Two researchers rated to what extent residents demonstrated shared decision-making behaviours during these consultations. THE RESULTS: The patients reported more shared decision making than the residents (patients: 73 versus residents: 57 on a 0­100 scale). The researchers observed low levels of SDM during the consultations (19 on a 0­100 scale). Our conclusion: Residents should be aware that shared decision making does not yet frequently occur in practice. To improve the extent to which residents share decisions with their patients in general practice, residents should learn why, when, and how to involve patients in decision making during consultations.

Identifying residents' educational needs to optimising postgraduate medical education about shared decision-making.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how to optimise resident engagement during workplace learning of shared decision-making (SDM) by understanding their educational needs. METHODS: A qualitative multicentre study was conducted using video-stimulated interviews with 17 residents in General Practice. Video recordings of residents' recent clinical encounters were used to facilitate reflection on their educational needs. RESULTS: Data analysis resulted in five themes regarding residents' educational needs for learning SDM: acquiring knowledge and skills needed to perform SDM; practising SDM; reflection and feedback; longitudinal and integrated training; and awareness and motivation for performing SDM. CONCLUSION: Residents expressed a need for continuous attention to be paid to SDM during postgraduate medical education. That would help them engage in two parallel learning processes: acquiring the knowledge and skills necessary to perform SDM, and practising SDM in the clinical workplace. Alignment between the educational curriculum, workplace learning and resident learning activities is essential to operationalise SDM attitude, knowledge and skills into clinical performance. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The identified educational needs provide ingredients for fostering the development of SDM proficiency. The findings suggest that residents and clinical supervisors need parallel training to bridge the gap between education and clinical practice when learning SDM.

Identifying Entrustable Professional Activities for Shared Decision Making in Postgraduate Medical Education: A National Delphi Study.

PURPOSE: Although shared decision making (SDM) is considered the preferred approach in medical decision making, it is currently not routinely used in clinical practice. To bridge the transfer gap between SDM training and application, the authors aimed to reach consensus on entrustable professional activities (EPAs) for SDM and associated behavioral indicators as a framework to support self-directed learning during postgraduate medical education. METHOD: Using existing literature on SDM frameworks and competencies; input from an interview study with 17 Dutch experts in SDM, doctor-patient communication, and medical education; and a national SDM expert meeting as a starting point, in 2017, the authors conducted a modified online Delphi study with a multidisciplinary Dutch panel of 32 experts in SDM and medical education. RESULTS: After 3 Delphi rounds, consensus was reached on 4 EPAs-(1) the resident discusses the desirability of SDM with the patient, (2) the resident discusses the options for management with the patient, (3) the resident explores the patient's preferences and deliberations, and (4) the resident takes a well-argued decision together with the patient. Consensus was also reached on 18 associated behavioral indicators. Of the 32 experts, 30 (94%) agreed on this list of SDM EPAs and behavioral indicators. CONCLUSIONS: The authors succeeded in developing EPAs and associated behavioral indicators for SDM for postgraduate medical education to improve the quality of SDM training and the application of SDM in clinical practice. These EPAs are characterized as process EPAs for SDM in contrast with content EPAs related to diverse medical complaints. A next step is the implementation of the SDM EPAs in existing competency-based workplace curricula.