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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.