The current level of shared decision-making in anesthesiology: an exploratory study.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) seeks to involve both patients and clinicians in decision-making about possible health management strategies, using patients' preferences and best available evidence. SDM seems readily applicable in anesthesiology. We aimed to determine the current level of SDM among preoperative patients and anesthesiology clinicians. METHODS: We invited 115 consecutive preoperative patients, visiting the pre-assessment outpatient clinic of the department of Anesthesiology at the Academic Medical Center of Amsterdam. Inclusion criteria were patients who needed surgery in the arms, lower abdomen or legs, and in whom three anesthesia techniques were feasible. The SDM-level of the consultation was scored objectively by independent observers who judged audio-recordings of the consultation using the OPTION5-scale, ranging from 0% (no SDM) to 100% (optimum SDM), as well as subjectively by patients (using the SDM-Q-9 and CollaboRATE questionnaires) and clinicians (SDM-Q-Doc questionnaire). Objective and subjective SDM-levels were assessed on five-point and six-point Likert scales, respectively. Both scores were expressed as percentages. RESULTS: Data of 80 patients could be analysed. Objective SDM-scores were low (30.5%). Subjective scores of the SDM-Q-9 and CollaboRATE were high among patients (91.7% and 96.3%, respectively) and among clinicians (SDM-Q-Doc; 84.3%). Apparently, they appreciated satisfaction rather than SDM, being poorly aware of what SDM entails. CONCLUSION: The level of SDM in an outpatient anesthesiology clinic where preoperative patients receive information about various possible anesthesia options, was found to be low. Thus, there is room for improving the level of SDM. Some suggestions are given how this can be achieved.

Assessment of panobacumab as adjunctive immunotherapy for the treatment of nosocomial Pseudomonas aeruginosa pneumonia.

The fully human anti-lipopolysaccharide (LPS) immunoglobulin M (IgM) monoclonal antibody panobacumab was developed as an adjunctive immunotherapy for the treatment of O11 serotype Pseudomonas aeruginosa infections. We evaluated the potential clinical efficacy of panobacumab in the treatment of nosocomial pneumonia. We performed a post-hoc analysis of a multicenter phase IIa trial (NCT00851435) designed to prospectively evaluate the safety and pharmacokinetics of panobacumab. Patients treated with panobacumab (n = 17), including 13 patients receiving the full treatment (three doses of 1.2 mg/kg), were compared to 14 patients who did not receive the antibody. Overall, the 17 patients receiving panobacumab were more ill. They were an average of 72 years old [interquartile range (IQR): 64-79] versus an average of 50 years old (IQR: 30-73) (p = 0.024) and had Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II (APACHE II) scores of 17 (IQR: 16-22) versus 15 (IQR: 10-19) (p = 0.043). Adjunctive immunotherapy resulted in an improved clinical outcome in the group receiving the full three-course panobacumab treatment, with a resolution rate of 85 % (11/13) versus 64 % (9/14) (p = 0.048). The Kaplan-Meier survival curve showed a statistically significantly shorter time to clinical resolution in this group of patients (8.0 [IQR: 7.0-11.5] versus 18.5 [IQR: 8-30] days in those who did not receive the antibody; p = 0.004). Panobacumab adjunctive immunotherapy may improve clinical outcome in a shorter time if patients receive the full treatment (three doses). These preliminary results suggest that passive immunotherapy targeting LPS may be a complementary strategy for the treatment of nosocomial O11 P. aeruginosa pneumonia.