Browsing by Subject "shared decision-making"

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A Coding System to Measure Elements of Shared Decision Making During Psychiatric Visits
    (2012-08) Salyers, Michelle P.; Matthias, Marianne S.; Fukui, Sadaaki; Holter, Mark C.; Collins, Linda; Rose, Nichole; Thompson, John; Coffman, Melinda; Torrey, William C.
    Objective: Shared decision making is widely recognized to facilitate effective health care. The purpose of this study was to assess the applicability and usefulness of a scale to measure the presence and extent of shared decision making in clinical decisions in psychiatric practice. Methods: A coding scheme assessing shared decision making in general medical settings was adapted to mental health settings, and a manual for using the scheme was created. Trained raters used the adapted scale to analyze 170 audio-recordings of medication check-up visits with either psychiatrists or nurse practitioners. The scale assessed the level of shared decision making based on the presence of nine specific elements. Interrater reliability was examined, and the frequency with which elements of shared decision making were observed was documented. The association between visit length and extent of shared decision making was also examined. Results: Interrater reliability among three raters on a subset of 20 recordings ranged from 67% to 100% agreement for the presence of each of the nine elements of shared decision making and 100% for the agreement between provider and consumer on decisions made. Of the 170 sessions, 128 (75%) included a clinical decision. Just over half of the decisions (53%) met minimum criteria for shared decision making. Shared decision making was not related to visit length after the analysis controlled for the complexity of the decision. Conclusions: The rating scale appears to reliably assess shared decision making in psychiatric practice and could be helpful for future research, training, and implementation efforts.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Consumer Outcomes After Implementing CommonGround as an Approach to Shared Decision Making
    (APA, 2017-03) Salyers, Michelle P.; Fukui, Sadaaki; Bonfils, Kelsey A.; Firmin, Ruth L.; Luther, Lauren; Goscha, Rick; Rapp, Charles A.; Holter, Mark C.; Psychology, School of Science
    Objective: The authors examined consumer outcomes before and after implementing CommonGround, a computer-based shared decision-making program. Methods: Consumers with severe mental illness (N=167) were interviewed prior to implementation and 12 and 18 months later to assess changes in active treatment involvement, symptoms, and recovery-related attitudes. Providers also rated consumers on level of treatment involvement. Results: Most consumers used CommonGround at least once (67%), but few used the program regularly. Mixed-effects regression analyses showed improvement in self-reported symptoms and recovery attitudes. Self-reported treatment involvement did not change; however, for a subset of consumers with the same providers over time (N=83), the providers rated consumers as more active in treatment. Conclusions: This study adds to the growing literature on tools to support shared decision making, showing the potential benefits of CommonGround for improving recovery outcomes. More work is needed to better engage consumers in CommonGround and to test the approach with more rigorous methods.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Effectiveness of the Chest Pain Choice decision aid in emergency department patients with low-risk chest pain: study protocol for a multicenter randomized trial
    (BioMed Central, 2014) Anderson, Ryan T; Montori, Victor M; Shah, Nilay D; Ting, Henry H; Pencille, Laurie J; Demers, Michel; Kline, Jeffrey A.; Diercks, Deborah B; Hollander, Judd E; Torres, Carlos A; Schaffer, Jason T; Herrin, Jeph; Branda, Megan; Leblanc, Annie; Hess, Erik P
    Background: Chest pain is the second most common reason patients visit emergency departments (EDs) and often results in very low-risk patients being admitted for prolonged observation and advanced cardiac testing. Shared decision-making, including educating patients regarding their 45-day risk for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and management options, might safely decrease healthcare utilization. Methods/Design: This is a protocol for a multicenter practical patient-level randomized trial to compare an intervention group receiving a decision aid, Chest Pain Choice (CPC), to a control group receiving usual care. Adults presenting to five geographically and ethnically diverse EDs who are being considered for admission for observation and advanced cardiac testing will be eligible for enrollment. We will measure the effect of CPC on (1) patient knowledge regarding their 45-day risk for ACS and the available management options (primary outcome); (2) patient engagement in the decision-making process; (3) the degree of conflict patients experience related to feeling uninformed (decisional conflict); (4) patient and clinician satisfaction with the decision made; (5) the rate of major adverse cardiac events at 30 days; (6) the proportion of patients admitted for advanced cardiac testing; and (7) healthcare utilization. To assess these outcomes, we will administer patient and clinician surveys immediately after each clinical encounter, obtain video recordings of the patient-clinician discussion, administer a patient healthcare utilization diary, analyze hospital billing records, review the electronic medical record, and conduct telephone follow-up. Discussion: This multicenter trial will robustly assess the effectiveness of a decision aid on patient-centered outcomes, safety, and healthcare utilization in low-risk chest pain patients from a variety of geographically and ethnically diverse EDs. Trial registration: NCT01969240.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Re-­Thinking Shared Decision‐Making: Context Matters
    (2013-05) Matthias, Marianne S.; Salyers, Michelle P.; Frankel, Richard M.
    Objective Traditional perspectives on shared decision-making (SDM) focus attention on the point in a clinical encounter where discussion of a treatment decision begins. We argue that SDM is shaped not only by initiation of a treatment decision, but also by the entire clinical encounter, and, even more broadly, by the nature of the patient–provider relationship. Method The Four Habits Approach to Effective Clinical Communication, a validated and widely used framework for patient–provider communication, was used to understand how SDM is integrally tied to the entire clinical encounter, as well as to the broader patient–provider relationship. Results The Four Habits consists of four categories of behaviors: (1) invest in the beginning; (2) elicit the patient's perspective; (3) demonstrate empathy; and (4) invest in the end. We argue that the behaviors included in all four of these categories work together to create and maintain an environment conducive to SDM. Conclusion SDM cannot be understood in isolation, and future SDM research should reflect the influence that the broader communicative and relational contexts have on decisions. Practice implications SDM training might be more effective if training focused on the broader context of communication and relationships, such as those specified by the Four Habits framework.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Skills-based intervention to enhance collaborative decision-making: systematic adaptation and open trial protocol for veterans with psychosis
    (Springer, 2021) Treichler, Emily B. H.; Rabin, Borsika A.; Spaulding, William D.; Thomas, Michael L.; Salyers, Michelle P.; Granholm, Eric L.; Cohen, Amy N.; Light, Gregory A.; Psychology, School of Science
    Background Collaborative decision-making is an innovative decision-making approach that assigns equal power and responsibility to patients and providers. Most veterans with serious mental illnesses like schizophrenia want a greater role in treatment decisions, but there are no interventions targeted for this population. A skills-based intervention is promising because it is well-aligned with the recovery model, uses similar mechanisms as other evidence-based interventions in this population, and generalizes across decisional contexts while empowering veterans to decide when to initiate collaborative decision-making. Collaborative Decision Skills Training (CDST) was developed in a civilian serious mental illness sample and may fill this gap but needs to undergo a systematic adaptation process to ensure fit for veterans. Methods In aim 1, the IM Adapt systematic process will be used to adapt CDST for veterans with serious mental illness. Veterans and Veteran’s Affairs (VA) staff will join an Adaptation Resource Team and complete qualitative interviews to identify how elements of CDST or service delivery may need to be adapted to optimize its effectiveness or viability for veterans and the VA context. During aim 2, an open trial will be conducted with veterans in a VA Psychosocial Rehabilitation and Recovery Center (PRRC) to assess additional adaptations, feasibility, and initial evidence of effectiveness. Discussion This study will be the first to evaluate a collaborative decision-making intervention among veterans with serious mental illness. It will also contribute to the field’s understanding of perceptions of collaborative decision-making among veterans with serious mental illness and VA clinicians, and result in a service delivery manual that may be used to understand adaptation needs generally in VA PRRCs.