17
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Understanding decision making about major surgery: protocol for a qualitative study of shared decision making by high-risk patients and their clinical teams

      research-article

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Surgical treatments are being offered to more patients than ever before, and increasingly to high-risk patients (typically multimorbid and over 75). Shared decision making is seen as essential practice. However, little is currently known about what ‘good’ shared decision making involves nor how it applies in the context of surgery for high-risk patients. This new study aims to identify how high-risk patients, their families and clinical teams negotiate decision making for major surgery.

          Methods and analysis

          Focusing on major joint replacement, colorectal and cardiac surgery, we use qualitative methods to explore how patients, their families and clinicians negotiate decision making (including interactional, communicative and informational aspects and the extent to which these are perceived as shared) and reflect back on the decisions they made. Phase 1 involves video recording 15 decision making encounters about major surgery between patients, their carers/families and clinicians; followed by up to 90 interviews (with the same patient, carer and clinician participants) immediately after a decision has been made and again 3–6 months later. Phase 2 involves focus groups with a wider group of (up to 90) patients and (up to 30) clinicians to test out emerging findings and inform development of shared decision making scenarios (3–5 summary descriptions of how decisions are made).

          Ethics and dissemination

          The study forms the first part in a 6-year programme of research, Optimising Shared decision-makIng for high-RIsk major Surgery (OSIRIS). Ethical challenges around involving patients at a challenging time in their lives will be overseen by the programme steering committee, which includes strong patient representation and a lay chair. In addition to academic outputs, we will produce a typology of decision making scenarios for major surgery to feed back to patients, professionals and service providers and inform subsequent work in the OSIRIS programme.

          Related collections

          Most cited references24

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Theorizing Practice and Practicing Theory

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Organizational- and system-level characteristics that influence implementation of shared decision-making and strategies to address them — a scoping review

            Background Shared decision-making (SDM) is poorly implemented in routine care, despite being promoted by health policies. No reviews have solely focused on an in-depth synthesis of the literature around organizational- and system-level characteristics (i.e., characteristics of healthcare organizations and of healthcare systems) that may affect SDM implementation. A synthesis would allow exploration of interventions to address these characteristics. The study aim was to compile a comprehensive overview of organizational- and system-level characteristics that are likely to influence the implementation of SDM, and to describe strategies to address those characteristics described in the literature. Methods We conducted a scoping review using the Arksey and O’Malley framework. The search strategy included an electronic search and a secondary search including gray literature. We included publications reporting on projects that promoted implementation of SDM or other decision support interventions in routine healthcare. We screened titles and abstracts, and assessed full texts for eligibility. We used qualitative thematic analysis to identify organizational- and system-level characteristics. Results After screening 7745 records and assessing 354 full texts for eligibility, 48 publications on 32 distinct implementation projects were included. Most projects (N = 22) were conducted in the USA. Several organizational-level characteristics were described as influencing the implementation of SDM, including organizational leadership, culture, resources, and priorities, as well as teams and workflows. Described system-level characteristics included policies, clinical guidelines, incentives, culture, education, and licensing. We identified potential strategies to influence the described characteristics, e.g., examples how to facilitate distribution of decision aids in a healthcare institution. Conclusions Although infrequently studied, organizational- and system-level characteristics appear to play a role in the failure to implement SDM in routine care. A wide range of characteristics described as supporting and inhibiting implementation were identified. Future studies should assess the impact of these characteristics on SDM implementation more thoroughly, quantify likely interactions, and assess how characteristics might operate across types of systems and areas of healthcare. Organizations that wish to support the adoption of SDM should carefully consider the role of organizational- and system-level characteristics. Implementation and organizational theory could provide useful guidance for how to address facilitators and barriers to change. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0731-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The Department of Veterans Affairs' NSQIP: the first national, validated, outcome-based, risk-adjusted, and peer-controlled program for the measurement and enhancement of the quality of surgical care. National VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program.

              To provide reliable risk-adjusted morbidity and mortality rates after major surgery to the 123 Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs) performing major surgery, and to use risk-adjusted outcomes in the monitoring and improvement of the quality of surgical care to all veterans. Outcome-based comparative measures of the quality of surgical care among surgical services and surgical subspecialties have been elusive. This study included prospective assessment of presurgical risk factors, process of care during surgery, and outcomes 30 days after surgery on veterans undergoing major surgery in 123 medical centers; development of multivariable risk-adjustment models; identification of high and low outlier facilities by observed-to-expected outcome ratios; and generation of annual reports of comparative outcomes to all surgical services in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). The National VA Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) data base includes 417,944 major surgical procedures performed between October 1, 1991, and September 30, 1997. In FY97, 11 VAMCs were low outliers for risk-adjusted observed-to-expected mortality ratios; 13 VAMCs were high outliers for risk-adjusted observed-to-expected mortality ratios. Identification of high and low outliers by unadjusted mortality rates would have ascribed an outlier status incorrectly to 25 of 39 hospitals, an error rate of 64%. Since 1994, the 30-day mortality and morbidity rates for major surgery have fallen 9% and 30%, respectively. Reliable, valid information on patient presurgical risk factors, process of care during surgery, and 30-day morbidity and mortality rates is available for all major surgical procedures in the 123 VAMCs performing surgery in the VHA. With this information, the VHA has established the first prospective outcome-based program for comparative assessment and enhancement of the quality of surgical care among multiple institutions for several surgical subspecialties. Key features to the success of the NSQIP are the support of the surgeons who practice in the VHA, consistent clinical definitions and data collection by dedicated nurses, a uniform nationwide informatics system, and the support of VHA administration and managerial staff.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Open
                bmjopen
                bmjopen
                BMJ Open
                BMJ Publishing Group (BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR )
                2044-6055
                2020
                5 May 2020
                : 10
                : 5
                : e033703
                Affiliations
                [1 ]departmentNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences , University of Oxford , Oxford, UK
                [2 ]departmentSchool of Medicine & Dentistry , Queen Mary University of London , London, UK
                [3 ]departmentBarts and the London School of Medicine & Dentistry , Queen Mary University of London , London, UK
                [4 ]departmentSchool of Law , City University of London , London, UK
                [5 ]departmentDepartment of Anaesthesia , St. George's University Hospitals Foundation Trust , London, UK
                [6 ]departmentDepartment of Anaesthesia , John Radcliffe Hospital , Oxford, UK
                [7 ]departmentDepartment of Anaesthesia , Royal Alexandra Hospital , Paisley, UK
                [8 ]Patient Representative , Leeds, UK
                Author notes
                [Correspondence to ] Dr Sara Shaw; sara.shaw@ 123456phc.ox.ac.uk
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7014-4793
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2930-1125
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6065-4717
                Article
                bmjopen-2019-033703
                10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033703
                7223149
                32376751
                f95c5a7d-aa6e-4a9a-9aee-468a3d308186
                © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

                This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

                History
                : 17 August 2019
                : 11 March 2020
                : 06 April 2020
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100007602, Programme Grants for Applied Research;
                Award ID: RP-PG-0218-20001
                Categories
                Surgery
                1506
                1737
                Protocol
                Custom metadata
                unlocked

                Medicine
                shared decision making,adult surgery,high risk,qualitative research,communication
                Medicine
                shared decision making, adult surgery, high risk, qualitative research, communication

                Comments

                Comment on this article