Glyn Elwyn1, Julie Rasmussen2, Katharine Kinsey3, Jill Firth3, Katy Marrin2, Adrian Edwards2, Fiona Wood2. 1. The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH, USA. 2. Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK. 3. Pennine MSK Partnership Ltd, Integrated Care Centre, Oldham, UK.
Abstract
RATIONAL: Tools used in clinical encounters to illustrate to patients the risks and benefits of treatment options have been shown to increase shared decision making. However, we do not have good information about how these tools are viewed by clinicians and how clinicians think patients would react to their use. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to examine clinicians' views about the possible and actual use of tools designed to support patients and clinicians to collaborate and deliberate about treatment options, namely, Option Grid decision aids. METHOD: We conducted a thematic analysis of qualitative interviews embedded in the intervention phase of a trial of an Option Grid decision aid for osteoarthritis of the knee. Interviews were conducted with 6 participating clinicians before they used the tool and again after clinicians had used the tool with 6 patients. RESULTS: In the first interview, clinicians voiced concerns that the tool would lead to an increase in encounter duration, patient resistance regarding involvement in decision making, and potential information overload. At the second interview, after minimal training, the clinicians reported that the tool had changed their usual way of communicating, and it was generally acceptable and helpful to integrate it into practice. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: After experiencing the use of Option Grids, clinicians became more willing to use the tools in their clinical encounters with patients. How best to introduce Option Grids to clinicians and adopt their use into practice will need careful consideration of context, workflow, and clinical pathways.
RATIONAL: Tools used in clinical encounters to illustrate to patients the risks and benefits of treatment options have been shown to increase shared decision making. However, we do not have good information about how these tools are viewed by clinicians and how clinicians think patients would react to their use. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to examine clinicians' views about the possible and actual use of tools designed to support patients and clinicians to collaborate and deliberate about treatment options, namely, Option Grid decision aids. METHOD: We conducted a thematic analysis of qualitative interviews embedded in the intervention phase of a trial of an Option Grid decision aid for osteoarthritis of the knee. Interviews were conducted with 6 participating clinicians before they used the tool and again after clinicians had used the tool with 6 patients. RESULTS: In the first interview, clinicians voiced concerns that the tool would lead to an increase in encounter duration, patient resistance regarding involvement in decision making, and potential information overload. At the second interview, after minimal training, the clinicians reported that the tool had changed their usual way of communicating, and it was generally acceptable and helpful to integrate it into practice. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: After experiencing the use of Option Grids, clinicians became more willing to use the tools in their clinical encounters with patients. How best to introduce Option Grids to clinicians and adopt their use into practice will need careful consideration of context, workflow, and clinical pathways.
Authors: Claudia Caroline Dobler; Manuel Sanchez; Michael R Gionfriddo; Neri A Alvarez-Villalobos; Naykky Singh Ospina; Gabriela Spencer-Bonilla; Bjorg Thorsteinsdottir; Raed Benkhadra; Patricia J Erwin; Colin P West; Juan P Brito; Mohammad Hassan Murad; Victor M Montori Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2018-10-09 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Stephanie Smith; Abtin Alvand; Louise Locock; Sara Ryan; James Smith; Lee Bayliss; Hannah Wilson; Andrew Price Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-12-17 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Anja Lindig; Pola Hahlweg; Eva Christalle; Anik Giguere; Martin Härter; Olaf von dem Knesebeck; Isabelle Scholl Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Ester A Rake; Dunja Dreesens; Kristie Venhorst; Marjan J Meinders; Tessa Geltink; Jenny T Wolswinkel; Michelle Dannenberg; Jan A M Kremer; Glyn Elwyn; Johanna W M Aarts Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 2.692