Danielle Marie Muscat1, Heather L Shepherd2, Louise Hay3, Alex Shivarev3, Bindu Patel4, Shannon McKinn1, Carissa Bonner5, Kirsten McCaffery5, Jesse Jansen6. 1. University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney, Australia. 2. University of Sydney, Faculty of Science, School of Psychology, Sydney, Australia; University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, Sydney, Australia. 3. University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, Sydney, Australia. 4. University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, Australia; The George Institute for Global Health, University of New South Wales, Australia. 5. University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney, Australia; University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, Wiser Healthcare, Sydney, Australia. 6. University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, Sydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney, Australia; University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine and Health, School of Public Health, Wiser Healthcare, Sydney, Australia. Electronic address: jesse.jansen@sydney.edu.au.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To explore how decisions are made in real-life general practice consultations with older patients (65+ years), and examine how general practitioners (GPs) communicate risk and benefit information and evidence, and integrate patient preferences. METHODS: Secondary analysis of 20 video-recorded consultations with older patients in Australian primary healthcare settings. Consultations were analysed qualitatively using the Framework method and quantitatively using the Observer OPTION5 scale and the Assessing Communication about Evidence and Patient Preferences (ACEPP) tool. RESULTS: Overall, Observer OPTION5 and ACEPP scores were low, with mean total scores of 11.3 (out of 100) and 10.4 (out of 40) respectively. Together with qualitative findings, these results suggest that shared decision-making did not occur, and that healthcare options (including anticipated benefits and risks), evidence and patient preferences were rarely discussed in our sample of consultations with older people. GPs often unilaterally made treatment decisions (usually pharmacotherapy) while patients reverted to a passive decision-making role. CONCLUSION: We observed a lack of shared decision-making in our primary care study, with little engagement of older patients in decisions about their health. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Training and support tools may be needed to enhance the capacity and self-efficacy of providers and older patients to share healthcare decisions.
OBJECTIVES: To explore how decisions are made in real-life general practice consultations with older patients (65+ years), and examine how general practitioners (GPs) communicate risk and benefit information and evidence, and integrate patient preferences. METHODS: Secondary analysis of 20 video-recorded consultations with older patients in Australian primary healthcare settings. Consultations were analysed qualitatively using the Framework method and quantitatively using the Observer OPTION5 scale and the Assessing Communication about Evidence and Patient Preferences (ACEPP) tool. RESULTS: Overall, Observer OPTION5 and ACEPP scores were low, with mean total scores of 11.3 (out of 100) and 10.4 (out of 40) respectively. Together with qualitative findings, these results suggest that shared decision-making did not occur, and that healthcare options (including anticipated benefits and risks), evidence and patient preferences were rarely discussed in our sample of consultations with older people. GPs often unilaterally made treatment decisions (usually pharmacotherapy) while patients reverted to a passive decision-making role. CONCLUSION: We observed a lack of shared decision-making in our primary care study, with little engagement of older patients in decisions about their health. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Training and support tools may be needed to enhance the capacity and self-efficacy of providers and older patients to share healthcare decisions.