Literature DB >> 31515880

Physicians' perceptions of shared decision-making for implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: Results of a physician survey.

Fatima Ali-Ahmed1,2, Daniel Matlock3, Emily P Zeitler4, Kevin L Thomas1,5, David E Haines2, Sana M Al-Khatib1,5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services has mandated the use of shared decision-making (SDM) for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation. SDM tools help facilitate quality SDM by presenting patients with balanced evidence-based facts related to risk and benefits. Perceptions of ICD implantation may differ based on patients' sex and race.
OBJECTIVE: To determine if and how physicians are incorporating SDM in counseling patients about ICD and if they are aware of sex- and race-based differences in patients' perception of ICDs.
METHODS: This was a pilot study involving an online survey targeting attending physicians who implant ICDs. Physicians were randomly selected by a computer-based program; 350 surveys were sent.
RESULTS: Of the 124 (35%) respondents to the survey, 102 (84%) met the inclusion criteria, and of those, 99 (97%) were adult electrophysiologists. Most physicians (90, 88%) stated they engaged in SDM during the general consent process. Sixty-three (62%) physicians discuss end of life issues while obtaining general consent. Forty-four (43%) physicians said they use an existing SDM tool with the Colorado SDM tool being the most common (39, 89%). The majority of physicians were unaware of sex- and race-based differences in perceptions related to ICD implantation (sex 64, 63% and race 63, 62%).
CONCLUSION: A vast majority of physicians are engaging in SDM; however less than half are using a formal SDM tool, and a minority of physicians were aware of sex- and race-based differences in patients' perception of ICD implantation. Sex- and race-based tools might help address this gap.
© 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ICD implantation; physician survey; sex- and race-based differences; shared decision-making

Year:  2019        PMID: 31515880     DOI: 10.1111/jce.14178

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol        ISSN: 1045-3873


  3 in total

Review 1.  Shared Decision Making in Cardiac Electrophysiology Procedures and Arrhythmia Management.

Authors:  Mina K Chung; Angela Fagerlin; Paul J Wang; Tinuola B Ajayi; Larry A Allen; Tina Baykaner; Emelia J Benjamin; Megan Branda; Kerri L Cavanaugh; Lin Y Chen; George H Crossley; Rebecca K Delaney; Lee L Eckhardt; Kathleen L Grady; Ian G Hargraves; Mellanie True Hills; Matthew M Kalscheur; Daniel B Kramer; Marleen Kunneman; Rachel Lampert; Aisha T Langford; Krystina B Lewis; Ying Lu; John M Mandrola; Kathryn Martinez; Daniel D Matlock; Sarah R McCarthy; Victor M Montori; Peter A Noseworthy; Kate M Orland; Elissa Ozanne; Rod Passman; Krishna Pundi; Dan M Roden; Elizabeth V Saarel; Monika M Schmidt; Samuel F Sears; Dawn Stacey; Randall S Stafford; Benjamin A Steinberg; Sojin Youn Wass; Jennifer M Wright
Journal:  Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol       Date:  2021-12-06

2.  CinE caRdiac magneTic resonAnce to predIct veNTricular arrhYthmia (CERTAINTY).

Authors:  Katherine C Wu; Hiroshi Ashikaga; Julian Krebs; Tommaso Mansi; Hervé Delingette; Bin Lou; Joao A C Lima; Susumu Tao; Luisa A Ciuffo; Sanaz Norgard; Barbara Butcher; Wei H Lee; Ela Chamera; Timm-Michael Dickfeld; Michael Stillabower; Joseph E Marine; Robert G Weiss; Gordon F Tomaselli; Henry Halperin
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-11-22       Impact factor: 4.996

3.  Involving patients as key stakeholders in the design of cardiovascular implantable electronic device data dashboards: Implications for patient care.

Authors:  Carly Daley; Romisa Rohani Ghahari; Michelle Drouin; Ryan Ahmed; Shauna Wagner; Lauren Reining; Amanda Coupe; Tammy Toscos; Michael Mirro
Journal:  Heart Rhythm O2       Date:  2020-05-11
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.