Taylor R House1, Aaron Wightman2, Abby R Rosenberg2, George Sayre3, Khaled Abdel-Kader4, Susan P Y Wong5. 1. Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, Washington. Electronic address: taylor.house@seattlechildrens.org. 2. Department of Pediatrics, University of Washington, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, Washington. 3. Department of Health Services, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; HSR&D Center of Innovation for Veteran-Centered and Value-Driven Care, Seattle, Washington. 4. School of Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee. 5. Division of Nephrology, Kidney Research Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington; VA Puget Sound Health Care System, Seattle, Washington.
Abstract
RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Greater understanding of the challenges to shared decision making about treatment of advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) is needed to support implementation of shared decision making in clinical practice. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged≥65 years with advanced CKD and their clinicians recruited from 3 medical centers participated in semi-structured interviews. In-depth review of patients' electronic medical records was also performed. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Interview transcripts and medical record notes were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients (age 73±6 years, 66% male, 59% White) and 10 of their clinicians (age 52±12 years, 30% male, 70% White) participated in interviews. Four themes emerged from qualitative analysis: (1) competing priorities-patients and their clinicians tended to differ on when to prioritize CKD and dialysis planning above other personal or medical problems; (2) focusing on present or future-patients were more focused on living well now while clinicians were more focused on preparing for dialysis and future adverse events; (3) standardized versus individualized approach to CKD-although clinicians tried to personalize care recommendations to their patients, the patients perceived their clinicians as taking a monolithic approach to CKD that was predicated on clinical practice guidelines and medical literature rather than the patients' lived experiences with CKD and personal values and goals; and (4) power dynamics-patients described cautiously navigating a power differential in their therapeutic relationship with their clinicians whereas clinicians seemed less attuned to these power dynamics. LIMITATIONS: Thematic saturation was based on patient interviews. Themes presented might incompletely reflect clinicians' perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to improve shared decision making for treatment of advanced CKD will likely need to explicitly address differences between patients and their clinicians in approaches to decision making about treatment of advanced CKD and perceived power imbalances in the therapeutic relationship.
RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Greater understanding of the challenges to shared decision making about treatment of advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD) is needed to support implementation of shared decision making in clinical practice. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Patients aged≥65 years with advanced CKD and their clinicians recruited from 3 medical centers participated in semi-structured interviews. In-depth review of patients' electronic medical records was also performed. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Interview transcripts and medical record notes were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-nine patients (age 73±6 years, 66% male, 59% White) and 10 of their clinicians (age 52±12 years, 30% male, 70% White) participated in interviews. Four themes emerged from qualitative analysis: (1) competing priorities-patients and their clinicians tended to differ on when to prioritize CKD and dialysis planning above other personal or medical problems; (2) focusing on present or future-patients were more focused on living well now while clinicians were more focused on preparing for dialysis and future adverse events; (3) standardized versus individualized approach to CKD-although clinicians tried to personalize care recommendations to their patients, the patients perceived their clinicians as taking a monolithic approach to CKD that was predicated on clinical practice guidelines and medical literature rather than the patients' lived experiences with CKD and personal values and goals; and (4) power dynamics-patients described cautiously navigating a power differential in their therapeutic relationship with their clinicians whereas clinicians seemed less attuned to these power dynamics. LIMITATIONS: Thematic saturation was based on patient interviews. Themes presented might incompletely reflect clinicians' perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to improve shared decision making for treatment of advanced CKD will likely need to explicitly address differences between patients and their clinicians in approaches to decision making about treatment of advanced CKD and perceived power imbalances in the therapeutic relationship.
Authors: J Randall Curtis; Lois Downey; Anthony L Back; Elizabeth L Nielsen; Sudiptho Paul; Alexandria Z Lahdya; Patsy D Treece; Priscilla Armstrong; Ronald Peck; Ruth A Engelberg Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Melissa W Wachterman; Ann M O'Hare; Omari-Khalid Rahman; Karl A Lorenz; Edward R Marcantonio; Gabrielle K Alicante; Amy S Kelley Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2019-07-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Melissa W Wachterman; Corey Pilver; Dawn Smith; Mary Ersek; Stuart R Lipsitz; Nancy L Keating Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Sara A Combs; Stacey Culp; Daniel D Matlock; Jean S Kutner; Jean L Holley; Alvin H Moss Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2014-09-20 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: Wouter R Verberne; Janneke Dijkers; Johannes C Kelder; Anthonius B M Geers; Wilbert T Jellema; Hieronymus H Vincent; Johannes J M van Delden; Willem Jan W Bos Journal: BMC Nephrol Date: 2018-08-16 Impact factor: 2.388