No abstract

Background: In North America, families generally wish to be involved in end-of-life decisions when the patient cannot participate, yet little is known about the extent to which shared decision making occurs in intensive care units. Methods: We audiotaped 51 physician-family conferences about major end-of-life treatment decisions at 4 hospitals from August 1, 2000, to July 31, 2002. We measured shared decision making using a previously validated instrument to assess the following 10 elements: discussing the nature of the decision, describing treatment alternatives, discussing the pros and cons of the choices, discussing uncertainty, assessing family understanding, eliciting patient values and preferences, discussing the family's role in decision making, assessing the need for input from others, exploring the context of the decision, and eliciting the family's opinion about the treatment decision. We used a mixed-effects regression model to determine predictors of shared decision making and to evaluate whether higher levels of shared decision making were associated with greater family satisfaction. Results: Only 2% (1/51) of decisions met all 10 criteria for shared decision making. The most frequently addressed elements were the nature of the decision (100%) and the context of the decision to be made (92%). The least frequently addressed elements were the family's role in decision making (31%) and an assessment of the family's understanding of the decision (25%). In multivariate analysis, lower family educational level was associated with less shared decision making (partial correlation coefficient, 0.34; standardized ␤, .3; P =.02). Higher levels of shared decision making were associated with greater family satisfaction with communication (partial correlation coefficient, 0.15; standardized ␤, .09; P=.03). Conclusions: Shared decision making about end-oflife treatment choices was often incomplete, especially among less educated families. Higher levels of shared decision making were associated with greater family satisfaction. Shared decision making may be an important area for quality improvement in intensive care units.

BackgroundCultural competency training has been proposed as a way to improve patient outcomes. There is a need for evidence showing that these interventions reduce health disparities.ObjectiveThe objective was to conduct a systematic review addressing the effects of cultural competency training on patient-centered outcomes; assess quality of studies and strength of effect; and propose a framework for future research.DesignThe authors performed electronic searches in the MEDLINE/PubMed, ERIC, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science databases for original articles published in English between 1990 and 2010, and a bibliographic hand search. Studies that reported cultural competence educational interventions for health professionals and measured impact on patients and/or health care utilization as primary or secondary outcomes were included.MeasurementsFour authors independently rated studies for quality using validated criteria and assessed the training effect on patient outcomes. Due to study heterogeneity, data were not pooled; instead, qualitative synthesis and analysis were conducted.ResultsSeven studies met inclusion criteria. Three involved physicians, two involved mental health professionals and two involved multiple health professionals and students. Two were quasi-randomized, two were cluster randomized, and three were pre/post field studies. Study quality was low to moderate with none of high quality; most studies did not adequately control for potentially confounding variables. Effect size ranged from no effect to moderately beneficial (unable to assess in two studies). Three studies reported positive (beneficial) effects; none demonstrated a negative (harmful) effect.ConclusionThere is limited research showing a positive relationship between cultural competency training and improved patient outcomes, but there remains a paucity of high quality research. Future work should address challenges limiting quality. We propose an algorithm to guide educators in designing and evaluating curricula, to rigorously demonstrate the impact on patient outcomes and health disparities.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11606-010-1529-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Ours is an era in which patients seek greater engagement in health care choices, increasing the demand for high-quality information about clinical options. Providing support for informed choice is not straightforward, however, because of challenges faced by clinicians, health systems, and consumers. Greater use of written or electronic tools can help to clarify choices for patients, but decision aids cannot replace the human element in facilitating informed choice. The ideal solution is to couple information with high-quality decision counseling to help patients understand the potential risks, benefits, and uncertainties of clinical options and to assist them in selecting the option that best accommodates their personal preferences. Decision counseling can be offered by 3 types of providers: clinicians who lack formal informed-choice training ("usual care"), clinicians with formal informed-choice training, or trained third parties who function as impartial decision counselors. Controlled studies are needed to determine which model is best, but none appears to be ideal. The health care system cannot truly support informed decision making without correcting the underlying obstacles that impede patient access to needed information. New information technology solutions, training programs, and reimbursement schemes are necessary. Patient demand for guidance will only increase as clinical options multiply and the world of information continues its rapid growth. Today's health care system is unprepared for the convergence of these 2 burgeoning domains, and the need to address systemic deficiencies will grow more urgent over time.