The principles of shared decision making are well documented but there is a lack of guidance about how to accomplish the approach in routine clinical practice. Our aim here is to translate existing conceptual descriptions into a three-step model that is practical, easy to remember, and can act as a guide to skill development. Achieving shared decision making depends on building a good relationship in the clinical encounter so that information is shared and patients are supported to deliberate and express their preferences and views during the decision making process. To accomplish these tasks, we propose a model of how to do shared decision making that is based on choice, option and decision talk. The model has three steps: a) introducing choice, b) describing options, often by integrating the use of patient decision support, and c) helping patients explore preferences and make decisions. This model rests on supporting a process of deliberation, and on understanding that decisions should be influenced by exploring and respecting "what matters most" to patients as individuals, and that this exploration in turn depends on them developing informed preferences.

No abstract

No abstract

Objective To develop a set of quality criteria for patient decision support technologies (decision aids). Design and setting Two stage web based Delphi process using online rating process to enable international collaboration. Participants Individuals from four stakeholder groups (researchers, practitioners, patients, policy makers) representing 14 countries reviewed evidence summaries and rated the importance of 80 criteria in 12 quality domains on a 1 to 9 scale. Second round participants received feedback from the first round and repeated their assessment of the 80 criteria plus three new ones. Main outcome measure Aggregate ratings for each criterion calculated using medians weighted to compensate for different numbers in stakeholder groups; criteria rated between 7 and 9 were retained. Results 212 nominated people were invited to participate. Of those invited, 122 participated in the first round (77 researchers, 21 patients, 10 practitioners, 14 policy makers); 104/122 (85%) participated in the second round. 74 of 83 criteria were retained in the following domains: systematic development process (9/9 criteria); providing information about options (13/13); presenting probabilities (11/13); clarifying and expressing values (3/3); using patient stories (2/5); guiding/coaching (3/5); disclosing conflicts of interest (5/5); providing internet access (6/6); balanced presentation of options (3/3); using plain language (4/6); basing information on up to date evidence (7/7); and establishing effectiveness (8/8). Conclusions Criteria were given the highest ratings where evidence existed, and these were retained. Gaps in research were highlighted. Developers, users, and purchasers of patient decision aids now have a checklist for appraising quality. An instrument for measuring quality of decision aids is being developed.

This review is published as a Cochrane Review in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 4. Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to comments and criticisms, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the Review.

Creation of a platform of tools to provide information to doctors and patients should be the first step in giving patients choice about their treatment, say Glyn Elwyn and colleagues.

No abstract

BackgroundUnderstanding the patient safety literature has been compromised by the inconsistent use of language.ObjectivesTo identify key concepts of relevance to the International Patient Safety Classification (ICPS) proposed by the World Alliance For Patient Safety of the World Health Organization (WHO), and agree on definitions and preferred terms.MethodsSix principles were agreed upon—that the concepts and terms should: be applicable across the full spectrum of healthcare; be consistent with concepts from other WHO Classifications; have meanings as close as possible to those in colloquial use; convey the appropriate meanings with respect to patient safety; be brief and clear, without unnecessary or redundant qualifiers; be fit-for-purpose for the ICPS.ResultsDefinitions and preferred terms were agreed for 48 concepts of relevance to the ICPS; these were described and the relationships between them and the ICPS were outlined.ConclusionsThe consistent use of key concepts, definitions and preferred terms should pave the way for better understanding, for comparisons between facilities and jurisdictions, and for trends to be tracked over time. Changes and improvements, translation into other languages and alignment with other sets of patient safety definitions will be necessary. This work represents the start of an ongoing process of progressively improving a common international understanding of terms and concepts relevant to patient safety.