Shared decision making: using health information technology to integrate patient choice into primary care

Abstract

Advances in shared decision making (SDM) have not successfully translated to practice. We describe our experience and lessons learned in translating an SDM process for primary care cardiovascular disease management. The SDM process operationalized recognized SDM elements using workflow modifications, a computerized patient questionnaire, an automated risk calculator to identify at-risk patients, a web-based tool for patients to choose interventions, automated feedback on the personalized benefits of choices, and a web-based tool for providers to view patient risk, patient choice, and expert advice. Although medication was typically the intervention resulting in the greatest risk reduction, the majority of patients preferred dietary and other lifestyle changes. Patients generally favored the opportunity to make and communicate choices. However, providers only viewed patient choice data in 20% of the encounters. Translation of the SDM process was successful for patients and the difference between patient choice and optimal risk reduction points to the importance of engaging in an SDM process. Lack of engagement by providers may be due to "alert fatigue" or to the failure of the SDM process to improve efficiency in the office visit. KeywordsShared decision making, Translation, e-Technology BACKGROUND Shared decision making (SDM) is widely recognized as a desirable form of patient-provider interaction [1][2][3]. In theory, the SDM process seems straightforward. In practice, there is limited success in translating tested SDM protocols to routine clinical practice [4,5].SDM tools (e.g., a decision aid) and processes are intended to foster a consideration of the risk, benefits, and tradeoffs associated with a decision, and the way in which a patient's preferences are incorporated into the discussion and decision process [6,7]. There is growing interest in conceptual models, methods for communicating information, and tests of the utility and impact of tools and processes. There has been relatively little focus, however, on how SDM tools and processes can be successfully deployed and integrated into clinical practice. In general, SDM has not been

Computerized Decision Aids for Shared Decision Making in Serious Illness: Systematic Review

“…SDM tools such as decision aids are intended to inform the patients with regard to the risks, benefits, and trade-offs associated with a decision [ 6 ]. When used to assist in decision making between treatments, decision aids have been shown to reduce decisional conflict, increase ease of decision making, and increase modification of previous decisions [ 7 , 8 ].…”

A Model of Organizational Context and Shared Decision Making: Application to LGBT Racial and Ethnic Minority Patients

“…82 Existing CDS for SDM tend to focus on a single condition. [83][84][85] As organizations institute SDM as Busual care^for multiple conditions, this could become overwhelming and lead clinicians to ignore CDS due to Balert fatigue.^8 More research is needed about how to improve SDM with CDS most effectively.…”

Patient choice, Internet based information sources, and perceptions of health care: Evidence from Sweden using survey data from 2010 and 2013

“…An important aspect of the choice-based reforms in Europe and elsewhere is that adequate and complete information is available for consumers to be able to make an informed choice. While such information can come from several different sources, the Internet is an increasingly more important source of health information, including for the ability to make a provider choice [ 11 – 13 ].…”