Perspectives of healthcare professionals and older patients on shared decision-making for treatment escalation planning in the acute hospital setting: a systematic review and qualitative thematic synthesis.

Older people Qualitative research Shared decision-making Treatment escalation Triage decisions

Journal

EClinicalMedicine
ISSN: 2589-5370
Titre abrégé: EClinicalMedicine
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101733727

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
Aug 2023
Historique:
received: 12 05 2023
revised: 18 07 2023
accepted: 24 07 2023
medline: 17 8 2023
pubmed: 17 8 2023
entrez: 17 8 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Shared Decision-Making (SDM) between patients and clinicians is increasingly considered important. Treament Escalation Plans (TEP) are individualised documents outlining life-saving interventions to be considered in the event of clinical deterioration. SDM can inform subjective goals of care in TEP but it remains unclear how much it is considered beneficial by patients and clinicians. We aimed to synthesise the existing knowledge of clinician and older patient (generally aged ≥65 years) perspectives on patient involvement in TEP in the acute setting. Systematic database search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo and CINAHL databases as well as grey literature from database inception to June 8, 2023, using the Sample (older patients, clinicians, acute setting; studies relating to patients whose main diagnosis was cancer or single organ failure were excluded as these conditions may have specific TEP considerations), Phenomenon of Interest (Treatment Escalation Planning), Design (any including interview, observational, survey), Evaluation (Shared Decision-Making), Research type (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods) tool. Primary data (published participant quotations, field notes, survey results) and descriptive author comments were extracted and qualitative thematic synthesis was performed to generate analytic themes. Quality assessment was made using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme and Mixed Methods Appraisal Tools. The GRADE-CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach was used to assess overall confidence in each thematic finding according to methodology, coherence, adequacy and relevance of the contributing studies. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO, CRD42022361593. Following duplicate exclusion there were 1916 studies screened and ultimately 13 studies were included, all from European and North American settings. Clinician-orientated themes were: treatment escalation is a medical decision (high confidence); clinicians want the best for their patients amidst uncertainty (high confidence); involving patients and families in decisions is not always meaningful and can involve conflict (high confidence); treatment escalation planning exists within the clinical environment, organisation and society (moderate confidence). Patient-orientated themes were: patients' relationships with Treatment Escalation Planning are complex (low confidence); interactions with doctors are important but communication is not always easy (moderate confidence); patients are highly aware of their families when considering TEP (moderate confidence). Based on current evidence, TEP decisions appear dominated by clinicians' perspectives, motivated by achieving the best for patients and challenged by complex decisions, communication and environmental factors; older patients' perspectives have seldom been explored, but their input on decisions may be modest. Presenting the context and challenge of SDM during professional education may allow reflection and a more nuanced approach. Future research should seek to understand what approach to TEP decision-making patients and clinicians consider to be optimum in the acute setting so that a mutually acceptable standard can be defined in policy. HCA International and the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre.

Sections du résumé

Background UNASSIGNED
Shared Decision-Making (SDM) between patients and clinicians is increasingly considered important. Treament Escalation Plans (TEP) are individualised documents outlining life-saving interventions to be considered in the event of clinical deterioration. SDM can inform subjective goals of care in TEP but it remains unclear how much it is considered beneficial by patients and clinicians. We aimed to synthesise the existing knowledge of clinician and older patient (generally aged ≥65 years) perspectives on patient involvement in TEP in the acute setting.
Methods UNASSIGNED
Systematic database search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo and CINAHL databases as well as grey literature from database inception to June 8, 2023, using the Sample (older patients, clinicians, acute setting; studies relating to patients whose main diagnosis was cancer or single organ failure were excluded as these conditions may have specific TEP considerations), Phenomenon of Interest (Treatment Escalation Planning), Design (any including interview, observational, survey), Evaluation (Shared Decision-Making), Research type (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods) tool. Primary data (published participant quotations, field notes, survey results) and descriptive author comments were extracted and qualitative thematic synthesis was performed to generate analytic themes. Quality assessment was made using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme and Mixed Methods Appraisal Tools. The GRADE-CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach was used to assess overall confidence in each thematic finding according to methodology, coherence, adequacy and relevance of the contributing studies. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO, CRD42022361593.
Findings UNASSIGNED
Following duplicate exclusion there were 1916 studies screened and ultimately 13 studies were included, all from European and North American settings. Clinician-orientated themes were: treatment escalation is a medical decision (high confidence); clinicians want the best for their patients amidst uncertainty (high confidence); involving patients and families in decisions is not always meaningful and can involve conflict (high confidence); treatment escalation planning exists within the clinical environment, organisation and society (moderate confidence). Patient-orientated themes were: patients' relationships with Treatment Escalation Planning are complex (low confidence); interactions with doctors are important but communication is not always easy (moderate confidence); patients are highly aware of their families when considering TEP (moderate confidence).
Interpretation UNASSIGNED
Based on current evidence, TEP decisions appear dominated by clinicians' perspectives, motivated by achieving the best for patients and challenged by complex decisions, communication and environmental factors; older patients' perspectives have seldom been explored, but their input on decisions may be modest. Presenting the context and challenge of SDM during professional education may allow reflection and a more nuanced approach. Future research should seek to understand what approach to TEP decision-making patients and clinicians consider to be optimum in the acute setting so that a mutually acceptable standard can be defined in policy.
Funding UNASSIGNED
HCA International and the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37588625
doi: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102144
pii: S2589-5370(23)00321-8
pmc: PMC10425683
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Pagination

102144

Informations de copyright

© 2023 The Author(s).

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

All authors declare no competing interests.

Références

BMC Cancer. 2016 Mar 31;16:258
pubmed: 27036216
N Engl J Med. 1976 Aug 12;295(7):364-6
pubmed: 934225
Emerg Med J. 2019 Jun;36(6):346-354
pubmed: 31097464
Resusc Plus. 2022 Jun 14;10:100255
pubmed: 35734306
Health Commun. 2006;19(1):49-59
pubmed: 16519592
Hist Philos Life Sci. 2021 Jul 13;43(3):91
pubmed: 34258692
AMA J Ethics. 2020 May 1;22(5):E423-429
pubmed: 32449659
Implement Sci. 2018 Jan 25;13(Suppl 1):4
pubmed: 29384080
Palliat Med. 2014 Dec;28(10):1206-12
pubmed: 24942283
Patient Educ Couns. 2006 Feb;60(2):102-14
pubmed: 16442453
Omega (Westport). 2012;65(4):257-80
pubmed: 23115892
Br J Gen Pract. 1999 Jun;49(443):477-82
pubmed: 10562751
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012 Nov 27;12:181
pubmed: 23185978
Implement Sci. 2018 Jan 25;13(Suppl 1):9
pubmed: 29384078
BMJ Open. 2019 Dec 17;9(12):e031763
pubmed: 31852700
J Med Ethics. 2001 Oct;27(5):310-6; discussion 317-23
pubmed: 11579186
Patient Educ Couns. 2014 Mar;94(3):291-309
pubmed: 24305642
JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Apr;175(4):549-56
pubmed: 25642797
Acad Emerg Med. 2015 Jul;22(7):856-64
pubmed: 26112797
Death Stud. 1999 Oct-Nov;23(7):617-34
pubmed: 10915454
Intensive Care Med. 2016 Mar;42(3):422-425
pubmed: 26762106
BMC Med Ethics. 2021 Jan 13;22(1):5
pubmed: 33435976
Implement Sci. 2021 Jul 31;16(1):74
pubmed: 34332601
J Palliat Med. 2017 Feb;20(2):155-162
pubmed: 27802064
Implement Sci. 2018 Jan 25;13(Suppl 1):13
pubmed: 29384081
J Eval Clin Pract. 2015 Feb;21(1):109-17
pubmed: 25393809
Soc Sci Med. 2015 May;132:132-40
pubmed: 25813727
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 May 1;3(5):e205179
pubmed: 32427322
BMJ Open. 2022 Mar 7;12(3):e046189
pubmed: 35256437
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2004 Mar;59(3):255-63
pubmed: 15031310
Ann Emerg Med. 2016 Jul;68(1):28-39.e3
pubmed: 26619758
Age Ageing. 2018 May 01;47(3):374-380
pubmed: 29370339
BMJ Open. 2021 May 21;11(5):e046268
pubmed: 34020978
Implement Sci. 2018 Jan 25;13(Suppl 1):14
pubmed: 29384077
Resuscitation. 2021 May;162:343-350
pubmed: 33482270
Crit Care Med. 2006 Aug;34(8):2120-6
pubmed: 16763517
Implement Sci. 2018 Mar 9;13(1):40
pubmed: 29523167
Qual Health Res. 2004 Dec;14(10):1366-86
pubmed: 15538005
Qual Health Res. 2012 Oct;22(10):1435-43
pubmed: 22829486
Age Ageing. 2023 Apr 1;52(4):
pubmed: 37083851
Acad Emerg Med. 2015 Apr;22(4):399-405
pubmed: 25807995
Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Dec;73(3):526-35
pubmed: 18752915
JBI Evid Synth. 2020 Oct;18(10):2108-2118
pubmed: 32813460
J Gen Intern Med. 2012 Oct;27(10):1361-7
pubmed: 22618581
J Aging Health. 2006 Oct;18(5):686-706
pubmed: 16980635
Med Decis Making. 2015 Jan;35(1):114-31
pubmed: 25351843
PLoS One. 2017 Jul 21;12(7):e0181456
pubmed: 28732071
PLoS One. 2021 Dec 30;16(12):e0261525
pubmed: 34968394
Postgrad Med J. 2017 Mar;93(1097):127-132
pubmed: 27450314
Soc Sci Med. 2003 Feb;56(3):589-602
pubmed: 12570976
BMJ Open. 2020 Jan 20;10(1):e031633
pubmed: 31964663
Implement Sci. 2018 Jan 25;13(Suppl 1):10
pubmed: 29384082
J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2022 Jun;52(2):172-179
pubmed: 36147009
J Patient Saf. 2019 Sep;15(3):230-237
pubmed: 31449196
J Gen Intern Med. 2021 Feb;36(2):413-421
pubmed: 33111241
BMJ. 2017 Feb 28;356:j813
pubmed: 28246084
Chest. 2012 May;141(5):1251-1259
pubmed: 22016488
Resusc Plus. 2023 Jan 07;13:100351
pubmed: 36686325
Anaesthesia. 1993 Dec;48(12):1027-33
pubmed: 8285320
BMJ Open Qual. 2019 Jun 17;8(2):e000396
pubmed: 31321314
Resuscitation. 2020 Mar 1;148:98-107
pubmed: 31945422
BMC Emerg Med. 2019 Jan 17;19(1):9
pubmed: 30654741
JAMA. 2010 Aug 25;304(8):903-4
pubmed: 20736477
Arch Intern Med. 1991 Mar;151(3):495-7
pubmed: 2001131
J Palliat Med. 2010 Jan;13(1):39-44; quiz 44-7
pubmed: 20050792
JAMA. 2022 Mar 22;327(12):1171-1176
pubmed: 35315879
Age Ageing. 2020 Jul 1;49(4):525
pubmed: 32318694
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2017 Jun;123-124:7-11
pubmed: 28527636
Age Ageing. 2018 Jul 1;47(4):564-569
pubmed: 29546362
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2013 Jul;46(1):9-19
pubmed: 23017611
Qual Health Res. 2017 Jun;27(7):1035-1048
pubmed: 27557927
Scand J Prim Health Care. 2022 Mar;40(1):57-66
pubmed: 35148663
BMC Palliat Care. 2022 Jan 11;21(1):9
pubmed: 35016665

Auteurs

Bronwen E Warner (BE)

Division of Anaesthetics, Pain Management and Intensive Care, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, UK.

Adam Lound (A)

Patient Experience Research Centre, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Kate Grailey (K)

Centre for Health Policy, Institute for Global Health Innovation, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, UK.

Cecilia Vindrola-Padros (C)

Department of Targeted Intervention, University College London (UCL), London, UK.

Mary Wells (M)

Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, UK.
Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.

Stephen J Brett (SJ)

Division of Anaesthetics, Pain Management and Intensive Care, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, UK.
Department of Intensive Care Medicine, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust London, London, UK.

Classifications MeSH