Smets, Ellen M.A.

AbstractBackgroundThe development of novel diagnostics enables increasingly earlier diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease (AD). Timely diagnosis may benefit patients by reducing their uncertainty regarding the cause of symptoms, yet does not always provide patients with the desired certainty.ObjectiveTo examine, using both quantitative and qualitative methods, uncertainty communicated by memory clinic clinicians in post‐diagnostic testing consultations with patients and their caregivers.MethodsFirst, we identified all uncertainty expressions of 22 clinicians in audiotaped post‐diagnostic testing consultations with 78 patients. Second, we statistically explored relationships between patient/clinician characteristics and uncertainty expressions. Third, the transcribed uncertainty expressions were qualitatively analysed, determining the topic to which they pertained, their source and initiator/elicitor (clinicians/patients/caregivers).ResultsWithin 57/78 (73%) consultations, clinicians expressed in total 115 uncertainties, of which 37% elicited by the patient or caregiver. No apparent relationships were found between patient/clinician characteristics and whether or not, and how often clinicians expressed uncertainty. Uncertainty expressions pertained to ten different topics, most frequently patient's diagnosis and symptom progression. Expressed uncertainty was mostly related to the unpredictability of the future and limits to available knowledge.Discussion and conclusionsThe majority of clinicians openly discussed the limits of scientific knowledge and diagnostic testing with patients and caregivers in the dementia context. Noticeably, clinicians did not discuss uncertainty in about one quarter of consultations. More evidence is needed on the beneficial and/or harmful effects on patients of discussing uncertainty with them. This knowledge can be used to support clinicians to optimally convey uncertainty and facilitate patients' uncertainty management.

AbstractIntroductionWe aimed to describe clinician‐patient communication in the diagnostic process of memory clinics, specifically clinician behavior known to facilitate knowledgeable participation of patients during consultations.MethodsIn this multicenter, observational study, we audio‐recorded routine diagnostic consultations of 41 clinicians and 136 patients/caregivers at eight memory clinics. Patients/caregivers completed surveys after each audiotaped consultation. We used a study‐specific coding scheme to categorize communication behavior.ResultsClinicians often provided information on (results of) diagnostic testing. They infrequently invited questions and/or checked understanding. Clinician behavior to involve patients in decision‐making about diagnostic testing was limited. Of note, patients/caregivers rarely expressed their information or involvement preferences. Yet, approximately, one quarter of them would have liked to receive more information.DiscussionInvolving patients more explicitly by means of shared decision‐making could benefit the quality of care provided in memory clinics because it enables clinicians to attune the diagnostic workup to the individual patient's needs.

Abstract Background Systemic treatment for advanced cancer offers uncertain and sometimes limited benefit, while the burden can be high. This study examines the effect of shared decision-making (SDM) training for medical oncologists on observed SDM in standardized patient assessments. Materials and Methods A randomized controlled trial comparing training with standard practice was conducted. Medical oncologists and oncologists-in-training (n = 31) participated in a video-recorded, standardized patient assessment at baseline (T0) and after 4 months (T1, after training). The training was based on a four-stage SDM model and consisted of a reader, two group sessions (3.5 hours each), a booster session (1.5 hours), and a consultation card. The primary outcome was observed SDM as assessed with the Observing Patient Involvement scale (OPTION12) coded by observers blinded for arm. Secondary outcomes were observed SDM per stage, communication skills, and oncologists’ satisfaction with communication. Results The training had a significant and large effect on observed SDM in the simulated consultations (Cohen's f = 0.62) and improved observed SDM behavior in all four SDM stages (f = 0.39–0.72). The training improved oncologists’ information provision skills (f = 0.77), skills related to anticipating/responding to emotions (f = 0.42), and their satisfaction with the consultation (f = 0.53). Conclusion Training medical oncologists in SDM about palliative systemic treatment improves their performance in simulated consultations. The next step is to examine the effect of such training on SDM in clinical practice and on patient outcomes. Implications for Practice Systemic treatment for advanced cancer offers uncertain and sometimes limited benefit, while the burden can be high. Hence, applying the premises of shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended. SDM is increasingly advocated based on the ethical imperative to provide patient-centered care and the increasing evidence for beneficial patient outcomes. Few studies examined the effectiveness of SDM training in robust designs. This randomized controlled trial demonstrated that SDM training (10 hours) improves oncologists’ performance in consultations with standardized patients. The next step is to examine the effect of training on oncologists’ performance and patient outcomes in clinical practice.

Abstract The launch of the NIA‐AA research criteria for Alzheimer's disease (AD) diagnosis illustrates the large advances that have been made in the field of AD diagnosis. These new possibilities however also introduce new dilemmas into the consulting room, and this provides room for shared decision making (SDM). SDM refers to clinicians and patients (and/or their caregivers) working together to decide which care plan best fits individual patients and their lives, when there is more than one reasonable option. Here, we describe how SDM in the diagnosis of AD promotes patient‐centered care, as it helps to adapt the diagnostic process to the patients' values and preferences. We provide an outline for a research agenda, as SDM in the diagnosis of dementia should be studied intensively incorporating the views of both patients and caregivers.