Montori, Victor M

Despite the evolving evidence in favor of shared decision making (SDM) and of decades-long calls for its adoption, SDM remains uncommon in routine care. Reflecting on this lack of progress, we sought to reimagine the future of SDM and the path to take us there. In late 2017, a multidisciplinary and international group of six researchers were challenged by a senior SDM scholar to envision the future and, based on a provocatively critical view of the present, to write letters to themselves from the year 2028. Letters were exchanged and discussed electronically. The group then met in person to discuss the letters. Since the letters painted a dystopian picture, they triggered questions about the nature of SDM, who should benefit from SDM, how to measure its contribution to care, and what new ways can be invented to design and test interventions to implement SDM in routine care. Through contrasting the purposefully generated dystopias with an ideal future for SDM, we generated reflections on a research agenda for SDM. These reflections hinged on recognizing SDM’s contributing to care, that is, as a way to advance the problematic human situation of patients. These focused on three distinct yet complimentary contributors to SDM: 1) the process of making decisions, 2) humanistic communication, and 3) fit-to-care of the resulting decision. The group then concluded that to move SDM from envisioned to routine practice, and to ensure it reaches all, particularly persons rendered vulnerable by current forms of health care, a substantial investment in implementation research is necessary. Perhaps the discussion of these reflections can contribute to a path forward that will improve the likelihood of the future we dream for SDM.

AbstractObjectiveTo test the hypotheses that use of the Head CT Choice decision aid would be similarly effective in all parent/patient dyads but parents with high (vs low) numeracy experience a greater increase in knowledge while those with low (vs high) health literacy experience a greater increase in trust.MethodsThis was a secondary analysis of a cluster randomized trial conducted at seven sites. One hundred seventy‐two clinicians caring for 971 children at intermediate risk for clinically important traumatic brain injuries were randomized to shared decision making facilitated by the DA (n = 493) or to usual care (n = 478). We assessed for subgroup effects based on patient and parent characteristics, including socioeconomic status (health literacy, numeracy and income). We tested for interactions using regression models with indicators for arm assignment and study site.ResultsThe decision aid did not increase knowledge more in parents with high numeracy (P for interaction [Pint] = 0.14) or physician trust more in parents with low health literacy (Pint = 0.34). The decision aid decreased decisional conflict more in non‐white parents (decisional conflict scale, −8.14, 95% CI: −12.33 to −3.95; Pint = 0.05) and increased physician trust more in socioeconomically disadvantaged parents (trust in physician scale, OR: 8.59, 95% CI: 2.35‐14.83; Pint = 0.04).ConclusionsUse of the Head CT Choice decision aid resulted in less decisional conflict in non‐white parents and greater physician trust in socioeconomically disadvantaged parents. Decision aids may be particularly effective in potentially vulnerable parents.

AbstractThe idea of shared decision making (SDM) is gaining traction within emergency medicine, although concerns about potential legal consequences of its use may be slowing its adoption. We describe the similarities and differences between informed consent (IC) requirements and SDM, highlighting their different purposes, scope, and implementation. We also illustrate several areas in which SDM may affect clinicians’ liability risks and suggest that while SDM is likely to reduce net liability risks, it may increase providers’ liability risks in certain situations or with select patients. Overall, engaging in SDM should be understood as clearly distinct from the process of obtaining IC and could reduce clinicians’ risk of liability when applied carefully and thoughtfully.