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

被引:4
作者
Warner, Bronwen E. [1 ]
Lound, Adam [2 ]
Grailey, Kate [3 ]
Vindrola-Padros, Cecilia [4 ]
Wells, Mary [5 ,6 ]
Brett, Stephen J. [1 ,7 ]
机构
[1] Imperial Coll London, Dept Surg & Canc, Div Anaesthet Pain Med & Intens Care, London, England
[2] Imperial Coll London, Patient Experience Res Ctr, Sch Publ Hlth, London, England
[3] Imperial Coll London, Inst Global Hlth Innovat, Ctr Hlth Policy, Dept Surg & Canc, London, England
[4] Univ Coll London UCL, Dept Targeted Intervent, London, England
[5] Imperial Coll, Dept Surg & Canc, London, England
[6] Imperial Coll Healthcare NHS Trust, London, England
[7] Imperial Coll Healthcare NHS Trust, Dept Intens Care Med, London, England
关键词
Treatment escalation; Shared decision-making; Older people; Triage decisions; Qualitative research; LIFE-SUSTAINING TREATMENT; OF-LIFE; TREATMENT PREFERENCES; BARRIERS; ORDERS; GOALS; FACILITATORS; CLINICIAN; DISCUSSIONS; POPULATION;
D O I
10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102144
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background 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 & GE;65 years) perspectives on patient involvement in TEP in the acute setting. Methods 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 condi-tions may have specific TEP considerations), Phenomenon of Interest (Treatment Escalation Planning), Design (any including interview, observational, survey), Evaluation (Shared Decision-Making), Research type (qualitative, quan-titative, 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 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 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.
引用
收藏
页数:19
相关论文
共 98 条
  • [1] The ideas about advanced life support and affecting factors at the end-stage of life in a hospital in Turkey
    Albayrak, Turgay
    Sencan, Irfan
    Akca, Omer
    Koc, Esra Meltem
    Aksoy, Hilal
    Unsal, Selim
    Bulbul, Iskender
    Bahadir, Adem
    Kasim, Ismail
    Kahveci, Rabia
    Ozkara, Ademo
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2017, 12 (07):
  • [2] [Anonymous], 1990, C S PATIENT SELF DET
  • [3] Key components of shared decision making models: a systematic review
    Bomhof-Roordink, Hanna
    Gartner, Fania R.
    Stiggelbout, Anne M.
    Pieterse, Arwen H.
    [J]. BMJ OPEN, 2019, 9 (12):
  • [4] How should clinicians respond to requests for potentially inappropriate treatment?
    Bosslet, Gabriel T.
    Kesecioglu, Jozef
    White, Douglas B.
    [J]. INTENSIVE CARE MEDICINE, 2016, 42 (03) : 422 - 425
  • [5] British Medical Association RCU Royal College of Nursing, 2016, DEC REL CARD RES GUI
  • [6] HONORING PATIENT CARE PREFERENCES: SURROGATES SPEAK
    Buckey, Julia W.
    Molina, Olga
    [J]. OMEGA-JOURNAL OF DEATH AND DYING, 2012, 65 (04) : 257 - 280
  • [7] CASP-Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, 2018, CASP CHECKL
  • [8] Childress James F, 2020, AMA J Ethics, V22, pE423, DOI 10.1001/amajethics.2020.423
  • [9] Colvin CJ, 2018, IMPLEMENT SCI, V13, DOI [10.1186/s13012-017-0688-3, 10.1186/s13012-017-0690-9, 10.1186/s13012-017-0693-6, 10.1186/s13012-017-0691-8]
  • [10] Assessment of Discordance Between Surrogate Care Goals and Medical Treatment Provided to Older Adults With Serious Illness
    Comer, Amber R.
    Hickman, Susan E.
    Slaven, James E.
    Monahan, Patrick O.
    Sachs, Greg A.
    Wocial, Lucia D.
    Burke, Emily S.
    Torke, Alexia M.
    [J]. JAMA NETWORK OPEN, 2020, 3 (05) : E205179