Shared decision-making in a multidisciplinary head and neck cancer team: a case study of developing Option Grids

Article Sidebar

Requires Subscription or Fee PDF (USD 25)
Published: Sep 11, 2012
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5750/ijpcm.v2i3.262
Keywords:
Consultation diagnosis head and neck cancer multidisciplinary team oncology option grids patient decision support tools person-centered medicine shared decision-making

Main Article Content

Glyn Elwyn
Professor, Institute of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff, UK
Amy Lloyd
Researcher, Institute of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff, UK
Natalie Joseph Williams
Researcher, Institute of Primary Care and Public Health, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff, UK
Annette Beasley
Specialist Nurse in Otolaryngology, Department of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff, UK
Alun Tomkinson
Consultant Otolaryngologist, Department of Otolaryngology and Head & Neck Surgery, Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, University Hospital of Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff, UK

Abstract

Aims: The intended improvement involved introducing a multidisciplinary head and neck cancer team to the principles of shared decision-making, engaging them in skills training and in using patient decision support tools, supporting them to consider how patients could become more involved in treatment decisions about cancers of the head and neck. Methods: A typical implementation strategy for shared decision-making involves the use of a patient decision support intervention plus efforts to introduce the approach to clinicians, to foster positive attitudes and develop skills in using the materials effectively. However, we were aware of skepticism among some team members. It was decided that this situation required consultation and collaboration, rather than the introduction of a pre-specified intervention. The intervention planning was based on Revans’ Action Learning approach[1]: this has four interlocking elements: 1) a diagnostic phase to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation; 2) a consultation phase to formulate solutions; 3) an implementation phase to roll out agreed actions and 4) a monitoring process. Action learning includes a monitoring process: this was achieved by qualitative data collection to examine the impact of the intervention. The method is described below. Data was collected throughout the 18-month programme.Results: Engaging a multidisciplinary head and neck cancer team in the development of succinct decision support tools, namely Option Grids, increased the team’s understanding and engagement with shared decision-making. The process enabled them to have more confidence in supporting patients to become involved in treatment decisions. The action learning process was particularly helpful because the diagnostic and consultation phases helped the improvement team to understand the complexities of this clinical context. It also enabled members of the MDT to understand the relevance of shared decision-making to this patient group.Conclusions: Although debate continues, the multidisciplinary team agreed that the use of the Option Grids helped patients understand the key features and the risks and benefits of treatment options and to undertake more shared decision-making with patients.

Article Details

Issue
Vol. 2 No. 3 (2012): September
Section
Shared Decision Making

References

Revans, R. (1980). Action learning: New techniques for management. London: Blond and Briggs Ltds.

Durant, J.R. (1990). How to organize a multidisciplinary clinic for the management of breast cancer. The Surgical Cinics of North America 70 (4) 977-983.

Ruhstaller, T., Roe, H., Thürlimann, B. & Nicoll, J.J. (2006). The multidisciplinary meeting: an indispensable aid to communication between different specialities. European Journal of Cancer 42 (15) 2459-2462.

Silvia, K, A. & Sepucha, K.R. (2006). Decision aids in routine practice: lessons from the breast cancer initiative. Health Expectations 9 (3) 255-264.

Silvia, K.A., Ozanne, E.M. & Sepucha, K.R. (2008). Implementing breast cancer decision aids in community sites: barriers and resources. Health Expectations 11 (1) 46-53.

Legare F.R. (2010). Interventions for improving the adoption of shared decision making by healthcare professionals. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. CD006732.

Davies, L., Rhodes, L.A., Grossman, D.C., Rosenberg, M-C. & Stevens, D.P. (2010). Decision making in head and neck cancer care. The Laryngoscope 120 (12) 2434-2445.

Choy, E., Chiu, A., Butow, P., Young, J. & Spillane, A. (2007). A pilot study to evaluate the impact of involving breast cancer patients in the multidisciplinary discussion of their disease and treatment plan. Breast 16 (2) 178-189.

Edwards, A. & Elwyn, G. (2009). Shared decision-making. Achieving evidence-based patient choice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

O’Connor, A., Bennett, C., Stacey, D., Barry, M., Col, N., Eden, K, et al. (2009). Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. CD001431.

O’Donnell, S.C., Cranney, A., Jacobsen, M.J., Graham, I.D., O’Connor, A.M. & Tugwell, P.(2006).

Understanding and overcoming the barriers of implementing patient decision aids in clinical practice. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 12 (2) 174-181.

Coulter, A. (2009). Implementing Shared Decision Making in the UK: A report for the Health Foundation. London.

Gravel, K., Légaré, F. & Graham, I. (2006). Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: a systematic review of health professionals’ perceptions. Implementation Science 1, 16.

Hammersley, M. & Atkinson, P. (1995). Ethnography: Principles in Practice. London: Tavistock.

Thompson, A. & Krouse, R. (2004). Terminal care in head and neck cancer patients: A framework for medical decision making. Journal of the American College of Surgeons 198 (5) 837-841.

Elwyn, G., Légaré, F., van Der Weijden, T., Edwards, A. & May, C. (2008). Arduous implementation: does the Normalisation Process Model explain why it’s so difficult to embed decision support technologies for patients in routine clinical practice. Implementation Science 3, 57.

Grimshaw, J., Eccles, M., Walker, A. & Thomas, R. (2002). Changing physician’s behaviour: what works and thoughts on getting more things to work. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions 22, 237–243.

Grimshaw, J., Shirran, L., Thomas, R., Mowatt, G., Fraser, C., Bero, L., Grilli, R., Harvey, E., Oxman, A. & O'Brien, M.A. (2001). Changing provider behavior: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions. Medical Care 39, 112–145.