No abstract

Background Although shared decision making is championed as the preferred model for patient care by patient organizations, researchers and medical professionals, its application in daily practice remains limited. We previously showed that residents more often prefer paternalistic decision making than their supervisors. Because both the views of residents on the decision-making process in medical consultations and the reasons for their ‘paternalism preference’ are unknown, this study explored residents’ views on the decision-making process in medical encounters and the factors affecting it. Methods We interviewed 12 residents from various specialties at a large Dutch teaching hospital in 2019–2020, exploring how they involved patients in decisions. All participating residents provided written informed consent. Data analysis occurred concurrently with data collection in an iterative process informing adaptations to the interview topic guide when deemed necessary. Constant comparative analysis was used to develop themes. We ceased data collection when information sufficiency was achieved. Results Participants described how active engagement of patients in discussing options and decision making was influenced by contextual factors (patient characteristics, logistical factors such as available time, and supervisors’ recommendations) and by limitations in their medical and shared decision-making knowledge. The residents’ decision-making behavior appeared strongly affected by their conviction that they are responsible for arriving at the correct diagnosis and providing the best evidence-based treatment. They described shared decision making as the process of patients consenting with physician-recommended treatment or patients choosing their preferred option when no best evidence-based option was available. Conclusions Residents’ decision making appears to be affected by contextual factors, their medical knowledge, their knowledge about SDM, and by their beliefs and convictions about their professional responsibilities as a doctor, ensuring that patients receive the best possible evidence-based treatment. They confuse SDM with acquiring informed consent with the physician’s treatment recommendations and with letting patients decide which treatment they prefer in case no evidence based guideline recommendation is available. Teaching SDM to residents should not only include skills training, but also target residents’ perceptions and convictions regarding their role in the decision-making process in consultations.

ObjectivesTo assess whether consultants do what they say they do in reaching decisions with their patients.DesignCross-sectional analysis of hospital outpatient encounters, comparing consultants’ self-reported usual decision-making style to their actual observed decision-making behaviour in video-recorded encounters.SettingLarge secondary care teaching hospital in the Netherlands.Participants41 consultants from 18 disciplines and 781 patients.Primary and secondary outcome measureWith the Control Preference Scale, the self-reported usual decision-making style was assessed (paternalistic, informative or shared decision making). Two independent raters assessed decision-making behaviour for each decision using the Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION)5 instrument ranging from 0 (no shared decision making (SDM)) to 100 (optimal SDM).ResultsConsultants reported their usual decision-making style as informative (n=11), shared (n=16) and paternalistic (n=14). Overall, patient involvement was low, with mean (SD) OPTION5 scores of 16.8 (17.1). In an unadjusted multilevel analysis, the reported usual decision-making style was not related to the OPTION5 score (p>0.156). After adjusting for patient, consultant and consultation characteristics, higher OPTION5 scores were only significantly related to the category of decisions (treatment vs the other categories) and to longer consultation duration (p<0.001).ConclusionsThe limited patient involvement that we observed was not associated with the consultants’ self-reported usual decision-making style. Consultants appear to be unconsciously incompetent in shared decision making. This can hinder the transfer of this crucial communication skill to students and junior doctors.

BackgroundStage III unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is preferably treated with concurrent schedules of chemoradiotherapy, but none is clearly superior Gemcitabine is a radiosensitizing cytotoxic drug that has been studied in phase 1 and 2 studies in this setting. The aim of this study was to describe outcome and toxicity of low-dose weekly gemcitabine combined with concurrent 3-dimensional conformal radiotherapy (3D-CRT).Patients & methodsTreatment consisted of two cycles of a cisplatin and gemcitabine followed by weekly gemcitabine 300 mg/m2 during 5 weeks of 3D-CRT, 60 Gy in 5 weeks (hypofractionated-accelerated). Overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and treatment related toxicity according to Common Toxicity Criteria of Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 3.0 were assessed.ResultsBetween February 2002 and August 2008, 318 patients were treated. Median age was 64 years (range 36–86); 72% were male, WHO PS 0/1/2 was 44/53/3%. Median PFS was 15.5 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 12.9-18.1) and median OS was 24.6 months (95% CI., 21.0-28.1). Main toxicity (CTCAE grade ≥3) was dysphagia (12.6%), esophagitis (9.6%), followed by radiation pneumonitis (3.0%). There were five treatment related deaths (1.6%), two due to esophagitis and three due to radiation pneumonitis.ConclusionConcurrent low-dose gemcitabine and 3D-CRT provides a comparable survival and toxicity profile to other available treatment schemes for unresectable stage III.