Background and study aims Training in endoscopy is a key objective of gastroenterology residency. There is currently no standardized or systematic training approach. This study evaluated and... Show moreBackground and study aims Training in endoscopy is a key objective of gastroenterology residency. There is currently no standardized or systematic training approach. This study evaluated and compared the current status of gastrointestinal endoscopy training programs in all teaching hospitals in the Netherlands from a resident perspective.Materials and methods A national online survey with open and closed questions on gastrointestinal endoscopy training was administered to all gastroenterology residents (N = 180) in the eight educational regions in the Netherlands.Results One hundred residents who had already started endoscopy training were included in the analyses. Sixty-five residents (65 %) were satisfied with their endoscopy training program. Participation in a preclinical endoscopy course was mandatory in seven of eight educational regions. Residents from the region without a mandatory endoscopy training course were significantly less likely to be satisfied with their endoscopy training program (32 %, P = .011). Criteria used to determine the level of supervision differed greatly between teaching hospitals (e. g. assessed endoscopy competence, predefined period of time or number of procedures). Only 26 residents (26 %) reported uniformity in teaching methods and styles between different supervising gastroenterologists in their teaching hospital.Conclusions Although most gastroenterology residents were satisfied with the endoscopy training program and endoscopy supervision in their teaching hospital, this study identified considerable local and regional variability. Future studies should be conducted to evaluate the trainers’ perspective and trainers’ behavior during endoscopy training sessions, which might eventually lead to the development of best practices regarding endoscopy training, including standardization of training programs and supervision methods. Show less
Objectives: The integration of shared decision making (SDM) and patient-centered communication (PCC) is needed to actively involve patients in decision making. This study examined the relationship... Show moreObjectives: The integration of shared decision making (SDM) and patient-centered communication (PCC) is needed to actively involve patients in decision making. This study examined the relationship between shared decision making and patient-centered communication. Methods: In 82 videotaped hospital outpatient consultations by 41 medical specialists from 18 disciplines, we assessed the extent of shared decision making by the OPTION5 score and patient-centered communication by the Four Habits Coding Scheme (4HCS), and analyzed the occurrence of a high versus low degree (above or below median) of SDM and/or PCC, and its relation to patient satisfaction scores. Results: In comparison to earlier studies, we observed comparable 4HCS scores and relatively low OPTION5 scores. The correlation between the two was weak (r = 0.29, p = 0.009). In 38% of consultations, we observed a combination of high SDM and low PCC scores or vice versa. The combination of a high SDM and high PCC, which was observed in 23% of consultations, was associated with significantly higher patient satisfaction scores. Conclusion: Shared decision making and patient-centered communication are not synonymous and do not always co-exist. Practice implications: The value of integrated training of shared decision making and patient-centered communication should be further explored. Show less
Weijden, T. van der; Kraan, J. van der; Brand, P.L.P.; Veenendaal, H. van; Drenthen, T.; Schoon, Y.; ... ; Stiggelbout, A. 2022
Dutch initiatives targeting shared decision-making (SDM) are still growing, supported by the govern-ment, the Federation of Patients' Organisations, professional bodies and healthcare insurers. The... Show moreDutch initiatives targeting shared decision-making (SDM) are still growing, supported by the govern-ment, the Federation of Patients' Organisations, professional bodies and healthcare insurers. The large majority of patients prefers the SDM model. The Dutch are working hard to realise improvement in the application of SDM in daily clinical practice, resulting in glimpses of success with objectified improve-ment on observed behavior. Nevertheless, the culture shift is still ongoing. Large-scale uptake of SDM behavior is still a challenge. We haven't yet fully reached the patients' needs, given disappointing research data on patients' experiences and professional behavior. In all Dutch implementation projects, early adopters, believers or higher-educated persons have been overrepresented, while patients with limited health literacy have been underrepresented. This is a huge problem as 25% of the Dutch adult population have limited health literacy. To further enhance SDM there are issues to be addressed: We need to make physicians conscious about their limited application of SDM in daily practice, especially regarding preference and decision talk. We need to reward clinicians for the extra work that comes with SDM. We need to be inclusive to patients with limited health literacy, who are less often actually involved in decision-making and at the same time more likely to regret their chosen treatment compared to patients with higher health literacy. Show less
Background: Shared decision-making (SDM) is particularly important in oncology as many treatments involve serious side effects, and treatment decisions involve a trade-off between benefits and... Show moreBackground: Shared decision-making (SDM) is particularly important in oncology as many treatments involve serious side effects, and treatment decisions involve a trade-off between benefits and risks. However, the implementation of SDM in oncology care is challenging, and clinicians state that it is difficult to apply SDM in their actual workplace. Training clinicians is known to be an effective means of improving SDM but is considered time consuming. Objective: This study aims to address the effectiveness of an individual SDM training program using the concept of deliberate practice. Methods: This multicenter, single-blinded randomized clinical trial will be performed at 12 Dutch hospitals. Clinicians involved in decisions with oncology patients will be invited to participate in the study and allocated to the control or intervention group. All clinicians will record 3 decision-making processes with 3 different oncology patients. Clinicians in the intervention group will receive the following SDM intervention: completing e-learning, reflecting on feedback reports, performing a self-assessment and defining 1 to 3 personal learning questions, and participating in face-to-face coaching. Clinicians in the control group will not receive the SDM intervention until the end of the study. The primary outcome will be the extent to which clinicians involve their patients in the decision-making process, as scored using the Observing Patient Involvement-5 instrument. As secondary outcomes, patients will rate their perceived involvement in decision-making, and the duration of the consultations will be registered. All participating clinicians and their patients will receive information about the study and complete an informed consent form beforehand. Results: This trial was retrospectively registered on August 03, 2021. Approval for the study was obtained from the ethical review board (medical research ethics committee Delft and Leiden, the Netherlands [N20.170]). Recruitment and data collection procedures are ongoing and are expected to be completed by July 2022; we plan to complete data analyses by December 2022. As of February 2022, a total of 12 hospitals have been recruited to participate in the study, and 30 clinicians have started the SDM training program. Conclusions: This theory-based and blended approach will increase our knowledge of effective and feasible training methods for clinicians in the field of SDM. The intervention will be tailored to the context of individual clinicians and will target the knowledge, attitude, and skills of clinicians. The patients will also be involved in the design and implementation of the study. Show less
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... Show moreBackground 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. Show less
Backgrounds Research on shared decision-making (SDM) has mainly focused on decisions about treatment (e.g., medication or surgical procedures). Little is known about the decision-making process for... Show moreBackgrounds Research on shared decision-making (SDM) has mainly focused on decisions about treatment (e.g., medication or surgical procedures). Little is known about the decision-making process for the numerous other decisions in consultations. Objectives We assessed to what extent patients are actively involved in different decision types in medical specialist consultations and to what extent this was affected by medical specialist, patient, and consultation characteristics. Design Analysis of video-recorded encounters between medical specialists and patients at a large teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Participants Forty-one medical specialists (28 male) from 18 specialties, and 781 patients. Main Measure Two independent raters classified decisions in the consultations in decision type (main or other) and decision category (diagnostic tests, treatment, follow-up, or other advice) and assessed the decision-making behavior for each decision using the Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION)(5) instrument, ranging from 0 (no SDM) to 100 (optimal SDM). Scheduled and realized consultation duration were recorded. Key Result In the 727 consultations, the mean (SD) OPTION5 score for the main decision was higher (16.8 (17.1)) than that for the other decisions (5.4 (9.0), p < 0.001). The main decision OPTION5 scores for treatment decisions (n = 535, 19.2 (17.3)) were higher than those for decisions about diagnostic tests (n = 108, 14.6 (16.8)) or follow-up (n = 84, 3.8 (8.1), p < 0.001). This difference remained significant in multilevel analyses. Longer consultation duration was the only other factor significantly associated with higher OPTION5 scores (p < 0.001). Conclusion Most of the limited patient involvement was observed in main decisions (versus others) and in treatment decisions (versus diagnostic, follow-up, and advice). SDM was associated with longer consultations. Physicians' SDM training should help clinicians to tailor promotion of patient involvement in different types of decisions. Physicians and policy makers should allow sufficient consultation time to support the application of SDM in clinical practice. Show less
Objectives: To assess whether consultants do what they say they do in reaching decisions with their patients. Design: Cross-sectional analysis of hospital outpatient encounters, comparing... Show moreObjectives: To assess whether consultants do what they say they do in reaching decisions with their patients. Design: Cross-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. Setting: Large secondary care teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Participants: 41 consultants from 18 disciplines and 781 patients. Primary and secondary outcome measure With 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). Results: Consultants 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). Conclusions: The 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. Show less
Objective: To investigate physicians' preferred and usual roles in decision making in medical consultations, and their perception of shared decision making (SDM).Methods: A cross-sectional survey... Show moreObjective: To investigate physicians' preferred and usual roles in decision making in medical consultations, and their perception of shared decision making (SDM).Methods: A cross-sectional survey of 785 physicians in a large Dutch general teaching hospital was undertaken in June 2018, assessing their preferred and usual decision making roles (Control Preference Scale), and their view on SDM key components (SDMQ9 questionnaire).Results: Most physicians (n = 232, 58%) preferred SDM, but more often performed paternalistic decision making (n = 121, 31%) in daily practice than they preferred (n = 80, 20%, p < 0.0001), most commonly because they judged the patient to be incapable of participating in decision making. Most physicians preferring SDM presented different options for treatment (n = 213, 92%) with their advantages and disadvantages (n = 209, 90%) but fewer made clear that a decision had to be made (n = 104, 45%) or explored the patient's wish how to be involved in decision making (n = 80, 34%).Conclusion: Although most physicians prefer SDM, they often revert to a paternalistic approach and tend to limit SDM to discussing treatment options.Practice implication: Teaching physicians in SDM should include raising awareness about discussing the decision process itself and help physicians to counter their tendency to revert to paternalistic decision making in daily practice. (c) 2019 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Show less
INTRODUCTION: During postgraduate education in pulmonology, supervisors are responsible for training residents in generic competencies such as communication, professionalism and collaboration, but... Show moreINTRODUCTION: During postgraduate education in pulmonology, supervisors are responsible for training residents in generic competencies such as communication, professionalism and collaboration, but their focus commonly lies more on medical-technical competencies. As an alternative approach to supporting residents to develop generic skills, we developed a personal mentoring program with a non-medical professional as mentor. In this study, the residents' experiences with the mentoring program were evaluated.METHODS: After an introductory session in which individual learning goals were established, pulmonology residents received at least six, 60-90-minute, individual, mentoring sessions largely consisting of feedback after being observed during daily clinical activities, over a period of 9 months. The residents' experiences with mentoring were explored through in-depth interviews followed by a qualitative content analysis.RESULTS: From March to November 2016, ten residents in pulmonology completed the program. Despite initial scepticism, mentoring encouraged residents to reflect deeply on their professional interactions. This caused an increased awareness of the effects of their communication and behaviour on patients. Experimenting with communication and different behaviours in subsequent interactions felt rewarding and contributed to further development, resulting in increased self-confidence and job satisfaction.DISCUSSION: Mentoring residents by non-medical coaching was associated with improved residents' proficiency in generic competencies. Show less
Weijden, T. van der; Post, H.; Brand, P.L.P.; Veenendaal, H. van; Drenthen, T.; Mierlo, L.A.J. van; ... ; Stiggelbout, A. 2017
