 |
 |
Thanks Kev, Huw, Dean, Tammy, Glyn, Ben, Amy and others for this invigorating discussion enriching as always through this list-serv. Some of the members of this list serv have been operating a real time forum for shared decision making and this was presented last year in the international EBM conference in ND, India by list member Pranab and also shared in a recent publication led by Amy: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4614-4998-0_44 I am particularly grateful to Huw for sharing his nomenclature for what i often just called 'individual patient' evidence and 'general evidence' and for drawing attention to a novel theory driven approach to SDM-EBM partly using Glyn's option grids ( http://www.optiongrid.org/resources/Option%20Grids-%20Shared%20decision%20making%20made%20easier.pdf ). Responding to Tammy's call "to gather together any existing resources which people are already using to teach clinicians (and student clinicians) how to talk with patients about evidence and how to facilitate shared decision making," we offer this live resource http://care.udhc.co.in that gets constantly updated with 'particular' patient-based evidence' inputs that are responded to by clinicians (including student clinicians under supervision). Here are a few samples: An urban patient relative 'user' sharing 'values' reflected in their narrative dilemma: http://care.udhc.co.in/INPUT/displayIssueGraphically.jsp?topic_id=331 along with other 'particular' evidences in the form of reports etc which is then acted upon in our processing forum by faculty and student clinicians. Here's a rural patient user this time sharing his dilemmas in a hand written letter that is uploaded to our site by a rural social worker: http://care.udhc.co.in/ViewImage?file_id=550&scale=800 and finally the hospital clinician with student clinicians capture further particular evidence to formulate a few queries that are potentially answerable using general/izeable evidence: http://care.udhc.co.in/INPUT/displayIssueGraphically.jsp?topic_id=278 As Huw pointed out transparency is the key and in the midst of improving transparency in decision making we strive to protect (its uneasy bedfellow?) patient privacy through de-identification using standard guidelines:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2528047/figure/fig1/and appropriate informed authorization from our patients: http://care.udhc.co.in/STATICS/docs/udhc-english.pdf Will be looking forward to further inputs to improve our shared decision making platform. best, rakesh BMJ Case Reports, UK http://casereports.bmj.com/site/about/edboard.xhtml Journal of Evaluation of Clinical Practice, UK http://www.wiley.com/bw/editors.asp?ref=1356-1294 International Journal of User Driven Health-care IJUDH, US http://www.igi-global.com/journal/international-journal-user-driven-healthcare/41022 From: k.hopayian <[log in to unmask]> Date: Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:15 PM Subject: Re: Shared Decision Making Conference Lima To: [log in to unmask] Dear Huw, To its credit, EBHC has drawn attention to the need to give information to patients (such as using easily understood summary stats) and the need to incorporate patient's values and preferences in decisions. For too long, however, it has concentrated on the content of communication and overlooked the process. Check the EBHC textbooks, you will find lots on decision aids, including even the the rarely feasible decision tree with lots of branches where we are supposed to give the precise probabilities for each choice, something we rarely have. You will find very little on the consultation skills that you need to do some vital things, like for example, (1) establishing whether the patient wants to participate in decisions (2) assessing the verbal and numerical skills of the patient (3) packaging the information into palatable chunks (4) checking understanding and lots more. From the standpoint of the GP world where a lot of research and development has gone into consultations, I drew attention to this deficit at a Conference on teaching EBHC at Hanze University, Groningen, Netherlands in 2006 and I still believe that we in the EBHC world should draw on the existing body of knowledge. I am not sure we need a separate heading of SDM. For an example of what I mean, you could look at · Applying The Evidence: Acceptability at http://www.angliangp.org.uk/evidence_based_GP.htm **** Kev Hopayian On 1 Jul 2013, at 16:54, Huw Llewelyn [hul2] <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Dear Glyn, Tammy and all I fully support the incorporation of SDM into EBM. SDM involves incorporating using the patient’s own ‘evidence’ to predict which option will probably benefit that patient best. This ‘evidence’ is based on the patient’s past personal experience and is combined with the collective, carefully documented experience of researchers studying groups of patients (which is what is usually regarded as the ‘evidence’ of evidence-based medicine). Any evidence based on past experience (of the patient or researcher) can be termed ‘general’ evidence, and evidence based on the patient’s symptoms, signs and test results in a particular situation can be termed ‘particular’ evidence. These terms are based on ‘particular’ and ‘general’ propositions in logic. The individual patient’s current symptoms, signs and test results is an essential part of the total ‘evidence’ that is used to arrive at diagnoses and to choose the course of action that will probably provide the greatest benefit. So in order to be transparent about ALL the evidence that is used to share a medical decision with a patient, it is important to specify which symptoms, signs and test results were used to arrive at each diagnosis in that ‘particular’ patient and the resulting choice of treatment (see pages 9, 10 and 11 of Chapter 1 of the Oxford Handbook of Clinical Diagnosis http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.com/pdf/13/9780199232963_chapter1.pdf). I have practiced and taught this approach to sharing and agreeing diagnoses and decisions and documenting them at the bedside and in clinics throughout my career. This approach and how to link each diagnosis and decision to the evidence used to make them is also explained in Chapter 1 of the Oxford Handbook of Clinical Diagnosis (see for example pages 12, 13, 16 and 17). I would therefore like to suggest the Oxford Handbook of Clinical Diagnosis as another resource that also promotes ‘Shared Decision Making’ at the point of care. Huw Dr Huw Llewelyn MD FRCP General Physician and Endocrinologist Hon Fellow Aberystwyth University Mobile +447968528154 ________________________________________ From: Evidence based health (EBH) [[log in to unmask]] on behalf of Tammy Hoffmann [[log in to unmask]] Sent: 30 June 2013 23:06 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: Shared Decision Making Conference Lima Dear all Thanks for your post Glyn. We couldn’t agree more about the need for closer alignment of EBP and SDM. One of the ways to promote the uptake of SDM is for teaching about SDM (and the skills needed to do this) to occur as part of EBP teaching (either in workshops or in more formal courses; at both the undergraduate level and for clinicians) A small group of us (myself, Chris Del Mar, and Victor Montori) are planning to hold some discussions and a workshop about this issue at the Evidence-Based Health Care International Joint Conference in Sicily in October. As part of this, we would like to gather together any existing resources which people are already using to teach clinicians (and student clinicians) how to talk with patients about evidence and how to facilitate shared decision making. We're aware of some resources, but suspect there may be many more and often ones that are only used locally. We'd be grateful if you could email these to me. After the conference, we'll happily share the compiled list of resources (and the resources themselves where possible) and a summary of the issues discussed with the list. Many thanks Tammy Associate Professor Tammy Hoffmann Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine Bond University Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia Tel: +61 7 5595 5522 www.crebp.net.au http://works.bepress.com/tammy_hoffmann/ -----Original Message----- From: Evidence based health (EBH) [mailto:EVIDENCE- [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Glyn Elwyn Sent: Thursday, 27 June 2013 9:54 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Shared Decision Making Conference Lima Dear Colleagues Just joined this listserv - you may have already seen this - so apologies for repeats. A Mayo-led team (Montori/LeBlanc) organised the 7th conference in Lima (terrific by the way), where Gordon Gyuatt gave an excellent keynote. Keynote: EBM needs SDM needs EBM with Dr. Gordon Guyatt http://isdm2013.org/video-archive/ Others from the EBHC community gave workshops. Interesting to reflect in 2013 how I got into this SDM area from a kick-off in Oxford-based week-long events many years ago, where Greenhalgh, Milne, Sackett, and many others were strong on the need for evidence etc. High time even more bridges were built between EBHC (sample based data) and the need to respect individual, yet informed, preferences (personal level decision making). There was evidence of culture dissonance for sure - the word 'recommendation' - weak or strong - was under debate in one workshop where GRADE was under the spotlight. Yet the mood was one of a genuine attempt to integrate these population / individual stances somehow. Looking forward to those conversations. Glyn Professor Glyn Elwyn BA MB BCh MSc FRCGP PhD [log in to unmask] The Dartmouth Center for Health Care Delivery Science | USA The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice | USA Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare | University Nijmegen Medical Centre | Netherlands. Cochrane Institute for Primary Care and Public Health | Cardiff University | UK @glynelwyn Twitter glynelwyn Skype +1-603-646-2295 Desk +1-603-729-6694 Cell +1-603-646-2553 Robin Paradis Montibello