A formalized shared decision-making process with individualized decision aids for older patients referred for cardiac surgery.

Abstract

Background: Comprehension of risks, benefits and alternative treatment options is poor among patients referred for cardiac surgery interventions. We sought to explore the impact of a formalized shared decision-making (SDM) process on patient comprehension and decisional quality among older patients referred for cardiac surgery.

Methods: We developed and evaluated a paper-based decision aid for cardiac surgery within the context of a prospective SDM design. Surgeons were trained in SDM through a Web-based program. We acted as decisional coaches, going through the decision aids with the patients and their families, and remaining available for consultation. Patients (aged ≥ 65 yr) undergoing isolated valve, coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) or CABG and valve surgery were eligible. Participants in the non-SDM phase followed standard care. Participants in the SDM group received a decision aid following cardiac catheterization, populated with individualized risk assessment, personal profile and comorbidity status. Both groups were assessed before surgery on comprehension, decisional conflict, decisional quality, anxiety and depression.

Results: We included 98 patients in the SDM group and 97 in the non-SDM group. Patients who received decision aids through a formalized SDM approach scored higher in comprehension (median 15.0, interquartile range [IQR] 12.0-18.0) than those who did not (median 9.0, IQR 7.0-12.0, p < 0.001). Decisional quality was greater in the SDM group (median 82.0, IQR 73.0-91.0) than in the non-SDM group (median 76.0, IQR 62.0-82.0, p < 0.05). Decisional conflict scores were lower in the SDM group (mean 1.76, standard deviation [SD] 1.14) than in the non-SDM group (mean 5.26, SD 1.02, p < 0.05). Anxiety and depression scores showed no significant difference between groups.

Conclusion: Institution of a formalized SDM process including individualized decision aids improved comprehension of risks, benefits and alternatives to cardiac surgery, as well as decisional quality, and did not result in increased levels of anxiety.