Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2021 Dec;14(12):e007958.
doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.121.007958. Epub 2021 Dec 6.

Shared Decision Making in Cardiac Electrophysiology Procedures and Arrhythmia Management

Affiliations
Review

Shared Decision Making in Cardiac Electrophysiology Procedures and Arrhythmia Management

Mina K Chung et al. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2021 Dec.

Abstract

Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated to improve patient care, patient decision acceptance, patient-provider communication, patient motivation, adherence, and patient reported outcomes. Documentation of SDM is endorsed in several society guidelines and is a condition of reimbursement for selected cardiovascular and cardiac arrhythmia procedures. However, many clinicians argue that SDM already occurs with clinical encounter discussions or the process of obtaining informed consent and note the additional imposed workload of using and documenting decision aids without validated tools or evidence that they improve clinical outcomes. In reality, SDM is a process and can be done without decision tools, although the process may be variable. Also, SDM advocates counter that the low-risk process of SDM need not be held to the high bar of demonstrating clinical benefit and that increasing the quality of decision making should be sufficient. Our review leverages a multidisciplinary group of experts in cardiology, cardiac electrophysiology, epidemiology, and SDM, as well as a patient advocate. Our goal is to examine and assess SDM methodology, tools, and available evidence on outcomes in patients with heart rhythm disorders to help determine the value of SDM, assess its possible impact on electrophysiological procedures and cardiac arrhythmia management, better inform regulatory requirements, and identify gaps in knowledge and future needs.

Keywords: arrhythmias, cardiac; decision making, shared; documentation; electrophysiology; informed consent.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Lang E, Bell NR, Dickinson JA, Grad R, Kasperavicius D, Moore AE, Singh H, Theriault G, Wilson BJ and Stacey D. Eliciting patient values and preferences to inform shared decision making in preventive screening. Can Fam Physician. 2018;64:28–31. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Elwyn G, Hutchings H, Edwards A, Rapport F, Wensing M, Cheung WY and Grol R. The OPTION scale: measuring the extent that clinicians involve patients in decision-making tasks. Health Expect. 2005;8:34–42. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Stacey D, Legare F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Thomson R, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4:CD001431. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hoefel L, Lewis KB, O'Connor A and Stacey D. 20th Anniversary Update of the Ottawa Decision Support Framework: Part 2 Subanalysis of a Systematic Review of Patient Decision Aids. Med Decis Making. 2020;40:522–539. - PubMed
    1. Hargraves IG, Montori VM, Brito JP, Kunneman M, Shaw K, LaVecchia C, Wilson M, Walker L and Thorsteinsdottir B. Purposeful SDM: A problem-based approach to caring for patients with shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2019;102:1786–1792. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types