Patient Engagement

Shared Decision-Making for Good Clinical Care: Better, but Not Easier

Article · March 22, 2017

The practice of medicine is changing. An expanding array of approaches is available to address patients’ health situations, and patients are increasingly encouraged to collaborate with their clinicians to figure out which is best for them. Patients are considered autonomous, and, in their work of being a patient, they are expected to take responsibility over their health, to be informed about their care, and to be actively involved in managing their care.

Particularly, they are expected to actively take part in the medical decision-making by preparing for clinical encounters: by reviewing booklets, videos, or decision tools, and then using this information to develop preferences to discuss with their clinicians. Clinicians, in turn, are expected to provide patients with the required information about their health and (possible) care, to apply (inter-)national and regional guidelines, and at the same time, to provide patient-centered care that fits the wishes and needs of their “client”: the patient. In this way, shared decision-making — patients and clinicians working together to figure out what is best — is like a business transaction.

It is questionable, however, whether all patients can, should, and want to be actively involved in making decisions about their care. Assuming — or imposing — patient autonomy could lead to “an underestimation of patients’ vulnerability and an overestimation of patients’ abilities to make such decisions.” Realizing that there are options, and that the outcomes of care are uncertain, can feed the fear of making the wrong decision and be enormously burdensome to patients. However, we must also stay alert for the opposite: when patients are considered vulnerable and helpless, clinicians may engage in paternalism, underestimating patients’ ability and wish to be involved in deciding what is best. Ultimately, this could lead to patients receiving care that is unnecessary, unwanted, unreasonable, or harmful.

Shared decision-making refers to more than just making decisions about care. It is a process, a conversation between the clinician and the patient, a way to craft care. The shared decision-making process can be broken down into different elements, including creating choice awareness, discussing reasonable approaches and their respective desirable and undesirable characteristics, discussing patients’ values and deliberating to form preferences about the options, and making a final decision. Shared decision-making is thus more than just offering patients information or choice and asking them to be autonomous in making decisions about their care.

Shared decision-making is not a transaction in which clinicians claim to be “patient centered” but in fact abandon our patients to uncertainty and fear. It is irrelevant who makes the final medical decision, as long as the chosen approach makes the most sense to each patient and his or her life. If patients are not able or willing to be autonomous, clinicians could make decisions about care based on whatever imperfect information they may have about each patient’s informed preferences, with the utmost respect for what the patient values in life and health.

Although there is some evidence — unfortunately much weaker than usually acknowledged — that shared decision-making can lead to improved patient outcomes, the primary goal of shared decision-making is simply to ensure that patients receive good care. It is a way to fundamentally care for this patient, not just for people like this patient. This approach to care can be difficult, both for patients and clinicians. Clinicians must be up to date on the available approaches (treatment strategies, for example) and be able to conduct clear, unhurried conversations with each patient about these approaches and what each one would mean for them in their situation.

This is not a sinecure. But who has ever claimed that clinical care should be easy? Indeed, in this way, shared decision-making is a challenging practice, one that clinicians and the systems that support their work must master on behalf of patients. Done well, it draws a stronger connection between clinicians and patients, and rewards clinicians with meaning within care routines. While not easier, shared decision-making can make care better.

 

This is a modified and translated version of this paper, first published in Dutch.

New Call for Submissions ­to NEJM Catalyst

Connect

A weekly email newsletter featuring the latest actionable ideas and practical innovations from NEJM Catalyst.

Learn More »

More From Patient Engagement

Patient Inducements — High Graft or High Value?

Can health care be more like Uber and Lyft?

Using a “Nursing Bundle” to Achieve Consistent Patient Experiences Across a Multi-Hospital System

How Geisinger addressed inconsistent patient experience by creating a nursing bundle that helped make patients’ experiences more consistent.

Consumer Engagement: New Tools and Capabilities for Health System Marketing

Novant Health is using research and data analytics to identify and engage new consumers, develop more relevant products and services, and support its mission and brand promise.

Engaging Patients to Optimize Medication Adherence

Medication adherence is a significant public health challenge. As each patient is unique, it is critical for health care systems and providers to better characterize and meet individual patient needs at each stage along the way in order to improve medication adherence and ultimately improve patient well-being.

The Patient as Consumer and the Measurement of Bedside Manner

Many physicians do not believe patient satisfaction is a legitimate pursuit. Yet they must meet consumers of health care where they are — on Internet ratings sites.

Health Care — A Final Frontier for Design

Design must move beyond narrow projects and encompass complex systems.

Halpern02_clip_still: A/B Testing Health Behavior Interventions

A/B Testing Health Behavior

Health care can’t implement changes overnight like Silicon Valley, but we can still learn from their version of treatment and control.

Social Interventions Can Lower Costs and Improve Outcomes

We can better serve our under-resourced patients by helping them access treatments and social interventions we already know to be effective.

Better Communication Makes Better Physicians

How Adrienne Boissy and Cleveland Clinic are focusing on physician communication — and getting results.

Why Real-World Results Are So Challenging for Digital Health

User engagement outside of clinical trials is the critical factor.

Connect

A weekly email newsletter featuring the latest actionable ideas and practical innovations from NEJM Catalyst.

Learn More »

Topics

My Favorite Slide: Surprising Mortality for…

Call to action: Survival statistics for a slice of middle-aged white people in the U.S.…

Patient Incentives

44 Articles

Patient Inducements — High Graft or…

Can health care be more like Uber and Lyft?

Protecting the Tired, the Poor, the…

After President Trump’s executive order banning refugees, the United States is no longer a bright…

Insights Council

Have a voice. Join other health care leaders effecting change, shaping tomorrow.

Apply Now