You are here

Article Text

Article menu

other Versions

Download PDFPDF
How to do it
Using an Option Grid in shared decision making
  1. Robert P Seal1,
  2. Jeremy Kynaston2,
  3. Glyn Elwyn3,
  4. Philip E M Smith4
  1. 1Frenchay Hospital, Bristol, UK
  2. 2Cardiff University, Cardiff, UK
  3. 3The Dartmouth Centre for Healthcare Delivery Science, Dartmouth, USA
  4. 4University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Robert Seal, Frenchay Hospital, Frenchay Park Road, Bristol BS16 1LE, UK; rpseal{at}doctors.org.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/practneurol-2013-000666

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Introduction

    Neurologists make treatment decisions every day; there is a strong ethical case (patient autonomy) for making these decisions jointly with patients.1 ,2 Patients must clearly be closely involved in high-stakes decisions, such as starting chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy for malignant glioma. But there are many lower-stakes decisions where shared decision making can optimise and improve outcomes. Furthermore, there is strong political pressure for efficiency, ensuring the right patients receive the right treatment.3 Thus, patients, policy makers and clinicians each support the principle of shared decision making.1–3 Joint decision making also makes sense from a health and well-being point of view; we feel relatively better when we have more control over events in our lives.

    Decision support tools

    Although good shared decision making is hard to define and to measure, how we share a decision is very important.2 In particular, ‘patient decision support tools’ can positively impact the quality of treatment decisions. A Cochrane review of such tools (2011 update including 86 randomised controlled trials) showed that increased patient knowledge and improved patient perception of risk helped to ensure that decisions were ‘more congruent’ with patient preferences.4 This research, coupled with the broad public and professional support for shared decision making, suggests clinicians should reconsider how they reach decisions with their patients, and whether they could do better. Option Grids provide …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors RPS drafted and revised the paper, and revised the draft Option Grid discussed in the paper. He is guarantor. JK drafted the Option Grid discussed in the paper and revised the draft paper. GE conceived the Option Grid idea, revised the Option Grid discussed in the paper and revised the draft paper. PEMS conceived the paper, revised the draft Option Grid discussed in the paper and revised the draft paper.

    • Competing interests We have read and understood the BMJ Group policy on declaration of interests and declare the following interests: RPS: No conflicts of interest to declare. JK: No conflicts of interest to declare. GE: No conflicts of interest to declare. PEMS is co-editor of Practical Neurology.

    • Provenance and peer review Commissioned, externally peer reviewed. This paper was reviewed by Mark Manford, Cambridge, UK.

    Linked Articles

    • Editors' choice
      Highlights from this issue
      Phil Smith Geraint N Fuller
      Practical Neurology 2014; 14 i-i Published Online First: 22 Jan 2014. doi: 10.1136/practneurol-2013-000806
    • Commentary
      Using Option Grids: a referee's commentary
      Mark Manford
      Practical Neurology 2014; 14 4-5 Published Online First: 22 Jan 2014. doi: 10.1136/practneurol-2013-000788

    Other content recommended for you