Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Improving Medical Decisions

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Neuropalliative Care

Abstract

In this chapter we conceptualize medical decisions in three steps: diagnosis, option assessment and shared decision making, with specific attention to how these steps apply to decisions in neuropalliative care. Diagnosis is a step that involves gathering information surrounding the problem. A physician must diagnose the medical problem, the problem from the patient’s perspective and the patient’s preferences and values. An assessment of patient capacity and skilled communication are intrinsic to the process. Option assessment is a step where the potential solutions are weighed against each other. This includes assessing benefits and risks of each option including a consideration of costs; understanding and managing uncertainty including the use of time limited trials and default options; and considering the biases associated with option assessment and ways to debias. Finally, shared decision making is a step that involves engaging with patients or surrogates to arrive at a medical decision. This involves incorporating patient values. The objective of a medical decision is to promote patient well-being.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 139.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Mulley AG, Trimble C, Elwyn G. Stop the silent misdiagnosis: patients’ preferences matter. BMJ. 2012;345:e6572.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Solomon AJ, et al. The contemporary spectrum of multiple sclerosis misdiagnosis: a multicenter study. Neurology. 2016;87(13):1393–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Holloway RG, Gramling R, Kelly AG. Estimating and communicating prognosis in advanced neurologic disease. Neurology. 2013;80(8):764–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Epstein RM. The science of patient-centered care. J Fam Pract. 2000;49(9):805–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Crane JA. Patient comprehension of doctor-patient communication on discharge from the emergency department. J Emerg Med. 1997;15(1):1–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Roter DL. The outpatient medical encounter and elderly patients. Clin Geriatr Med. 2000;16(1):95–107.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Makaryus AN, Friedman EA. Patients’ understanding of their treatment plans and diagnosis at discharge. Mayo Clin Proc. 2005;80(8):991–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Gramling R, et al. Determinants of patient-oncologist prognostic discordance in advanced cancer. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(11):1421–6.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Kutner M, Greenberg E, Jin Y, Paulsen C. In: U.D.o. Education, editor. The health literacy of America’s adults: results from the 2003 national assessment of adult literacy. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics NCES; 2006. p. 2006–483.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Schillinger D, et al. Closing the loop: physician communication with diabetic patients who have low health literacy. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(1):83–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Tarn DM, et al. Physician communication when prescribing new medications. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(17):1855–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Ha JF, Longnecker N. Doctor-patient communication: a review. Ochsner J. 2010;10(1):38–43.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Rogers ES, Wallace LS, Weiss BD. Misperceptions of medical understanding in low-literacy patients: implications for cancer prevention. Cancer Control. 2006;13(3):225–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Graham S, Brookey J. Do patients understand? Perm J. 2008;12(3):67–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Weiss BD. In: A.M.A.F.a.A.M. Association, editor. Health literacy and patient safety: help patients understand. 2nd ed. Chicago: American Medical Association Foundation and American Medical Association; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  16. El-Jawahri A, et al. Qualitative study of patients’ and caregivers’ perceptions and information preferences about hospice. J Palliat Med. 2017;20(7):759–66.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. McIlfatrick S, et al. Exploring public awareness and perceptions of palliative care: a qualitative study. Palliat Med. 2014;28(3):273–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Epstein RM, Peters E. Beyond information: exploring patients’ preferences. JAMA. 2009;302(2):195–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Okonkwo O, et al. Medical decision-making capacity in patients with mild cognitive impairment. Neurology. 2007;69(15):1528–35.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Triebel KL, et al. Treatment consent capacity in patients with traumatic brain injury across a range of injury severity. Neurology. 2012;78(19):1472–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Karlawish J, et al. Cognitive impairment and PD patients’ capacity to consent to research. Neurology. 2013;81(9):801–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Raymont V, et al. Prevalence of mental incapacity in medical inpatients and associated risk factors: cross-sectional study. Lancet. 2004;364(9443):1421–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kim SY, Karlawish JH, Caine ED. Current state of research on decision-making competence of cognitively impaired elderly persons. Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2002;10(2):151–65.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Abu Snineh M, Camicioli R, Miyasaki JM. Decisional capacity for advanced care directives in Parkinson’s disease with cognitive concerns. Parkinsonism Relat Disord. 2017;39:77–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kapoor A, et al. “Good outcome” isn’t good enough: cognitive impairment, depressive symptoms, and social restrictions in physically recovered stroke patients. Stroke. 2017;48(6):1688–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Silveira MJ, Kim SY, Langa KM. Advance directives and outcomes of surrogate decision making before death. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(13):1211–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  27. Appelbaum PS. Clinical practice. Assessment of patients’ competence to consent to treatment. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(18):1834–40.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Karlawish JH, et al. The ability of persons with Alzheimer disease (AD) to make a decision about taking an AD treatment. Neurology. 2005;64(9):1514–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Martin RC, et al. Medical decision-making capacity in cognitively impaired Parkinson’s disease patients without dementia. Mov Disord. 2008;23(13):1867–74.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Tymchuk AJ, Ouslander JG, Rader N. Informing the elderly. A comparison of four methods. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1986;34(11):818–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Krynski MD, Tymchuk AJ, Ouslander JG. How informed can consent be? New light on comprehension among elderly people making decisions about enteral tube feeding. Gerontologist. 1994;34(1):36–43.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Brady MC, Fredrick A, Williams B. People with aphasia: capacity to consent, research participation and intervention inequalities. Int J Stroke. 2013;8(3):193–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Stein J, Brady Wagner LC. Is informed consent a “yes or no” response? Enhancing the shared decision-making process for persons with aphasia. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2006;13(4):42–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Aura Kagan MDK. Informed consent in aphasia: myth or reality? Clin Aphasiology. 1995;23:65–75.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Lautrette A, et al. A communication strategy and brochure for relatives of patients dying in the ICU. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(5):469–78.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Cegala DJ, Marinelli T, Post D. The effects of patient communication skills training on compliance. Arch Fam Med. 2000;9(1):57–64.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Major EO. Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy in patients on immunomodulatory therapies. Annu Rev Med. 2010;61:35–47.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Cook DJ. Users’ guides to the medical literature. II. How to use an article about therapy or prevention. B. What were the results and will they help me in caring for my patients? Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1994;271(1):59–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Berkowitz SA, Seligman HK, Choudhry NK. Treat or eat: food insecurity, cost-related medication underuse, and unmet needs. Am J Med. 2014;127(4):303–10. e3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Simpkin AL, Schwartzstein RM. Tolerating uncertainty – the next medical revolution? N Engl J Med. 2016;375(18):1713–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Quill TE, Holloway R. Time-limited trials near the end of life. JAMA. 2011;306(13):1483–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Thaler, RH, Sunstein CR, Balz JP. Choice Architecture. 2010. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1583509.

  43. Hart J, Halpern SD. Default options in the ICU: widely used but insufficiently understood. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2014;20(6):662–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Halpern SD, et al. Default options in advance directives influence how patients set goals for end-of-life care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2013;32(2):408–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Blinderman CD, Krakauer EL, Solomon MZ. Time to revise the approach to determining cardiopulmonary resuscitation status. JAMA. 2012;307(9):917–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Saposnik G, et al. Cognitive biases associated with medical decisions: a systematic review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2016;16(1):138.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Bornstein BH, Emler AC. Rationality in medical decision making: a review of the literature on doctors’ decision-making biases. J Eval Clin Pract. 2001;7(2):97–107.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Croskerry P. The importance of cognitive errors in diagnosis and strategies to minimize them. Acad Med. 2003;78(8):775–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Blumenthal-Barby JS, Krieger H. Cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making: a critical review using a systematic search strategy. Med Decis Mak. 2015;35(4):539–57.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  50. Redelmeier DA, Shafir E. Medical decision making in situations that offer multiple alternatives. JAMA. 1995;273(4):302–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Sorum PC, et al. Why do primary care physicians in the United States and France order prostate-specific antigen tests for asymptomatic patients? Med Decis Mak. 2003;23(4):301–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Sloman SA. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychol Bull. 1996;119(1):3–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Mamede S, et al. Effect of availability bias and reflective reasoning on diagnostic accuracy among internal medicine residents. JAMA. 2010;304(11):1198–203.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. van den Berge K, Mamede S. Cognitive diagnostic error in internal medicine. Eur J Intern Med. 2013;24(6):525–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Makoul G, Clayman ML. An integrative model of shared decision making in medical encounters. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;60(3):301–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Curtis JR, White DB. Practical guidance for evidence-based ICU family conferences. Chest. 2008;134(4):835–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Emanuel EJ, Emanuel LL. Four models of the physician-patient relationship. JAMA. 1992;267(16):2221–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Hart JT. The autonomous patient: ending paternalism in medical care. J R Soc Med. 2002;95(12):623–4.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Barry MJ, Edgman-Levitan S. Shared decision making – pinnacle of patient-centered care. N Engl J Med. 2012;366(9):780–1.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Deber RB, et al. Do people want to be autonomous patients? Preferred roles in treatment decision-making in several patient populations. Health Expect. 2007;10(3):248–58.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Heyland DK, et al. The seriously ill hospitalized patient: preferred role in end-of-life decision making? J Crit Care. 2003;18(1):3–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Braddock CH 3rd, et al. Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics. JAMA. 1999;282(24):2313–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Shippee ND, et al. Patient and service user engagement in research: a systematic review and synthesized framework. Health Expect. 2015;18(5):1151–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Heesen C, et al. Risk perception in natalizumab-treated multiple sclerosis patients and their neurologists. Mult Scler. 2010;16(12):1507–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Polman CH, et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of natalizumab for relapsing multiple sclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2006;354(9):899–910.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Stacey D, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;1:CD001431.

    Google Scholar 

  67. O’Connor A. Ottawa personal decision guides. The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. 2017. https://decisionaid.ohri.ca/decguide.html.

  68. Spatz ES, Krumholz HM, Moulton BW. Prime time for shared decision making. JAMA. 2017;317(13):1309–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Hanson LC, et al. Improving decision-making for feeding options in advanced dementia: a randomized, controlled trial. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2011;59(11):2009–16.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  70. Shay LA, Lafata JE. Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes. Med Decis Mak. 2015;35(1):114–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Deinzer A, et al. Is a shared decision-making approach effective in improving hypertension management? J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2009;11(5):266–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Heisler M, et al. Physicians’ participatory decision-making and quality of diabetes care processes and outcomes: results from the triad study. Chronic Illn. 2009;5(3):165–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Kravitz RL, et al. Internal medicine patients’ expectations for care during office visits. J Gen Intern Med. 1994;9(2):75–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Macfarlane J, et al. Influence of patients’ expectations on antibiotic management of acute lower respiratory tract illness in general practice: questionnaire study. BMJ. 1997;315(7117):1211–4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  75. Marple RL, et al. Concerns and expectations in patients presenting with physical complaints. Frequency, physician perceptions and actions, and 2-week outcome. Arch Intern Med. 1997;157(13):1482–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Fenton JJ, et al. The cost of satisfaction: a national study of patient satisfaction, health care utilization, expenditures, and mortality. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(5):405–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neurology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA

    Jorge Risco MD & Adam Kelly MD

Authors
  1. Jorge Risco MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adam Kelly MD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jorge Risco MD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Assistant Professor, Department of Neurology, University of Washington Harborview Medical Center, Seattle, WA, USA

    Claire J. Creutzfeldt

  2. Professor of Neurology, Chief Neurology Supportive and Palliative Care Section, Department of Neurology, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA

    Benzi M. Kluger

  3. Professor and Edward A. and Alma Vollertsen Rykenboer Chair, Department of Neurology, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY, USA

    Robert G. Holloway

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Risco, J., Kelly, A. (2019). Improving Medical Decisions. In: Creutzfeldt, C., Kluger, B., Holloway, R. (eds) Neuropalliative Care. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93215-6_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93215-6_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-93214-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-93215-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation