Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Shared Decision-Making in Older Persons with Cardiovascular Disease

  • Elderly + Heart Disease (K Dharmarajan, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Shared decision-making (SDM) promotes patient-centered care by fostering partnerships between clinicians and patients that ensure that clinical decisions reflect the patient’s goals, values, and preferences. Shared decision-making is particularly important when treatments involve trade-offs that can be considered differently by individual patients. These trade-offs are often present for older adults with cardiovascular disease, who face an array of potential health care decisions relating to medication treatment, revascularization procedures, valve replacement, and device-based therapies. Given the importance of SDM in this population, we review the state of the science of SDM for these patients. We pay particular attention to recent developments in the field, including the design and testing of new patient decision aids. We note that only a few decision aids have been tested in older patients, highlighting an important area for future investigation.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. New York: Oxford University Press; 2001. p. 57–103.

    Google Scholar 

  2. King JS, Moulton BW. Rethinking informed consent: the case for shared medical decision-making. Am J Law Med. 2006;32(4):429–501.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Koch KA. Patient Self-Determination Act. J Fla Med Assoc. 1992;79(4):240–3.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Institute of Medicine (US). Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington: National Academies Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Tuckett D, Boulton M, Olson C, Williams A. Meetings between experts: an approach to sharing ideas in medical consultations. New York: Routledge; 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Godolphin W. Shared decision-making. Healthc Q. 2009;12:e186–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Teasdale GM. Learning from Bristol: report of the public inquiry into children’s heart surgery at Bristol Royal Infirmary 1984–1995. Br J Neurosurg. 2002;16(3):211–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Institute of Medicine (US). Health professions education: a bridge to quality. Washington: National Academies Press; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dowell J, Williams B, Snadden D. Patient-centered prescribing: seeking concordance in practice. Oxford: Radcliffe Publishing; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Marinker M. From compliance to concordance: achieving shared goals in medicine taking. London: Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain and Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Wennberg JE, O’Connor AM, Collins ED, Weinstein JN. Extending the P4P agenda, part 1: how medicare can improve patient decision making and reduce unnecessary care. Health Aff. 2007;26(6):1564–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T. Shared decision-making in the medical encounter: what does it mean? (or it takes at least two to tango). Soc Sci Med. 1997;44(5):681–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Quill TE, Cassel CK. Nonabandonment: a central obligation for physicians. Ann Intern Med. 1995;122(5):368–74.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Clinical Evidence. How much do we know?. http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/ceweb/about/knowledge.jsp. 2010.

  15. Allen LA, Stevenson LW, Grady KL, Goldstein NE, Matlock DD, Arnold RM, et al. Decision making in advanced heart failure: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2012;125(15):1928–52. This scientific statement from the AHA reviews some of the major processes, applications, and challenges associated with shared decision-making for patients with heart failure. A significant number of older adults with cardiovascular disease are heart failure patients.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Stacey D, Kryworuchko J, Bennett C, Murray MA, Mullan S, Légaré F. Decision coaching to prepare patients for making health decisions: a systematic review of decision coaching in trials of patient decision aids. Med Decis Mak. 2012;32(3):E22–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Williams ME. Clinical implications of aging physiology. Am J Med. 1984;76(6):1049–54.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Naik AD, Schulman-Green D, McCorkle R, Bradley EH, Bogardus ST. Will older persons and their clinicians use a shared decision-making instrument? J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(7):640–3.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Lloyd-Jones D, Adams RJ, Brown TM, Carnethon M, Dai S, De Simone G, et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics—2010 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2010;121(7):e46–e215.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Young, LH. Heart disease in the elderly. In: Yale University School of Medicine Heart Book. New York: Yale University School of Medicine; 1992. 263–72.

  21. Cowie MR. Estimating prognosis in heart failure: time for a better approach. Heart. 2003;89:587–8.

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Bonow RO, Carabello B, de Leon AC, Edmunds LH, Fedderly BJ, Freed MD, et al. Guidelines for the management of patients with valvular heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Patients with Valvular Heart Disease). Circulation. 1998;98(18):1949–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Jauch EC, Saver JL, Adams Jr HP, Bruno A, Connors JJ, Demaerschalk BM, et al. Guidelines for the early management of patients with acute ischemic stroke: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2013;44(3):870–947.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Connolly Jr ES, Rabinstein AA, Carhuapoma JR, Derdeyn CP, Dion J, Higashida RT, et al. Guidelines for the management of aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a guideline for healthcare professionals from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke. 2012;43(6):1711–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Golomb BA, Evans MA, Dimsdale JE, White HL. Effects of statins on energy and fatigue with exertion: results from a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(15):1180–2.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Stacey D, Légaré F, Col NF, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2014;1(1). This systematic review from the Cochrane Collaboration summarizes the available evidence about the impact of implementing decision aids into clinical practice. While many of these decision aids do not discuss cardiovascular disease, this review provides substantial analysis that indicates that decision aids are broadly effective .

  27. O’Connor AM. Ottawa Decision Support Framework to Address Decisional Conflict. http://decisionaid.ohri.ca/docs/develop/ODSF.pdf, 2006 [Accessed July 13, 2015]

  28. O’Connor AM, Légaré F, Stacey D. Risk communication in practice: the contribution of decision aids. Br Med J. 2003;327(7417):736–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Elwyn G, O’Connor AM, Stacey D, Volk R, Edwards AG, Coulter A, et al. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aid: online international Delphi consensus process. Br Med J. 2006;333(7565):417–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Al-Khatib SM, Gierisch JM, Crowley MJ, Coeytaux RR, Myers ER, Kendrick A, et al. Future research prioritization: implantable cardioverter-defibrillator therapy in older patients. J Gen Intern Med. 2015. doi:10.1007/s11606-015-3411-6. This study is about future priorities for research into the use and outcomes of implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) for older adult patients. It involved a survey of 18 key stakeholders, including members of patient advocacy groups, clinicians, and healthcare policymakers. It provides an in-depth look at what is still needed for older adult patients to be able to arrive (in collaboration with their clinicians) at an informed, values-based decision about undergoing ICD implantation.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Eckman MH, Wise RE, Naylor K, Arduser L, Lip GY, Kissela B, et al. Developing an Atrial Fibrillation Guideline Support Tool (AFGuST) for shared decision making. Curr Med Res Opin. 2015;31(4):603–14. This article outlines the development of a new decision support tool for patients with atrial fibrillation. Age is noted in this tool as a risk factor; based on the assessed risk of stroke and hemorrhage for a particular patient, the model presents patient values and possible outcomes.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Lip GY. Implications of the CHA2DS2-VASc and HAS-BLED scores for thromboprophylaxis in atrial fibrillation. Am J Med. 2011;124(2):111–4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Clegg A, Young J, Iliffe S, Rikkert MO, Rockwood K. Frailty in elderly people. Lancet. 2013;381(9868):752–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kirkpatrick JN, Guger CJ, Arnsdorf MF, Fedson SE. Advance directives in the cardiac care unit. Am Heart J. 2007;154(3):477–81.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Teno JM, Licks S, Lynn J, Wenger N, Connors AF, Phillips RS, et al. Do advance directives provide instructions that direct care? J Am Geriatr Soc. 1997;45(4):508–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Teno JM, Lynn J, Wenger N, Phillips RS, Murphy DP, Connors AF, et al. Advance directives for seriously ill hospitalized patients: effectiveness with the patient self-determination act and the SUPPORT intervention. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1997;45(4):500–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Butler M, Ratner E, McCreedy E, Shippee N, Kane RL. Decision aids for advance care planning: an overview of the state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 2014;161(6):408–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Austin CA, Mohottige D, Sudore RL, Smith AK, Hanson LC. Tools to promote shared decision making in serious illness: a systematic review. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(7):1213–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 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  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Clarke EB, Curtis JR, Luce JM, Levy M, Danis M, Nelson J, et al. Quality indicators for end-of-life care in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 2003;31(9):2255–62.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Pochard F, Darmon M, Fassier T, Bollaert PE, Cheval C, Coloigner M, et al. Symptoms of anxiety and depression in family members of intensive care unit patients before discharge or death: a prospective multicenter study. J Crit Care. 2005;20(1):90–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Mitchell SL, Tetroe J, O’Connor AM. A decision aid for long-term tube feeding in cognitively impaired older persons. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2001;49(3):313–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Martin SS, Sperling LS, Blaha MJ, Wilson PW, Gluckman TJ, Blumenthal RS, et al. Clinician-patient risk discussion for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease prevention: importance to implementation of the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;65(13):1361–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Stone NJ, Merz CNB, Blum CB, McBride P, Eckel, RH. et al. 2013 ACC/AHA guideline on the treatment of blood cholesterol to reduce atherosclerotic cardiovascular risk in adults. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2013;63(25_PA).

  45. U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs, U.S. Department of Defense. VA/DoD clinical practice guidelines: CPG policy guidance: guideline for guidelines. Washington, DC: Veterans Health Administration, Office of Quality and Performance, Evidence Review Subgroup; 2013. Accessed at www.healthquality.va.gov/policy/index.asp.

  46. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, Butler J, Casey DE, Drazner MH, et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(16):e147–239.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Cassel CK. Geriatric medicine: an evidence-based approach. 4th ed. New York: Springer; 2003. p. 240.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Public Law, 2010; 434–7.

  49. Holmes-Rovner M, Valade D, Orlowski C, Draus C, Nabozny-Valerio B, Keiser S. Implementing shared decision-making in routine practice: barriers and opportunities. Health Expect. 2000;3(3):182–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, Joseph-Williams N, Lloyd A, Kinnersley P, et al. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(10):1361–7.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Fetherstonhaugh D, Tarzia L, Bauer M, Nay R, Beattie E. “The red dress or the blue?” How do staff perceive that they support decision making for people with dementia living in residential aged care facilities? J Appl Gerontol. 2014. doi:10.1177/0733464814531089.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Forbes S, Bern-Klug M, Gessert C. End-of-life decision making for nursing home residents with dementia. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2000;32(3):251.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Dr. Matlock was all supported by the National Institute on Aging and the American Federation for Aging Research (K23AG040696).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Colorado School of Medicine, 12631 E. 17th Avenue, Mailstop B130, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA

    Madhav Narayan

  2. Division of General Internal Medicine and Division of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Academic Office 1, 12631 E. 17th Avenue, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA

    Daniel Matlock

Authors
  1. Madhav Narayan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel Matlock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Matlock.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Madhav P. Narayan and Daniel D. Matlock declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Elderly + Heart Disease

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Narayan, M., Matlock, D. Shared Decision-Making in Older Persons with Cardiovascular Disease. Curr Cardiovasc Risk Rep 9, 51 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12170-015-0479-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12170-015-0479-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation