Author
Listed:
- Brittney Mancini
(Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA, USA)
- Joshua Siar
(Medical College of Georgia AU/UGA Medical Partnership University of Georgia Health Sciences Campus Winnie Davis Hall, Athens, GA, USA)
- Kathrene Diane Valentine
(Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA, USA
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA)
- Leigh Simmons
(Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA, USA
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA)
- Lauren Leavitt
(Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA, USA)
- Karen Sepucha
(Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston MA, USA
Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA)
Abstract
Background Effective shared decision making (SDM) in health care involves thorough discussions of options, pros, cons, and patient preferences. While SDM is recommended for engaging adults aged 76 to 85 y in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decisions, the extent of SDM documentation in clinical notes remains unclear. Objective This study aimed to evaluate the current state of SDM documentation in clinical notes regarding CRC screening discussions for adults aged 76 to 85 y. It also sought to assess the impact of an SDM training intervention on documentation quality and compare documented SDM elements with physician- and patient-reported SDM. Methods Data from 465 patient participants and 58 primary care physicians in a multisite cluster randomized trial were analyzed. Physicians in the intervention arm underwent a 2-h SDM skills training and received support tools, including an electronic health record SmartPhrase. Coders analyzed clinical notes using content analysis to identify SDM elements. Linear multilevel models and multilevel partial correlations were used for analysis. Results Overall, SDM Note scores were low ( x ¯ = 0.80, s = 0.99). The intervention arm exhibited higher SDM Note scores than the comparator arm did (adjusted mean 1.02 v. 0.66; P = 0.006), with more frequent documentation of stool-based tests (52% v. 33%; P = 0.02) and colonoscopy cons (28% v. 8%; P = 0.001). No significant differences were observed in patient preference documentation. SDM Note scores correlated moderately with patient- and physician-reported SDM. Conclusion Documentation of CRC screening discussions with older adults lacks comprehensive SDM elements. The intervention improved SDM documentation, particularly regarding alternative screening options and potential cons. Given the limited documentation of SDM even after a training intervention, attention to more robust SDM documentation, including patient preferences and discussion of stopping CRC screening, is needed. Highlights Shared decision-making (SDM) documentation in clinical notes is limited for discussions on colon cancer screening among older adults. SDM training improves SDM documentation of screening options for colorectal cancer, specifically documentation of stool-based testing and the downsides of screening options. SDM documentation in clinical notes is related to patient and provider reports of SDM.
Suggested Citation
Brittney Mancini & Joshua Siar & Kathrene Diane Valentine & Leigh Simmons & Lauren Leavitt & Karen Sepucha, 2025.
"Clinical Notes Contain Limited Documentation of Shared Decision Making for Colorectal Cancer Screening Decisions,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 45(6), pages 665-674, August.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:45:y:2025:i:6:p:665-674
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X251340704
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:45:y:2025:i:6:p:665-674. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.