Collaborative deliberation: A model for patient care

Abstract

Objective

Existing theoretical work in decision making and behavior change has focused on how individuals arrive at decisions or form intentions. Less attention has been given to theorizing the requirements that might be necessary for individuals to work collaboratively to address difficult decisions, consider new alternatives, or change behaviors. The goal of this work was to develop, as a forerunner to a middle range theory, a conceptual model that considers the process of supporting patients to consider alternative health care options, in collaboration with clinicians, and others.

Methods

Theory building among researchers with experience and expertise in clinician–patient communication, using an iterative cycle of discussions.

Results

We developed a model composed of five inter-related propositions that serve as a foundation for clinical communication processes that honor the ethical principles of respecting individual agency, autonomy, and an empathic approach to practice. We named the model ‘collaborative deliberation.’ The propositions describe: (1) constructive interpersonal engagement, (2) recognition of alternative actions, (3) comparative learning, (4) preference construction and elicitation, and (5) preference integration.

Conclusions

We believe the model underpins multiple suggested approaches to clinical practice that take the form of patient centered care, motivational interviewing, goal setting, action planning, and shared decision making.

Introduction

Theories that seek to explain human decision making and intention formation, which often draw from economics, psychology, and sociology, have made significant strides over the last few decades [1], [2]. However, existing theories have not to date focused on the interpersonal aspects that affect how decisions are made and intentions are formed in health care interactions. Although some theoretical approaches have explored decision making performed in small groups [3], [4], [5], most have viewed decision making as a circumscribed activity, done by an individual patient as if in isolation, involving tradeoffs between a small number of mutually exclusive options. Decisions and intentions have been accepted as being influenced by information, emotions, and context. However, theories have not fully considered the contribution of interpersonal work, and have been slow to consider that the support and views of others play a significant role.

Recent inter-disciplinary work in sociology, health services research, and ergonomics has led to the proposal that decisions and intentions should be seen as a combination of mental work and embodied actions (or inaction) contingent on engagement with others [6], [7]. In this article, we focus specifically on the context of health care, and argue that the dominant view of decision making has overlooked the reality that patients, in particular, turn to others for help and support. Often, this takes the form of turning to others, to clinicians, who have the explicit role of offering information, advice, and support, and of course, to family members and friends. We use the term clinician to indicate any health care professional who interacts with patients. Yet there have been few attempts to outline a process that would consider how best to support patients to undertake this task. Decision making approaches have not considered processes where participants work at interpersonal levels to interact, empathize, learn, consider alternatives, weigh the impact of new information, and form preferences.

Early decision making theories were derived from economics. Most were prescriptive and based on the concept of unbounded rationality, the idea that given perfect knowledge of the probabilities of events, prediction of future events was possible. Early research was based on the view that effective decision making should be the product of predicted likelihood and estimated value. The term “expected utility” was the shorthand for this theory [8]. Kahneman and Tversky argued that maximizing expected utility inadequately explains how humans approach decisions and instead emphasized the role of cognitive heuristics, which are rules of thumb that individuals use as mental shortcuts to simplify a complex decision making process, but which are prone to error [9], [10]. Later theories acknowledge the idea of bounded rationality, which accepts that there are limits to what we can know, and that heuristics, or rules of thumb are used [11]. Viewing heuristics merely as sources of errors has been challenged. Gigerenzer and colleagues have argued that heuristics are often as effective, if not superior, to more deliberative decision making approaches [12]. Gigerenzer argues that humans can process information and decide at fast speeds, and that these methods are both adaptive and have the advantage of ecological validity [13]. Optimally, humans will use both ‘slow and fast thinking’, depending on context [14].

Arriving at decisions is typically a ‘messy and uncertain’ process [15]. Indeed, Simon argued that decision making often involves accepting something that is merely ‘good enough’, which he termed ‘satisficing’ [11]. Lindblom suggested that focusing on intermediate rather than long-term goals—‘muddling through’—is not only common and acceptable, but also a desirable way to deal with uncertainty [16], where proceeding step-by-step, adapting, reacting, consulting with others, and narrowing options by eliminating some possibilities early are the best strategies [17].

In this article, we argue that the theoretical underpinning of health care communication needs more attention [18]. Existing theoretical work has mostly focused on decision making and intention formation at the level of one individual. In contrast, we see the need for a conceptual model that considers collaborative effort. Not having a clear model impedes implementation because it makes it difficult to guide changes in practice and to develop measures [19].

Engaging patients is embedded in many models of patient–clinician interaction that have been advanced over the last three decades. For example, the concepts of patient centered care [20] and patient engagement [21], [22], [23] have become central themes in health policy. See Box 1 for a list of advocated approaches.

Despite different terms, the common theme is one of positioning the patient as a co-producer, whose views need to be actively sought, informed, respected, and integrated into practice. However, empirical data reveals that this approach has not become embedded in routine care [24]. In addition, we notice that the definitions of motivational interviewing [25], goal setting [26], and shared decision making [27] have been descriptions of processes and competencies, and have not considered underlying principles or concepts [28], [29], [30].

We do not think the disciplines of psychology and sociology have adequately addressed this gap. Research on group-based decision making has focused on small group dynamics rather than on the inter-personal aspects of deliberation [5], and therefore have had limited relevance. By considering collaboration in health care encounters, we are entering a realm where people interact typically in dyads or triads, but rarely in small groups. This article describes a model that for the first time integrates a set of related propositions about how the process of supporting patients to consider different alternatives or priorities could be examined, evaluated, and, hopefully, improved. The eventual purpose of this model is to provide a better foundation for evaluating practice and developing measures, and, in due course, improving clinical practice.