Cover Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association
ISSN:
0003-1488
Publication Date:
01 Dec 2022
  • 1.

    Elwyn G, Durand MA, Song J, et al. A three-talk model for shared decision making: multistage consultation process. BMJ. 2017;359:j4891. doi:10.1136/bmj.j4891

  • 2.

    Elwyn G, Tsulukidze M, Edwards A, Légaré F, Newcombe R. Using a ‘talk’ model of shared decision making to propose an observation-based measure: Observer OPTION5 Item. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;93(2):265–271.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Shay LA, Lafata JE. Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(1):114–131.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Quaschning K, Körner M, Wirtz M. Analyzing the effects of shared decision-making, empathy and team interaction on patient satisfaction and treatment acceptance in medical rehabilitation using a structural equation modeling approach. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;91(2):167–175.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Shabason JE, Mao JJ, Frankel ES, et al. Shared decision-making and patient control in radiation oncology: implications for patient satisfaction. Cancer. 2014;120(12):1863–1870.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4(4):CD001431. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub5

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Han J, Jungsuwadee P, Abraham O, Ko D. Shared decision-making and women's adherence to breast and cervical cancer screenings. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(7):1509

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Bauer AM, Parker MM, Schillinger D, et al. Associations between antidepressant adherence and shared decision-making, patient-provider trust, and communication among adults with diabetes: Diabetes Study of Northern California (DISTANCE). J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(8):1139–1147.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Hughes TM, Merath K, Chen Q, et al. Association of shared decision-making on patient-reported health outcomes and healthcare utilization. Am J Surg. 2018;216(1):7–12.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Brody DS, Miller SM, Lerman CE, et al. Patient perception of involvement in medical care: relationship to illness attitudes and outcomes. J Gen Intern Med. 1989;4(6):506–511.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Cary J. Implementing shared decision making in veterinary medicine. Vet Rec. 2021;189(8):320–322.

  • 12.

    Janke N, Coe JB, Sutherland KAK, Bernardo TM, Dewey CE, Stone EA. Evaluating shared decision-making between companion animal veterinarians and their clients using the Observer OPTION 5 instrument. Vet Rec. 2021;189(8):e778. doi:10.1002/vetr.778

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Corah LV. Defining the “good” consultation: what it is and how could we measure it? PhD thesis. University of Nottingham; 2019.

  • 14.

    Petri L. Concept analysis of interdisciplinary collaboration. Nurs Forum. 2010;45(2):73–82.

  • 15.

    Tang CJ, Chan SW, Zhou WT, et al. Collaboration between hospital physicians and nurses: an integrated literature review. Int Nurs Rev. 2013;60(3):291–302.

  • 16.

    Truglio-Londrigan M, Slyer JT. Shared decision-making for nursing practice: an integrative review. Open Nurs J. 2018;12:1–14.

  • 17.

    U.S Bureau of labor statistics USD of L. Veterinary Technologists and Technicians. Occupational Outlook Handbook. Accessed November 24, 2021. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/healthcare/veterinary-technologists-and-technicians.htm

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Janke N, Shaw JR, Coe JB. On-site communication skills education increases appointment-specific client satisfaction in four companion animal practices in Texas [published online ahead of print Aug 17, 2022]. J Am Vet Med Assoc. doi:10.2460/javma.22.06.0242.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Elwyn G, Frosch D, Rollnick S. Dual equipoise shared decision making: definitions for decision and behaviour support interventions. Implement Sci. 2009;4:75. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-4-75.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Couët N, Msc M, Desroches S, et al. Assessments of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in decision making: a systematic review of studies using the OPTION instrument. Heal Expect. 2013;18:542–561. Accessed August 9, 2017. https://journals-scholarsportal-info.subzero.lib.uoguelph.ca/pdf/13696513/v18i0004/542_aotetwosutoi.xml

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Stubenrouch FE, Pieterse AH, Falkenberg R, et al. OPTION5 versus OPTION12 instruments to appreciate the extent to which healthcare providers involve patients in decision-making. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99(6):1062–1068.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    Barr PJ, O'Malley AJ, Tsulukidze M, Gionfriddo MR, Montori V, Elwyn G. The psychometric properties of Observer OPTION5, an observer measure of shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2015;98(8):970–976. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2015.04.010

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    Bartholomew K, Henderson AJZ, Marcia JE. Coded semistructured interviews in social psychological research. Handb Res Methods Soc Personal Psychol. 2000:286–312.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 24.

    Kruskal WH, Wallis WA. Use of ranks in one-criterion variance analysis. J Am Stat Assoc. 1952;47:583–621.

  • 25.

    Mann HB, Whitney DR. On a test of whether one of two random variables is stochastically larger than the other. Ann Math Stat. 1947;18:50–60. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177730491

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 26.

    Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155–163.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 27.

    Pfizer Animal Health. Survey identifies key drivers for engaging the veterinary team. Vet Rec. 2012;170(7):170.

  • 28.

    JAVMA. Survey finds underuse related to retention for veterinary technicians. JAVMA News 2021. Accessed March 15, 2022. https://www.avma.org/javma-news/2021-12-15/survey-finds-underuse-related-retention-veterinary-technicians

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 29.

    National Association of Veterinary Technicians in America. NAVTA Demographic Survey Results. NAVTA J. 2016:26–33. https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.navta.net/resource/resmgr/media/NAVTA_AugSept16_WEB.pdf.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 30.

    Fanning J, Shepherd AJ. Contribution of veterinary technicians to veterinary business revenue, 2007. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2010;236(8):846.

  • 31.

    Ouedraogo FB, Lefebvre SL, Salois M. Nonveterinarian staff increase revenue and improve veterinarian productivity in mixed and companion animal veterinary practices in the United States. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2022;260(8):916–922.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 32.

    Deacon RE, Brough P. Veterinary nurses' psychological well-being: the impact of patient suffering and death. Aust J Psychol. 2017;69:77–85.

  • 33.

    Mastenbroek NJJM, Jaarsma ADC, Scherpbier AJJA, et al. The role of personal resources in explaining well-being and performance: a study among young veterinary professionals. Eur J Work Organ Psychol. 2014;23:190–202.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 34.

    Kogan LR, Wallace JE, Schoenfeld-Tacher R, Hellyer PW, Richards M. Veterinary technicians and occupational burnout. Front Vet Sci. 2020;7:328.

  • 35.

    Moore IC, Coe JB, Adams CL, Conlon PD, Sargeant JM. The role of veterinary team effectiveness in job satisfaction and burnout in companion animal veterinary clinics. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2014;245:513–524.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 36.

    Witte TK, Spitzer EG, Edwards N, Fowler KA, Nett RJ. Suicides and deaths of undetermined intent among veterinary professionals from 2003 through 2014. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2019;255(5):595–608.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 37.

    Black AF, Winefield HR, Chur-Hansen A. Occupational stress in veterinary nurses: roles of the work environment and own companion animal. Anthrozoos. 2011;24:191–202. doi:10.2752/175303711X12998632257503

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 38.

    Svensson C, Emanuelson U, Bard AM, Forsberg L, Wickström H, Reyher KK. Communication styles of Swedish veterinarians involved in dairy herd health management: a motivational interviewing perspective. J Dairy Sci. 2019;102(11):10173–10185.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 39.

    Elwyn G, Frosch D, Thomson R, et al. Shared decision making: a model for clinical practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(10):1361–1367.

  • 40.

    Gionfriddo MR, Branda ME, Fernandez C, et al. Comparison of audio vs. audio + video for the rating of shared decision making in oncology using the observer OPTION5 instrument: an exploratory analysis. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):522.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 41.

    Dillon EC, Stults CD, Wilson C, et al. An evaluation of two interventions to enhance patient-physician communication using the observer OPTION5 measure of shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100(10):1910–1917.

    • Crossref
    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 42.

    Zwell M. Creating a Culture of Competence. John Wiley & Sons; 2000.

  • 43.

    AVMA. CVTEA accreditation policies and procedures. 2021. Accessed December 8, 2021. https://www.avma.org/education/center-for-veterinary-accreditation/committee-veterinary-technician-education-activities/cvtea-accreditation-policies-and-procedures-standards

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation

Advertisement

Veterinary technicians contribute to shared decision-making during companion animal veterinary appointments

Natasha JankeDepartment of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO

Search for other papers by Natasha Janke in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMedClose
 PhD
,
Jane R. ShawDepartment of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO

Search for other papers by Jane R. Shaw in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMedClose
 DVM, PhD
, and
Jason B. CoeDepartment of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada

Search for other papers by Jason B. Coe in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMedClose
 DVM, PhD
View More View Less
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2460/javma.22.08.0380
Volume/Issue:
Volume 260: Issue 15
Online Publication Date:
13 Oct 2022
Restricted access
Sign In Reprints and Permissions Purchase Article

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To describe and compare veterinary professionals’ use of shared decision-making during companion animal appointments.

DESIGN

Multi-practice cross-sectional study.

SAMPLE

A purposive sample of 4 companion animal veterinary clinics in a group practice in Texas.

PROCEDURES

A convenience sample of veterinary appointments were recorded January to March 2018 and audio-recordings were analyzed using the Observer OPTION5 instrument to assess shared decision-making. Each decision was categorized by veterinary professional involvement.

RESULTS

A total of 76/85 (89%) appointments included at least 1 decision between the client and veterinary professional(s), with a total of 129 shared decisions. Decisions that involved both a veterinary technician and veterinarian scored significantly higher for elements of shared decision-making (OPTION5 = 29.5 ± 8.4; n = 46), than veterinarian-only decisions (OPTION5 = 25.4 ± 11.50; P = .040; n = 63), and veterinary technician-only decisions (OPTION5 = 22.5 ± 7.15; P = .001; n = 20). Specific elements of shared decision-making that differed significantly based on veterinary professional involvement included educating the client about options (OPTION5 Item 3; P = .0041) and integrating the client’s preference (OPTION5 Item 5; P = .0010).

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Findings suggest that clients are more involved in decision making related to their pet’s health care when both the veterinary technician and veterinarian communicate with the client. Veterinary technicians’ communication significantly enhanced client engagement in decision-making when working collaboratively with the veterinarian.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To describe and compare veterinary professionals’ use of shared decision-making during companion animal appointments.

DESIGN

Multi-practice cross-sectional study.

SAMPLE

A purposive sample of 4 companion animal veterinary clinics in a group practice in Texas.

PROCEDURES

A convenience sample of veterinary appointments were recorded January to March 2018 and audio-recordings were analyzed using the Observer OPTION5 instrument to assess shared decision-making. Each decision was categorized by veterinary professional involvement.

RESULTS

A total of 76/85 (89%) appointments included at least 1 decision between the client and veterinary professional(s), with a total of 129 shared decisions. Decisions that involved both a veterinary technician and veterinarian scored significantly higher for elements of shared decision-making (OPTION5 = 29.5 ± 8.4; n = 46), than veterinarian-only decisions (OPTION5 = 25.4 ± 11.50; P = .040; n = 63), and veterinary technician-only decisions (OPTION5 = 22.5 ± 7.15; P = .001; n = 20). Specific elements of shared decision-making that differed significantly based on veterinary professional involvement included educating the client about options (OPTION5 Item 3; P = .0041) and integrating the client’s preference (OPTION5 Item 5; P = .0010).

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Findings suggest that clients are more involved in decision making related to their pet’s health care when both the veterinary technician and veterinarian communicate with the client. Veterinary technicians’ communication significantly enhanced client engagement in decision-making when working collaboratively with the veterinarian.

Contributor Notes

Corresponding author: Dr. Janke (njanke@uoguelph.ca)