The Library

Development and preliminary evaluation of a clinical guidance programme for the decision about prophylactic oophorectomy in women undergoing a hysterectomy

Tools

Pell, I., Dowie, J., Clarke, Aileen, Kennedy, A. and Bhavnani, V.. (2002) Development and preliminary evaluation of a clinical guidance programme for the decision about prophylactic oophorectomy in women undergoing a hysterectomy. BMJ Quality and Safety, Vol.11 (No.1). pp. 32-38. ISSN 2044-5423

Preview

PDF
WRAP_Clarke_prophylactic_oophorectomy.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download (371Kb)

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/qhc.11.1.32

Abstract

Objectives: To develop a decision analysis based and computerised clinical guidance programme
(CGP) that provides patient specific guidance on the decision whether or not to undergo a prophylactic
oophorectomy to reduce the risk of subsequent ovarian cancer and to undertake a preliminary pilot
and evaluation.
Subjects: Women who had already agreed to have a hysterectomy who otherwise had no ovarian
pathology.
Setting: Oophorectomy decision consultation at the outpatient or pre-admission clinic.
Methods: A CGP was developed with advice from gynaecologists and patient groups, incorporating
a set of Markov models within a decision analytical framework to evaluate the benefits of undergoing
a prophylactic oophorectomy or not on the basis of quality adjusted life expectancy, life expectancy,
and for varying durations of hormone replacement therapy. Sensitivity analysis and preliminary testing
of the CGP were undertaken to compare its overall performance with established guidelines and practice.
A small convenience sample of women invited to use the CGP were interviewed, the interviews
were taped and transcribed, and a thematic analysis was undertaken.
Results: The run time of the programme was 20 minutes, depending on the use of opt outs to default
values. The CGP functioned well in preliminary testing. Women were able to use the programme and
expressed overall satisfaction with it. Some had reservations about the computerised format and some
were surprised at the specificity of the guidance given.
Conclusions: A CGP can be developed for a complex healthcare decision. It can give evidence-based
health guidance which can be adjusted to account for individual risk factors and reflects a patient’s
own values and preferences concerning health outcomes. Future decision aids and support systems
need to be developed and evaluated in a way which takes account of the variation in patients’ preferences
for inclusion in the decision making process.

Item Type:

Journal Article

Subjects:

R Medicine > R Medicine (General)
R Medicine > RD Surgery

Divisions:

Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences > Population, Evidence & Technologies (PET) > Warwick Evidence
Faculty of Medicine > Warwick Medical School

Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):

Hysterectomy, Ovariectomy, Clinical medicine -- Decision making -- Computer programs, Expert systems (Computer science)

Journal or Publication Title:

BMJ Quality and Safety

Publisher:

BMJ Group

ISSN:

2044-5423

Official Date:

2002

Dates:

Date	Event
2002	Published

Volume:

Vol.11

Number:

No.1

Page Range:

pp. 32-38

Identification Number:

10.1136/qhc.11.1.32

Status:

Peer Reviewed

Access rights to Published version:

Open Access

Funder:

NHS Executive. Research and Development Directorate

References:

1 Emanuel EJ, Emanuel LL. Four models of the physician-patient
relationship. JAMA 1992;267:2221–6.
2 Anonymous. What do we mean by appropriate health care? Report of
a Working Group prepared for the Director of Research and
Development of the NHS Management Executive. Qual Health Care
1993;2:117–23.
3 Fischer D, Stewart AL, Bloch DA, et al. Capturing the patient’s view of
change as a clinical outcome measure. JAMA 1999;282:1157–62.
4 Greenhalgh J, Meadows K. The effectivenes of the use of patient-based
measures of health in routine practice in improving the process and
outcomes of patient care: a literature review. J Eval Clin Pract
1999;5:401–16.
5 Nease R, Kneeland T, O’Connor G, et al. Variation in patient utilities for
outcomes of the management of chronic stable angina. JAMA
1995;273:1185–90.
6 Montgomery AA, Fahey T. How do patients’ treatment preferences
compare with those of clinicians? Qual Health Care 2001;10(suppl
I):i39–43.
7 Department of Health. The NHS plan. London: Stationery Office,
2000.
8 Department of Health. The expert patient: a new approach to chronic
disease management for the 21st century. London: Department of Health,
2001.
9 Department of Health. Involving patients and the public in healthcare:
a discussion document. London: Department of Health, 2001.
10 Department of Health. Patient and public involvement in the new NHS.
London: Department of Health, 1999.
11 Caplan A. Clinton’s health care reforms: an unstoppable momentum for
change. BMJ 1993;307:813–4.
12 Doyal L. Informed consent: moral necessity or illusion? Qual Health Care
2001;10(suppl I):i29–33.
13 Elwyn G, Edwards A. Evidence based patient choice. Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2001.
14 Gross PA, Greenfield S, Cretin S, et al. Optimal methods for guideline
implementation: conclusions from Leeds Castle meeting. Med Care
2001;8:II85–92.
15 Elwyn G, Edwards A, Kinnersley P. Shared decision-making in primary
care: the neglected second half of the consultation. Br J Gen Pract
1999;49:477–82.
16 Elwyn G, Edwards A, Gwyn R, et al. Towards a feasible model for
shared decision making: focus group study with general practice
registrars. BMJ 1999;319:753–6.
17 Pell I, Dowie J, Clarke A, et al. Development and preliminary evaluation
of a clinical guidance programme for the decision about prophylactic
oophorectomy in women undergoing a hysterectomy. Qual Saf Health
Care 2002;11:32–9.
18 Thomson R, Robinson A, Greenaway J, et al. Development and
description of a decision analysis based decision support tool for stroke
prevention in atrial fibrillation. Qual Saf Health Care 2002;11:25–31.
19 O’Connor AM, Rostom A, Fiset V, et al. Decision aids for patients facing
health treatment or screening decisions: systematic review. BMJ
1999;319:731–4.