Symptomatic spinal stenosis is a very common problem, and decompression surgery has been shown to be superior to nonoperative treatment in selected patient groups. However, performing an instrumented fusion in addition to decompression may avoid revision and improve outcomes. The aim of the SpInOuT feasibility study was to establish whether a definitive randomized controlled trial (RCT) that accounted for the spectrum of pathology contributing to spinal stenosis, including pelvic incidence-lumbar lordosis (PI-LL) mismatch and mobile spondylolisthesis, could be conducted. As part of the SpInOuT-F study, a pilot randomized trial was carried out across five NHS hospitals. Patients were randomized to either spinal decompression alone or spinal decompression plus instrumented fusion. Patient-reported outcome measures were collected at baseline and three months. The intended sample size was 60 patients.Aims
Methods
With a strong political agenda for change towards patient-centred healthcare, the notion of shared decision-making is reported to substantially improve patient experience, adherence to treatment and health outcomes. In clinical practice however, observational studies have shown shared decision-making is rarely implemented and patient preferences are seldom met. The aim of this study was to measure the extent of shared decision-making in clinical encounters involving physiotherapists and patients with low back pain. Eighty outpatient encounters (from 12 clinicians) were observed, audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using the OPTION instrument. This measures 12 decision-making items, rated on a scale 0–4, which are summated and scaled to give a percentage: The higher the score, the greater the shared decision-making competency. The mean OPTION score was 24.0% (range 10.4%–43.8%). Providing patients with a list of treatment options was the only behaviour exhibited by every clinician, however in 73.8%, this was not demonstrated beyond a perfunctory level. Failure to offer the choice of doing nothing, or deferring the decision precluded clinicians from attaining a higher OPTION score.Purpose of the Study and Background
Methods and Results
