LYMEPOLICYWONK: Lyme disease and shared medical decision making in guidelines

ByLorraine
Lyme shared medical decisionmaking

Did you know that a goal of Healthy People 2020, a collaborative effort of a number of federal agencies, is to increase shared decision-making in healthcare? Although it is not obvious, shared medical decision-making is at the heart of the conflict in Lyme disease.

As most Lyme patients know, there are two guidelines for the treatment of Lyme disease. One set was developed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), and the other was developed by the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS).

The main difference between the two sets of guidelines is that the ILADS guidelines provide patients with treatment options and provide for shared decision-making with their healthcare provider.  This means the physician discusses different treatment approaches available with the patient and together they come up with a decision that reflects the risks and benefits associated with treatment and the circumstances and values of the patient. In the IDSA guidelines, patients are neither informed about treatment options nor provided with any say in selecting treatment options.

Another key difference in the two guidelines is that the ILADS guidelines included a patient on the panel, while the IDSA guidelines did not.  The IDSA guidelines are currently being revised and the issue of patient involvement has been at the forefront of patient concerns.  The IDSA initially selected as a representative of patients with Lyme disease someone who had never had Lyme disease and came from a state where Lyme disease essentially does not exist.

Led by LymeDisease.org and the national Lyme Disease Association, over 80 patient groups signed onto a letter expressing alarm at this action. This was followed by a letter from members of Congress admonishing the IDSA for not adhering to the Institute of Medicine’s recommendations. As a result of this public pressure, the IDSA has expanded the panel to include more “patients.” However, the group refuses to disclose any critical details–including who these people are and whether any of them have chronic Lyme disease. How authentically can they “represent” us under these circumstances?

The reason why patients need a seat at the table is to preserve patient choice and to make sure that medical decision-making includes their perspective. This is an issue of fundamental civil rights recognized by the Institute of Medicine–that “those affected” should have a say.  So why does the IDSA object and refuse to play by the rules?

Sometimes we hear the IDSA say that patients should not be permitted to dictate decisions, but shared decision-making is not about patients taking control. It is about patients and physicians deciding among the options what option is acceptable to both the patients and the physicians.  A recent article in Medicine, Healthcare and Philosophy explains this critical distinction:

Informed decision-making is a process that implies that the physician’s knowledge is transferred to the patient, who then has the knowledge and preferences necessary to make a decision. The patient is thus the sole decision maker, whereas in SDM (shared decision-making), the physician and the patient mutually inform each other to reach a common agreement on the decision to implement (Moumjid et al. 2007, p. 541).

The reason why shared decision-making is a goal of People 2020 is simple. Research shows that shared medical decision-making improves health outcomes across the continuum of care. Unfortunately, only about half of adults report always being involved in health-care decisions. A study analyzing Health Information National Trends Survey (a national survey conducted by the National Cancer Institute) found that shared medical decision-making was at least two times higher among adults:

  • who “always” versus “usually/sometimes/never” take health information to doctor visits, and
  • who were “completely/very confident” versus “somewhat/a little/not confident” about finding health information

So the next time you hear criticism of patients who gather information from the internet to discuss with their doctors, remember that informed, prepared patients are more likely to have a say in their care.

At LymeDisease.org, we try to provide patients with the information and tools that patients need to foster shared medical decision-making.  You might check out our Lyme Disease Symptom Checklist, which asks people who suspect they may have Lyme disease about their exposure, whether they had a tick bite or rash and symptoms suggestive of Lyme disease. People who complete the checklist can then print out a copy of their responses to give their physician to help inform the conversation about their diagnosis.

The LYME POLICY WONK blog is written by Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA, who is the Chief Executive Officer of LymeDisease.org. You can contact her at lbjohnson@lymedisease.org. On Twitter, follow her @lymepolicywonk.  If you have not signed up for our patient centered big data project, MyLymeData, please register now.

Similar Posts

  • Attorney General Blumenthal Speaks Out! Now hear this. . .

    If you have not read the recent editorial by Attorney General Blumenthal published today in “The Day”—you are in for a treat. Despite the IDSA’s protests that the guideline review process is “voluntary”, Blumenthal observes that the IDSA “effectively admitted the flaws by agreeing to a review and reassessment of its 2006 guidelines by a conflicts-free panel”.

  • Volkman submission to IDSA–Smells like courage to me

    David Volkman, Emeritus Professor of Medicine and Pediatrics at SUNY, Stony Brook, and previously Senior Investigator with the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, has submitted the attached letter to the IDSA pursuant to its document submission process. He has performed both clinical and bench research in Lyme disease since 1985. Given his impeccable credentials, outlined in the first paragraph of his letter, his submission should carry considerable weight with the panel. Among other things, he points to the suppression of research and stifling of the types of investigative inquiry necessary to begin to address pressing issues for Lyme patients—the need for better testing, the need to acknowledge persistence and start looking for treatment protocols that help patients get better, the need to keep surveillance definitions outside the arena of patient diagnosis, the need to acknowledge the usefulness of PCR testing, and the need to avoid prophylaxis regimens that may promote chronic Lyme. His letter smells a little bit like “courage” to me—a pretty rare commodity these days.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Debate of the Century—Uncle Sam Wants You to Control Health Care Costs

    There is a big debate going on now about how to control health care costs. (Surprised?) Obama has been relying on the Dartmouth Atlas project by John Wennberg to support his assertion that there is enormous waste in the medical system that varies by geographical region that needs to be curtailed. Gardiner Harris, a reporter for the New York Times, has taken issue with this assertion and lobbed criticism at some of the underlying assumptions in the Dartmouth Atlas project. Congress has started looking to control costs by enforcing reductions in higher costs areas like New York. Not so fast says the NY Times. Increased cost may also reflect higher quality care and before we act on data, we need to make sure we have it right. Merrill Goozner, has a good post on Gooznews dissecting the debate. I have followed Wennburg’s work for years and offered my 2 cents on his work and its implications for patients who need to have treatment options available. This debate is at the core of quality healthcare and individualized patient needs. My comments posted on the Goozner site as well as links for all follow the jump.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Embers Monkey Trials Part 4. Lab Tests Fail to Detect Lyme Disease.

    This is Part 4 of a series on the Embers study of Lyme disease in non-human primates. As described in Part 1 of the series, the Embers monkey research study posed three questions: one regarding treatment of early disseminated Lyme disease, one regarding treatment of late disseminated Lyme disease, and one regarding the ability of the C6 to accurately detect infection. This part of the blog series focuses on the last question, the accuracy of lab tests. Embers evaluated the C6 antibody test to see if its results accurately reflected active infection. It was believed that the C6 might permit researchers to determine whether treatment cleared infection. However, the study concludes: “Reliable procedures to determine that infection has been cleared from Lyme disease patients have not been established.” Moreover, the study demonstrated that the ability of the C6 to detect active infection generally was poor. Although the test detected infection in 100% of the inoculated monkeys at 4 months, after this period it failed to detect active infection in 60% of untreated monkeys in the study and in 100% of infected monkeys that received treatment.

  • LYMEPOLICYWONK: Senators Request Removal of IDSA Lyme Guidelines from National Guidelines Clearinghouse

    Today Senators Blumenthal and Gillibrand joined together to ask the National Guidelines Clearinghouse (NGC) to remove the outdated 2006 IDSA Lyme disease guidelines from their website.(Full text of letter below.) We applaud the Senators for speaking up loud and clear. Their letter voices concerns that the guidelines do not satisfy the currency requirement and asks that the NGC remove the guidelines until the IDSA conducts a review that ensures that the guidelines reflect current evidence-based medicine principles. The Senate letter comes on the heels of a letter from Congressman Smith, Wolf, and Gibson expressing similar concerns. New York Assemblyman Richard Gottfried, who chairs the Health Committee also requested that the NGC remove the guidelines pending a review for currency. Approximately 10,000 people have signed a petition launched by LymeDisease.org calling for the removal of the IDSA guidelines from the NGC.