Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 5, 2026

Using Visual and Narrative Methods to Achieve Fair Process in Clinical Care
Published on: February 16, 2011
Principles of shared decision-making within teams
Jeffrey P Jacobs1, Gil Wernovsky2, David S Cooper3
11Department of Surgery,Division of Cardiac Surgery,Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine,Baltimore,Maryland,United States of America.
Insights
Transparency in paediatric cardiac surgery outcomes drives the need for effective teamwork and shared decision-making. Understanding these dynamics is key to balancing quality care, accountability, and collaboration among healthcare professionals.
Area of Science:
- Paediatric and congenital cardiac surgery
- Healthcare quality and safety
- Medical teamwork and collaboration
Background:
- The high-stakes field of paediatric and congenital cardiac care involves multidisciplinary teams with potential for both collaboration and conflict.
- Public reporting of surgical outcomes introduces demands for transparency, accountability, and effective teamwork.
- Disagreements among healthcare providers are common, necessitating strategies for shared decision-making (SDM).
Purpose of the Study:
- To explore the balance between quality healthcare, transparency, and teamwork in paediatric cardiac surgery.
- To understand how transparency in outcomes reporting influences the implementation of teamwork and shared decision-making strategies.
- To present a framework for managing disagreements within multidisciplinary teams to ensure optimal patient care.
Main Methods:
- Review of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) public reporting initiatives for paediatric and congenital cardiac surgery outcomes.
- Analysis of the STS Congenital Heart Surgery Database (STS-CHSD) Mortality Risk Model.
- Description of a tiered approach to shared decision-making (SDM Levels 1-3) for managing clinical disagreements.
Main Results:
- Public reporting of outcomes, initiated by the STS in 2015, creates pressure for improved teamwork and shared decision-making.
- The STS-CHSD Mortality Risk Model provides adjusted operative mortality data.
- SDM Level 3 decisions, where disagreements are critical, pose the greatest challenge to team cohesion and patient care.
Conclusions:
- Transparency and public reporting in paediatric cardiac surgery necessitate robust teamwork and shared decision-making.
- Effective management of disagreements, particularly Level 3 decisions, is crucial for maintaining team unity and delivering excellent patient care.
- Leaving egos aside and fostering mentorship are vital for achieving optimal outcomes in complex paediatric cardiac care settings.
Abstract:
In the domain of paediatric and congenital cardiac care, the stakes are huge. Likewise, the care of these children assembles a group of "A+ personality" individuals from the domains of cardiac surgery, cardiology, anaesthesiology, critical care, and nursing. This results in an environment that has opportunity for both powerful collaboration and powerful conflict. Providers of healthcare should avoid conflict when it has no bearing on outcome, as it is clearly a squandering of individual and collective political capital. Outcomes after cardiac surgery are now being reported transparently and publicly. In the present era of transparency, one may wonder how to balance the following potentially competing demands: quality healthcare, transparency and accountability, and teamwork and shared decision-making. An understanding of transparency and public reporting in the domain of paediatric cardiac surgery facilitates the implementation of a strategy for teamwork and shared decision-making. In January, 2015, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) began to publicly report outcomes of paediatric and congenital cardiac surgery using the 2014 Society of Thoracic Surgeons Congenital Heart Surgery Database (STS-CHSD) Mortality Risk Model. The 2014 STS-CHSD Mortality Risk Model facilitates description of Operative Mortality adjusted for procedural and patient-level factors. The need for transparency in reporting of outcomes can create pressure on healthcare providers to implement strategies of teamwork and shared decision-making to assure outstanding results. A simple strategy of shared decision-making was described by Tom Karl and was implemented in multiple domains by Jeff Jacobs and David Cooper. In a critical-care environment, it is not unusual for healthcare providers to disagree about strategies of management of patients. When two healthcare providers disagree, each provider can classify the disagreement into three levels: • SDM Level 1 Decision: "We disagree but it really does not matter, so do whatever you desire!" • SDM Level 2 Decision: "We disagree and I believe it matters, but I am OK if you do whatever you desire!!" • SDM Level 3 Decision: "We disagree and I must insist (diplomatically and politely) that we follow the strategy that I am proposing!!!!!!" SDM Level 1 Decisions and SDM Level 2 Decisions typically do not create stress on the team, especially when there is mutual purpose and respect among the members of the team. SDM Level 3 Decisions are the real challenge. Periodically, the healthcare team is faced with such Level 3 Decisions, and teamwork and shared decision-making may be challenged. Teamwork is a learned behaviour, and mentorship is critical to achieve a properly balanced approach. If we agree to leave our egos at the door, then, in the final analysis, the team will benefit and we will set the stage for optimal patient care. In the environment of strong disagreement, true teamwork and shared decision-making are critical to preserve the unity and strength of the multi-disciplinary team and simultaneously provide excellent healthcare.
More Related Videos
09:52Setting Up a Stroke Team Algorithm and Conducting Simulation-based Training in the Emergency Department - A Practical Guide
Published on: January 15, 2017
06:11High-definition Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation over Right Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex to Enhance Metacognitive Sensitivity
Published on: September 26, 2025
Related Concept Videos
Ethical Dilemmas II
Decision Making: P-value Method
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is proposed. The claim is based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to the claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses: a null hypothesis would be a neutral statement while the alternative hypothesis can...
Decision Making: Traditional Method
First, a specific claim about the population parameter is decided based on the research question and is stated in a simple form. Further, an opposing statement to this claim is also stated. These statements can act as null and alternative hypotheses, out of which a null hypothesis would be a...
Decision Making
Automatic decision-making is fast, intuitive, and relies on gut feelings...
Nursing Ethical Principles II
Consider the following scenario, which illustrates how these principles are applied in the care of Mr. John, a fifty-year-old teacher diagnosed with metastatic liver cancer.
Initially, Mr. John's...
Ethical Issues
Ethical Concerns in Healthcare: