Abstract
Shared decision-making (SDM) is a process of collaborative deliberation in the dyadic patient-physician interaction whereby physicians inform the patients about the pros and cons of all available treatment options and reach an agreement with the patients on their preferred treatment plan. In hemodialysis vascular access practice, SDM advocates a deliberative approach based on the existence of reasonable alternatives-that is, arteriovenous fistula, arteriovenous graft, and central venous catheter-so that patients are able to form and share preferences about access options. In spite of its ethical imperative, SDM is not broadly applied in hemodialysis vascular access planning. Physicians and surgeons commonly deliver prescriptive fistula-centered recommendations concerning the approach to vascular access care. This paternalistic approach has been shaped by directions from long-held clinical practice guidelines and is reinforced by financial payment models linked with the prevalence of arteriovenous fistula in patients on hemodialysis. Awareness is growing that what may have initially seemed a medically and surgically appropriate approach might not always be focused on each individual's goals of care. Clinician's recommendations for vascular access often do not sufficiently consider the uncertainty surrounding the potential benefits of the decision or the cumulative impact of the decision on patient's quality of life. In the evolving health care landscape, it is time for the practice of hemodialysis vascular access to shift from a hierarchical doctor-patient approach to patient-centered care. In this article we review the current state of vascular access practice, present arguments why SDM is necessary in vascular access planning, review barriers and potential solutions to SDM implementation, and discuss future research contingent on an effective system of physician-patient participative decision-making in hemodialysis vascular access practice.