Shaw, Kevin

Introduction: Familial Hypercholesterolemia (FH) is a common inherited disorder of lipid metabolism. FH patients are at an increased risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) due to elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels. Patients with FH may not reach target LDL-C levels despite maximally tolerated statin (±ezetimibe) therapy (MTT). The AHA scientific statement on FH highlighted the need for developing decision aids (DAs) to facilitate shared decision making (SDM) regarding additional therapy including PCSK9 inhibitors. Methods: A user-centered design process was initiated to understand FH treatment decisions and to develop prototype interventions. Patients with FH had their diagnosis confirmed by genetic testing. Encounters between FH patients and health care providers were video recorded and analyzed to assess how decisions are made regarding lipid lowering therapy. Nine encounters were recorded: 3 with a genetic counselor and 6 with an FH specialist. Informed by clinical encounters and literature review, we developed content for a DA related to available therapeutic options for FH patients on MTT. Results: A prototype online DA was created to support in-encounter discussion of a patient’s risk of adverse cardiovascular events and which therapies may be best suited to the patient (Figure). 5 and 10-year ASCVD risk is estimated using the SAFEHEART Risk Score (SRS). Risk is communicated in numbers using a 100-person icon array and the language “Out of 100 persons like you...”. Therapeutic options include watchful waiting, bile acid sequestrants, and PCSK9 inhibitors. For each option, the degree of risk reduction, costs, and side effects are presented. The tool is currently being refined by analyzing additional encounters with FH patients. Conclusion: We developed an interactive prototype DA to facilitate SDM for FH patients on MTT. After further iterative testing the tool will be deployed in the electronic health record.

Background Goals of care (GOC) conversations in the emergency department (ED) are often a brief discussion of code status rather than a patient-oriented dialogue. We aimed to develop a guide to facilitate conversations between ED clinicians and patients to elicit patient values and establish goals for end-of-life care, while maintaining ED efficiency. Paths of ED Care, a conversation guide, is the product of this work. Design A multidisciplinary/multispecialty group used recommended practices to adapt a GOC conversation guide for ED patients. ED clinicians used the guide and provided feedback on content, design, and usability. Patient-clinician interactions were recorded for discussion analysis, and both were surveyed to inform iterative refinement. A series of discussions with patient representatives, multidisciplinary clinicians, bioethicists, and health care designers yielded feedback. We used a process similar to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards and provide comparison to these. Results A conversation guide, eight pages with each page 6 by 6 inches in dimension, uses patient-oriented prompts and includes seven sections: 1) evaluation of patient/family understanding of disease, 2) explanation of possible trajectories, 3) introduction to different pathways of care, 4) explanation of pathways, 5) assessment of understanding and concerns, 6) code status, and 7) personalized summary. Limitations Recruitment of sufficient number of patients/providers to the project was the primary limitation. Methods are limited to qualitative analysis of guide creation and feasibility without quantitative analysis. Conclusions Paths of ED Care is a guide to facilitate patient-centered shared decision making for ED patients, families, and clinicians regarding GOC. This may ensure care concordant with patients’ values and preferences. Use of the guide was well-received and facilitated meaningful conversations between patients and providers.

Purpose To pilot test the impact of the ICAN Discussion Aid on clinical encounters. Methods A pre–post study involving 11 clinicians and 100 patients was conducted at two primary care clinics within a single health system in the Midwest. The study examined clinicians’ perceptions about ICAN feasibility, patients’ and clinicians’ perceptions about encounter success, videographic differences in encounter topics, and medication adherence 6 months after an ICAN encounter. Results 39/40 control encounters and 45/60 ICAN encounters yielded usable data. Clinicians reported ICAN use was feasible. In ICAN encounters, patients discussed diet, being active and taking medications more. Clinicians scored themselves poorer regarding visit success than their patients scored them; this effect was more pronounced in ICAN encounters. ICAN did not improve 6-month medication adherence or lengthen visits. Conclusion This pilot study suggests that using ICAN in primary care is feasible, efficient and capable of modifying conversations. With lessons learned in this pilot, we are conducting a randomised trial of ICAN versus usual care in diverse clinical settings. Trial registration number NCT02390570 .