Ting, Henry H.

Background— Decision aids (DAs) increase patient knowledge, reduce decisional conflict, and promote shared decision making (SDM). The extent to which they do so across diverse sociodemographic patient groups is unknown. Methods and Results— We conducted a patient-level meta-analysis of 7 randomized trials of DA versus usual care comprising 771 encounters between patients and clinicians discussing treatment options for chest pain, myocardial infarction, diabetes mellitus, and osteoporosis. Using a random effects model, we examined the impact of sociodemographic patient characteristics (age, sex, education, income, and insurance status) on the outcomes of knowledge transfer, decisional conflict, and patient involvement in SDM. Because of small numbers of people of color in the study population, we were not powered to investigate the role of race. Most patients were aged ≥65 years (61%), white (94%), and women (59%); two thirds had greater than a high school education. Compared with usual care, DA patients gained knowledge, were more likely to know their risk, and had less decisional conflict along with greater involvement in SDM. These gains were largely consistent across sociodemographic patient groups, with DAs demonstrating similar efficacy when used with vulnerable patients such as the elderly and those with less income and less formal education. Differences in efficacy were found only in knowledge of risk in 1 subgroup, with greater efficacy among those with higher education (35% versus 18%; P =0.02). Conclusions— In this patient-level meta-analysis of 7 randomized trials, DAs were efficacious across diverse sociodemographic groups as measured by knowledge transfer, decisional conflict, and patient involvement in SDM. To the extent that DAs increase patient knowledge and participation in SDM, they have potential to impact health disparities related to these factors.

Background— Measurement of hospital quality has traditionally focused on processes of care and postprocedure outcomes. Appropriateness measures for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) assess quality as it relates to patient selection and the decision to perform PCI. The association between patient selection for PCI and processes of care and postprocedural outcomes is unknown. Methods and Results— We included 203 531 patients undergoing nonacute (elective) PCI from 779 hospitals participating in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) CathPCI Registry between July 2009 and April 2011. We examined the association between a hospital's proportion of nonacute PCIs categorized as inappropriate by the 2009 Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) for Coronary Revascularization and in-hospital mortality, bleeding complications, and use of optimal guideline-directed medical therapy at discharge (ie, aspirin, thienopyridines, and statins). When categorized as hospital tertiles, the range of inappropriate PCI was 0.0% to 8.1% in the lowest tertile, 8.1% to 15.2% in the middle tertile, and 15.2% to 58.6% in the highest tertile. Compared with lowest-tertile hospitals, mortality was not significantly different at middle-tertile (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73–1.19) or highest-tertile hospitals (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.88–1.43; P =0.35 for differences between tertiles). Similarly, risk-adjusted bleeding did not vary significantly (middle-tertile OR, 1.13; 95% CI, 1.02–1.16; highest-tertile OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91–1.16; P =0.07 for differences between tertiles) nor did use of optimal medical therapy at discharge (85.3% versus 85.7% versus 85.2%; P =0.58). Conclusions— In a national cohort of nonacute PCIs, a hospital's proportion of inappropriate PCIs was not associated with in-hospital mortality, bleeding, or medical therapy at discharge. This suggests PCI appropriateness measures aspects of hospital PCI quality that are independent of how well the procedure is performed. Therefore, PCI appropriateness and postprocedural outcomes are both important metrics to inform PCI quality.