Montori, Víctor M.

Whether disclosure of genetic risk for coronary heart disease (CHD) influences shared decision-making (SDM) regarding use of statins to reduce CHD risk is unknown. We randomized 207 patients, age 45–65 years, at intermediate CHD risk, and not on statins, to receive the 10-year risk of CHD based on conventional risk factors alone (n=103) or in combination with a genetic risk score (n=104). A genetic counselor disclosed this information followed by a physician visit for SDM regarding statin therapy. A novel decision aid was used in both encounters to disclose the CHD risk estimates and facilitate SDM regarding statin use. Patients reported their decision quality and physician visit satisfaction using validated surveys. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the SDM score, satisfaction with the clinical encounter, perception of the quality of the discussion or of participation in decision-making and physician visit satisfaction scores. Quantitative analyses of a random subset of 80 video-recorded encounters using the OPTION5 scale also showed no significant difference in SDM between the two groups. Disclosure of CHD genetic risk using an electronic health record-linked decision aid did not adversely affect SDM or patients’ satisfaction with the clinical encounter. Trial registration number NCT01936675; Results.

AbstractThe idea of shared decision making (SDM) is gaining traction within emergency medicine, although concerns about potential legal consequences of its use may be slowing its adoption. We describe the similarities and differences between informed consent (IC) requirements and SDM, highlighting their different purposes, scope, and implementation. We also illustrate several areas in which SDM may affect clinicians’ liability risks and suggest that while SDM is likely to reduce net liability risks, it may increase providers’ liability risks in certain situations or with select patients. Overall, engaging in SDM should be understood as clearly distinct from the process of obtaining IC and could reduce clinicians’ risk of liability when applied carefully and thoughtfully.

Background— We sought to determine the concordance between the accumulating evidence about the impact of tight versus less tight glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus since the publication of UKPDS (UK Prospective Diabetes Study) in 1998 until 2015 with the views about that evidence published in journal articles and practice guidelines. Methods and Results— We searched in top general medicine and specialty journals for articles referring to glycemic control appearing between 2006 and 2015 and identified the latest practice guidelines. To summarize the evidence, we included all published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of contemporary randomized trials of glycemic control measuring patient-important microvascular and macrovascular outcomes, and completed a meta-analysis of their follow-up extensions. We identified 16 guidelines and 328 statements. The body of evidence produced estimates warranting moderate confidence. This evidence reported no significant impact of tight glycemic control on the risk of dialysis/transplantation/renal death, blindness, or neuropathy. In the past decade, however, most published statements (77%–100%) and guidelines (95%) unequivocally endorsed benefit. There is also no significant effect on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, or stroke; however, there is a consistent 15% relative-risk reduction of nonfatal myocardial infarction. Between 2006 and 2008, most statements (47%–83%) endorsed the benefit; after 2008 (ACCORD), only a minority (21%–36%) did. Conclusions— Discordance exists between the research evidence and academic and clinical policy statements about the value of tight glycemic control to reduce micro- and macrovascular complications. This discordance may distort priorities in the research and practice agendas designed to improve the lives of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

AbstractPurposeThe hospitalist model of inpatient care has rapidly expanded, but little is known about hospitalist care in critical access hospitals (CAHs). We aimed to determine the impact of a hospitalist model of care on staff satisfaction, patient volumes, patient satisfaction, length of stay, and care quality in a CAH.MethodsWe initiated a hybrid rotating hospitalist program in September 2008 at Winneshiek Medical Center (Decorah, Iowa), a 25‐bed rural CAH. We reviewed patient volumes, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services core quality measures, acute length of stay, and staff satisfaction for primary care—hospitalist physicians and inpatient and clinic nurses. Patient volume and length of stay were compared with CAH data reported by the Iowa Hospital Association.FindingsPatient volumes (acute, skilled, and observation) increased by 15% compared with a 17% decrease for statewide CAHs. Length of stay decreased from 2.88 to 2.75 days and remained lower than the average stay for Iowa CAHs (3.05 days). In the year after implementation, we observed no deterioration in core quality measures (range, 93%‐100%) or patient satisfaction (86th percentile). Inpatient nurse satisfaction and primary care‐hospitalist satisfaction improved. Early clinic nurse skepticism showed improved satisfaction at the 5‐year review.ConclusionsHospitalist care contributed to ongoing delivery of high‐quality care and satisfactory patient experiences while supporting the mission of a CAH in rural Iowa. Implementation required careful consideration of its effects on the outpatient practice. Broader implementation of this model in CAHs may be warranted.