Montori, Víctor M.

Abstract Background Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer-related death, and the most common cancer diagnosed globally. Approximately 85% of lung cancer cases are non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). After initial surgical treatment, adjuvant therapy with conventional or targeted chemotherapy can help optimize survival. These treatments, however, must be tailored to each patients’ problematic situation, including cancer characteristics and goals of care. Shared decision making (SDM) is a method of care by which patients and clinicians work together to form plans of care that advance the patient’s problematic human situation. This method often requires evaluating alternative options, “trying them on” for fit given their practical demands and favorable and unfavorable effects. Tools used within the encounter can facilitate and support SDM conversations, yet none exist for considering care post-surgical treatment of NSCLC. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a novel encounter tool for SDM, NSCLC Choice, compared to usual care at improving SDM and reducing decisional conflict for patients with resected early-stage NSCLC considering adjuvant treatment. Methods We will conduct a parallel, patient-level randomized trial comparing NSCLC Choice with usual care. Patients will be eligible if they are adults with stage >1B NSCLC eligible for postsurgical adjuvant chemotherapy. Allocation will be central and post-consent. Patients will be blinded to our trial hypothesis, instead of being invited to evaluate an educational intervention. Our primary outcome is SDM quality, which we will assess using participant reported measures (patient SDM-Q-9) obtained immediately post-encounter and an observer measure estimated from video recording of trial encounters in both arms (OPTION12). With resources to conduct a 100-patient trial, we will have >80% power to detect a 12-point medium difference between arms in patient-reported SDM-Q-9. We will also assess the secondary outcomes of knowledge about the disease and the features of treatment options using an ad hoc questionnaire, decisional conflict using the Decisional Conflict Scale, and patient and clinician satisfaction using the metrics used in prior SDM intervention trials. We will also determine encounter length using video recordings. Discussion In testing NSCLC Choice, we seek to determine the extent to which this intervention can improve care for patients with NSCLC considering adjuvant therapy after surgery. In addition, we expect to determine whether this intervention is satisfactory to participants and feasible in practice. If successful, this study will result in an evidence-based tool for promoting patient-centered conversations around NSCLC and cancer care those fits. Trial Registration: NCT06122064 ClinicalTrials.gov

Abstract Background and Aims Burnout affects millions of healthcare workers worldwide, from food service and nurses to physicians and leaders, impairing worklives and threatening health system stability. Methods An international collaborative, PREVAIL, was created to reduce burnout globally. Leaders from six continents shared structured insights into the local state of wellness and burnout contributors and mitigators, which were then subjected to a formal thematic (qualitative) analysis to identify common and region-specific themes. Results Across continents, findings showed the global state of well-being was in danger, though threats varied by region: long shifts in Africa, heavy workloads in Asia, austerity-prone environments in Europe and financially driven care in North America. Vulnerable worker groups included women, nurses, and primary care. Mitigators included workload and schedule adjustments (Africa), shift policies with fair pay (Asia), leader support and regular well-being assessments (Australia), improved psychosocial services (Europe), organizational wellness support and career development (North America), and trainee support (South America). Conclusions A proposed “common pathway” framework explains shared drivers of poor workforce well-being and provides actionable steps for promoting compassionate, supportive environments worldwide. Implications/Learning Points Adopting a coordinated international approach may prevent devastating workforce shortages over the comingdecades. Burnout assessment and reduction in the global workforce is a high priority.

Responding to the limitations of traditional expert recommendations as a guide to clinical practice, evidence-based medicine has presented a paradigm shift in the way clinicians learn and practice medicine. The practice of evidence-based medicine requires careful examination of the evidence, using a set of formal rules applied in an explicit manner. The clinician then judiciously applies the evidence to decision-making, with an understanding of the patient context and values. Using examples pertinent to respiratory therapists, we discuss evidence-based decision-making as a clinical problem-solving strategy, its basis on a hierarchy of evidence, and the interplay of values, preferences, expertise, and circumstances that affect its application. We briefly describe some resources available to obtain evidence reports and to learn to critically appraise and apply them.

Introduction To examine within-class sulfonylurea safety, we compared risks of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and severe hypoglycemia among adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D) and moderate cardiovascular risk following sulfonylurea initiation. Research design and methods We conducted a target trial emulation including adults ≥21 years old with T2D and moderate cardiovascular risk who initiated glimepiride, glipizide or glyburide between 2014 and 2021, using claims data from Optum Labs Data Warehouse and the Medicare fee-for-service 100% sample. Study outcomes were MACE (primary), expanded MACE and its components and emergency department or hospital encounters for hypoglycemia, ascertained during follow-up through 2022. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was applied using propensity scores estimated using the super learner ensemble, and outcomes were examined using IPTW Cox proportional hazards models. Results The weighted study cohort comprised 314 699 patients (mean age 66.9 years, 52.0% men, 76.6% non-Hispanic white). At 1 year, MACE was experienced by 2.5%, 2.7% and 2.8% of patients starting glimepiride, glipizide and glyburide, respectively. Compared with glimepiride, glyburide and glipizide were associated with higher risk of MACE (HR 1.10, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.16 for glyburide; HR 1.05, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.07 for glipizide). At 1 year, severe hypoglycemia was experienced by 0.3%, 0.3% and 0.4% of patients starting glimepiride, glipizide and glyburide, respectively. Glyburide was associated with a greater risk of severe hypoglycemia compared with glipizide (HR 1.43, 95% CI 1.23 to 1.65), while glipizide was associated with a lower risk compared with glimepiride (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.87). Conclusions Among adults with T2D and moderate cardiovascular risk, glimepiride was associated with lowest risk of MACE and glipizide with lowest risk of severe hypoglycemia. These results can help inform treatment selection if sulfonylureas are used for glucose-lowering.

Abstract Background The self-management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) typically requires enacting various lifestyle changes, which can challenge people living with T2D. Clinical encounters between people with T2D and their clinicians, however, are often focused on metabolic management, leaving less time available for other self-management topics. The QBSAFE cards help patients articulate aspects of their experience with diabetes and prioritize issues for discussion. Methods This report details secondary outcomes of a randomized controlled trial; primary outcomes are reported elsewhere. All data was collected at Fair Haven Community Health Care, a federally qualified primary care clinic. 11 clinicians were randomly assigned to provide either usual care or usual care with QBSAFE cards to 155 of their patients with type 2 diabetes and hemoglobin A1c >8%. All patient encounters were video recorded for analysis. Patients and clinicians were not blinded to arm allocation but were kept unaware of the specific aims of the trial. Encounter video reviewers were blinded to arm allocation, but not to specific aims of the trial. The outcomes of interest for this report were the extent to which the QBSAFE cards were used as intended, their effect on the topics of discussion, and whether they enabled clinicians to notice and respond to each patient’s situation; comparisons between arms were conducted by a linear mixed model with fixed effect of arm and cluster effect of clinician, analyzed in both intent-to-treat and per-protocol populations. Findings 12 patients were excluded post-randomization (A1c <8%). Of 143 eligible patients, 137 encounters (65 in the usual care arm, 72 in QBSAFE) yielded evaluable videos. QBSAFE was used as intended in 61 (85%) QBSAFE arm encounters. Conversations about burden of treatment related to non-pharmacological interventions (17 vs 33, p = 0·04) and taking medications (11 vs 33, p = 0·0008) and about the patient’s challenging environment (2 vs 10, p = 0·04) were more prevalent in the QBSAFE group. There was no difference in the rate of conversations about metabolic management or of new care plans as a result of conversations between groups. Interpretation While there was a difference in the types of conversations observed between the two study arms, this difference was small and only apparent in a few domains. Future work could aim to modify the QBSAFE cards to more effectively stimulate patient-centered discussions and to further prepare clinicians to respond to a variety of issues raised during the clinical visit. Funding This work was supported by funding from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (R01DK129616).

ABSTRACT Background Effective interventions are needed to support co-creation of diabetes care plans that fit patients’ lives. We evaluated the QBSafe agenda-setting kit (14 conversation cards) for its impact on care fit and glycemic control when added to usual primary care. Methods This single-center, clinician-level cluster-randomized, open-label trial was conducted at a federally qualified health center in New Haven, Connecticut ( ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05553912 ). Clinicians and their patients with type 2 diabetes and HbA1c >8% were randomized 1:1 to usual care with or without QBSafe cards. In the intervention arm, patients selected up to 3 cards highlighting concerns about life with diabetes prior to their visit. Primary outcomes were change at 6 months in care fit (Illness Intrusiveness Ratings Scale, IIRS) and HbA1c, analyzed by intention to treat. Secondary outcomes were treatment burden (Treatment Burden Questionnaire, TBQ) and diabetes distress (Diabetes Distress Scale, DDS), and satisfaction with visits. Results Between February 2023 and July 2024, 143 participants (mean age 56 years; 61% female; 73% Hispanic; mean HbA1c 10%) were enrolled: 74 received usual care with QBSafe, 69 usual care alone. At 6 months, there were no significant between-arm differences in changes in IIRS (−3.9 [95% CI -10.4, 2.6]), HbA1c (−0.2% [95% CI -0.9, 0.5]), TBQ (1.0 [95% CI -16.6, 18.6]), or DDS (−0.1 [95% CI -0.4, 0.2]). Clinicians reported greater satisfaction when using QBSafe. Patient satisfaction was high and did not differ across arms. Conclusions QBSafe cards improved clinician satisfaction but did not improve care fit or glycemic control. Future tools should focus on helping clinicians respond effectively to patient-identified challenges.

Abstract Aim This study aimed to identify what young adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D) do to make diabetes care fit in their lives and the impact of diabetes and diabetes care on living. Methods Dutch young adults with T1D (18–30 years old) submitted photographed real‐life situations of efforts to make care fit and of the impact of care on their lives. Participants organised their photos in themes, which guided the focus group discussions. We added a reflective questionnaire, semi‐structured interview and iterative validation to identify participant‐defined themes and summarise the data. Results Participants ( N = 18) submitted 240 photographs in total, showing a broad range of situations and emotions. Participants identified 16 themes, grouped into four overarching categories describing their experiences with diabetes: (1) My diabetes: glucose levels, workload, 24/7 present; (2) My life: flow of (daily) life, special and irregular circumstances, life changes, body and health; (3) Support: devices and technology, social network, clinical (diabetes) care; (4) Mental aspects: emotional processes, perspective, being a patient. In the overlap of My diabetes and My life, they identified eating and counting carbohydrates, activity and exercise, recreational substances. Conclusion Young adults with T1D face the complex challenge of fitting their care into their ever‐changing lives. While support systems, such as devices, healthcare professionals and social networks can help, they can also create burdens. Participants emphasised the importance of mental health in their lives with T1D. This study highlights the need for diabetes care that acknowledges the emotional, social and practical realities of young adults' lives.

The industrialisation of healthcare has transformed the expectation of individualised and compassionate caring for patients into the reality of efficient and standardised processing of people to achieve organisational goals. In this way, healthcare functions like a machine that processes patients via protocols and technologies. Though this standardisation is necessary for enhancing safe and efficient operations, it can also alienate organisations and their clinicians from their core mission, turning care into a transactional endeavour. Consequently, patients must adapt to the system’s needs and work to achieve its goals, adding unnecessary burden and limiting the benefits of their healing endeavour. In this opinion piece, the authors offer an alternative vision of care as the work of people who, in interaction, notice and respond to each patient’s problematic human situation. Healthcare organisations must reclaim this care as its core mission, and foster environments where patients and clinicians may engage in this adaptative and responsive practice. By doing so, healthcare can fulfil its purpose: to care for all in a way that is careful and kind.