Hess, Erik P.

Introduction: Shared decision-making (SDM) about anticoagulant treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is widely recommended but its effectiveness is unclear. We assessed the extent to which using an SDM tool promotes high-quality SDM. Hypothesis: SDM will improve communication quality, knowledge, and decisional conflict and will translate to improved medication adherence and outcomes. Methods: In this multicentre encounter-randomized trial, we included patients with nonvalvular AF considering starting/reviewing anticoagulation, and their clinicians. We compared usual care with or without ANTICOAGULATION CHOICE, an SDM conversation tool for use during the clinical encounter that presents individualized risk estimates and compares anticoagulation options across patient important issues. Results: We enrolled and video-recorded 922 patient-clinician encounters. So far, our data have shown that participants in both arms reported near-optimal communication quality, knowledge, and decisional conflict (JAMA IM-2020). Patients in intervention-arm estimated their stroke risks more accurately and were more involved in decision-making (JAMA IM-2020), clinicians were more satisfied (JAMA IM-2020), and cost conversation were more common (JAMA NO-2021). Use of the intervention had no effect on treatment decisions, encounter duration (JAMA IM-2020), treatment adherence, clinical outcomes (JAHA-epub) or patient-perceived sense of the care plan (PEC-epub). New analyses have shown that compared to eligible white participants, black participants more frequently did not enrol to the study. Enrolment of Black, indigenous, and people of colour benefited most form including and prioritizing practices most likely to care for them. We found no evidence of contamination (tool use, functional, or learned) between study arms. Conclusions: Use of an SDM tool improved some measures of SDM quality, without affecting treatment decisions and their sensibility, encounter duration, patient adherence, or clinical outcomes. Our results should calibrate expectations as to what could be accomplished by implementing SDM tools about anticoagulation in the care of patients with AF

AbstractBackgroundTo determine the impact of personalized risk communication and opioid prescribing on nonprescribed opioid use, we conducted a secondary analysis of randomized controlled trial participants followed prospectively for 90 days after an emergency department (ED) visit for acute back or kidney stone pain.MethodsA total of 1301 individuals were randomized during an encounter at four academic EDs into a probabilistic risk tool (PRT) arm, a narrative‐enhanced PRT arm, or a general risk information arm (control). In this secondary analysis, both risk tool arms were combined and compared with the control arm. We used logistic regressions to determine associations between receiving personalized risk information, receiving an opioid prescription in the ED, and nonprescribed opioid use in general and by race.ResultsComplete follow‐up data were available for 851 participants; 23.3% (n = 198) were prescribed opioids (34.2% of White vs. 11.6% of Black participants, p < 0.001). Fifty‐six (6.6%) participants used nonprescribed opioids. Participants in the personalized risk communication arms had lower nonprescribed opioid use odds (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.58, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.4–0.83). Black versus White participants had greater nonprescribed opioid use odds (aOR 3.47, 95% CI 2.05–5.87, p < 0.001). Black participants who were prescribed opioids had a lower marginal probability of using nonprescribed opioids versus those who were not (0.06, 95% CI 0.04–0.08, p < 0.001 vs. 0.10, 95% CI 0.08–0.11, p < 0.001). The absolute risk difference in nonprescribed opioid use for Black and White participants, respectively, in the risk communication versus the control arm, was 9.7% and 0.1% (relative risk ratio 0.43 vs. 0.95).ConclusionsAmong Black but not White participants, personalized opioid risk communication and opioid prescribing were associated with lower odds of nonprescribed opioid use. Our findings suggest that racial disparities in opioid prescribing—which have been previously described within the context of this trial—may paradoxically increase nonprescribed opioid use. Personalized risk communication may effectively reduce nonprescribed opioid use, and future research should be designed specifically to explore this possibility in a larger cohort.

Abstract Objective To determine the effect of a user centered clinical decision support tool versus usual care on rates of initiation of buprenorphine in the routine emergency care of individuals with opioid use disorder. Design Pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (EMBED). Setting 18 emergency department clusters across five healthcare systems in five states representing the north east, south east, and western regions of the US, ranging from community hospitals to tertiary care centers, using either the Epic or Cerner electronic health record platform. Participants 599 attending emergency physicians caring for 5047 adult patients presenting with opioid use disorder. Intervention A user centered, physician facing clinical decision support system seamlessly integrated into user workflows in the electronic health record to support initiating buprenorphine in the emergency department by helping clinicians to diagnose opioid use disorder, assess the severity of withdrawal, motivate patients to accept treatment, and complete electronic health record tasks by automating clinical and after visit documentation, order entry, prescribing, and referral. Main outcome measures Rate of initiation of buprenorphine (administration or prescription of buprenorphine) in the emergency department among patients with opioid use disorder. Secondary implementation outcomes were measured with the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance) framework. Results 1 413 693 visits to the emergency department (775 873 in the intervention arm and 637 820 in the usual care arm) from November 2019 to May 2021 were assessed for eligibility, resulting in 5047 patients with opioid use disorder (2787 intervention arm, 2260 usual care arm) under the care of 599 attending physicians (340 intervention arm, 259 usual care arm) for analysis. Buprenorphine was initiated in 347 (12.5%) patients in the intervention arm and in 271 (12.0%) patients in the usual care arm (adjusted generalized estimating equations odds ratio 1.22, 95% confidence interval 0.61 to 2.43, P=0.58). Buprenorphine was initiated at least once by 151 (44.4%) physicians in the intervention arm and by 88 (34.0%) in the usual care arm (1.83, 1.16 to 2.89, P=0.01). Conclusions User centered clinical decision support did not increase patient level rates of initiating buprenorphine in the emergency department. Although streamlining and automating electronic health record workflows can potentially increase adoption of complex, unfamiliar evidence based practices, more interventions are needed to look at other barriers to the treatment of addiction and increase the rate of initiating buprenorphine in the emergency department in patients with opioid use disorder. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03658642 .

Background: Although percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has not been shown to reduce the risk of death and myocardial infarction (MI) for stable coronary artery disease (CAD), many patients believe that PCI is a life-saving procedure. PCI for stable CAD is known to improve patients’ quality of life more rapidly than medications alone. We conducted a randomized trial to assess the impact of a decision aid (DA) compared to usual care (UC) for the treatment of stable CAD when there is a choice between PCI and optimal medical therapy (OMT). Methods: The PCI Choice trial was a prospective, randomized trial comparing the effects of DA versus UC. The DA was designed with a user-centered approach for an in-visit consultation, involving patients and clinicians throughout the development process. The final DA included information on myocardial infarction (MI), death and quality of life outcomes for PCI with OMT vs. OMT alone in the treatment of stable angina, stratified by angina type. Risks of procedure, bleeding, stent thrombosis, and need for future procedures were also depicted. The primary outcome was patient knowledge, measured by pre- and post-visit surveys. Additional outcomes included decisional conflict, patient satisfaction, preferred decision making style, and treatment decision. Results: A total of 110 patients were enrolled; mean age was 68.3 years and 26% of patients were women. At baseline, most patients had CCS Class I/II angina and were on a mean of two anti-anginal medications (2.3, SD 1.2). Knowledge increased among patients receiving DA compared to UC (63% vs. 44% p=0.0003). Specific knowledge about the impact of PCI for stable angina on death and MI was higher in both groups compared to prior studies (54% DA, 46% UC, p=0.45; 12% prior). Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the DA group vs. UC (72% vs 40%, p=0.004). Decisional conflict was greater than in non-procedural DA trials, and was not different between the two arms (p=.43). Following exposure to DA, patients’ preference for sharing decision making tended to change more with DA (55% to 65%) than with UC (56% to 59%). While the proportion of patients choosing PCI over OMT was nearly half in both groups, there were fewer patients that remained undecided with DA (18% vs. 4%; p=0.14 overall difference). Conclusions: Exposure to a DA for the choice of PCI vs. optimal medical therapy in stable CAD improved patient knowledge and satisfaction and decreased uncertainty, without reducing the rate of PCI. Use of the DA in a larger patient population may further delineate impact on outcomes such as treatment choice, geographic variation and cost.

Background Guidelines promote shared decision‐making (SDM) for anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation. We recently showed that adding a within‐encounter SDM tool to usual care (UC) increases patient involvement in decision‐making and clinician satisfaction, without affecting encounter length. We aimed to estimate the extent to which use of an SDM tool changed adherence to the decided care plan and clinical safety end points. Methods and Results We conducted a multicenter, encounter‐level, randomized trial assessing the efficacy of UC with versus without an SDM conversation tool for use during the clinical encounter (Anticoagulation Choice) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation considering starting or reviewing anticoagulation treatment. We conducted a chart and pharmacy review, blinded to randomization status, at 10 months after enrollment to assess primary adherence (proportion of patients who were prescribed an anticoagulant who filled their first prescription) and secondary adherence (estimated using the proportion of days for which treatment was supplied and filled for direct oral anticoagulant, and as time in therapeutic range for warfarin). We also noted any strokes, transient ischemic attacks, major bleeding, or deaths as safety end points. We enrolled 922 evaluable patient encounters (Anticoagulation Choice=463, and UC=459), of which 814 (88%) had pharmacy and clinical follow‐up. We found no differences between arms in either primary adherence (78% of patients in the SDM arm filled their first prescription versus 81% in UC arm) or secondary adherence to anticoagulation (percentage days covered of the direct oral anticoagulant was 74.1% in SDM versus 71.6% in UC; time in therapeutic range for warfarin was 66.6% in SDM versus 64.4% in UC). Safety outcomes, mostly bleeds, occurred in 13% of participants in the SDM arm and 14% in the UC arm. Conclusions In this large, randomized trial comparing UC with a tool to promote SDM against UC alone, we found no significant differences between arms in primary or secondary adherence to anticoagulation or in clinical safety outcomes. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02905032.

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.

Abstract Background Guidelines promote shared decision-making (SDM) for anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). We recently showed that adding a within-encounter SDM tool to usual care (UC) increases patient involvement in decision making and clinician satisfaction, without affecting encounter length. Purpose We aimed to estimate the extent to which use of an SDM tool affected patient adherence to the decided care plan and clinical safety endpoints. Methods We conducted a multi-center, encounter-level randomized trial assessing the efficacy of UC with vs. without an SDM conversation tool for use during the clinical encounter (Anticoagulation Choice, AC) in patients with non-valvular AF considering starting or reviewing anticoagulation treatment. We conducted a chart and pharmacy review, blinded to randomization status, at 10 months post-enrollment to assess primary adherence (proportion of patients who were prescribed an anticoagulant who filled their first prescription) and secondary adherence (estimated using the proportion of days for which treatment was supplied and filled [PDC] for DOAC, and as time in therapeutic range (TTR) for warfarin). We also followed for any safety outcomes (stroke [stroke or transient ischemic attack], major bleeding, or death). Results We enrolled 922 evaluable patient encounters (AC=463, UC=459), of which 814 (88%) had pharmacy and clinical follow-up. We found no differences between arms in either primary (78% of patients in AC filled their first prescription vs. 81% in UC) or secondary adherence to anticoagulation (see Figure, PDCDOAC was 74.1% in AC vs. 71.6% in UC; TTRwarfarin was 66.6% in AC vs. 64.4% in UC). PDCDOAC was better (65%) in AC than in UC (55%) (OR 1.49, CIs 1.00, 2.22). Safety outcomes, mostly bleeds, occurred in 13% (AC) of and 14% (UC) of participants. Conclusions This is the largest reported randomized trial in AF comparing usual care with and without an SDM tool to promote SDM. Although patients were more actively involved in SDM, we found no significant differences between arms in primary or secondary adherence to anticoagulation or clinical safety outcomes. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Other. Main funding source(s): The trial was funded by and conducted independently of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (RO1 HL131535-01). The funding body had no influence on the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Figure 1

AbstractThis first Guideline for Reasonable and Appropriate Care in the Emergency Department (GRACE‐1) from the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine is on the topic: Recurrent, Low‐risk Chest Pain in the Emergency Department. The multidisciplinary guideline panel used The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations regarding eight priority questions for adult patients with recurrent, low‐risk chest pain and have derived the following evidence based recommendations: (1) for those >3 h chest pain duration we suggest a single, high‐sensitivity troponin below a validated threshold to reasonably exclude acute coronary syndrome (ACS) within 30 days; (2) for those with a normal stress test within the previous 12 months, we do not recommend repeat routine stress testing as a means to decrease rates of major adverse cardiac events at 30 days; (3) insufficient evidence to recommend hospitalization (either standard inpatient admission or observation stay) versus discharge as a strategy to mitigate major adverse cardiac events within 30 days; (4) for those with non‐obstructive (<50% stenosis) coronary artery disease (CAD) on prior angiography within 5 years, we suggest referral for expedited outpatient testing as warranted rather than admission for inpatient evaluation; (5) for those with no occlusive CAD (0% stenosis) on prior angiography within 5 years, we recommend referral for expedited outpatient testing as warranted rather than admission for inpatient evaluation; (6) for those with a prior coronary computed tomographic angiography within the past 2 years with no coronary stenosis, we suggest no further diagnostic testing other than a single, normal high‐sensitivity troponin below a validated threshold to exclude ACS within that 2 year time frame; (7) we suggest the use of depression and anxiety screening tools as these might have an effect on healthcare use and return emergency department (ED) visits; and (8) we suggest referral for anxiety or depression management, as this might have an impact on healthcare use and return ED visits.