Egginton, Jason S.

Abstract Yoga is increasing in popularity in the United States and across the globe. However, most yoga programs are provided outside the worksite; although many companies offer worksite wellness programs, at present there is limited documentation regarding the potential benefits of participating in a worksite yoga program. Therefore, the purpose of this project was to examine the potential effect of a worksite yoga program on self-acceptance, quality of life, and perceived stress. A prospective cohort pilot study that examined a structured worksite yoga program was designed and tailored to individuals new to yoga. The 8-week Yoga Foundations program was conducted at an academic medical center's worksite wellness center with 86 subjects. Outcome measures were the 36-item Self-Acceptance Scale; a six-item quality-of-life measure that assesses overall, social, mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual well-being; and the ten-item Perceived Stress Scale. Participants demonstrated significant improvement in their overall self-acceptance (p < 0.001), quality of life (p < 0.001), and perceived stress (p < 0.001) levels. They also highly rated the yoga instructors and the weekly format of the program. Participation in a Yoga Foundations program was associated with improvements in self-acceptance, quality of life and stress levels in worksite wellness center members. Future studies should use randomized designs and examine other wellness domains to learn more about the potential benefits of worksite yoga programs.

Goals: To determine patient preference for the Barrett esophagus (BE) screening techniques. Background: Sedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (sEGD) and unsedated transnasal endoscopy (uTNE) are both potential techniques for BE screening. However, systematic assessment of patient preference for these 2 techniques is lacking. As part of a comparative effectiveness randomized trial of BE screening modalities, we measured short-term patient preferences for the following approaches: in-clinic uTNE (huTNE), mobile-based uTNE (muTNE), and sEGD using a novel assessment instrument. Study: Consenting community patients without known BE were randomly assigned to receive huTNE, muTNE, or sEGD, followed by a telephone administered preference and tolerability assessment instrument 24 hours after study procedures. Patient preference was measured by the waiting trade-off method. Results: In total, 201 patients completed screening with huTNE (n=71), muTNE (n=71), or sEGD (n=59), and a telephone interview. Patients’ preferences for sEGD and uTNE using the waiting trade-off method were comparable (P=0.51). Although tolerability scores were superior for sEGD (P<0.001) compared with uTNE, scores for uTNE examinations were acceptable. Conclusions: Patient preference is comparable between sEGD and uTNE for diagnostic examinations conducted in an endoscopy suite or in a mobile setting. Given acceptable tolerability, uTNE may be a viable alternative to sEGD for BE screening.

Purpose Self-directed learning (SDL) is part of residency training, which residents desire guidance in implementing. To characterize SDL within the clinical context, this study explored residents’ perceptions of faculty members’ role in promoting and supporting resident SDL. Method Using a constructivist grounded theory approach, the authors conducted seven focus groups with 46 internal medicine residents at the Mayo Clinic Internal Medicine Residency Program from October 2014 to January 2015. Focus group transcripts were deidentified and processed through open coding and analytic memo writing. Guided by a previously developed SDL model, data were analyzed regarding faculty member involvement in resident SDL. Themes were organized and patterns were discussed at team meetings, with constant comparison with new data. Trustworthiness was established using two member-check sessions. Results The authors identified themes within the categories of faculty guidance for SDL, SDL versus other-directed learning (ODL), and faculty archetypes for supporting SDL. Clinical teachers play a key role in facilitating resident SDL and can provide guidance at each step in the SDL process. Residents discussed the distinction between SDL and ODL, highlighting the integrated nature of learning and interplay between the two approaches to learning. Residents identified themes relating to three archetypal approaches faculty implement to support resident SDL in the clinical environment (directed, collaborative, and role model SDL), with benefits and challenges of each approach. Conclusions This study underscores the importance of external guidance for resident SDL and expands on approaches faculty members can use to support SDL in the clinical context.

227 Background: The objective of this work was to develop a reliable and valid survey measuring aspects of cancer care important to patients to be used in both inpatient and outpatient settings, and that allows comparisons of patient experiences across treatment centers and treatment modalities (medical oncology, radiation, surgery). Other objectives included testing various modes of data collection and developing a standardized sampling methodology based on ICD diagnosis and procedure codes. Methods: We conducted focus groups with patients who had received cancer treatment and with family members of cancer patients. We convened a panel of experts representing quality improvement, oncology, shared decision-making, patient safety, and patient advocacy to obtain feedback on the development of the survey. We interviewed stakeholder groups representing oncology associations to obtain feedback on focal provider, attribution and sampling. We then conducted a field test of the survey among six cancer centers around the country, conducted psychometric analyses, revised the survey, conducted a second field test among four community oncology practices in CA, re-analyzed the data, and finalized the survey. Results: Final survey content was determined using results of the formative research, psychometric analyses, and input from the CAHPS Consortium. The core survey includes 56 questions, 23 of which map to eight composites: Provider Communication, Enabling Patient Self-management, Team Available to Provide Information, Access to Care, Care Coordination, and Office Staff. Supplemental item sets include seven items assessing Shared Decision Making, four items measuring Keeping Patients Informed, and two additional Access to Care items. Mail-only, mail-telephone mixed-mode, and web-mail mixed-mode are recommended methods of data collection. The survey and all recruiting materials are available in English and Spanish. Conclusions: The CAHPS Cancer Care Survey is a rigorously developed, well-tested, reliable and valid survey of patient experiences with their cancer care. The survey and supporting materials are available free of charge on the CAHPS website (www.ahrq.gov/cahps).

274 Background: The objectives of the formative research were to identify key themes of patient-centered cancer care and determine the best method to collect data to develop the CAHPS Survey for Cancer Care Prototype. This survey seeks to measure aspects of care most important to patients and allow comparisons of those aspects across treatment centers and treatment modalities. Methods: We developed a library of 1,781 items from CAHPS and cancer care surveys. We conducted 14 focus groups with patients (including 2 conducted in Spanish) who had received cancer care in the past 12 months, and 2 focus groups involving family members of cancer patients. We met with 10 experts representing patients and survivors, or who had expertise in quality improvement, oncology, shared decision-making and patient safety to obtain feedback on the development of the survey, potential markets for the instrument, and to assist with overall strategy. Finally, we conducted separate interviews with 5 stakeholder groups representing oncology associations to obtain feedback on focal provider, attribution and sampling. Results: While the focus group results validated findings from the item library, new concepts also emerged, such as the need for having a plan of care. Patients most readily identified with a team of providers, rather than a single provider. The two most important domains to patients were (1) how well the cancer care team communicates with patients and (2) whether the cancer care team keeps patients informed about cancer treatment. Patients were also interested in care coordination, access to information, providers who are up-to-date, and shared decision-making. Stakeholder interviews noted that survey results would be most valuable if presented by treatment modality: medical, radiation, and surgical oncology. Conclusions: These findings suggest that cancer care is best for the patient when providers are knowledgeable and straightforward with medical information, yet can demonstrate empathy and compassion.

Objective To assess US physicians’ attitudes towards using shared decision-making (SDM) to achieve cost containment. Design Cross-sectional mailed survey. Setting US medical practice. Participants 3897 physicians were randomly selected from the AMA Physician Masterfile. Of these, 2556 completed the survey. Main outcome measures Level of enthusiasm for “Promoting better conversations with patients as a means of lowering healthcare costs”; degree of agreement with “Decision support tools that show costs would be helpful in my practice” and agreement with “should promoting SDM be legislated to control overall healthcare costs”. Results Of 2556 respondents (response rate (RR) 65%), two-thirds (67%) were ‘very enthusiastic’ about promoting SDM as a means of reducing healthcare costs. Most (70%) agreed decision support tools that show costs would be helpful in their practice, but only 24% agreed with legislating SDM to control costs. Compared with physicians with billing-only compensation, respondents with salary compensation were more likely to strongly agree that decision support tools showing costs would be helpful (OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.1 to 1.7). Primary care physicians (vs surgeons, OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.0 to 1.6) expressed more enthusiasm for SDM being legislated as a means to address healthcare costs. Conclusions Most US physicians express enthusiasm about using SDM to help contain costs. They believe decision support tools that show costs would be useful. Few agree that SDM should be legislated as a means to control healthcare costs.