Rising, Kristin L.

AbstractBackgroundPatient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) are gaining favor in clinical and research settings given their ability to capture a patient's symptom burden, functional status, and quality of life. Our objective in this systematic review was to summarize studies including PROMs assessed among older adults (age ≥ 65 years) after seeking emergency care.MethodsWith the assistance of a medical librarian, we searched Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science‐Core Collection, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception through June 2023 for studies in which older adult ED patients had PROMs assessed in the post–emergency care time period. Independent reviewers performed title/abstract review, full‐text screening, data extraction, study characteristic summarization, and risk‐of‐bias (RoB) assessments.ResultsOur search strategy yielded 5153 studies of which 56 met study inclusion criteria. Within included studies, 304 unique PROM assessments were performed at varying time points after the ED visit, including 61 unique PROMs. The most commonly measured domain was physical function, assessed within the majority of studies (47/56; 84%), with measures including PROMs such as Katz activities of daily living (ADLs), instrumental ADLs, and the Barthel Index. PROMs were most frequently assessed at 1–3 months after an ED visit (113/304; 37%), greater than 6 months (91/304; 30%), and 4–6 months (88/304; 29%), with very few PROMs assessed within 1 month of the ED visit (12/304; 4%). Of the 16 interventional studies, two were determined to have a low RoB, four had moderate RoB, nine had high RoB, and one had insufficient information. Of the 40 observational studies, 10 were determined to be of good quality, 20 of moderate quality, and 10 of poor quality.ConclusionsPROM assessments among older adults following an ED visit frequently measured physical function, with very few assessments occurring within the first 1 month after an ED visit.

Background. We test the hypotheses that use of the Chest Pain Choice (CPC) decision aid (DA) would be similarly effective in potentially vulnerable subgroups but increase knowledge more in patients with higher education and trust in physicians more in patients from racial minority groups. Methods. This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized trial in adults with chest pain potentially due to acute coronary syndrome. The trial compared an intervention group engaged in shared decision making (SDM) using CPC to a control group receiving usual care (UC). We assessed for subgroup effects based on age, sex, race, income, insurance, education, literacy, and numeracy. We dichotomized each characteristic and tested for interactions using regression models with indicators for arm assignment and study site. Results. Of 898 patients (451 DA, 447 UC), over 50% were female, over one-third were black, nearly one-third had a high school education or less, and over 60% had “low” health literacy. The DA did not increase knowledge more in patients with higher education ( P for interaction = 0.06) but did increase knowledge more in the “typical” than in the “low” numeracy subgroup (10.6% v. 4.7%, absolute difference [AD] = 5.9%, P for interaction = 0.025). The DA did not significantly increase patient trust in physicians in racial minorities ( P for interaction = 0.06) but did increase trust more in patients with “low” literacy compared with those with “typical” literacy (3.7% v. –1.4%, AD = 5.1, P for interaction = 0.011). Conclusions. CPC benefited all sociodemographic groups to a similar extent, with greater knowledge transfer in patients with higher numeracy and greater physician trust in patients with “low” health literacy. Tailoring SDM interventions to patient characteristics may be necessary for optimal effectiveness.

Abstract Diagnostic testing is an integral component of patient evaluation in the emergency department ( ED ). Emergency clinicians frequently use diagnostic testing to more confidently exclude “worst‐case” diagnoses rather than to determine the most likely etiology for a presenting complaint. Increased utilization of diagnostic testing has not been associated with reductions in disease‐related mortality but has led to increased overall healthcare costs and other unintended consequences (e.g., incidental findings requiring further workup, unnecessary exposure to ionizing radiation or potentially nephrotoxic contrast). Shared decision making ( SDM ) presents an opportunity for clinicians to discuss the benefits and harms associated with diagnostic testing with patients to more closely tailor testing to patient risk. This article introduces the challenges and opportunities associated with incorporating SDM into emergency care by summarizing the conclusions of the diagnostic testing group at the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference on SDM . Three primary domains emerged: 1) characteristics of a condition or test appropriate for SDM , 2) critical elements of and potential barriers to SDM discussions on diagnostic testing, and 3) financial aspects of SDM applied to diagnostic testing. The most critical research questions to improve engagement of patients in their acute care diagnostic decisions were determined by consensus.

AbstractThe Patient‐Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) was established by Congress in 2010 to promote the conduct of research that could better inform patients in making decisions that reflect their desired health outcomes. PCORI has established five national priorities for research around which specific funding opportunities are issued: 1) assessment of prevention, diagnosis, and treatment options; 2) improving healthcare systems; 3) communication and dissemination research; 4) addressing disparities; and 5) improving methods for conducting patient‐centered outcomes research. To date, implementation of patient‐centered research in the emergency care setting has been limited, in part because of perceived challenges in meeting PCORI priorities such as the need to focus on a specific disease state or to have planned follow up. We suggest that these same factors that have been seen as challenges to performing patient‐centered research within the emergency setting are also potential strengths to be leveraged to conduct PCORI research. This paper explores factors unique to patient‐centered emergency care research and highlights specific areas of potential alignment within each PCORI priority.