McCarthy, Sarah

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

Objective Shared decision making (SDM) tools can help implement guideline recommendations for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) considering stroke prevention strategies. We sought to characterize all available SDM tools for this purpose and examine their quality and clinical impact. Methods We searched through multiple bibliographic databases, social media, and an SDM tool repository from inception to May 2020 and contacted authors of identified SDM tools. Eligible tools had to offer information about warfarin and ≥1 direct oral anticoagulant. We extracted tool characteristics, assessed their adherence to the International Patient Decision Aids Standards, and obtained information about their efficacy in promoting SDM. Results We found 14 SDM tools. Most tools provided up-to-date information about the options, but very few included practical considerations (e.g., out-of-pocket cost). Five of these SDM tools, all used by patients prior to the encounter, were tested in trials at high risk of bias and were found to produce small improvements in patient knowledge and reductions in decisional conflict. Conclusion Several SDM tools for stroke prevention in AF are available, but whether they promote high-quality SDM is yet to be known. The implementation of guidelines for SDM in this context requires user-centered development and evaluation of SDM tools that can effectively promote high-quality SDM and improve stroke prevention in patients with AF.

BackgroundCommunication gaps arise early in the childhood cancer trajectory and may persist. The authors conducted a pilot study of the feasibility and acceptability of a communication intervention, the Day 100 Talk (D100). D100 involves an interprofessional family conference during initial months of treatment between oncologists, psychosocial clinicians, and parents, facilitated by a 3‐part conversation tool.MethodsThe authors enrolled English‐speaking parents of children with nonrelapsed, nonprogressive cancer who were receiving continuity care from enrolled pediatric oncologists and psychosocial clinicians at a single site. The a priori feasibility threshold was 60% parent completion of the D100 intervention. Surveys from parents and professionals and debrief interviews with professionals assessed D100 acceptability.ResultsThirty‐seven parents (77%) and 38 oncology professionals (67%) enrolled. Twenty of 33 evaluable parents (61%) participated in a D100 family conference. Most commonly, parents did not complete the D100 intervention because of scheduling difficulties related to clinical team constraints. All 17 parents who completed a post‐D100 survey agreed or strongly agreed that D100 participation was helpful. In debrief interviews, professionals identified D100 benefits, namely, stepping back to the big picture and getting on the same page, and barriers related to logistical challenges and professionals' anticipatory dread.ConclusionsThe D100 intervention pilot demonstrates high acceptability among parents of children with cancer. Despite meeting the prespecified feasibility threshold, findings highlight important barriers to D100 dissemination, namely, perceived burdens on professionals. Potential strategies to reduce burden may include using virtual visit platforms, incorporating D100 elements across multiple visits, or prioritizing intervention delivery to parents with the greatest need for enhanced communication.

Pediatric palliative care aims to alleviate suffering and improve the quality of life of children with serious disease and increase support for their parents and other family members. Integration of palliative care into the routine care of children, adolescents, and young adults with cancer has resulted in improved outcomes in patients and their families. The field of pediatric palliative oncology—encompassing primary palliative care provided by the multidisciplinary oncology team as well as subspecialty palliative care provided by the palliative care team for more complex cases—is unique from palliative care in adults given its focus on care of the child and the larger family. In this review, we focus on advancements in the specific domains within pediatric palliative oncology care including family-centered communication, assessment and management of physical symptoms and distress, psychosocial concerns, and spiritual considerations of the patient, parents, and siblings.

53 Background: The National Academy of Medicine recommends interprofessional collaboration to promote optimal patient- and family-centered care. We sought to understand whether medical and psychosocial professionals who participated in an interprofessional communication intervention perceived it as distinct from usual clinical care. Methods: Our intervention targeted “medical” (physicians, nurse practitioners) and “psychosocial” (social workers, psychologists) professionals. It consisted of an interprofessional family conference, using a structured conversation guide, conducted during the first 6 months of a child’s cancer care. Conferences aimed to enable families to share hopes and worries and ask questions about their child’s care. Clinicians received a 60-minute training focused on communication skills, such as eliciting families’ hopes and worries, and suggested approaches to collaborating during conferences. Clinicians participated in debriefing interviews after each conference (range 1-3). Three of us conducted thematic analysis of interview data. Results: Twenty-two professionals (6 attending MDs, 4 fellow MDs, 8 NPs, and 8 psychosocial clinicians) gave 34 interviews. Medical and psychosocial professionals described interprofessional family conferences as distinct from usual practice patterns, largely due to their interprofessional colleagues’ presence. This co-presence contributed to “being on the same page.” Conferences sometimes bred a new understanding of a family’s needs and consequent care changes. However, both medical and psychosocial professionals noted that psychosocial professionals often were not vocal contributors to the conference. Some psychosocial clinicians reported being unsure of “the rules.” Conclusions: An interprofessional communication intervention promoted shared understanding between interprofessional colleagues. However, medical professionals were described as more vocal, perhaps due to insufficient role clarity or medical dominance.