Hess, Erik P.

Objectives: Patient involvement in the choice of whether to undergo emergency department observation unit (EDOU) admission and cardiac stress testing or follow-up with a physician could increase knowledge, increase satisfaction, and safely decrease resource use. We test this hypothesis in a randomized trial. Methods: We developed and tested Chest Pain Choice, a decision aid that communicates the pre-test probability of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) within 45 days and makes management options (EDOU admission and stress testing or 24-72 hr follow-up with a physician) explicit to the patient. Patients with a primary complaint of chest pain and no known coronary artery disease who were being considered for EDOU admission were eligible. Patient-clinician pairs were randomized to intervention (decision aid plus risk estimate) or usual care (no decision aid, no risk estimate). We used patient surveys and 30-day phone follow-up to assess the primary outcome (patient knowledge regarding their short-term risk for ACS), patient satisfaction, safety (delayed or missed ACS defined as acute myocardial infarction, ventricular arrhythmia, cardiogenic shock, or cardiac/unknown death), and resource use. Analysis was by intention to treat. Results: The 205 patients had the following characteristics: mean age (SD) 54.7 (11.8), 59% female, 36% history of HTN and 10% history of diabetes. Compared with usual care patients (n=104), patients receiving the decision aid (n=101) less frequently decided to be admitted to the EDOU for cardiac stress testing (58% vs 77%, absolute difference = 19%, 95% CI 6, 31), had a lower rate of stress testing (74% vs 90%, absolute difference = 16%, 95% CI 6, 26), greater knowledge of their exact pre-test probability of ACS (25% vs 1%, absolute difference = 24%, 95% CI 15, 33) and reported greater satisfaction with the decision-making process (strongly agree: 61% vs 40%, absolute difference = 21%, 95% CI 7, 33). There were no cases of delayed or missed ACS in either arm. Conclusion: Use of a decision aid in ED chest pain patients increased knowledge, increased satisfaction, and safely decreased resource use. In an era of health care reform, shared decision-making is a promising approach that may both increase patient engagement and decrease resource use.Funding(This research has received full or partial funding support from the American Heart Association, National Center)

Background: Shared decision-making with decision aids (DA) improves patient knowledge and reduces decisional conflict. The extent to which they do so across sociodemographic subgroups remains unknown. Methods: An encounter-level meta-analysis of five DA randomized trials examined the impact of sociodemographic variables on knowledge transfer and decisional conflict using a generalized linear model stratified by study and adjusted by treatment arm. Results: We analyzed 595 patient-clinician encounters. Significantly higher knowledge transfer with DA occurred in nearly all patient subgroups when compared to usual care (UC). Patients with more formal education tended to have greater knowledge transfer with UC; this was diminished with DA. There was a trend towards improved decisional conflict in all subgroups with the use of DA; overall decisional conflict was low. (see Table) Conclusion: The use of DA compared to UC significantly increases knowledge transfer across diverse subgroups and there is a tendency towards reduced decisional conflict. Differences at baseline, such as knowledge transfer across educational strata, may be mitigated with use of DA. In conclusion, DA are found to be effective across patient subgroups and may represent a novel strategy to lessen disparities.

Abstract Objective The overuse of antibiotics for acute otitis media (AOM) in children is a healthcare quality issue in part arising from conflicting parent and physician understanding of the risks and benefits of antibiotics for AOM. Our objective was to develop a conversation aid that supports shared decision making (SDM) with parents of children who are diagnosed with non-severe AOM in the acute care setting. Materials and Methods We developed a web-based encounter tool following a human-centered design approach that includes active collaboration with parents, clinicians, and designers using literature review, observations of clinical encounters, parental and clinician surveys, and interviews. Insights from these processes informed the iterative creation of prototypes that were reviewed and field-tested in patient encounters. Results The ear pain conversation aid includes five sections: (1) A home page that opens the discussion on the etiologies of AOM; (2) the various options available for AOM management; (3) a pictograph of the impact of antibiotic therapy on pain control; (4) a pictograph of complication rates with and without antibiotics; and (5) a summary page on management choices. This open-access, web-based tool is located at www.earpaindecisionaid.org. Conclusions We collaboratively developed an evidence-based conversation aid to facilitate SDM for AOM. This decision aid has the potential to improve parental medical knowledge of AOM, physician/parent communication, and possibly decrease the overuse of antibiotics for this condition.

AbstractObjectiveTo test the hypotheses that use of the Head CT Choice decision aid would be similarly effective in all parent/patient dyads but parents with high (vs low) numeracy experience a greater increase in knowledge while those with low (vs high) health literacy experience a greater increase in trust.MethodsThis was a secondary analysis of a cluster randomized trial conducted at seven sites. One hundred seventy‐two clinicians caring for 971 children at intermediate risk for clinically important traumatic brain injuries were randomized to shared decision making facilitated by the DA (n = 493) or to usual care (n = 478). We assessed for subgroup effects based on patient and parent characteristics, including socioeconomic status (health literacy, numeracy and income). We tested for interactions using regression models with indicators for arm assignment and study site.ResultsThe decision aid did not increase knowledge more in parents with high numeracy (P for interaction [Pint] = 0.14) or physician trust more in parents with low health literacy (Pint = 0.34). The decision aid decreased decisional conflict more in non‐white parents (decisional conflict scale, −8.14, 95% CI: −12.33 to −3.95; Pint = 0.05) and increased physician trust more in socioeconomically disadvantaged parents (trust in physician scale, OR: 8.59, 95% CI: 2.35‐14.83; Pint = 0.04).ConclusionsUse of the Head CT Choice decision aid resulted in less decisional conflict in non‐white parents and greater physician trust in socioeconomically disadvantaged parents. Decision aids may be particularly effective in potentially vulnerable parents.

Abstract Background The validated Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Network (PECARN) rule helps determine the relevance of a head computerized tomography (CT) for children with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). We sought to estimate the potential overuse of head CT within two Canadian emergency departments (EDs). Methods We conducted a retrospective chart review of children seen in 2016 in a paediatric Level I (site 1) and a general Level II (site 2) trauma centre. We reviewed charts to determine the appropriateness of head CT use according to the PECARN rule in a random subset of children presenting with head trauma. Simple descriptive statistics were applied. Results One thousand five hundred and forty-six eligible patients younger than 17 years consulted during the study period. Of the 203 randomly selected cases per setting, 16 (7.9%) and 24 (12%), respectively from sites 1 and 2 had a head CT performed. Based on the PECARN rule, we estimated the overuse for the younger group (<2 years) to be below 3% for both hospitals without significant difference between them. For the older group (≥2 years), the overuse rate was higher at site 2 (9.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.8 to 17% versus 1.2%, 95% CI: 0.2 to 6.5%, P=0.03). Conclusion Both EDs demonstrated overuse rates below 10% although it was higher for the older group at site 2. Such low rates can potentially be explained by the university affiliation of both hospitals and by two Canadian organizations working to raise awareness among physicians about the overuse of diagnostic tools and dangers inherent to radiation.

AbstractBackgroundShared decision making in the emergency department (ED) can increase patient engagement for patients presenting with chest pain. However, little is known regarding which factors are associated with actual patient involvement in decision making or patients’ desired involvement in emergency care decisions. We examined which factors were associated with patients’ actual and desired involvement in decision making among ED chest pain patients.MethodsThis is a secondary analysis of data from a randomized trial of a shared decision‐making intervention in ED patients with low‐risk chest pain. We evaluated the degree to which patients were involved in decision making using the OPTION‐12 (observing patient involvement) scale and patients’ reported desire for involvement in decision making using the Control Preferences Scale (CPS). We measured the associations of patient factors with OPTION‐12 and CPS scores using multivariable regression.ResultsOf the 898 patients enrolled, mean (±SD) age was 51.5 (±11.4) years and 59% were female. Multivariable analysis revealed that only two factors were significantly associated with OPTION‐12 scores: study site and use of the decision aid. OPTION‐12 scores were 10.3 (standard error = 0.6) points higher for patients randomized to the decision aid compared to usual care (p < 0.001). Higher health literacy was associated with lower scores on the CPS, indicating greater desire for involvement (odds ratio = 0.91, p < 0.001).ConclusionsPatients’ reported desire for involvement in decision making was higher among those with higher health literacy. After study site and other potential confounding factors were adjusted for, only use of the decision aid was associated with observed patient involvement in decision making. As the science and practice of shared decision making in the ED moves toward implementation, high‐fidelity integration of the decision aid into the flow of care will be necessary to realize desired outcomes.

Abstract BACKGROUND Head computerized tomography (CT) increases the risk of cancer in children and should be carefully prescribed to paediatric patients with head injury. The Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Network (PECARN) validated a rule to identify children at risk of a clinically important traumatic brain injury (TBI) needing a head CT. OBJECTIVES The objective was to evaluate adherence to the PECARN rule as a function of CT overuse (defined as a prescribed CT when not recommended by the rule) and underuse rates (no CT performed when recommended) in two Canadian emergency departments (EDs). DESIGN/METHODS We conducted a retrospective chart review of children under 17 years of age seen in 2016 in a paediatric Level I (site 1) and a general Level II (site 2) trauma center. We reviewed charts to determine the appropriateness of head CT use according to the PECARN rule in a random subset of children presenting with a head trauma. Mandatory inclusion criteria were (1) that the head trauma occurred in the 24 hours prior to arrival to the ED, (2) a GCS over 13 and (3) and at least one sign or symptom of minor TBI. Patients with a special condition that could have influenced the decision to order a head CT were automatically excluded. When a patient did not receive a head CT when recommended by the rule, we reviewed medical records to determine if the patient has returned to the ED after his discharge within the next 30 days. RESULTS 1546 eligible patients younger than 17 years consulted during the study period. Of the 203 randomly selected cases per setting, 16 (7.9%) and 24 (12%) respectively from sites 1 and 2 had a head CT performed. For the younger group (< 2), both overuse and underuse rates were below 3%. For the older group, overuse rates were higher in site 2 (9.3% (95%CI:4.8–17%) vs. 1.2% (95%CI:0.2–6.5%) (P=.03)) and there was no difference in underuse rates (22% (95%CI:6.3–55%) vs 39% (95%CI:18–65%) (P=.65)). For children who did not receive a head CT when recommended, none returned to the ED for a related complication. CONCLUSION Overall, even if there may be slightly more overuse of head CTs in the Level II trauma center, results showed an excellent agreement with the PECARN rule when CT was not recommended. However, results also showed a deviation when CT was recommended, where a higher portion of patients than expected did not receive a head CT. Reasons to explain this behaviour will need further exploration.

AbstractBackgroundPatients at low risk for acute coronary syndrome are frequently admitted for observation and cardiac testing, resulting in substantial burden and cost to the patient and the health care system.ObjectivesThe purpose of this investigation was to measure the effect of the Chest Pain Choice (CPC) decision aid on overall health care utilization as well as utilization of specific services both during the index emergency department (ED) visit and in the subsequent 45 days.MethodsThis was a planned secondary analysis of data from a pragmatic multicenter randomized trial of shared decision making in adults presenting to the ED with chest pain who were being considered for observation unit admission for cardiac stress testing or coronary computed tomography angiography. The trial compared an intervention group engaged in shared decision making facilitated by the CPC decision aid to a control group receiving usual care. Hospital‐level billing data were used to measure utilization for the index ED visit and during the following 45 days. Patients in both groups also were asked to keep a diary recording health care utilization over the same 45‐day period. Outcomes assessed included length of time in the ED and observation, ED visits, office visits, hospitalizations, testing, imaging, and procedures.ResultsOf the 898 patients included in the original trial, we were able to contact 834 (92.9%) patients for 45‐day health care diary review. There was no difference in patient‐reported health care utilization between the study arms. Hospital‐level billing data were obtained for all 898 (100%) patients. During the initial ED visit the length of stay (LOS) was similar, and there was no difference in the frequency of observation unit admission between study arms. However, the mean observation unit LOS was 95 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI] = 40.8–149.8) shorter in the CPC arm and the mean number of tests was lower in the CPC arm (decrease in 19.4 imaging studies per 100 patients, 95% CI = 15.5–23.3). When evaluating the entire encounter and follow‐up period, the intervention arm underwent fewer tests (decrease in 125.6 tests per 100 patients, 95% CI = 29.3–221.6). More specifically, there were fewer advanced cardiac imaging tests completed (25.8 fewer per 100 patients, 95% CI = 3.74–47.9) in the intervention arm.ConclusionsShared decision making in low‐risk chest pain can lead to decreased diagnostic testing without worsening outcomes measured over 45 days.