Montori, Victor M

Introduction Decision aids (DAs) are helpful instruments used to support shared decision making (SDM). Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) face complex decisions regarding stroke prevention strategies. While a few DAs have been made for AF stroke prevention, an encounter DA (EDA) and patient DA (PDA) have not been created to be used in conjunction with each other before. Design Using iterative user-centered design, we developed 2 DAs for anticoagulation choice and stroke prevention in AF. Prototypes were created, and we elicited feedback from patients and experts via observations of encounters, usability testing, and semistructured interviews. Results User testing was done with 33 experts (in AF and SDM) and 51 patients from 6 institutions. The EDA and PDA underwent 1 and 4 major iterations, respectively. Major differences between the DAs included AF pathophysiology and a preparation to meet with the clinician in the PDA as well as different language throughout. Content areas included personalized stroke risk, differences between anticoagulants, and risks of bleeding. Based on user feedback, developers 1) addressed feelings of isolation with AF, 2) improved navigation options, 3) modified content and flow for users new to AF and those experienced with AF, 4) updated stroke risk pictographs, and 5) added structure to the preparation for decision making in the PDA. Limitations These DAs focus only on anticoagulation for stroke prevention and are online, which may limit participation for those less comfortable with technology. Conclusions Designing complementary DAs for use in tandem or separately is a new method to support SDM between patients and clinicians. Extensive user testing is essential to creating high-quality tools that best meet the needs of those using them. Highlights First-time complementary encounter and patient decision aids have been designed to work together or separately. User feedback led to greater structure and different experiences for patients naïve or experienced with anticoagulants in patient decision aids. Online tools allow for easier dissemination, use in telehealth visits, and updating as new evidence comes out.

Shared decision making (SDM) is a method of care that is suitable for the care of patients with cancer. It involves a collaborative conversation seeking to respond sensibly to the problematic situation of the patient, cocreating a plan of care that makes sense intellectually, practically, and emotionally. Genetic testing to identify whether a patient has a hereditary cancer syndrome represents a prime example of the importance for SDM in oncology. SDM is important for genetic testing because not only results affect current cancer treatment, cancer surveillance, and care of relatives but also these tests generate both complex results and psychological concerns. SDM conversations should take place without interruptions, disruptions, or hurry and be supported, where available, by tools that assist in conveying the relevant evidence and in supporting plan development. Examples of these tools include treatment SDM encounter aids and the Genetics Adviser. Patients are expected to play a key role in making decisions and implementing plans of care, but several evolving challenges related to the unfettered access to information and expertise of varying trustworthiness and complexity in between interactions with clinicians can both support and complicate this role. SDM should result in a plan of care that is maximally responsive to the biology and biography of each patient, maximally supportive of each patient's goals and priorities, and minimally disruptive of their lives and loves.

AbstractIntroductionFor too many people, their care plans are designed without fully accounting for who they are, the lives they live, what matters to them or what they aspire to achieve. We aimed to summarize instruments capable of measuring dimensions of patient–clinician collaboration to make care fit.MethodsWe systematically searched several databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus and Web of Science) from inception to September 2021 for studies using quantitative measures to assess, evaluate or rate the work of making care fit by any participant in real‐life clinical encounters. Eligibility was assessed in duplicate. After extracting all items from relevant instruments, we coded them deductively on dimensions relevant to making care fit (as presented in a recent Making Care Fit Manifesto), and inductively on the main action described.ResultsWe included 189 papers, mostly from North America (N = 83, 44%) and in the context of primary care (N = 54, 29%). Half of the papers (N = 88, 47%) were published in the last 5 years. We found 1243 relevant items to assess efforts of making care fit, included within 151 instruments. Most items related to the dimensions ‘Patient‐clinician collaboration: content’ (N = 396, 32%) and ‘Patient‐clinician collaboration: manner’ (N = 382, 31%) and the least related to ‘Ongoing and iterative process’ (N = 22, 2%) and in ‘Minimally disruptive of patient lives’ (N = 29, 2%). The items referred to 27 specific actions. Most items referred to ‘Informing’ (N = 308, 25%) and ‘Exploring’ (N = 93, 8%), the fewest items referred to ‘Following up’, ‘Comforting’ and ‘Praising’ (each N = 3, 0.2%).DiscussionMeasures of the work that patients and clinicians do together to make care fit focus heavily on the content of their collaborations, particularly on exchanging information. Other dimensions and actions previously identified as crucial to making care fit are assessed infrequently or not at all. The breadth of extant measures of making care fit and the lack of appropriate measures of this key construct limit both the assessment and the successful implementation of efforts to improve patient care.Patient ContributionPatients and caregivers from the ‘Making care fit Collaborative’ were involved in drafting the dimensions relevant to patient–clinician collaboration.

AbstractObjectiveTo evaluate the extent to which the canonical steps of shared decision making (SDM) take place in clinical encounters in practice and across SDM forms.MethodsWe assessed 100 randomly selected video‐recorded primary care encounters, obtained as part of a randomized trial of an SDM intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes. Two coders, working independently, noted each instance of SDM, classified it as one of four problem‐based forms to SDM (weighing alternatives, negotiating conflicting issues, solving problems, or developing existential insight), and noted the occurrence and timing of each of the four canonical SDM steps: fostering choice awareness, providing information, stating preferences, and deciding. Descriptive analyses sought to determine the relative frequency of these steps across each of the four SDM forms within each encounter.ResultsThere were 485 SDM steps noted (mean 4.85 steps per encounter), of which providing information and stating preferences were the most common. There were 2.7 (38 steps in 14 encounters) steps per encounter observed in encounters with no discernible SDM form, 3.4 (105 steps in 31 encounters) with one SDM form, 5.2 (129 steps in 25 encounters) with two SDM forms, and 7.1 (213 steps in 30 encounters) when ≥3 SDM forms were observed within the encounter. The prescribed order of the four SDM steps was observed in, at best, 16 of the 100 encounters. Stating preferences was a common step when weighing alternatives (38%) or negotiating conflicts (59.3%) but less common when solving problems (29.2%). The distribution of SDM steps was similar to usual care with or without the SDM intervention.ConclusionThe normative steps of SDM are infrequently observed in their prescribed order regardless of whether an SDM intervention was used. Some steps are more likely in some SDM forms but no pattern of steps appears to distinguish among SDM forms.Clinical Trial RegistrationClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01293578.

Objectives To assess whether recommendations of individually oriented lifestyle interventions (IOLIs) in guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) were underpinned by evidence of benefit, and whether harms and opportunity costs were considered. Design Cross sectional survey. Setting UK. Data sources NICE guidelines and supporting evidence. Eligibility criteria All NICE pathways for IOLI recommendations (ie, non-drug interventions that healthcare professionals administer to adults to achieve a healthier lifestyle and improve health) were searched systematically on 26 August 2020. One author screened all retrieved pathways for candidate guidelines, while a second author verified these judgments. Two authors independently and in duplicate screened all retrieved guidelines and recommendations for eligibility, extracted data, and evaluated the evidence cited and the outcomes considered. Disagreements were noted and resolved by consensus. Results Within 57 guidelines, 379 NICE recommendations were found for IOLIs; almost all (n=374; 99%) recommended the lifestyle intervention and five (1%) recommended against the intervention. Of the 379 recommendations, 13 (3%) were supported by moderate or high certainty evidence of a beneficial effect on patient relevant outcomes (n=7; 2%) or surrogate outcomes (n=13; 3%). 19 (5%) interventions considered psychosocial harms, 32 (8%) considered physical harms, and one (<1%) considered the opportunity costs of implementation. No intervention considered the burden placed on individuals by these recommendations. Conclusion Few NICE recommendations of lifestyle interventions are supported by reliable evidence. While this finding does not contest the beneficial effects of healthy habits, guidelines recommending clinicians to try to change people’s lifestyle need to be reconsidered given the substantial uncertainty about the effectiveness, harms, and opportunity costs of such interventions.

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.

Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated to improve patient care, patient decision acceptance, patient-provider communication, patient motivation, adherence, and patient reported outcomes. Documentation of SDM is endorsed in several society guidelines and is a condition of reimbursement for selected cardiovascular and cardiac arrhythmia procedures. However, many clinicians argue that SDM already occurs with clinical encounter discussions or the process of obtaining informed consent and note the additional imposed workload of using and documenting decision aids without validated tools or evidence that they improve clinical outcomes. In reality, SDM is a process and can be done without decision tools, although the process may be variable. Also, SDM advocates counter that the low-risk process of SDM need not be held to the high bar of demonstrating clinical benefit and that increasing the quality of decision making should be sufficient. Our review leverages a multidisciplinary group of experts in cardiology, cardiac electrophysiology, epidemiology, and SDM, as well as a patient advocate. Our goal is to examine and assess SDM methodology, tools, and available evidence on outcomes in patients with heart rhythm disorders to help determine the value of SDM, assess its possible impact on electrophysiological procedures and cardiac arrhythmia management, better inform regulatory requirements, and identify gaps in knowledge and future needs.

OBJECTIVE To examine whether glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RA) and sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (SGLT2i) are preferentially initiated among patients with cardiovascular disease, heart failure (HF), or nephropathy, where these drug classes have established benefit, compared with dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitors (DPP-4i), for which corresponding benefits have not been demonstrated. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We retrospectively analyzed claims of adults with type 2 diabetes included in OptumLabs Data Warehouse, a deidentified database of commercially insured and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries, who first started GLP-1RA, SGLT2i, or DPP-4i therapy between 2016 and 2019. Using multinomial logistic regression, we examined the relative risk ratios (RRR) of starting GLP-1RA and SGLT2i compared with DPP-4i for those with a history of myocardial infarction (MI), cerebrovascular disease, HF, and nephropathy after adjusting for demographic and other clinical factors. RESULTS We identified 75,395 patients who started GLP-1RA, 58,234 who started SGLT2i, and 91,884 who started DPP-4i. Patients with prior MI, cerebrovascular disease, or nephropathy were less likely to start GLP-1RA rather than DPP-4i compared with patients without these conditions (RRR 0.83 [95% CI 0.78–0.88] for MI, RRR 0.77 [0.74–0.81] for cerebrovascular disease, and RRR 0.87 [0.84–0.91] for nephropathy). Patients with HF or nephropathy were less likely to start SGLT2i (RRR 0.83 [0.80–0.87] for HF and RRR 0.57 [0.55–0.60] for nephropathy). Both medication classes were less likely to be started by non-White and older patients. CONCLUSIONS Patients with cardiovascular disease, HF, and nephropathy, for whom evidence suggests a greater likelihood of benefiting from GLP-1RA and/or SGLT2i therapy, were less likely to start these drugs. Addressing this treatment/benefit paradox, which was most pronounced in non-White and older patients, may help reduce the morbidity associated with these conditions.

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.