Citations

Purpose:To quantify the burden and complexity associated with treatment of Medicare beneficiaries with stage I non–small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC).Methods:Using the SEER-Medicare database, we conducted a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries who were diagnosed with stage I NSCLC from 2007 to 2011 and who were treated with surgery, stereotactic body radiation therapy, or external beam radiation therapy. Main outcome measures were the number of days a patient was in contact with the health care system (encounter days), the number of physicians involved in a patient’s care, and the number of medications prescribed. Logistic regression modeled the association between patient characteristics, treatment type, and high treatment burden (defined as ≥ 66 encounter days).Results:On average, 7,955 patients spent 1 in 3 days interacting with the health care system during the initial 60 days of treatment. Patients experienced a median of 44 encounter days with high variability (interquartile range [IQR], 29 to 66) in the 12 months after treatment initiation. The median number of physicians involved was 20 (IQR, 14 to 28), and the median number of medications prescribed was 12 (IQR, 8 to 17). Patients who were treated with surgery had high treatment burden (predicted probability, 21.6%; 95% CI, 20.2 to 23.1) compared with patients who were treated with stereotactic body radiation therapy (predicted probability, 16.1%; 95% CI, 12.9 to 19.3), whereas patients who were treated with external beam radiation therapy had the highest burden (predicted probability, 46.8%; 95% CI, 43.3 to 50.2).Conclusion:The treatment burden imposed on patients with early-stage NSCLC was substantial in terms of the number of encounters, physicians involved, and medications prescribed. Because treatment burden varied markedly across patients and treatment types, future work should identify opportunities to understand and ameliorate this burden.

Whether disclosure of genetic risk for coronary heart disease (CHD) influences shared decision-making (SDM) regarding use of statins to reduce CHD risk is unknown. We randomized 207 patients, age 45–65 years, at intermediate CHD risk, and not on statins, to receive the 10-year risk of CHD based on conventional risk factors alone (n=103) or in combination with a genetic risk score (n=104). A genetic counselor disclosed this information followed by a physician visit for SDM regarding statin therapy. A novel decision aid was used in both encounters to disclose the CHD risk estimates and facilitate SDM regarding statin use. Patients reported their decision quality and physician visit satisfaction using validated surveys. There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the SDM score, satisfaction with the clinical encounter, perception of the quality of the discussion or of participation in decision-making and physician visit satisfaction scores. Quantitative analyses of a random subset of 80 video-recorded encounters using the OPTION5 scale also showed no significant difference in SDM between the two groups. Disclosure of CHD genetic risk using an electronic health record-linked decision aid did not adversely affect SDM or patients’ satisfaction with the clinical encounter. Trial registration number NCT01936675; Results.

AbstractThe idea of shared decision making (SDM) is gaining traction within emergency medicine, although concerns about potential legal consequences of its use may be slowing its adoption. We describe the similarities and differences between informed consent (IC) requirements and SDM, highlighting their different purposes, scope, and implementation. We also illustrate several areas in which SDM may affect clinicians’ liability risks and suggest that while SDM is likely to reduce net liability risks, it may increase providers’ liability risks in certain situations or with select patients. Overall, engaging in SDM should be understood as clearly distinct from the process of obtaining IC and could reduce clinicians’ risk of liability when applied carefully and thoughtfully.

Background— We sought to determine the concordance between the accumulating evidence about the impact of tight versus less tight glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus since the publication of UKPDS (UK Prospective Diabetes Study) in 1998 until 2015 with the views about that evidence published in journal articles and practice guidelines. Methods and Results— We searched in top general medicine and specialty journals for articles referring to glycemic control appearing between 2006 and 2015 and identified the latest practice guidelines. To summarize the evidence, we included all published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of contemporary randomized trials of glycemic control measuring patient-important microvascular and macrovascular outcomes, and completed a meta-analysis of their follow-up extensions. We identified 16 guidelines and 328 statements. The body of evidence produced estimates warranting moderate confidence. This evidence reported no significant impact of tight glycemic control on the risk of dialysis/transplantation/renal death, blindness, or neuropathy. In the past decade, however, most published statements (77%–100%) and guidelines (95%) unequivocally endorsed benefit. There is also no significant effect on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, or stroke; however, there is a consistent 15% relative-risk reduction of nonfatal myocardial infarction. Between 2006 and 2008, most statements (47%–83%) endorsed the benefit; after 2008 (ACCORD), only a minority (21%–36%) did. Conclusions— Discordance exists between the research evidence and academic and clinical policy statements about the value of tight glycemic control to reduce micro- and macrovascular complications. This discordance may distort priorities in the research and practice agendas designed to improve the lives of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.