Citations

AbstractIntroductionShared decision‐making (SDM) is a method of care by which patients and clinicians work together to co‐create a plan of care. Electronic health record (EHR) integration of SDM tools may increase adoption of SDM. We conducted a “lightweight” integration of a freely available electronic SDM tool, CV Prevention Choice, within the EHRs of three healthcare systems. Here, we report how the healthcare systems collaborated to achieve integration.MethodsThis work was conducted as part of a stepped wedge randomized pragmatic trial. CV Prevention Choice was developed using guidelines for HTML5‐based web applications. Healthcare systems integrated the tool in their EHR using documentation the study team developed and refined with lessons learned after each system integrated the electronic SDM tool into their EHR. CV Prevention Choice integration populates the tool with individual patient data locally without sending protected health information between the EHR and the web. Data abstraction and secure transfer systems were developed to manage data collection to assess tool implementation and effectiveness outcomes.ResultsTime to integrate CV Prevention Choice in the EHR was 12.1 weeks for the first system, 10.4 weeks for the second, and 9.7 weeks for the third. One system required two 1‐hour meetings with study team members and two healthcare systems required a single 1‐hour meeting. Healthcare system information technology teams collaborated by sharing information and offering improvements to documentation. Challenges included tracking CV Prevention Choice use for reporting and capture of combination medications. Data abstraction required refinements to address differences in how each healthcare system captured data elements.ConclusionTargeted documentation on tool features and resource mapping supported collaboration of IT teams across healthcare systems, enabling them to integrate a web‐based SDM tool with little additional research team effort or oversight. Their collaboration helped overcome difficulties integrating the web application and address challenges to data harmonization for trial outcome analyses.

Abstract Rationale Endotracheal intubation is the third most common bedside procedure in U.S. hospitals. In over 40% of intubations, preventable complications attributable to human factors occur. A better understanding of team dynamics during intubation may improve patient safety. Objectives To explore team dynamics and safety-related actions during emergent endotracheal intubations in the emergency department and intensive care unit and to engage members of the care team in reflection for process improvement through a novel video-based team debriefing technique. Methods Video-reflexive ethnography involves in situ video recording and reflexive discussions with practitioners to scrutinize behaviors and to identify opportunities for improvement. In this study, real-time intubations were recorded in the emergency department and intensive care unit at Mayo Clinic Rochester, and facilitated video-reflexive sessions were conducted with the multidisciplinary procedural teams. Themes about team dynamics and safety-related action were identified inductively from transcriptions of recorded sessions. Results Between December 2022 and January 2023, eight video-reflexive sessions were conducted with a total of 78 participants. Multidisciplinary members included nurses (n = 23), respiratory therapists (n = 16), pharmacists (n = 7), advanced practitioners (n = 5), and physicians (n = 26). In video-reflexive discussions, major safety gaps were identified and several solutions were proposed related to the use of a multidisciplinary intubation checklist, standardized communication and team positioning, developing a culture of safety, and routinely debriefing after the procedure. Conclusions The findings of this study may inform the development of a team supervision model for emergent endotracheal intubations. This approach could integrate key components such as a multidisciplinary intubation checklist, standardized communication and team positioning, a culture of safety, and debriefing as part of the procedure itself.

Background The occurrence of shared decision making (SDM) in daily practice remains limited. Various patient characteristics have been suggested to potentially influence the extent to which clinicians involve patients in SDM. Objective To assess associations between patient characteristics and the extent to which clinicians involve patients in SDM. Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of data pooled from 10 studies comparing the care of adult patients with (intervention) or without (control) a within-encounter SDM conversation tool. We included studies with audio(-visual) recordings of clinical encounters in which decisions about starting or reconsidering treatment were discussed. Main Measures In the original studies, the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making 12-items (OPTION 12 item ) scale was used to code the extent to which clinicians involved patients in SDM in clinical encounters. We conducted multivariable analyses with patient characteristics (age, gender, race, education, marital status, number of daily medications, general health status, health literacy) as independent variables and OPTION 12 as a dependent variable. Results We included data from 1,614 patients. The between-arm difference in OPTION 12 scores was 7.7 of 100 points ( P < 0.001). We found no association between any patient characteristics and the OPTION 12 score except for education level ( p = 0.030), an association that was very small (2.8 points between the least and most educated), contributed mostly by, and only significant in, control arms (6.5 points). Subanalyses of a stroke prevention trial showed a positive association between age and OPTION 12 score ( P = 0.033). Conclusions Most characteristics showed no association with the extent to which clinicians involved patients in SDM. Without an SDM conversation tool, clinicians devoted more efforts to involve patients with higher education, a difference not observed when the tool was used. Highlights Most sociodemographic patient characteristics show no association with the extent to which clinicians involve patients in shared decision making. Clinicians devoted less effort to involve patients with lower education, a difference that was not observed when a shared decision-making conversation tool was used. SDM conversation tools can be useful for clinicians to better involve patients and ensure patients get involved equally regardless of educational background.

This mixed-methods study sought to identify pharmacotherapy preferences among 40 noninsulin-treated adults with type 2 diabetes receiving care at two U.S. health care systems. Participants ranked by relative importance various health outcomes and medication attributes and then contextualized their rankings. Most participants ranked blindness (63%), death (60%), heart attack (48%), and heart failure (48%) as the most important health outcomes and glucose-lowering efficacy (68%) as the most important medication attribute, followed by oral administration (45%) and lack of gastrointestinal side effects (38%).

This article reports on a study to assess the feasibility of research procedures and acceptability of QBSAFE, a set of conversation cards focused on quality of life, treatment burden, safety, and avoidance of future events in people with type 2 diabetes. The study enrolled 84 patients and 7 clinicians. Of the 58 patients who completed questionnaires, 64% agreed that the QBSAFE agenda-setting kit (ASK) helped them discuss their situation, 78% agreed that others could benefit from it, and 38% said they would use it again. Most clinicians felt confident responding to issues (in 89% of encounters) and said they would use the kit again (78%) and recommend it to colleagues (82%). The QBSAFE ASK can be feasibly implemented and holds promise in facilitating discussion and collaborative problem-solving.

Background The objective is to examine and synthesise the best available experimental evidence about the effect of ambulatory consultation duration on quality of healthcare. Methods We included experimental studies manipulating the length of outpatient clinical encounters between adult patients and clinicians (ie, therapists, pharmacists, nurses, physicians) to determine their effect on quality of care (ie, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness, safety, equity, patient-centredness and patient satisfaction). Information sources Using controlled vocabulary and keywords, without restriction by language or year of publication, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Systematic Reviews and Scopus from inception until 15 May 2023. Risk of bias Cochrane Risk of Bias instrument. Data synthesis Narrative synthesis. Results 11 publications of 10 studies explored the relationship between encounter duration and quality. Most took place in the UK’s general practice over two decades ago. Study findings based on very sparse and outdated evidence—which suggested that longer consultations improved indicators of patient-centred care, education about prevention and clinical referrals; and that consultation duration was inconsistently related to patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes—warrant low confidence due to limited protections against bias and indirect applicability to current practice. Conclusion Experimental evidence for a minimal or optimal duration of an outpatient consultation is sparse and outdated. To develop evidence-based policies and practices about encounter length, randomised trials of different consultation lengths—in person and virtually, and with electronic health records—are needed. Trial registration number OSF Registration DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/EUDK8.

AbstractBackground. The field of implementation research has recently seen considerable, and long overdue, interest in equity, with a strong emphasis on recognizing and responding to disparities in care. The COMPLETE (COMPLEx inTErventions and service innovation)framework is intended to support inclusive intervention and service design. The aim is the development of a patient-centered and justice-informed framework for the design of complex healthcare interventions and innovations in service design.Methods. We undertook three studies. (1) We operationalized constructs from sociological theories of inequality, implementation processes, social roles and expectations, to build a Matrix Model of mechanisms that drive the embedding of disparities in complex healthcare interventions and service innovations. (2) We developed patient-centered and justice-informed principles for design that form a Theory of Change that can be applied in intervention and service design. (3) We then linked the Matrix Model and the Theory of Change together with core elements of theories of prefigurative design and research justice, to build a Transformational Design Cycle for complex interventions and service innovations around a set of critical questions about the implications.Results. The COMPLETE framework focuses on the ways health inequalities and inequities are brought into being by systemic mechanisms within health services; are then propagated and normalized through implementation mechanisms; and are then realized and normalized in practice through institutionalized expectations of patients and caregivers. The framework provides tools to resist the naturalization of inequities and inequalities.Conclusion. We developed a framework for intervention and service design that consists of three components: a conceptual model of the translation of social determinants of health through organizational mechanisms that shape patient and caregivers’ lived experience of disparities in health and healthcare; a transformational theory of change; and a set of principles for design that seeks to place restitution for disparities at its center.

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.

Introduction: Shared decision-making (SDM) about anticoagulant treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is widely recommended but its effectiveness is unclear. We assessed the extent to which using an SDM tool promotes high-quality SDM. Hypothesis: SDM will improve communication quality, knowledge, and decisional conflict and will translate to improved medication adherence and outcomes. Methods: In this multicentre encounter-randomized trial, we included patients with nonvalvular AF considering starting/reviewing anticoagulation, and their clinicians. We compared usual care with or without ANTICOAGULATION CHOICE, an SDM conversation tool for use during the clinical encounter that presents individualized risk estimates and compares anticoagulation options across patient important issues. Results: We enrolled and video-recorded 922 patient-clinician encounters. So far, our data have shown that participants in both arms reported near-optimal communication quality, knowledge, and decisional conflict (JAMA IM-2020). Patients in intervention-arm estimated their stroke risks more accurately and were more involved in decision-making (JAMA IM-2020), clinicians were more satisfied (JAMA IM-2020), and cost conversation were more common (JAMA NO-2021). Use of the intervention had no effect on treatment decisions, encounter duration (JAMA IM-2020), treatment adherence, clinical outcomes (JAHA-epub) or patient-perceived sense of the care plan (PEC-epub). New analyses have shown that compared to eligible white participants, black participants more frequently did not enrol to the study. Enrolment of Black, indigenous, and people of colour benefited most form including and prioritizing practices most likely to care for them. We found no evidence of contamination (tool use, functional, or learned) between study arms. Conclusions: Use of an SDM tool improved some measures of SDM quality, without affecting treatment decisions and their sensibility, encounter duration, patient adherence, or clinical outcomes. Our results should calibrate expectations as to what could be accomplished by implementing SDM tools about anticoagulation in the care of patients with AF