Improving prognosis communication for patients facing complex medical treatment: A user-centered design approach

Effective Communication of Personalized Risks and Patient Preferences During Surgical Informed Consent Using Data Visualization: Qualitative Semistructured Interview Study With Patients After Surgery

Background

There is no consensus on which risks to communicate to a prospective surgical patient during informed consent or how. Complicating the process, patient preferences may diverge from clinical assumptions and are often not considered for discussion. Such discrepancies can lead to confusion and resentment, raising the potential for legal action. To overcome these issues, we propose a visual consent tool that incorporates patient preferences and communicates personalized risks to patients using data visualization. We used this platform to identify key effective visual elements to communicate personalized surgical risks.

Objective

Our main focus is to understand how to best communicate personalized risks using data visualization. To contextualize patient responses to the main question, we examine how patients perceive risks before surgery (research question 1), how suitably the visual consent tool is able to present personalized surgical risks (research question 2), how well our visualizations convey those personalized surgical risks (research question 3), and how the visual consent tool could improve the informed consent process and how it can be used (research question 4).

Methods

We designed a visual consent tool to meet the objectives of our study. To calculate and list personalized surgical risks, we used the American College of Surgeons risk calculator. We created multiple visualization mock-ups using visual elements previously determined to be well-received for risk communication. Semistructured interviews were conducted with patients after surgery, and each of the mock-ups was presented and evaluated independently and in the context of our visual consent tool design. The interviews were transcribed, and thematic analysis was performed to identify major themes. We also applied a quantitative approach to the analysis to assess the prevalence of different perceptions of the visualizations presented in our tool.

Results

In total, 20 patients were interviewed, with a median age of 59 (range 29-87) years. Thematic analysis revealed factors that influenced the perception of risk (the surgical procedure, the cognitive capacity of the patient, and the timing of consent; research question 1); factors that influenced the perceived value of risk visualizations (preference for rare event communication, preference for risk visualization, and usefulness of comparison with the average; research question 3); and perceived usefulness and use cases of the visual consent tool (research questions 2 and 4). Most importantly, we found that patients preferred the visual consent tool to current text-based documents and had no unified preferences for risk visualization. Furthermore, our findings suggest that patient concerns were not often represented in existing risk calculators.

Conclusions

We identified key elements that influence effective visual risk communication in the perioperative setting and pointed out the limitations of the existing calculators in addressing patient concerns. Patient preference is highly variable and should influence choices regarding risk presentation and visualization.

Human Factors and Organizational Issues in Health Informatics: Innovations and Opportunities

OBJECTIVE

Human factors and ergonomics (HF/E) frameworks and methods are becoming embedded in the health informatics community. There is now broad recognition that health informatics tools must account for the diverse needs, characteristics, and abilities of end users, as well as their context of use. The objective of this review is to synthesize the current nature and scope of HF/E integration into the health informatics community.

METHODS

Because the focus of this synthesis is on understanding the current integration of the HF/E and health informatics research communities, we manually reviewed all manuscripts published in primary HF/E and health informatics journals during 2020.

RESULTS

HF/E-focused health informatics studies included in this synthesis focused heavily on EHR customizations, specifically clinical decision support customizations and customized data displays, and on mobile health innovations. While HF/E methods aimed to jointly improve end user safety, performance, and satisfaction, most HF/E-focused health informatics studies measured only end user satisfaction.

CONCLUSION

HF/E-focused health informatics researchers need to identify and communicate methodological standards specific to health informatics, to better synthesize findings across resource intensive HF/E-focused health informatics studies. Important gaps in the HF/E design and evaluation process should be addressed in future work, including support for technology development platforms and training programs so that health informatics designers are as diverse as end users.

Redevelopment of the Predict: Breast Cancer website and recommendations for developing interfaces to support decision-making

Objectives

To develop a new interface for the widely used prognostic breast cancer tool: Predict: Breast Cancer. To facilitate decision‐making around post‐surgery breast cancer treatments. To derive recommendations for communicating the outputs of prognostic models to patients and their clinicians.

Method

We employed a user‐centred design process comprised of background research and iterative testing of prototypes with clinicians and patients. Methods included surveys, focus groups and usability testing.

Results

The updated interface now caters to the needs of a wider audience through the addition of new visualisations, instantaneous updating of results, enhanced explanatory information and the addition of new predictors and outputs. A programme of future research was identified and is now underway, including the provision of quantitative data on the adverse effects of adjuvant breast cancer treatments.

Based on our user‐centred design process, we identify six recommendations for communicating the outputs of prognostic models including the need to contextualise statistics, identify and address gaps in knowledge, and the critical importance of engaging with prospective users when designing communications.

Conclusions

For prognostic algorithms to fulfil their potential to assist with decision‐making they need carefully designed interfaces. User‐centred design puts patients and clinicians needs at the forefront, allowing them to derive the maximum benefit from prognostic models.

Rationale and design of the Novel Uses of adaptive Designs to Guide provider Engagement in Electronic Health Records (NUDGE-EHR) pragmatic adaptive randomized trial: a trial protocol

BACKGROUND

The prescribing of high-risk medications to older adults remains extremely common and results in potentially avoidable health consequences. Efforts to reduce prescribing have had limited success, in part because they have been sub-optimally timed, poorly designed, or not provided actionable information. Electronic health record (EHR)-based tools are commonly used but have had limited application in facilitating deprescribing in older adults. The objective is to determine whether designing EHR tools using behavioral science principles reduces inappropriate prescribing and clinical outcomes in older adults.

METHODS

The Novel Uses of Designs to Guide provider Engagement in Electronic Health Records (NUDGE-EHR) project uses a two-stage, 16-arm adaptive randomized pragmatic trial with a "pick-the-winner" design to identify the most effective of many potential EHR tools among primary care providers and their patients ≥ 65 years chronically using benzodiazepines, sedative hypnotic ("Z-drugs"), or anticholinergics in a large integrated delivery system. In stage 1, we randomized providers and their patients to usual care (n = 81 providers) or one of 15 EHR tools (n = 8 providers per arm) designed using behavioral principles including salience, choice architecture, or defaulting. After 6 months of follow-up, we will rank order the arms based upon their impact on the trial's primary outcome (for both stages): reduction in inappropriate prescribing (via discontinuation or tapering). In stage 2, we will randomize (a) stage 1 usual care providers in a 1:1 ratio to one of the up to 5 most promising stage 1 interventions or continue usual care and (b) stage 1 providers in the unselected arms in a 1:1 ratio to one of the 5 most promising interventions or usual care. Secondary and tertiary outcomes include quantities of medication prescribed and utilized and clinically significant adverse outcomes.

DISCUSSION

Stage 1 launched in October 2020. We plan to complete stage 2 follow-up in December 2021. These results will advance understanding about how behavioral science can optimize EHR decision support to improve prescribing and health outcomes. Adaptive trials have rarely been used in implementation science, so these findings also provide insight into how trials in this field could be more efficiently conducted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov ( NCT04284553 , registered: February 26, 2020).