The Feasibility and Usability of a Ranking Tool to Elicit Patient Preferences for the Treatment of Trigger Finger

Development of a Patient Decision Aid for Distal Radius Fractures in Patients aged ≥65 years

PURPOSE

The ideal management of distal radius fractures (DRFs) in patients aged 65 years and older is debated. Acknowledging the evidence that both nonsurgical and surgical treatment yield similar outcomes one year after injury, a patient decision aid (PDA) could facilitate patient engagement in treatment decision-making. The purpose of this study was to develop a PDA to guide patients in the treatment of DRFs in patients ≥65 years of age.

METHODS

The DRF PDA was developed using an established decision sciences framework. The PDA included an overview of DRFs, treatment options (casting vs surgery), risk/benefits, and a values clarification section. During the development phase, hand surgeons and patients reviewed the PDA; then, semistructured interviews were performed with participants to elicit feedback.

RESULTS

Eleven patients and 11 hand surgeons participated in the study. All patients found the PDA useful and almost all stated it would make the treatment decision easier. Most patients believed that there was enough information in the PDA, but one desired more information about surgical risks. Almost all surgeons stated the PDA would be easy for patients to use and understand, and approximately half believed that it would help patients make a more informed decision. Most surgeons expressed that the PDA would complement their usual approach to counseling patients, but some noted it would involve changes to their workflow. Most participants believed the information presented was unbiased, but one patient thought it was biased toward surgery, whereas a few surgeons believed that it was biased toward nonsurgical treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

All patients expressed that the PDA was informative, comprehensive, and easy to understand and would be helpful if they were deciding about DRF treatment. Surgeons believed that patients would find the PDA easy to use and understand, but some had concerns about incorporating it into their clinic workflow.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

A decision aid for the treatment of DRFs in patients aged ≥65 years can be used to engage patients in the shared decision-making process.

Do Patients Want to Be Involved in Their Carpal Tunnel Surgery Decisions? A Multicenter Study

PURPOSE

Carpal tunnel syndrome requires multiple decisions during its management, including regarding preoperative studies, surgical technique, and postoperative wound management. Whether patients have varying preferences for the degree to which they share in decisions during different phases of care has not been explored. The goal of our study was to evaluate the degree to which patients want to be involved along the care pathway in the management of carpal tunnel syndrome.

METHODS

We performed a prospective, multicenter study of patients undergoing carpal tunnel surgery at 5 academic medical centers. Patients received a 27-item questionnaire to rate their preferred level of involvement for decisions made during 3 phases of care for carpal tunnel surgery: preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative. Preferences for participation were quantified using the Control Preferences Scale. These questions were scored on a scale of 0 to 4, with patient-only decisions scoring 0, semiactive decisions scoring 1, equally collaborative decisions scoring 2, semipassive decisions scoring 3, and physician-only decisions scoring 4. Descriptive statistics were calculated.

RESULTS

Seventy-one patients completed the survey between November 2018 and April 2019. Overall, patients preferred semipassive decisions in all phases of care (median score, 3). Patients preferred equally collaborative decisions for preoperative decisions (median score, 2). Patients preferred a semipassive decision-making role for intraoperative and postoperative decisions (median score, 3), suggesting these did not need to be equally shared.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with carpal tunnel syndrome prefer varying degrees of involvement in the decision-making process of their care and prefer a semipassive role in intraoperative and postoperative decisions.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Strategies to engage patients to varying degrees for all decisions during the management of carpal tunnel syndrome, such as decision aids for preoperative surgical decisions and educational handouts for intraoperative decisions, may facilitate aligning decisions with patient preferences for shared decision-making.

Patient preference for trigger finger treatment

BACKGROUND

Trigger finger is a common disorder of the hand that can cause disabling symptoms. Treatment options range from conservative management with observation and splinting, to surgical release, but there is currently not a consensus on a treatment algorithm.

AIM

To determine patient preference for the treatment of trigger finger using an online survey.

METHODS

An online crowdsourcing platform, Amazon Mechanical Turk, was used to recruit participants for this study. Participants were led through a scenario in which they were diagnosed with trigger finger. They were then asked to rank their preference of treatment options from the following: Observation, splinting, corticosteroid injection, surgery. The results of the surveys were then analyzed using R software.

RESULTS

Of 323 participants completed the survey. 7 participants were excluded because they failed to correctly answer the attention question, leaving 316 participants whose results were included. As a first choice for treatment 117 (37%) of the included participants chose observation, 86 (27%) chose splinting, 61 (19%) chose corticosteroid injection, and 52 (16%) chose surgery. The mean rank for observation was 2.26, for splinting was 2.30, for corticosteroid injection was 2.53, and for surgery was 2.91. The ranking of each treatment option was statistically different (P value < 0.05) from the others except for observation and splinting.

CONCLUSION

The practice of shared decision making with patients is imperative to providing the best care possible. The results from this study, especially the preference for less invasive treatment, may help providers better frame discussion around treatment options of trigger fingers. This in turn, may increase patient satisfaction in the treatment of trigger finger.

A Simple Goal Elicitation Tool Improves Shared Decision Making in Outpatient Orthopedic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction. Shared decision making involves educating the patient, eliciting their goals, and collaborating on a decision for treatment. Goal elicitation is challenging for physicians as previous research has shown that patients do not bring up their goals on their own. Failure to properly elicit patient goals leads to increased patient misconceptions and decisional conflict. We performed a randomized controlled trial to test the efficacy of a simple goal elicitation tool in improving patient involvement in decision making. Methods. We conducted a randomized, single-blind study of new patients presenting to a single, outpatient surgical center. Prior to their consultation, the intervention group received a demographics questionnaire and a goal elicitation worksheet. The control group received a demographics questionnaire only. After the consultation, both groups were asked to complete the Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS) survey. We compared the mean PICS scores for the intervention and control groups using a nonparametric Mann-Whitney Wilcoxon test. Secondary analysis included a qualitative content analysis of the patient goals. Results. Our final cohort consisted of 96 patients (46 intervention, 50 control). Both groups were similar in terms of demographic composition. The intervention group had a significantly higher mean (SD) PICS score compared to the control group (9.04 [2.15] v. 7.54 [2.27], P < 0.01). Thirty-nine percent of patient goals were focused on receiving a diagnosis or treatment, while 21% of patients wanted to receive education regarding their illness or their treatment options. Discussion. A single-step goal elicitation tool was effective in improving patient-perceived involvement in their care. This tool can be efficiently implemented in both academic and nonacademic settings.