Developing a Conversation Aid to Support Shared Decision Making: Reflections on Designing Anticoagulation Choice

Characterizing atrial fibrillation symptom improvement following de novo catheter ablation

AIMS

Atrial fibrillation (AF) symptom relief is a primary indication for catheter ablation, but AF symptom resolution is not well characterized. The study objective was to describe AF symptom documentation in electronic health records (EHRs) pre- and post-ablation and identify correlates of post-ablation symptoms.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study using EHRs of patients with AF (n = 1293), undergoing ablation in a large, urban health system from 2010 to 2020. We extracted symptom data from clinical notes using a natural language processing algorithm (F score: 0.81). We used Cochran's Q tests with post-hoc McNemar's tests to determine differences in symptom prevalence pre- and post-ablation. We used logistic regression models to estimate the adjusted odds of symptom resolution by personal or clinical characteristics at 6 and 12 months post-ablation. In fully adjusted models, at 12 months post-ablation patients, patients with heart failure had significantly lower odds of dyspnoea resolution [odds ratio (OR) 0.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25-0.57], oedema resolution (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.25-0.56), and fatigue resolution (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.34-0.85), but higher odds of palpitations resolution (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.25-2.89) compared with those without heart failure. Age 65 and older, female sex, Black or African American race, smoking history, and antiarrhythmic use were also associated with lower odds of resolution of specific symptoms at 6 and 12 months.

CONCLUSION

The post-ablation symptom patterns are heterogeneous. Findings warrant confirmation with larger, more representative data sets, which may be informative for patients whose primary goal for undergoing an ablation is symptom relief.

Estimating Vitamin K Antagonist Anticoagulation Benefit in People With Atrial Fibrillation Accounting for Competing Risks: Evidence From 12 Randomized Trials

BACKGROUND

Patients with atrial fibrillation have a high mortality rate that is only partially attributable to vascular outcomes. The competing risk of death may affect the expected anticoagulant benefit. We determined if competing risks materially affect the guideline-endorsed estimate of anticoagulant benefit.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials that randomized patients with atrial fibrillation to vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) or either placebo or antiplatelets. For each participant, we estimated the absolute risk reduction (ARR) of VKAs to prevent stroke or systemic embolism using 2 methods-first using a guideline-endorsed model (CHA2DS2-VASc) and then again using a competing risk model that uses the same inputs as CHA2DS2-VASc but accounts for the competing risk of death and allows for nonlinear growth in benefit. We compared the absolute and relative differences in estimated benefit and whether the differences varied by life expectancy.

RESULTS

A total of 7933 participants (median age, 73 years, 36% women) had a median life expectancy of 8 years (interquartile range, 6-12), determined by comorbidity-adjusted life tables and 43% were randomized to VKAs. The CHA2DS2-VASc model estimated a larger ARR than the competing risk model (median ARR at 3 years, 6.9% [interquartile range, 4.7%-10.0%] versus 5.2% [interquartile range, 3.5%-7.4%]; P<0.001). ARR differences varied by life expectancies: for those with life expectancies in the highest decile, 3-year ARR difference (CHA2DS2-VASc model - competing risk model 3-year risk) was -1.3% (95% CI, -1.3% to -1.2%); for those with life expectancies in the lowest decile, 3-year ARR difference was 4.7% (95% CI, 4.5%-5.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

VKA anticoagulants were exceptionally effective at reducing stroke risk. However, VKA benefits were misestimated with CHA2DS2-VASc, which does not account for the competing risk of death nor decelerating treatment benefit over time. Overestimation was most pronounced when life expectancy was low and when the benefit was estimated over a multiyear horizon.

Ultrasound (US)-guided percutaneous thrombin injection for stoma-site bleeding after PEG tube insertion: a case series and review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Post-gastrostomy bleeding sequelae are acknowledged, with reported approaches focusing on conservative measures or surgical repair. Nonetheless, Percutaneous Thrombin Injections (PTI) role in PEG-site-related bleeding remains underexplored. PTI under ultrasound guidance is an advocated management strategy for stoma-site bleeding following gastrostomy in high-risk patients, particularly those on direct oral anticoagulants.

CASE PRESENTATION

This study presents three cases with multiple comorbidities who underwent PTI. Resulting in immediate resolution of bleeding, no systemic\local effect, and no reported complications or rebleeding after a 3-6-month follow-up.

CONCLUSION

The findings highlight the safety, direct complete resolution, and absence of sequelae associated with PTI, suggesting its potential as a promising technique in managing PEG stoma-related bleeding.

The impact of adding cost information to a conversation aid to support shared decision making about low-risk prostate cancer treatment: Results of a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Decision aids help patients consider the benefits and drawbacks of care options but rarely include cost information. We assessed the impact of a conversation-based decision aid containing information about low-risk prostate cancer management options and their relative costs.

METHODS

We conducted a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial in outpatient urology practices within a US-based academic medical center. We randomised five clinicians to four intervention sequences and enroled patients newly diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. Primary patient-reported outcomes collected postvisit included the frequency of cost conversations and referrals to address costs. Other patient-reported outcomes included: decisional conflict postvisit and at 3 months, decision regret at 3 months, shared decision-making postvisit, financial toxicity postvisit and at 3 months. Clinicians reported their attitudes about shared decision-making pre- and poststudy, and the intervention's feasibility and acceptability. We used hierarchical regression analysis to assess patient outcomes. The clinician was included as a random effect; fixed effects included education, employment, telehealth versus in-person visit, visit date, and enrolment period.

RESULTS

Between April 2020 and March 2022, we screened 513 patients, contacted 217 eligible patients, and enroled 117/217 (54%) (51 in usual care, 66 in the intervention group). In adjusted analyses, the intervention was not associated with cost conversations (β = .82, p = .27), referrals to cost-related resources (β = -0.36, p = .81), shared decision-making (β = -0.79, p = .32), decisional conflict postvisit (β = -0.34, p= .70), or at follow-up (β = -2.19, p = .16), decision regret at follow-up (β = -9.76, p = .11), or financial toxicity postvisit (β = -1.32, p = .63) or at follow-up (β = -2.41, p = .23). Most clinicians and patients had positive attitudes about the intervention and shared decision-making. In exploratory unadjusted analyses, patients in the intervention group experienced more transient indecision (p < .02) suggesting increased deliberation between visit and follow-up.

DISCUSSION

Despite enthusiasm from clinicians, the intervention was not significantly associated with hypothesised outcomes, though we were unable to robustly test outcomes due to recruitment challenges. Recruitment at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic impacted eligibility, sample size/power, study procedures, and increased telehealth visits and financial worry, independent of the intervention. Future work should explore ways to support shared decision-making, cost conversations, and choice deliberation with a larger sample. Such work could involve additional members of the care team, and consider the detail, quality, and timing of addressing these issues.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients and clinicians were engaged as stakeholder advisors meeting monthly throughout the duration of the project to advise on the study design, measures selected, data interpretation, and dissemination of study findings.

Overestimation of anticoagulant benefit in patients with atrial fibrillation and low life expectancy: evidence from 12 randomized trials

Background

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) have a high rate of all-cause mortality that is only partially attributable to vascular outcomes. While the competing risk of death may affect expected anticoagulant benefit, guidelines do not account for it. We sought to determine if using a competing risks framework materially affects the guideline-endorsed estimate of absolute risk reduction attributable to anticoagulants.

Methods

We conducted a secondary analysis of 12 RCTs that randomized patients with AF to oral anticoagulants or either placebo or antiplatelets. For each participant, we estimated the absolute risk reduction (ARR) of anticoagulants to prevent stroke or systemic embolism using two methods. First, we estimated the ARR using a guideline-endorsed model (CHA ₂ DS ₂ -VASc) and then again using a Competing Risk Model that uses the same inputs as CHA ₂ DS ₂ -VASc but accounts for the competing risk of death and allows for non-linear growth in benefit over time. We compared the absolute and relative differences in estimated benefit and whether the differences in estimated benefit varied by life expectancy.

Results

7933 participants had a median life expectancy of 8 years (IQR 6, 12), determined by comorbidity-adjusted life tables. 43% were randomized to oral anticoagulation (median age 73 years, 36% women). The guideline-endorsed CHA ₂ DS ₂ -VASc model estimated a larger ARR than the Competing Risk Model (median ARR at 3 years, 6.9% vs. 5.2%). ARR differences varied by life expectancies: for those with life expectancies in the highest decile, 3-year ARR difference (CHA ₂ DS ₂ -VASc model - Competing Risk Model 3-year risk) was -1.2% (42% relative underestimation); for those with life expectancies in the lowest decile, 3-year ARR difference was 5.9% (91% relative overestimation).

Conclusion

Anticoagulants were exceptionally effective at reduced stroke risk. However, anticoagulant benefits were misestimated with CHA ₂ DS ₂ -VASc, which does not account for the competing risk of death nor decelerating treatment benefit over time. Overestimation was most pronounced in patients with the lowest life expectancy and when benefit was estimated over a multi-year horizon.

Patient feedback receiving care using a shared decision making tool for thyroid nodule evaluation-an observational study

PURPOSE

To characterize the feedback of patients with thyroid nodules receiving care using a shared decision making (SDM) tool designed to improve conversations with their clinicians related to diagnostic options (e.g. thyroid biopsy, ultrasound surveillance).

METHODS

Investigators qualitatively analyzed post-encounter interviews with patients to characterize their feedback of a SDM tool used during their clinical visits. Additionally, investigators counted instances of diagnostic choice awareness and of patients' expression of a diagnostic management preference in recordings of clinical encounters of adult patients presenting for evaluation of thyroid nodules in which the SDM tool was used.

RESULTS

In total, 53 patients (42 (79%) women); median age 62 years were enrolled and had consultations supported by the SDM tool. Patients were favorable about the design of the SDM tool and its ability to convey information about options and support patient-clinician interactions. Patients identified opportunities to improve the tool through adding more content and improve its use in practice through training of clinicians in its use. There was evidence of diagnostic choice awareness in 52 (98%) of these visits and patients expressed a diagnostic management preference in 40 (76%).

CONCLUSION

User centered design including feedback from patients and real life observation supports the use of the SDM tool to facilitate collaboration between patients and clinicians.

Designing for patient decision-making: Design challenges generated by patients with atrial fibrillation during evaluation of a decision aid prototype

Shared decision-making (SDM) empowers patients and care teams to determine the best treatment plan in alignment with the patient's preferences and goals. Decision aids are proven tools to support high quality SDM. Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common cardiac arrhythmia, struggle to identify optimal rhythm and symptom management strategies and could benefit from a decision aid. In this Brief Research Report, we describe the development and preliminary evaluation of an interactive decision-making aid for patients with AF. We employed an iterative, user-centered design method to develop prototypes of the decision aid. Here, we describe multiple iterations of the decision aid, informed by the literature, expert feedback, and mixed-methods design sessions with AF patients. Results highlight unique design requirements for this population, but overall indicate that an interactive decision aid with visualizations has the potential to assist patients in making AF treatment decisions. Future work can build upon these design requirements to create and evaluate a decision aid for AF rhythm and symptom management.

Development of Complementary Encounter and Patient Decision Aids for Shared Decision Making about Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation

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 for Drug-Drug Interactions: Formative Evaluation of an Anticoagulant Drug Interaction

Background

Warnings about drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between warfarin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) within electronic health records indicate potential harm but fail to account for contextual factors and preferences. We developed a tool called DDInteract to enhance and support shared decision-making (SDM) between patients and physicians when both warfarin and NSAIDs are used concurrently. DDInteract was designed to be integrated into electronic health records using interoperability standards.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to conduct a formative evaluation of a DDInteract that incorporates patient and product contextual factors to estimate the risk of bleeding.

Methods

A randomized formative evaluation was conducted to compare DDInteract to usual care (UC) using physician-patient dyads. Using case vignettes, physicians and patients on warfarin participated in simulated virtual clinical encounters where they discussed the use of taking ibuprofen and warfarin concurrently and determined an appropriate therapeutic plan based on the patient’s individualized risk. Dyads were randomized to either DDInteract or UC. Participants completed a postsession interview and survey of the SDM process. This included the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9), tool usability and workload National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Task Load Index, Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) scale, System Usability Scale (SUS), and Decision Conflict Scale (DCS). They also were interviewed after the session to obtain perceptions on DDInteract and UC resources for DDIs.

Results

Twelve dyad encounters were performed using virtual software. Most (n=11, 91.7%) patients were over 50 years of age, and 9 (75%) had been taking warfarin for more than 2 years (75%). Regarding scores on the SDM-Q-9, participants rated DDInteract higher than UC for questions pertaining to helping patients clarify the decision (P=.03), involving patients in the decision (P=.01), displaying treatment options (P<.001), identifying advantages and disadvantages (P=.01), and facilitating patient understanding (P=.01) and discussion of preferences (P=.01). Five of the 8 UTAUT constructs showed differences between the 2 groups, favoring DDInteract (P<.05). Usability ratings from the SUS were significantly higher (P<.05) for physicians using DDInteract compared to those in the UC group but showed no differences from the patient’s perspective. No differences in patient responses were observed between groups using the DCS. During the session debrief, physicians indicated little concern for the additional time or workload entailed by DDInteract use. Both clinicians and patients indicated that the tool was beneficial in simulated encounters to understand and mitigate the risk of harm from this DDI.

Conclusions

Overall, DDInteract may improve encounters where there is a risk of bleeding due to a potential drug-drug interaction involving anticoagulants. Participants rated DDInteract as logical and useful for enhancing SDM. They reported that they would be willing to use the tool for an interaction involving warfarin and NSAIDs.

The design and development of an encounter tool to support shared decision making about preventing cardiovascular events

Patients at high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) tend to receive less intensive preventive care. Clinical practice guidelines recommend shared decision making (SDM) to improve the quality of primary CVD prevention. There are tools for use during the clinical encounter that promote SDM, but, to our knowledge, there are no SDM encounter tools that support conversations about available lifestyle and pharmacological options that can lead to preventive care that is congruent with patient goals and CVD risk. Using the best available evidence and human-centered design (iterative design in the context of ultimate use with users), our team developed a SDM encounter tool, CV Prevention Choice. Each subsequent version during the iterative development process was evaluated in terms of content, usefulness, and usability by testing it in real preventive encounters. The final version of the tool includes a calculator that estimates the patient's risk of a major atherosclerotic CVD event in the next 10 years. Lifestyle and medication options are presented, alongside their pros, cons, costs, and other burdens. The risk reduction achieved by the selected prevention program is then displayed to support collaborative deliberation and decision making. A U.S. multicenter trial is estimating the effectiveness of CV Prevention Choice in achieving risk-concordant CV prevention while identifying the best strategies for increasing the adoption of the SDM encounter tool and its routine use in practice.

"Replace uncertainty with information": Shared decision-making and decision quality surrounding catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation

AIMS

As a first step in developing a decision aid to support shared decision-making (SDM) for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) to evaluate treatment options for rhythm and symptom control, we aimed to measure decision quality and describe decision-making processes among patients and clinicians involved in decision-making around catheter ablation for AF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We conducted a cross-sectional, mixed-methods study guided by a SDM model outlining decision antecedents, processes, and outcomes. Patients and clinicians completed semi-structured interviews about decision-making around ablation, feelings of decision conflict and regret, and preferences for the content, delivery, and format of a hypothetical decision aid for ablation. Patients also completed surveys about AF symptoms and aspects of decision quality. Fifteen patients (mean age 71.1 ± 8.6 years; 27% female) and five clinicians were recruited. For most patients, decisional conflict and regret were low, but they also reported low levels of information and agency in the decision-making process. Most clinicians report routinely providing patients with information and encouraging engagement during consultations. Patients reported preferences for an interactive, web-based decision aid that clearly presents evidence regarding outcomes using data, visualizations, videos, and personalized risk assessments, and is available in multiple languages.

CONCLUSION

Disconnects between clinician efforts to provide information and bolster agency and patient experiences of decision-making suggest decision aids may be needed to improve decision quality in practice. Reported experiences with current decision-making practices and preferences for decision aid content, format, and delivery can support the user-centered design and development of a decision aid.

Co-creating sensible care plans using shared decision making: Patients' reflections and observations of encounters

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate how the use of a within-encounter SDM tool (compared to usual care in a randomized trial) contributes to care plans that make sense to patients with atrial fibrillation considering anticoagulation.

METHODS

In a planned subgroup of the trial, 123 patients rated post-encounter how much sense their decided-upon care plan made to them and explained why. We explored how sense ratings related to observed patient involvement (OPTION12), patient's decisional conflict, and adherence to their plan based on pharmacy records. We analyzed patient motives using Burke's pentad.

RESULTS

Plan sensibility was similarly high in both arms (Usual care n = 62: mean 9.4/10 (SD 1.0) vs SDM tool n = 61: 9.2/10 (SD 1.5); p = .8), significantly and weakly correlated to decisional conflict (rho=-0.28, p = .002), but not to OPTION12 or adherence. Plans made sense to most patients given their known efficacy, safety and what is involved in implementing them.

CONCLUSION

Adding an effective intervention to promote SDM did not affect how much, or why, care plans made sense to patients receiving usual care, nor patient adherence to them.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Evaluating the extent to which care plans make sense can improve SDM assessments, particularly when SDM extends beyond selecting from a menu of options.

Reimagining care for young adults living with type 1 diabetes

Young adults living with type 1 diabetes often struggle to achieve what clinicians consider to be optimal levels of metabolic control. Despite the impact that this can have on a young person's future risk of complications, there are relatively few studies reporting new ways of organizing or delivering care to this cohort. In this article, we explore some of the reasons why young adult diabetes care is challenging, and describe approaches to “re‐imagining” how care might be improved. The work is informed by the ‘Making Care Fit’ collaborative and by a program of research, entitled D1 Now, involving co‐design of a complex person‐centered intervention with young adults.

Development and pilot testing of a conversation aid to support the evaluation of patients with thyroid nodules

OBJECTIVE

To support patient-centred care and the collaboration of patients and clinicians, we developed and pilot tested a conversation aid for patients with thyroid nodules.

DESIGN, PATIENT AND MEASUREMENTS

We developed a web-based Thyroid NOdule Conversation aid (TNOC) following a human-centred design. A proof of concept observational pre-post study was conducted (TNOC vs. usual care [UC]) to assess the impact of TNOC on the quality of conversations. Data sources included recordings of clinical visits, post-encounter surveys and review of electronic health records. Summary statistics and group comparisons are reported.

RESULTS

Sixty-five patients were analysed (32 in the UC and 33 in the TNOC cohort). Most patients were women (89%) with a median age of 57 years and were incidentally found to have a thyroid nodule (62%). Most thyroid nodules were at low risk for thyroid cancer (71%) and the median size was 1.4 cm. At baseline, the groups were similar except for higher numeracy in the TNOC cohort. The use of TNOC was associated with increased involvement of patients in the decision-making process, clinician satisfaction and discussion of relevant topics for decision making. In addition, decreased decisional conflict and fewer thyroid biopsies as the next management step were noted in the TNOC cohort. No differences in terms of knowledge transfer, length of consultation, thyroid cancer risk perception or concern for thyroid cancer diagnosis were found.

CONCLUSION

In this pilot observational study, using TNOC in clinical practice was feasible and seemed to help the collaboration of patients and clinicians.

Trust in Physicians, Anxiety and Depression, and Decision-Making Preferences among Parents of Children with Serious Illness

Objective: To assess parental decision-making preferences when caring for a child with serious illness and to evaluate for an association between preferences and parental trust in physicians, and potential modification of this association by parental anxiety or depression. Methods: We analyzed cross-sectional data from 200 parents of 158 children in the United States who had life-threatening illnesses and whose attending physicians thought that the parents would have to make major medical decision in the next 12 to 24 months. Parents completed measures of decision-making preferences, trust in physicians, anxiety, and depression. Results: Higher reported levels of trust were associated with lower preferences for autonomous decision making (Spearman correlation = -0.24; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.36 to -0.01; p < 0.008). Among parents with higher levels of trust, increasing anxiety scores were associated with decreasing preference for autonomy, whereas among parents with lower levels of trust, increasing anxiety scores showed an increasing preference for autonomy (regression coefficient = -0.01; 95% CI = -0.02 to -0.001; p ≤ 0.03). Conclusions: Decreasing trust in physicians is associated with a higher preference for autonomous decision making. Parents who have higher levels of anxiety exhibit this association more strongly. Decision support for parents of children with serious illness should use strategies to respect parental decision-making preferences, address potential distrust, and provide mental health support to parents who are anxious or depressed.

Making sense of diabetes medication decisions: a mixed methods cluster randomized trial using a conversation aid intervention

PURPOSE

To determine the effectiveness of a shared decision-making (SDM) tool versus guideline-informed usual care in translating evidence into primary care, and to explore how use of the tool changed patient perspectives about diabetes medication decision making.

METHODS

In this mixed methods multicenter cluster randomized trial, we included patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and their primary care clinicians. We compared usual care with or without a within-encounter SDM conversation aid. We assessed participant-reported decisions made and quality of SDM (knowledge, satisfaction, and decisional conflict), clinical outcomes, adherence, and observer-based patient involvement in decision-making (OPTION12-scale). We used semi-structured interviews with patients to understand their perspectives.

RESULTS

We enrolled 350 patients and 99 clinicians from 20 practices and interviewed 26 patients. Use of the conversation aid increased post-encounter patient knowledge (correct answers, 52% vs. 45%, p = 0.02) and clinician involvement of patients (Mean between-arm difference in OPTION12, 7.3 (95% CI 3, 12); p = 0.003). There were no between-arm differences in treatment choice, patient or clinician satisfaction, encounter length, medication adherence, or glycemic control. Qualitative analyses highlighted differences in how clinicians involved patients in decision making, with intervention patients noting how clinicians guided them through conversations using factors important to them.

CONCLUSIONS

Using an SDM conversation aid improved patient knowledge and involvement in SDM without impacting treatment choice, encounter length, medication adherence or improved diabetes control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Future interventions may need to focus specifically on patients with signs of poor treatment fit.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01502891.

Effect of Shared Decision-Making for Stroke Prevention on Treatment Adherence and Safety Outcomes in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

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 in Cardiac Electrophysiology Procedures and Arrhythmia Management

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.

Paths of Emergency Department Care: Development of a Decision Aid to Facilitate Shared Decision Making in Goals of Care Discussions in the Acute Setting

Background

Goals of care (GOC) conversations in the emergency department (ED) are often a brief discussion of code status rather than a patient-oriented dialogue. We aimed to develop a guide to facilitate conversations between ED clinicians and patients to elicit patient values and establish goals for end-of-life care, while maintaining ED efficiency. Paths of ED Care, a conversation guide, is the product of this work.

Design

A multidisciplinary/multispecialty group used recommended practices to adapt a GOC conversation guide for ED patients. ED clinicians used the guide and provided feedback on content, design, and usability. Patient-clinician interactions were recorded for discussion analysis, and both were surveyed to inform iterative refinement. A series of discussions with patient representatives, multidisciplinary clinicians, bioethicists, and health care designers yielded feedback. We used a process similar to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards and provide comparison to these.

Results

A conversation guide, eight pages with each page 6 by 6 inches in dimension, uses patient-oriented prompts and includes seven sections: 1) evaluation of patient/family understanding of disease, 2) explanation of possible trajectories, 3) introduction to different pathways of care, 4) explanation of pathways, 5) assessment of understanding and concerns, 6) code status, and 7) personalized summary.

Limitations

Recruitment of sufficient number of patients/providers to the project was the primary limitation. Methods are limited to qualitative analysis of guide creation and feasibility without quantitative analysis.

Conclusions

Paths of ED Care is a guide to facilitate patient-centered shared decision making for ED patients, families, and clinicians regarding GOC. This may ensure care concordant with patients’ values and preferences. Use of the guide was well-received and facilitated meaningful conversations between patients and providers.

Feasibility and usability of a mobile health tool on anticoagulation management for patients with atrial fibrillation: a pilot study

PURPOSE

Appropriate prescription of oral anticoagulants (OACs) and good patient adherence are essential to ensure optimal anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of this study is to develop a mobile health tool to aid both clinicians and patients with AF in anticoagulation therapy.

METHODS

In this study, a novel anticoagulation management model integrating decision support and patient follow-up, the I-Anticoagulation, was developed based on a WeChat Mini Program. With this tool, the risks of stroke and bleeding in AF patients can automatically be calculated according to their characteristics. Anticoagulation regimens were recommended based on a trade-off analysis that balances stroke and bleeding risks according to recent clinical guidelines. A shared decision can be made with full communication between medical professionals and patients. Moreover, follow-up was also conducted using I-Anticoagulation.

RESULTS

A total of 120 AF patients receiving anticoagulants (40 received warfarin and 80 received non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants [NOACs]) were included in the pilot study. The incidence of thromboembolic events was 2.5% and 1.3%, and the rates of bleeding events were 22.5% and 13.8% in the warfarin and NOAC groups, respectively. Generally, self-reported adherence was high, and the satisfaction with anticoagulation was good in all patients with AF.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the anticoagulation management model developed in this study could be involved in the full process of anticoagulation therapy in AF patients to improve rationality, adherence, and satisfaction in both medical professionals and patients. However, the usability, feasibility, and acceptability of the I-Anticoagulant-based anticoagulation management model need to be further assessed through well-designed random clinical trials.

Returning Cardiac Rhythm Data to Patients: Opportunities and Challenges

Spurred by federal legislation, professional organizations, and patients themselves, patient access to data from electronic cardiac devices is increasingly transparent. Patients can collect data through consumer devices and access data traditionally shared only with health care providers. These data may improve screening, self-management, and shared decision-making for cardiac arrhythmias, but challenges remain, including patient comprehension, communication with providers, and sustained engagement. Ways to address these challenges include leveraging visualizations that support comprehension, involving patients in designing and developing patient-facing digital tools, and establishing clear practices and goals for data exchange with health care providers.

Cost Conversations About Anticoagulation Between Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Their Clinicians: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

How patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and their clinicians consider cost in forming care plans remains unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To identify factors that inform conversations regarding costs of anticoagulants for treatment of AF between patients and clinicians and outcomes associated with these conversations.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study of recorded encounters and participant surveys at 5 US medical centers (including academic, community, and safety-net centers) from the SDM4AFib randomized trial compared standard AF care with and without use of a shared decision-making (SDM) tool. Included patients were considering anticoagulation treatment and were recruited by their clinicians between January 30, 2017, and June 27, 2019. Data were analyzed between August and November 2019.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The incidence of and factors associated with cost conversations, and the association of cost conversations with patients' consideration of treatment cost burden and their choice of anticoagulation.

RESULTS

A total of 830 encounters (out of 922 enrolled participants) were recorded. Patients' mean (SD) age was 71.0 (10.4) years; 511 patients (61.6%) were men, 704 (86.0%) were White, 303 (40.9%) earned between $40 000 and $99 999 in annual income, and 657 (79.2%) were receiving anticoagulants. Clinicians' mean (SD) age was 44.8 (13.2) years; 75 clinicians (53.2%) were men, and 111 (76%) practiced as physicians, with approximately half (69 [48.9%]) specializing in either internal medicine or cardiology. Cost conversations occurred in 639 encounters (77.0%) and were more likely in the SDM arm (378 [90%] vs 261 [64%]; OR, 9.69; 95% CI, 5.77-16.29). In multivariable analysis, cost conversations were more likely to occur with female clinicians (66 [47%]; OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.21-6.71); consultants vs in-training clinicians (113 [75%]; OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.4-11.1); clinicians practicing family medicine (24 [16%]; OR, 12.12; 95% CI, 2.75-53.38]), internal medicine (35 [23%]; OR, 3.82; 95% CI, 1.25-11.70), or other clinicians (21 [14%]; OR, 4.90; 95% CI, 1.32-18.16) when compared with cardiologists; and for patients with an annual household income between $40 000 and $99 999 (249 [82.2%]; OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.05-3.29) compared with income below $40 000 or above $99 999. More patients who had cost conversations reported cost as a factor in their decision (244 [89.1%] vs 327 [69.0%]; OR 3.66; 95% CI, 2.43-5.50), but cost conversations were not associated with the choice of anticoagulation agent.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Cost conversations were common, particularly for middle-income patients and with female and consultant-level primary care clinicians, as well as in encounters using an SDM tool; they were associated with patients' consideration of treatment cost burden but not final treatment choice. With increasing costs of care passed on to patients, these findings can inform efforts to promote cost conversations in practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02905032.

Shared Decision Making Tools for People Facing Stroke Prevention Strategies in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Environmental Scan

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.

Increasing risk-concordant cardiovascular care in diverse health systems: a mixed methods pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomized implementation trial of shared decision making (SDM4IP)

BACKGROUND

The primary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) events is often less intense in persons at higher CV risk and vice versa. Clinical practice guidelines recommend that clinicians and patients use shared decision making (SDM) to arrive at an effective and feasible prevention plan that is congruent with each person's CV risk and informed preferences. However, SDM does not routinely happen in practice. This study aims to integrate into routine care an SDM decision tool (CV PREVENTION CHOICE) at three diverse healthcare systems in the USA and study strategies that foster its adoption and routine use.

METHODS

This is a mixed method, hybrid type III stepped wedge cluster randomized study to estimate (a) the effectiveness of implementation strategies on SDM uptake and utilization and (b) the extent to which SDM results in prevention plans that are risk-congruent. Formative evaluation methods, including clinician and stakeholder interviews and surveys, will identify factors likely to impact feasibility, acceptability, and adoption of CV PREVENTION CHOICE as well as normalization of CV PREVENTION CHOICE in routine care. Implementation facilitation will be used to tailor implementation strategies to local needs, and implementation strategies will be systematically adjusted and tracked for assessment and refinement. Electronic health record data will be used to assess implementation and effectiveness outcomes, including CV PREVENTION CHOICE reach, adoption, implementation, maintenance, and effectiveness (measured as risk-concordant care plans). A sample of video-recorded clinical encounters and patient surveys will be used to assess fidelity. The study employs three theoretical approaches: a determinant framework that calls attention to categories of factors that may foster or inhibit implementation outcomes (the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research), an implementation theory that guides explanation or understanding of causal influences on implementation outcomes (Normalization Process Theory), and an evaluation framework (RE-AIM).

DISCUSSION

By the project's end, we expect to have (a) identified the most effective implementation strategies to embed SDM in routine practice and (b) estimated the effectiveness of SDM to achieve feasible and risk-concordant CV prevention in primary care.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04450914 . Posted June 30, 2020 TRIAL STATUS: This study received ethics approval on April 17, 2020. The current trial protocol is version 2 (approved February 17, 2021). The first subject had not yet been enrolled at the time of submission.

Making Diabetes Care Fit—Are We Making Progress?

The care of patients with diabetes requires plans of care that make intellectual, practical, and emotional sense to patients. For these plans to fit well, patients and clinicians must work together to develop a common understanding of the patient’s problematic human situation and co-create a plan of care that responds well to it. This process, which starts at the point of care, needs to continue at the point of life. There, patients work to fit the demands of their care plan along with the demands placed by their lives and loves. Thought in this way, diabetes care goes beyond the control of metabolic parameters and the achievement of glycemic control targets. Instead, it is a highly individualized endeavor that must arrive at a care plan that reflects the biology and biography of the patient, the best available research evidence, and the priorities and values of the patient and her community. It must also be feasible within the life of the patient, minimally disrupting those aspects of the patient life that are treasured and justify the pursuit of care in the first place. Patient-centered methods such as shared decision making and minimally disruptive medicine have joined technological advances, patient empowerment, self-management support, and expert patient communities to advance the fit of diabetes care both at the point of care and at the point of life.

Screening and management of atrial fibrillation in primary care

Atrial fibrillation is a common chronic disease seen in primary care offices, emergency departments, inpatient hospital services, and many subspecialty practices. Atrial fibrillation care is complicated and multifaceted, and, at various points, clinicians may see it as a consequence and cause of multi-morbidity, as a silent driver of stroke risk, as a bellwether of an acute medical illness, or as a primary rhythm disturbance that requires targeted treatment. Primary care physicians in particular must navigate these priorities, perspectives, and resources to meet the needs of individual patients. This includes judicious use of diagnostic testing, thoughtful use of novel therapeutic agents and procedures, and providing access to subspecialty expertise. This review explores the epidemiology, screening, and risk assessment of atrial fibrillation, as well as management of its symptoms (rate and various rhythm control options) and stroke risk (anticoagulation and other treatments), and offers a model for the integration of the components of atrial fibrillation care.

Basing Information on Comprehensive, Critically Appraised, and Up-to-Date Syntheses of the Scientific Evidence: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards

BACKGROUND

Patients and clinicians expect the information in patient decision aids to be based on the best available research evidence. The objectives of this International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) review were to 1) check the currency of, and where needed, update evidence for the domain of "basing the information in decision aids on comprehensive, critically appraised, and up-to-date syntheses of the evidence"; 2) analyze the evidence characteristics of decision aids; and 3) propose updates to relevant IPDAS criteria.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and PubMed to inform updates of this domain's definitions, justifications, and components. We also searched 5 sources to identify all publicly available decision aids (N = 471). Two assessors independently extracted each aid's evidence characteristics.

RESULTS

Minor updates to the definitions and theoretical justifications of this IPDAS domain are provided and changes to relevant IPDAS criteria proposed. Nearly all aids (97%) provided a year of creation/update, but most (81%) did not report an explicit update or expiration policy. No scientific references were cited in 33% of aids. Of the 314 that cited at least 1 reference, 39% cited at least 1 guideline, 44% cited at least 1 systematic review, and 23% cited at least 1 randomized trial. In 35%, it was unclear what statement in the aid the citations referred to. Only 14% reported any of the processes used to find and decide on evidence inclusion. Only 14% reported the evidence quality. Many emerging issues and future research areas were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Although many emerging issues need to be addressed, this IPDAS domain is validated and criteria refined. High-quality patient decision aids should be based on comprehensive and up-to-date syntheses of critically appraised evidence.

Improving patient-clinician communication following nephrectomy in renal cell carcinoma: Development, content validation and pilot testing of a conversation aid tool

OBJECTIVES

This study developed, and established the content validity, of a conversation aid tool (CAT) for use in clinical practice with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) patients who receive a curative nephrectomy and are at high-risk of recurrence. The CAT was pilot tested in a sample of RCC patients to establish whether the CAT increases knowledge of RCC, treatment options (such as adjuvant therapy), and care options.

METHODS

A cross-sectional, mixed methods design was used involving initial, exploratory interviews with RCC patients, RCC specialists and a steering group. Further content validation interviews were conducted with RCC patients and specialists. A web-based survey was conducted with RCC patients (N = 60), to compare the CAT versus a standard of care (SOC) consultation comparator tool on patient knowledge.

RESULTS

Findings from exploratory interviews were used to develop the CAT. Content validation interviews demonstrated that the CAT was well understood and relevant to RCC patients. The web-based survey demonstrated that viewing the CAT significantly improved participants knowledge of RCC, and care options, when compared to the SOC.

CONCLUSION

The findings highlight that the CAT is a relevant, comprehensive and well-understood tool for use in the post-nephrectomy consultation.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Use of the CAT may increase patient knowledge of RCC and care options.

Mobile Health Technology to Improve Care for Patients With Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Current management of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is limited by low detection of AF, non-adherence to guidelines, and lack of consideration of patients' preferences, thus highlighting the need for a more holistic and integrated approach to AF management.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine whether a mobile health (mHealth) technology-supported AF integrated management strategy would reduce AF-related adverse events, compared with usual care.

METHODS

This is a cluster randomized trial of patients with AF older than 18 years of age who were enrolled in 40 cities in China. Recruitment began on June 1, 2018 and follow-up ended on August 16, 2019. Patients with AF were randomized to receive usual care, or integrated care based on a mobile AF Application (mAFA) incorporating the ABC (Atrial Fibrillation Better Care) Pathway: A, Avoid stroke; B, Better symptom management; and C, Cardiovascular and other comorbidity risk reduction. The primary composite outcome was a composite of stroke/thromboembolism, all-cause death, and rehospitalization. Rehospitalization alone was a secondary outcome. Cardiovascular events were assessed using Cox proportional hazard modeling after adjusting for baseline risk.

RESULTS

There were 1,646 patients allocated to mAFA intervention (mean age, 67.0 years; 38.0% female) with mean follow-up of 262 days, whereas 1,678 patients were allocated to usual care (mean age, 70.0 years; 38.0% female) with mean follow-up of 291 days. Rates of the composite outcome of 'ischemic stroke/systemic thromboembolism, death, and rehospitalization' were lower with the mAFA intervention compared with usual care (1.9% vs. 6.0%; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.39; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.22 to 0.67; p < 0.001). Rates of rehospitalization were lower with the mAFA intervention (1.2% vs. 4.5%; HR: 0.32; 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.60; p < 0.001). Subgroup analyses by sex, age, AF type, risk score, and comorbidities demonstrated consistently lower HRs for the composite outcome for patients receiving the mAFA intervention compared with usual care (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

An integrated care approach to holistic AF care, supported by mHealth technology, reduces the risks of rehospitalization and clinical adverse events. (Mobile Health [mHealth] technology integrating atrial fibrillation screening and ABC management approach trial; ChiCTR-OOC-17014138).

A framework for practical issues was developed to inform shared decision-making tools and clinical guidelines

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to develop and test feasibility of a framework of patient-important practical issues.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Guidelines and shared decision-making tools help facilitate discussions about patient-important outcomes of care alternatives, but typically ignore practical issues patients consider when implementing care into their daily routines. Using grounded theory, practical issues in the HealthTalk.org registry and in Option Grids were identified and categorized into a framework. We integrated the framework into the MAGIC authoring and publication platform and digitally structured authoring and publication platform and appraised its use in The BMJ Rapid Recommendations.

RESULTS

The framework included the following 15 categories: medication routine, tests and visits, procedure and device, recovery and adaptation, coordination of care, adverse effects, interactions and antidote, physical well-being, emotional well-being, pregnancy and nursing, costs and access, food and drinks, exercise and activities, social life and relationships, work and education, travel and driving. Implementation in 15 BMJ Rapid Recommendations added 283 issues to 35 recommendations. The most frequently used category was procedure and device, and the least frequent was social life and relationship.

CONCLUSION

Adding practical issues systematically to evidence summaries is feasible and can inform guidelines and tools for shared decision-making. How this inclusion can improve patient-centered care remains to be determined.

Assessment of Shared Decision-making for Stroke Prevention in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Shared decision-making (SDM) about anticoagulant treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) is widely recommended but its effectiveness is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the extent to which the use of an SDM tool affects the quality of SDM and anticoagulant treatment decisions in at-risk patients with AF.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This encounter-randomized trial recruited patients with nonvalvular AF who were considering starting or reviewing anticoagulant treatment and their clinicians at academic, community, and safety-net medical centers between January 30, 2017 and June 27, 2019. Encounters were randomized to either the standard care arm or care that included the use of an SDM tool (intervention arm). Data were analyzed from August 1 to November 30, 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

Standard care or care using the Anticoagulation Choice Shared Decision Making tool (which presents individualized risk estimates and compares anticoagulant treatment options across issues of importance to patients) during the clinical encounter.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Quality of SDM (which included quality of communication, patient knowledge about AF and anticoagulant treatment, accuracy of patient estimates of their own stroke risk [within 30% of their estimate], decisional conflict, and satisfaction), decisions made during the encounter, duration of the encounter, and clinician involvement of patients in the SDM process.

RESULTS

The clinical trial enrolled 922 patients (559 men [60.6%]; mean [SD] age, 71 [11] years) and 244 clinicians. A total of 463 patients were randomized to the intervention arm and 459 patients to the standard care arm. Participants in both arms reported high communication quality, high knowledge, and low decisional conflict, demonstrated low accuracy in their risk perception, and would similarly recommend the approach used in their encounter. Clinicians were significantly more satisfied after intervention encounters (400 of 453 encounters [88.3%] vs 277 of 448 encounters [61.8%]; adjusted relative risk, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.42-1.53). A total of 747 of 873 patients (85.6%) chose to start or continue receiving an anticoagulant medication. Patient involvement in decision-making (as assessed through video recordings of the encounters using the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision Making 12-item scale) scores were significantly higher in the intervention arm (mean [SD] score, 33.0 [10.8] points vs 29.1 [13.1] points, respectively; adjusted mean difference, 4.2 points; 95% CI, 2.8-5.6 points). No significant between-arm difference was found in encounter duration (mean [SD] duration, 32 [16] minutes in the intervention arm vs 31 [17] minutes in the standard care arm; adjusted mean between-arm difference, 1.1; 95% CI, -0.3 to 2.5 minutes).

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

The use of an SDM encounter tool improved several measures of SDM quality and clinician satisfaction, with no significant effect on treatment decisions or encounter duration. These results help to calibrate expectations about the value of implementing SDM tools in the care of patients with AF.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02905032.

Normalization of a conversation tool to promote shared decision making about anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation within a practical randomized trial of its effectiveness: a cross-sectional study

Background

Shared decision making (SDM) implementation remains challenging. The factors that promote or hinder implementation of SDM tools for use during the consultation, including contextual factors such as clinician burnout and organizational support, remain unclear. We explored these factors in the context of a practical multicenter randomized trial evaluating the effectiveness of an SDM conversation tool for patients with atrial fibrillation considering anticoagulation therapy.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, we recruited clinicians who were regularly involved in conversations with patients regarding anticoagulation for atrial fibrillation. Clinicians reported their characteristics and burnout symptoms using the two-item Maslach Burnout Inventory. Clinicians were trained in using the SDM tool, and they recorded their perceptions of the tool’s normalization potential using the Normalization MeAsure Development (NoMAD) survey instrument and verbally reflected on their answers to these survey questions. When possible, the training sessions and clinicians’ verbal responses to the conversation tool were recorded.

Results

Our study comprised 183 clinicians recruited into the trial (168 with survey responses and 112 with recordings). Overall, clinicians gave high scores to the normalization potential of the intervention; they endorsed all domains of normalization to the same extent, regardless of site, clinician characteristics, or burnout ratings. In interviews, clinicians paid significant attention to making sense of the tool. Tool buy-in seemed to depend heavily on their ability to see the tool as accurate and “evidence-based” and their perceptions of having time in the consultation to use it.

Conclusions

While time in the consultation remains a barrier, we did not find a significant association between burnout symptoms and normalization of an SDM conversation tool. Possible areas for improving the normalization of SDM conversation tools in clinical practice include enabling collaboration among clinicians to implement the tool and reporting how clinicians elsewhere use the tool. Direct measures of normalization (i.e., observing how often clinicians access the tool in practice outside of the clinical trial) may further elucidate the role that contextual factors, such as clinician burnout, play in the implementation of SDM.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02905032. Registered on 9 September 2016.

Automated Tool for Health Utility Assessments: The Gambler II

Background. The Gambler II is a web-based utility assessment tool supporting visual analogue scale (VAS), standard gamble (SG), and time trade-off (TTO) utility assessments. It contains novel features, including an easy to use project development authoring tool and use of multimedia clips for health state descriptions. Objectives. Evaluate the usability and understandability of the patient-facing side of The Gambler. Investigate the feasibility of using The Gambler and evaluate its impact on patient knowledge regarding the relevant health states. Materials and Methods. We used The Gambler to assess utilities on a convenience sample of 55 users for common long-term complications of type 2 diabetes mellitus: diabetic neuropathy, diabetic retinopathy, and diabetic foot infection requiring transmetatarsal amputation. Using VAS, SG, and TTO, we collected metadata, such as time spent on each assessment and the entire assessment process. We evaluated usability with an adaptation of the System Usability Scale survey and understandability. We evaluated impact on knowledge gained through knowledge assessments about these complications before and after use of The Gambler. Results. Overall satisfaction with The Gambler was high, 4.02 on a 5-point scale. Usability rated highly at 84.93 on a normalized scale between 0 and 100. Knowledge scores increased significantly following use of The Gambler from pretest mean of 68% to posttest mean of 76% (P < 0.01). Average time using the software: ∼7½ minutes. Conclusions. The Gambler is an easy to use and understand computer-based tool for utility assessment. It is feasible to use within clinical encounters to support shared decision making, and it has unique features that make it a powerful tool for investigators interested in research on health utilities.