Dissemination and Implementation of Shared Decision Making Into Clinical Practice: A Research Agenda

Linking Cardiac Psychology and Cardiovascular Medicine via Self-Determination Theory and Shared Decision-Making

Despite considerable progress in recent years, research in cardiac psychology is not widely translated into routine practice by clinical cardiologists or clinical health psychologists. Self-determination theory (SDT), which addresses how basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness contribute to the internalization of motivation, may help bridge this research-practice gap through its application to shared decision-making (SDM). This narrative review discusses the following: (a) brief background information on SDT and SDM, (b) the application of SDT to health behavior change and cardiology interventions, and (c) how SDT and SDM may be merged using a dissemination and implementation (D&I) framework. We address barriers to implementing SDM in cardiology, how SDM and SDT address the need for respect of patient autonomy, and how SDT can enhance D&I of SDM interventions through its focus on autonomy, competence, and relatedness and its consideration of other constructs that facilitate the internalization of motivation.

Roadmap to engagement: Bringing patient partners into cancer research and beyond

The University of Kansas Cancer Center (KU Cancer Center) initiated an engagement program to leverage the lived experience of individuals and families with cancer. KU Cancer Center faculty, staff, and patient partners built an infrastructure to achieve a patient-designed, patient-led, and research-informed engagement program called Patient and Investigator Voices Organizing Together (PIVOT). This special communication offers an engagement roadmap that can be replicated, scaled, and adopted at other cancer centers and academic health systems. PIVOT demonstrates that collaboration among academic leaders, investigators, and people with a lived experience yields a patient-centered, vibrant environment that enriches the research enterprise.

Utilization of Chest Pain Decision Aids in a Community Hospital Emergency Department: A Mixed-methods Implementation Study

INTRODUCTION

Chest pain is a common reason for emergency department (ED) visits. Evidence-based decision aids assessing risk for an adverse cardiac event are underused in community hospital emergency care. This study explored the acceptability, barriers, facilitators, and potential strategies for implementation of the HEART Score risk stratification tool, accelerated diagnostic pathway, and shared decision-making visual aid with physicians and chest pain patients ages >45 in a community hospital ED.

METHODS

Single center, mixed-methods study. (1) Physician semistructured interviews using The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research for systematic analysis. (2) Patient and physician surveys. (3) 16-week intervention of physician training and pilot testing of decision aids with ED patients.

RESULTS

Physician interviews (n = 19); key facilitators: electronic medical record decision support, ease of use, risk stratification and disposition support, and shared decision-making training. Key barriers: time constraints, patient ability, and/or willingness to participate in shared decision-making, lack of integration with medical record and change in practice workflow. Patient study participants (n = 184) with a survey response rate of 92% (n = 170). Most patients (85%) were satisfied with the shared decision-making visual aid. Physicians surveyed (n = 84) with a response rate of 50% (n = 42). Most physicians, 95% (n = 40), support use of the HEART Score, with limited acceptance of the shared decision-making visual aid of 57% (n = 24).

CONCLUSIONS

Using evidence-based chest pain decision aids in a community hospital ED is feasible and acceptable. Key barriers and facilitators for implementation were identified. Further research in community hospitals is needed to verify findings, examine generalizability, and test implementation strategies.

Stroke Survivors' Perspectives on Post-Acute Rehabilitation Options, Goals, Satisfaction, and Transition to Home

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Patients and caregivers have not typically been involved in the selection of a post-acute care (PAC) provider. In 2015, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposed the need to involve patients and their families during discharge planning. Engaging patients in rehabilitation decisions encourages shared decision making among patients and their clinicians. The purpose of this study was to examine stroke survivors' perspectives on their involvement in selecting a PAC provider and their goal setting and their satisfaction with the rehabilitation stay and their discharge advice for stroke survivors, prior to 2015.

METHODS

This qualitative study utilized semistructured interviews. Thematic content analysis was performed on interviews involving 18 stroke survivors (mean age = 68 years) related to their involvement in planning for their inpatient rehabilitation facility or skilled nursing facility stay, goal setting, and discharge needs.

RESULTS

More than half the participants were not involved in the selection of their PAC setting and believed that doctors made these decisions. Around two-fifths of stroke survivors reported that they were not involved in rehabilitation goal setting. Most patients were satisfied with their rehabilitation stay. When asked to recommend discharge topics for other stroke survivors, participants recommended additional information on health care services, interventions, and insurance coverage.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Despite recommendations to include stroke patients in PAC selection and goal setting, many former inpatient rehabilitation facility and skilled nursing facility patients report not being involved in either aspect of care.Video Abstract available for more insights from the authors (see Supplemental Digital Content 1, available at: http://links.lww.com/JNPT/A273).

Physician-identified barriers to and facilitators of shared decision-making in the Emergency Department: an exploratory analysis

OBJECTIVES

Shared decision-making (SDM) is receiving increasing attention in emergency medicine because of its potential to increase patient engagement and decrease unnecessary healthcare utilisation. This study sought to explore physician-identified barriers to and facilitators of SDM in the ED.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews with practising emergency physicians (EP) with the aim of understanding when and why EPs engage in SDM, and when and why they feel unable to engage in SDM. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and a three-member team coded all transcripts in an iterative fashion using a directed approach to qualitative content analysis. We identified emergent themes, and organised themes based on an integrative theoretical model that combined the theory of planned behaviour and social cognitive theory.

RESULTS

Fifteen EPs practising in the New England region of the USA were interviewed. Physicians described the following barriers: time constraints, clinical uncertainty, fear of a bad outcome, certain patient characteristics, lack of follow-up and other emotional and logistical stressors. They noted that risk stratification methods, the perception that SDM decreased liability and their own improving clinical skills facilitated their use of SDM. They also noted that the culture of the institution could play a role in discouraging or promoting SDM, and that patients could encourage SDM by specifically asking about alternatives.

CONCLUSIONS

EPs face many barriers to using SDM. Some, such as lack of follow-up, are unique to the ED; others, such as the challenges of communicating uncertainty, may affect other providers. Many of the barriers to SDM are amenable to intervention, but may be of variable importance in different EDs. Further research should attempt to identify which barriers are most prevalent and most amenable to intervention, as well as capitalise on the facilitators noted.

Leveraging Patient/Community Partnerships to Disseminate Patient Centered Outcomes Research in Geriatrics

Background: With the growth of patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR), partnerships between researchers and patients have presented novel opportunities for disseminating results. A large gap exists in disseminating patient-centered research results to older adult patient end-users. We sought to examine the experiences of patient/community partners in disseminating PCOR results and characterize lessons learned that may facilitate future researcher-patient/community dissemination partnerships. Methods: Patient/community partners who participated in geriatrics-focused PCORI-funded research and were active in disseminating results, as part of their planned activities, were recruited for one-to-one qualitative interviews. Constant comparative and thematic analysis were used to identify and describe common themes that emerged in a survey of open-ended questions. Results: Ten individuals (four community partners, six patients) aged 55–87 years were interviewed. Analysis revealed that for successful dissemination, subjects felt it was vital to reach out to people affected by the results, leverage personal stories, and tap into pre-developed programming. Patient/Community partners identified potential audiences through word-of-mouth, community requests, and mapping a list of audiences—targeting those directly affected as well as those who worked with the audience (e.g., not specifically medical). Patient/community partners recommended that researchers engage patient/community partners for suggestions on audiences, show empathy, include diverse populations, and maintain a community-focus. One community partner stated, “Why wouldn’t we help disseminate results? It’s a no-brainer. We know people!” Conclusion: Patient/community partners provide effective ways to communicate results, new audiences to reach, improved communication with different audiences, and improved credibility of the findings. The lessons learned have implications for assisting future research-patient/community partnerships in the dissemination of their patient-centered research.

North American survey on the post-neuroimaging management of children with mild head injuries

OBJECTIVEThere remains uncertainty regarding the appropriate level of care and need for repeating neuroimaging among children with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) complicated by intracranial injury (ICI). This study's objective was to investigate physician practice patterns and decision-making processes for these patients in order to identify knowledge gaps and highlight avenues for future investigation.METHODSThe authors surveyed residents, fellows, and attending physicians from the following pediatric specialties: emergency medicine; general surgery; neurosurgery; and critical care. Participants came from 10 institutions in the United States and an email list maintained by the Canadian Neurosurgical Society. The survey asked respondents to indicate management preferences for and experiences with children with mTBI complicated by ICI, focusing on an exemplar clinical vignette of a 7-year-old girl with a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15 and a 5-mm subdural hematoma without midline shift after a fall down stairs.RESULTSThe response rate was 52% (n = 536). Overall, 326 (61%) respondents indicated they would recommend ICU admission for the child in the vignette. However, only 62 (12%) agreed/strongly agreed that this child was at high risk of neurological decline. Half of respondents (45%; n = 243) indicated they would order a planned follow-up CT (29%; n = 155) or MRI scan (19%; n = 102), though only 64 (12%) agreed/strongly agreed that repeat neuroimaging would influence their management. Common factors that increased the likelihood of ICU admission included presence of a focal neurological deficit (95%; n = 508 endorsed), midline shift (90%; n = 480) or an epidural hematoma (88%; n = 471). However, 42% (n = 225) indicated they would admit all children with mTBI and ICI to the ICU. Notably, 27% (n = 143) of respondents indicated they had seen one or more children with mTBI and intracranial hemorrhage demonstrate a rapid neurological decline when admitted to a general ward in the last year, and 13% (n = 71) had witnessed this outcome at least twice in the past year.CONCLUSIONSMany physicians endorse ICU admission and repeat neuroimaging for pediatric mTBI with ICI, despite uncertainty regarding the clinical utility of those decisions. These results, combined with evidence that existing practice may provide insufficient monitoring to some high-risk children, emphasize the need for validated decision tools to aid the management of these patients.

Outcomes of Patients With Syncope and Suspected Dementia

OBJECTIVES

Syncope and near-syncope are common in patients with dementia and a leading cause of emergency department (ED) evaluation and subsequent hospitalization. The objective of this study was to describe the clinical trajectory and short-term outcomes of patients who presented to the ED with syncope or near-syncope and were assessed by their ED provider to have dementia.

METHODS

This multisite prospective cohort study included patients 60 years of age or older who presented to the ED with syncope or near-syncope between 2013 and 2016. We analyzed a subcohort of 279 patients who were identified by the treating ED provider to have baseline dementia. We collected comprehensive patient-level, utilization, and outcomes data through interviews, provider surveys, and chart abstraction. Outcome measures included serious conditions related to syncope and death.

RESULTS

Overall, 221 patients (79%) were hospitalized with a median length of stay of 2.1 days. A total of 46 patients (16%) were diagnosed with a serious condition in the ED. Of the 179 hospitalized patients who did not have a serious condition identified in the ED, 14 (7.8%) were subsequently diagnosed with a serious condition during the hospitalization, and an additional 12 patients (6.7%) were diagnosed postdischarge within 30 days of the index ED visit. There were seven deaths (2.5%) overall, none of which were cardiac-related. No patients who were discharged from the ED died or had a serious condition in the subsequent 30 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with perceived dementia who presented to the ED with syncope or near-syncope were frequently hospitalized. The diagnosis of a serious condition was uncommon if not identified during the initial ED assessment. Given the known iatrogenic risks of hospitalization for patients with dementia, future investigation of the impact of goals of care discussions on reducing potentially preventable, futile, or unwanted hospitalizations while improving goal-concordant care is warranted.

Designing Shared Decision-Making Interventions for Dissemination and Sustainment: Can Implementation Science Help Translate Shared Decision Making Into Routine Practice?

Shared decision making (SDM) is not widely practiced in routine care due to a variety of organizational, provider, patient, and contextual factors. This article explores how implementation science-which encourages attention to the multilevel contextual factors that influence the adoption, implementation, and sustainment of health care practices-can provide useful insights for increasing SDM use in routine practice. We engaged with stakeholders representing different organizations and geographic locations over three phases: 1) multidisciplinary workgroup meeting comprising researchers and clinicians (n = 11); 2) survey among a purposive sample of 47 patient advocates, clinicians, health care system leaders, funders, policymakers, and researchers; and 3) working session among diverse stakeholders (n = 30). The workgroup meeting identified priorities for action and research, which included targeting multiple audiences and levels, shifting culture toward valuing and supporting SDM, and considering contextual factors influencing SDM implementation. Survey respondents provided recommendations for increasing adoption, implementation, and maintenance of SDM in practice including providing tools to support SDM, obtaining stakeholders' involvement, and raising awareness of the importance of SDM. Stakeholders in the working session provided recommendations on the design of a guide for implementation of SDM in clinical settings, strategies to disseminate educational curricula on SDM, and strategies to influence policies to increase SDM use. These specific recommendations serve as a call to action to pursuing specific promising strategies aimed at increasing SDM use in practice and enhance understanding of the perspectives of diverse stakeholders at multiple levels from an implementation science perspective that appear fruitful for further study and application.

A Qualitative Analysis of Patients' Perceptions of Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: "Let Me Know I Have a Choice"

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Despite increasing attention to the use of shared decision making (SDM) in the emergency department (ED), little is known about ED patients' perspectives regarding this practice. We sought to explore the use of SDM from the perspectives of ED patients, focusing on what affects patients' desired level of involvement and what barriers and facilitators patients find most relevant to their experience.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of ED patients or their proxies at two sites. An interview guide was developed from existing literature and expert consensus and based on a framework underscoring the importance of both knowledge and power. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in an iterative process by a three-person coding team. Emergent themes were identified, discussed, and organized.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients and proxies participated. The mean age of participants was 56 years (range, 20 to 89 years), and 13 were female. Participants were diverse in regard to race/ethnicity, education, number of previous ED visits, and presence of chronic conditions. All participants wanted some degree of involvement in decision making. Participants who made statements suggesting high self-efficacy and those who expressed mistrust of the health care system or previous negative experiences wanted a greater degree of involvement. Facilitators to involvement included familiarity with the decision at hand, physicians' good communication skills, and clearly delineated options. Some participants felt that their own relative lack of knowledge, compared to that of the physicians, made their involvement inappropriate or unwanted. Many participants had no expectation for SDM and although they did want involvement when asked explicitly, they were otherwise likely to defer to physicians without discussion. Many did not recognize opportunities for SDM in their clinical care.

CONCLUSIONS

This exploration of ED patients' perceptions of SDM suggests that most patients want some degree of involvement in medical decision making but more proactive engagement of patients by clinicians is often needed. Further research should examine these issues in a larger and more representative population.