How do healthcare professionals working in accountable care organisations understand patient activation and engagement? Qualitative interviews across two time points

Agenda-setting in the clinical encounter: A systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Agenda-setting is a collaborative communication strategy used by a clinician before or at the start of a clinical encounter to work together with the patient to "elicit, propose, and organize" topics to be discussed during the encounter. While clinical visit agenda-setting has been acknowledged as an important element of patient-centered communication, the effectiveness of agenda-setting interventions in improving healthcare outcomes is unclear. To our knowledge, no systematic review has examined clinical visit agenda-setting interventions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The primary aim of the systematic review will be to assess the effects of agenda-setting interventions on outcomes relating to the clinical encounter itself, patients, and clinicians, as well as any other study-specified outcomes. Our secondary aims will be to examine the characteristics and delivery attributes of agenda-setting interventions, as well as how agenda-setting has been operationalized and measured. We will search selected databases (APA PsycInfo, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, MEDLINE via PubMed, ProQuest, Scopus, and Web of Science) and gray literature from inception until date of search. All studies comparing a clinical visit agenda-setting intervention with either usual care or another agenda-setting intervention will be included. Two independent reviewers will complete article screening and data extraction, with a third independent reviewer resolving any conflicts. We will assess all studies' methodological quality and the quality of their evidence using standardized criteria. If a sufficient number of studies report the same outcomes, we will pool their results and perform a meta-analysis of those outcomes. We will also synthesize all results qualitatively, regardless of whether we are able to complete a meta-analysis.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42023468045.

Shared Decision-Making and Cardiovascular Health: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Shared decision-making is increasingly embraced in health care and recommended in cardiovascular guidelines. Patient involvement in health care decisions, patient-clinician communication, and models of patient-centered care are critical to improve health outcomes and to promote equity, but formal models and evaluation in cardiovascular care are nascent. Shared decision-making promotes equity by involving clinicians and patients, sharing the best available evidence, and recognizing the needs, values, and experiences of individuals and their families when faced with the task of making decisions. Broad endorsement of shared decision-making as a critical component of high-quality, value-based care has raised our awareness, although uptake in clinical practice remains suboptimal for a range of patient, clinician, and system issues. Strategies effective in promoting shared decision-making include educating clinicians on communication techniques, engaging multidisciplinary medical teams, incorporating trained decision coaches, and using tools (ie, patient decision aids) at appropriate literacy and numeracy levels to support patients in their cardiovascular decisions. This scientific statement shines a light on the limited but growing body of evidence of the impact of shared decision-making on cardiovascular outcomes and the potential of shared decision-making as a driver of health equity so that everyone has just opportunities. Multilevel solutions must align to address challenges in policies and reimbursement, system-level leadership and infrastructure, clinician training, access to decision aids, and patient engagement to fully support patients and clinicians to engage in the shared decision-making process and to drive equity and improvement in cardiovascular outcomes.

Shared decision-making in healthcare in mainland China: a scoping review

Background

Shared decision-making (SDM) facilitates the participation of healthcare professionals and patients in treatment decisions. We conducted a scoping review to assess SDM's current status in mainland China, referencing the Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF).

Methods

Our review encompassed extensive searches across six English and four Chinese databases, and various gray literature until April 30, 2021. Results were synthesized using thematic analysis.

Results

Out of the 60 included studies, we identified three key themes based on the ODSF framework: decisional needs, decision support, and decisional outcomes. However, there appears to be a lack of comprehensive understanding of concepts related to decisional needs in China. Only a few studies have delved into feasibility, preference, choice, and outcome factors in the SDM process. Another challenge emerges from an absence of uniform standards for developing patient decision aids (PDAs). Furthermore, regarding health outcome indicators, their predominant focus remains on physiological needs.

Conclusion

SDM is in its infancy in mainland China. It is important to explore the concept and expression of decisional needs in the context of Chinese culture. Subsequent studies should focus on constructing a scientifically rigorous and systematic approach for the development of PDAs, and considering the adaptation of SDM steps to the clinical context in China during SDM implementation. Concurrently, The focus on health outcomes in Chinese SDM studies, driven by the unique healthcare resource landscape, underscores the necessity of prioritizing basic needs within limited resources.

Systematic review registration

https://inplasy.com/?s=202130021.

US practice adoption of patient-engagement strategies and spending for adults with diabetes and cardiovascular disease

Patient-engagement strategies are being encouraged by payers and governments, but with limited evidence about whether practice adoption of these strategies impacts utilization and spending. We examine the association of physician practice adoption of patient-engagement strategies (low vs moderate vs high) with potentially preventable utilization and total spending for patients with type 2 diabetes and/or cardiovascular disease using US physician practice survey (n = 2086) and Medicare fee-for-service (n = 736 269) data. In adjusted analyses, there were no differences in potentially preventable utilization associated with practice adoption of patient-engagement strategies. Compared with patients attributed to practices with moderate adoption, patients attributed to practices with high adoption had higher total spending ($26 364 vs $25 991; P < .05) driven by spending for long-term services and supports, including home health agency, long-term care, skilled nursing facilities, and hospice payments. In contrast, patients attributed to practices with low adoption had higher total spending ($26 481 vs $25 991; P < .01) driven by spending for tests and acute care and clinical access spending. The results highlight that stakeholders that encourage the use of patient-engagement strategies should not necessarily expect reduced spending.

Pathways for primary care practice adoption of patient engagement strategies

OBJECTIVE

To identify potential orderings of primary care practice adoption of patient engagement strategies overall and separately for interpersonally and technologically oriented strategies.

DATA SOURCES

We analyzed physician practice survey data (n = 71) on the adoption of 12 patient engagement strategies.

STUDY DESIGN

Mokken scale analysis was used to assess latent traits among the patient engagement strategies.

DATA COLLECTION

Three groupings of patient engagement strategies were analyzed: (1) all 12 patient engagement strategies, (2) six interpersonally oriented strategies, and (3) six technologically oriented strategies.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We did not find scalability among all 12 patient engagement strategies, however, separately analyzing the subgroups of six interpersonally and six technologically oriented strategies demonstrated scalability (Loevinger's H coefficient of scalability [range]: interpersonal strategies, H = 0.54 [0.49-0.60], technological strategies, H = 0.42 [0.31, 0.54]). Ordered patterns emerged in the adoption of strategies for both interpersonal and technological types.

CONCLUSIONS

Common pathways of practice adoption of patient engagement strategies were identified. Implementing interpersonally intensive patient engagement strategies may require different physician practice capabilities than technological strategies. Rather than simultaneously adopting multiple patient engagement strategies, gradual and purposeful practice adoption may improve the impact of these strategies and support sustainability.

An absence of equipoise: Examining surgeons' decision talk during encounters with women considering breast cancer surgery

Shared decision-making is recommended for decisions with multiple reasonable options, yet clinicians often subtly or explicitly guide choices. Using purposive sampling, we performed a secondary analysis of 142 audio-recorded encounters between 13 surgeons and women eligible for breast-conserving surgery with radiation or mastectomy. We trained 9 surgeons in shared decision-making and provided them one of two conversation aids; 4 surgeons practiced as usual. Based on a published taxonomy of treatment recommendations (pronouncements, suggestions, proposals, offers, assertions), we examined how surgeons framed choices with patients. Many surgeons made assertions providing information and advice (usual care 71% vs. intervention 66%; p = 0.54). Some made strong pronouncements (usual care 51% vs. intervention 36%; p = .09). Few made proposals and offers, leaving the door open for deliberation (proposals usual care 21% vs. intervention 26%; p = 0.51; offers usual care 40% vs. intervention 40%; p = 0.98). Surgeons were significantly more likely to describe options as comparable when using a conversation aid, mentioning this in all intervention group encounters (usual care 64% vs. intervention 100%; p<0.001). Conversation aids can facilitate offers of comparable options, but other conversational actions can inhibit aspects of shared decision-making.

A rapid realist review of patient engagement in patient-oriented research and health care system impacts: part one

BACKGROUND

Patient-oriented research affords individuals with opportunities to genuinely contribute to health care research as members of research teams. While checklists and frameworks can support academic researchers' awareness of patient engagement methods, less guidance appears available to support their understanding of how to develop and maintain collaborative relationships with their patient partners. This knowledge is essential as patient partners report that the social atmospheres of research teams significantly impacts the quality of their experiences. This study sought to develop theory regarding how academic researchers support and sustain patient engagement in patient-oriented research.

METHODS

A six-step, rapid realist review was conducted: (1) research question development, (2) preliminary theory development, (3) search strategy development; (4) study selection and appraisal, (4) data extraction, analysis and synthesis (5) identification of relevant formal theories, and (6) theory refinement with stakeholders. Findings were additionally distilled by collective competence theory.

RESULTS

A program theory was developed from 62 international studies which illuminated mechanisms supporting academic researchers to engage patient partners, contexts supporting these mechanisms, and resources that enabled mechanism activation. Interaction between seven contexts (patient-oriented research belief, prior interaction with a healthcare system, prior interaction with a particular academic researcher, educational background of patient partner, prior experience with patient-oriented research, study type, and time lived in a rural-urban setting) and seven mechanisms (deciding to become involved in patient-oriented research, recognizing valuable experiential knowledge, cultural competence, reducing power differentials, respectful team environment, supporting patient partners to feel valued, and readiness to research) resulted in an intermediate outcome (sense of trust). Trust then acted as an eighth mechanism which triggered the final-level outcome (empowered patient-centred lens).

CONCLUSIONS

Our theory posits that if patient partners trust they are a member of a supportive team working alongside academic researchers who authentically want to incorporate their input, then they are empowered to draw upon their experiential knowledge of health care systems and contribute as researchers in patient-oriented research. Our theory extends conceptual thinking regarding the importance of trust on patient-oriented research teams, how patient partners' trust is shaped by team interactions, and the role that academic researchers have within those interactions.

Findings From a Commercial ACO Patient Experience Survey

Accountable care organizations (ACO) emerge each year aiming to improve care quality while controlling rising health care costs. This cross-sectional study examined whether ACO arrangements within a Preferred Provider Organization and a Health Maintenance Organization (HMO) effected patient experience. A modified Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems ACO survey was used to assess care domain differences overall and by product. The association between ACO and non-ACO populations and items in each significant care domain, flu vaccination, and delayed and emergency department care are explored using multivariable logistic regression. Accountable care organizations patients were more likely to report it was easy to get a specialist appointment (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.54; 95% CI = 1.11-2.13), less likely to report visiting the emergency department for care (AOR, 0.70; 95% CI = 0.55-0.90) and communicating with their provider using technology (AOR, 0.79; 95% CI = 0.65-0.96). Reported experience differed for Access to Specialists between ACO and non-ACO groups among overall and HMO respondents (79.4% vs 74.7% and 79.9% vs 75.5%, P < .05, respectively). The ACO patient experience was not substantially better. Strategies incorporating satisfaction and experience, whether linked to contracts or not, should be encouraged given ACOs goal to optimize patient care. Survey instruments must be improved to capture nuances of provider care and patient bond that is vital in ACO integrated systems.

The value of values: shared decision-making in person-centered, value-based oral health care

In order to provide care that is truly person-centered, dental practitioners must incorporate the informed preferences of our patients into clinical treatment decisions. Shared decision making provides the necessary framework to accomplish this goal, especially in an era of value-based care.

Flipped Exam Room

Medical education has taken a decided turn toward the "flipped classroom," in which in-class lectures are de-emphasized and engaged learning is promoted. The time has also come to make some changes in what is being taught in clinical medicine, specifically with respect to the patient-physician interaction. Because the daily management of chronic illness is primarily the responsibility of the patient, clinical encounters that prioritize patient engagement and activation are critical. The traditional medical encounter, characterized by data gathering to make a diagnosis followed by prescribing or recommending treatment to the patient, can work well for acute illnesses or injuries, but effective chronic disease management requires substantial patient ownership of their health. In a "flipped exam room," interactions with patients emphasize patient responsibility for health, such that priority is given to eliciting patient goals, what the patient knows, and how they desire to proceed with management of their health concerns and conditions. Just as medical students find engaged learning approaches to be more acceptable and satisfying, patients find collaborative interaction approaches on the part of their physicians to be more satisfying, and such approaches are associated with better outcomes. More attention to training students and residents in "flipped exam room" patient interaction skills is necessary.

Linking Practice Adoption of Patient Engagement Strategies and Relational Coordination to Patient-Reported Outcomes in Accountable Care Organizations

Policy Points Accountable care organizations (ACOs) have incentives to promote the adoption of patient engagement strategies such as shared decision making and self-management support programs to improve patient outcomes and contain health care costs. High adoption of patient engagement strategies among ACO-affiliated practices did not improve patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of physical, emotional, and social function among adult patients with diabetes and/or cardiovascular disease over a one-year time frame, likely because implementing these strategies requires extensive clinician and staff training, workflow redesign, and patient participation over time. A dominant focus on improving clinical measures to meet external requirements may crowd out time needed for care team members to address other outcomes that matter to patients, including PROs. Payers and policy-makers should explicitly incentivize the collection and use of PROs when contracting with ACOs.

CONTEXT

Adult primary care practices of accountable care organizations (ACOs) are adopting a range of patient engagement strategies, but little is known about how these strategies are related to patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and how relational coordination among team members aids implementation.

METHODS

We used a mixed-methods cohort study design integrating administrative and clinical data with two data collection waves (2014-2015 and 2016-2017) of clinician and staff surveys (n = 764), surveys of adult patients with diabetes and/or cardiovascular disease (CVD) (n = 1,276), and key informant interviews of clinicians, staff, and administrators (n = 103). Multivariable linear regression estimated the relationship of practice adoption of patient engagement strategies, relational coordination, and PROs of physical, social, and emotional function. The mediating role of patient activation was examined using cross-lagged panel models. Key informant interviews assessed how relational coordination influences the implementation of patient engagement strategies.

FINDINGS

There were no differential improvements in PROs among patients of practices with high vs. low adoption of patient engagement strategies or among patients of practices with high vs. low relational coordination. The Patient Activation Measure (PAM) is strongly related to better physical, emotional, and social PROs over time. Relational coordination facilitated the implementation of patient engagement strategies, but key informants indicated that resources and systems to systematically track treatment preferences and goals beyond clinical indicators were needed to support effective implementation.

CONCLUSIONS

Adult patients with diabetes and/or CVD of ACO-affiliated practices with high adoption of patient engagement strategies do not have improved PROs of physical, emotional, and social function over a one-year time frame. Implementing patient engagement strategies increases task interdependence among primary care team members, which needs to be carefully managed. ACOs may need to make greater investment in collecting, monitoring, and analyzing PRO data to ensure that practice adoption and implementation of patient engagement strategies leads to improved physical, emotional, and social function among patients.