Personalized, Electronic Health Record-Integrated Decision Aid for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation: A Small Cluster Randomized Trial and Qualitative Analysis of Efficacy and Acceptability

Impact of personalized risk scores on shared decision making in left ventricular assist device implantation: Findings from a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To assess stakeholders' perspectives on integrating personalized risk scores (PRS) into left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation decisions and how these perspectives might impact shared decision making (SDM).

METHODS

We conducted 40 in-depth interviews with physicians, nurse coordinators, patients, and caregivers about integrating PRS into LVAD implantation decisions. A codebook was developed to identify thematic patterns, and quotations were consolidated for analysis. We used Thematic Content Analysis in MAXQDA software to identify themes by abstracting relevant quotes.

RESULTS

Clinicians had varying preferences regarding PRS integration into LVAD decision making, while patients and caregivers preferred real-time discussions about PRS with their physicians. Physicians voiced concerns about time constraints and suggested delegating PRS discussions to advanced practice providers or nurse coordinators.

CONCLUSIONS

Integrating PRS information into LVAD decision aids presents both opportunities and challenges for SDM. Given variable preferences among clinicians and patients, clinicians should elicit patients' desired role in the decision-making process. Addressing time constraints and ensuring patient-centered care will be crucial for optimizing SDM. Practice implications Clinicians should elicit patient preferences for PRS information disclosure and address challenges, such as time constraints and delegation of PRS discussions to other team members.

Atrial fibrillation: epidemiology, screening and digital health

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is highly prevalent with a lifetime risk of about 1 in 3-5 individuals after the age of 45 years. Between 2010 and 2019, the global prevalence of AF has risen markedly from 33.5 million to 59 million individuals living with AF. Early detection of AF and implementation of appropriate treatment could reduce the frequency of complications associated with AF. International AF management guidelines recommend opportunistic and systematic screening for AF, but additional data are needed. Digital approaches and pathways have been proposed for early detection and for the transition to early AF management. Mobile health (mHealth) devices provide an opportunity for digital screening and should be part of novel models of care delivery based on integrated AF care pathways. For a broad implementation of mHealth-based, integrated care for patients with chronic diseases as AF, further high quality evidence is necessary. In this review, we present an overview of the present data on epidemiology, screening techniques, and the contribution of digital health solutions to the integrated management of AF. We also provide a systemic review on current data of digital and integrated AF management.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

A scoping review into the explanations for differences in the degrees of shared decision making experienced by patients

OBJECTIVES

In order to improve the degree of shared decision making (SDM) experienced by patients, it is necessary to gain insight into the explanations for the differences in these degrees.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature on the explanations for differences in the degree of SDM experienced by patients was conducted. We assessed 21,329 references. Ultimately, 308 studies were included. The explanations were divided into micro, meso, and macro levels.

RESULTS

The explanations are mainly related to the micro level. They include explanations related to the patient and healthcare professionals, the relationship between the patient and the physician, and the involvement of the patient's relatives. On the macro level, explanations are related to restrictions within the healthcare system such as time constraints, and adequate information about treatment options. On the meso level, explanations are related to the continuity of care and the involvement of other healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

SDM is not an isolated process between the physician and patient. Explanations are connected to the macro, meso, and micro levels.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This scoping review suggests that there could be more focus on explanations related to the macro and meso levels, and on how explanations at different levels are interrelated.

Factors Influencing Participation in Shared Decision-Making Among Patients with Glaucoma in China: A Cross-Sectional Study

Purpose

To explore the level of participation in shared decision-making by patients with glaucoma and identify influencing factors, to subsequently provide references to promote shared decision-making in ophthalmology, and achieve patient-centered care.

Patients and Methods

A questionnaire was completed by 148 patients with glaucoma who had been admitted to a specialized ophthalmic hospital in China, between October 2021 and January 2022. The participants' responses to the nine-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and a general information survey were analyzed to determine their level of participation in shared decision-making and influencing factors. Multiple linear regression was used to identify factors that influence shared decision-making at the time of clinical practice.

Results

The mean score of SDM-Q-9 was 71.73±21.27 (n=140). Multiple linear regression analysis showed that patients with negative attitudes towards participation in decision-making (P=0.023) and those who had rural insurance (P=0.017) had significantly lower SDM-Q-9 scores than those with positive attitudes and those with medical insurance. Patients who were more satisfied with their medical service had higher SDM-Q-9 scores (P<0.05).

Conclusion

Patients with glaucoma presented a high level of shared decision-making. Patients' attitudes towards participating in decision-making, the payment method of medical expenses, and the level of satisfaction with medical services are factors that influence their level of participation in shared decision-making.

Clinical decision support to Optimize Care of patients with Atrial Fibrillation or flutter in the Emergency department: protocol of a stepped-wedge cluster randomized pragmatic trial (O'CAFÉ trial)

BACKGROUND

Management of adults with atrial fibrillation (AF) or atrial flutter in the emergency department (ED) includes rate reduction, cardioversion, and stroke prevention. Different approaches to these components of care may lead to variation in frequency of hospitalization and stroke prevention actions, with significant implications for patient experience, cost of care, and risk of complications. Standardization using evidence-based recommendations could reduce variation in management, preventable hospitalizations, and stroke risk.

METHODS

We describe the rationale for our ED-based AF treatment recommendations. We also describe the development of an electronic clinical decision support system (CDSS) to deliver these recommendations to emergency physicians at the point of care. We implemented the CDSS at three pilot sites to assess feasibility and solicit user feedback. We will evaluate the impact of the CDSS on hospitalization and stroke prevention actions using a stepped-wedge cluster randomized pragmatic clinical trial across 13 community EDs in Northern California.

DISCUSSION

We hypothesize that the CDSS intervention will reduce hospitalization of adults with isolated AF or atrial flutter presenting to the ED and increase anticoagulation prescription in eligible patients at the time of ED discharge and within 30 days. If our hypotheses are confirmed, the treatment protocol and CDSS could be recommended to other EDs to improve management of adults with AF or atrial flutter.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05009225 .  Registered on 17 August 2021.