Developing a toolkit to implement the Statin Choice Conversation Aid at scale: application of a work reduction model

Healthcare systems collaborating to implement a shared decision-making tool in the electronic health record and build evidence on its adoption and use

Introduction

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a method of care by which patients and clinicians work together to co-create a plan of care. Electronic health record (EHR) integration of SDM tools may increase adoption of SDM. We conducted a "lightweight" integration of a freely available electronic SDM tool, CV Prevention Choice, within the EHRs of three healthcare systems. Here, we report how the healthcare systems collaborated to achieve integration.

Methods

This work was conducted as part of a stepped wedge randomized pragmatic trial. CV Prevention Choice was developed using guidelines for HTML5-based web applications. Healthcare systems integrated the tool in their EHR using documentation the study team developed and refined with lessons learned after each system integrated the electronic SDM tool into their EHR. CV Prevention Choice integration populates the tool with individual patient data locally without sending protected health information between the EHR and the web. Data abstraction and secure transfer systems were developed to manage data collection to assess tool implementation and effectiveness outcomes.

Results

Time to integrate CV Prevention Choice in the EHR was 12.1 weeks for the first system, 10.4 weeks for the second, and 9.7 weeks for the third. One system required two 1-hour meetings with study team members and two healthcare systems required a single 1-hour meeting. Healthcare system information technology teams collaborated by sharing information and offering improvements to documentation. Challenges included tracking CV Prevention Choice use for reporting and capture of combination medications. Data abstraction required refinements to address differences in how each healthcare system captured data elements.

Conclusion

Targeted documentation on tool features and resource mapping supported collaboration of IT teams across healthcare systems, enabling them to integrate a web-based SDM tool with little additional research team effort or oversight. Their collaboration helped overcome difficulties integrating the web application and address challenges to data harmonization for trial outcome analyses.

From guidelines to decision aids and adherence supports: Insights from the process of evidence translation

OBJECTIVE

To explore the evidence-translator's experience of the expert-recommended process of translating guidelines into tools for decision making, action, and adherence with the goal of improvement.

METHODS

A single reviewer dual reviewed the content, quality, certainty, and applicability of primary atherosclerotic cardiovascular prevention guidelines from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force at the time of this work and used targeted searches of Medline to define the ideal structure and outcomes of tools; fill in gaps in guidelines; identify end-user needs; and choose and optimize existing tools in preparation for testing.

RESULTS

Guidelines addressed screening, treatments, and/or supports, but never the combination of all three. None provided all of the information needed for evidence translation. Searches in Medline filled in some evidence gaps and provided key insights into end-user needs and effective tools. However, evidence translators are left with complicated decisions about how to use and align evidence.

CONCLUSION

Guidelines provide some, but not all, of the evidence needed for evidence translation, requiring additional intensive work. Evidence gaps result in complicated decisions about how to use and align evidence and balance feasibility and rigor.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Guidelines, standards groups, and researchers should work to better support the process of evidence translation.

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.

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.

Envisioning Shared Decision Making: A Reflection for the Next Decade

Despite the evolving evidence in favor of shared decision making (SDM) and of decades-long calls for its adoption, SDM remains uncommon in routine care. Reflecting on this lack of progress, we sought to reimagine the future of SDM and the path to take us there. In late 2017, a multidisciplinary and international group of six researchers were challenged by a senior SDM scholar to envision the future and, based on a provocatively critical view of the present, to write letters to themselves from the year 2028. Letters were exchanged and discussed electronically. The group then met in person to discuss the letters. Since the letters painted a dystopian picture, they triggered questions about the nature of SDM, who should benefit from SDM, how to measure its contribution to care, and what new ways can be invented to design and test interventions to implement SDM in routine care. Through contrasting the purposefully generated dystopias with an ideal future for SDM, we generated reflections on a research agenda for SDM. These reflections hinged on recognizing SDM's contributing to care, that is, as a way to advance the problematic human situation of patients. These focused on three distinct yet complimentary contributors to SDM: 1) the process of making decisions, 2) humanistic communication, and 3) fit-to-care of the resulting decision. The group then concluded that to move SDM from envisioned to routine practice, and to ensure it reaches all, particularly persons rendered vulnerable by current forms of health care, a substantial investment in implementation research is necessary. Perhaps the discussion of these reflections can contribute to a path forward that will improve the likelihood of the future we dream for SDM.

Overview of the main challenges in shared decision making in a multicultural and diverse society in the intensive and critical care setting

BACKGROUND

In shared decision making, health care professionals and patients collaborate in making health-related choices. This process is based on autonomy and constitutes one to the elements of patient-centered care. However, there are situations where shared decision making is more difficult, if not impossible, due to barriers, which may be related to language, culture, education, or mental capacity and external factors like the state of emergency or the availability of alternative sources of information.

AIM

The aim of this paper is to identify some of the main obstacles to the adoption of shared decision making in an intensive and critical care scenario and discuss potential ways to facilitate its implementation.

METHODS

We conducted a literature review on shared decision making from the perspective of intensive and critical care specialists.

DISCUSSION

Although the health care context is complex and the variety of situation that can arise makes it impossible to prepare professionals for every occurrence, shared decision making process should be structured at an organization level, engaging health care professionals, experts of communication, and patient representatives coming from different cultural backgrounds, languages, and education to assemble for all the main procedures, where shared decision making is involved, the specific information packages health care professionals will use in order to guide them through the process and ensuring all patients receive a comparable level of engagement. Shared decision making should not become a hindrance for the health care professional but on the contrary a way to strengthen their relationship with the patient.

CONCLUSION

The implementation of the shared decision making approach at an organization-wide level improves its quality and effectiveness.