Understanding communication between patients and healthcare professionals regarding comprehensive biomarker testing in precision oncology: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Precision oncology, using comprehensive biomarker testing (cBT) to inform individual cancer diagnosis, prognosis and treatment, includes increasingly complex technology and clinical data sets. People impacted by cancer (patients and caregivers) and healthcare professionals (HCPs) face distinct challenges in navigating the cBT and personalized treatment landscape. This review summarizes evidence regarding cBT-related communication between people impacted by cancer and HCPs and identifies important avenues for future research in precision oncology.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted using records published in PubMed during January 2017-August 2022, focusing on the breadth of topics on patient-HCP communication and knowledge resources used by HCPs as guidance in cBT-related communication. Data were extracted from records meeting inclusion criteria, and findings were summarized according to main topics.

RESULTS

The search identified 287 unique records and data were extracted from 42 records, including nine from expert input. Most records originated from the United States included patients with different types of cancer, and oncologists were the main HCPs. Patients' motivation for undergoing cBT and receiving results was generally high in different settings. However, patients' understanding of cBT-related concepts was limited, and their knowledge and information preferences changed based on cBT implications and significance to family members. HCPs were valued by patients as a trusted source of information. Limited evidence was available on HCPs' information-seeking behavior and factors influencing cBT-related knowledge and confidence, often self-reported as insufficient.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient education by knowledgeable and confident HCPs, information management and a caring patient-HCP relationship communicating continuity of care regardless of cBT results are crucial to empower patients and shared decision-making in precision oncology. More data on the process and structure of cBT-related communication, distinction between and characterization of different timepoints of patient-HCP interactions are needed.

Roles and competencies of nurses and physicians in shared decision-making in cardiac surgery: A scoping review

AIM

Identification and synthesis of research data related to the roles and competencies of physicians and nurses that are prerequisites for careful shared decision-making with patients potentially undergoing cardiac surgery.

DESIGN

A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology for scoping reviews and the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched from inception dates up to March 2022, to identify primary studies published in a peer-reviewed journal. Study selection, assessment of the methodological quality and data extracting of the included studies were done by at least two independent researchers. To describe the findings of the studies, an emergent synthesis approach was used to visualize a descriptive representation of professional roles and competencies in shared decision-making, in an overview.

RESULTS

The systematic search revealed 10,055 potential papers, 8873 articles were screened on title and abstract and 76 full texts were retrieved. Eight articles were included for final evaluation. For nurses and physicians, 26 different skills were identified in the literature to practice shared decision-making in cardiac surgery. The skills that emerged were divided into five professional roles: moderator; health educator; data collector; psychological supporter and translator.

CONCLUSIONS

This review specifies the professional roles and required competencies related to shared decision-making in cardiac surgery. Further research is needed to compare our findings with other clinical areas and from there to arrive at a professional division of roles between the different clinical disciplines involved.

IMPACT

The visualization of generic shared decision-making competencies and roles should establish the professional division of positions between various clinical physician and nurse disciplines in order to create a treatment plan based on evidence, values, preferences and the patient's personal situation.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution.

Expanding the Paradigm for Cardiovascular Palliative Care

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death worldwide. Despite medical advances, patients with CVD experience high morbidity and mortality rates, affecting their quality of life and death. Among CVD conditions, palliative care has been studied mostly in patients with heart failure, where palliative care interventions have been associated with improvements in patient-centered outcomes, including quality of life, end-of-life care, and health care use. Although palliative care is now incorporated into the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Failure Society of America guidelines for heart failure, the role of palliative care for non-heart failure CVD remains uncertain. Across all causes of CVD, palliative care can play an important role in all domains of CVD care from initial diagnosis to terminal care. In addition to general cardiovascular palliative care practices applicable to all areas, disease-specific palliative care needs may warrant individualized palliative care models. In this review, we discuss the role of cardiovascular palliative care for ischemic heart disease, valvular disease, arrhythmias, peripheral artery disease, and adult congenital heart disease. Although there are multiple barriers to cardiovascular palliative care, we recommend a framework for studying and developing cardiovascular palliative care models to improve patient-centered goal-concordant care for this underserved patient population.

Shared decision-making and specific informed consent in patients with aortic aneurysms

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the refusal rate of elective aortic aneurysm surgery in asymptomatic patients after the presentation of a detailed informed consent form followed by a meeting where patient and their families can analyze each item.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective analysis of 49 patients who had aneurysms and were offered surgical treatment between June 2017 and February 2019. The patients were divided into two groups: the Rejected Surgery Group, which was composed of patients who refused the proposed surgical treatment, and the Accepted Surgery Group, comprising patients who accepted the proposed surgeries and subsequently underwent them.

RESULTS

Of the 49 patients, 13 (26.5%) refused surgery after reading the informed consent and attending the comprehensive meeting. We observed that patients who refused surgery had statistically smaller aneurysms than those who accepted surgery (9% versus 26%). These smaller aneurysms were above the indication size, according to the literature.

CONCLUSION

One-quarter of patients who were indicated for elective surgical repair of aortic aneurysms rejected surgery after shared decision-making, which involved presenting patients with an informed consent form followed by a clarification meeting for them and their families to analyze each item. The only factor that significantly influenced a rejection of the procedure was the size of the aneurysm; patients who rejected surgery had smaller aneurysms than those who accepted surgery. Up to 26% of patients with aortic aneurysms refused surgical repair. The proposed technique, whether open or endovascular, did not influence patients' decisions. Patients with smaller aneurysms were more likely to refuse aortic aneurysm treatment.

Experiences Implementing a Suite of Decision Aids for Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators: Qualitative Insights From the DECIDE-ICD Trial

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is gaining importance in cardiology, including Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) reimbursement policies requiring documented SDM for patients considering primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators. The DECIDE-ICD Trial (Decision Support Intervention for Patients offered implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators) assessed the implementation and effectiveness of patient decision aids (DAs) using a stepped-wedge design at 7 sites. The purpose of this subanalysis was to qualitatively describe electrophysiology clinicians' experience implementing and using the DAs.

METHODS

This included semi-structured individual interviews with electrophysiology clinicians at participating sites across the US, at least 6 months following conversion into the implementation phase of the trial (from June 2020 through February 2022). The interview guide was structured according to the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance [implementation evaluation model]) framework, assessing clinician experiences, which can impact implementation domains, and was qualitatively assessed using a mixed inductive/deductive method.

RESULTS

We completed 22 interviews post-implementation across all 7 sites. Participants included both physicians (n=16) and other clinicians who counsel patients regarding treatment options (n=6). While perception of SDM and the DA were positive, participants highlighted reasons for uneven delivery of DAs to appropriate patients. The CMS mandate for SDM was not universally viewed as associating with patients receiving DA's, but rather (1) logistics of DA delivery, (2) perceived effectiveness in improving patient decision-making, and (3) match of DA content to current patient populations. Remaining tensions include the specific trial data used in DAs and reconciling timing of delivery with when patients are actively making decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians charged with delivering DAs to patients considering primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillators were generally supportive of the tenets of SDM, and of the DA tools themselves, but noted several opportunities to improve the reach and continued use of them in routine care.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique Identifier: NCT03374891.

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.

Dimensional Analysis of Shared Decision Making in Contraceptive Counseling

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a dimensional analysis to identify conceptual gaps around shared decision making (SDM) in reproductive health care and to refine the conceptual definition of SDM as related to contraceptive counseling.

DATA SOURCES

We identified source data through systematic searches of the CINAHL and PubMed databases.

STUDY SELECTION

We included peer-reviewed research and nonresearch articles that addressed contraceptive counseling for pregnancy prevention in the United States. We did not consider date of publication as an inclusion criterion. We included 35 articles in the final review.

DATA EXTRACTION

Using dimensional analysis, we extracted data to clarify the definition of SDM as a socially constructed concept that varies by perspective and context.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Data synthesis enabled us to compare SDM from patient and provider perspectives and to identify four primary dimensions of SDM that varied by context: Patient Preferences, Relationship, Provider Bias, and Clinical Suitability.

CONCLUSION

The four dimensions we identified illustrate the complexity and depth of SDM in contraceptive counseling encounters and broaden the definition of SDM to more than an encounter in which decision making incorporates clinician expertise and patient participation. We identified several assumptions that indicate the need for improved understanding that SDM is not a universal concept across perspectives and contexts. Most researchers in the included articles addressed the Patient Preferences dimension. Fewer considered the patient-provider relationship, the effect of provider bias, and the effect of specific clinical circumstances on SDM. We propose a conceptual map and model that can be used to refine the concepts that inform SDM and guide providers and researchers. Future research is needed to address the remaining gaps.

A Brief Shared Decision-Making Intervention for Acute Respiratory Infections on Antibiotic Dispensing Rates in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Trial

PURPOSE

To determine whether acute respiratory infection (ARI) decision aids and a general practitioner (GP) training package reduces antibiotic dispensing rate and improves GPs' knowledge of antibiotic benefit-harm evidence.

METHODS

A cluster randomized trial of 27 Australian general practices (13 intervention, 14 control) involving 122 GPs. Intervention group GPs were given brief decision aids for 3 ARIs (acute otitis media, acute sore throat, acute bronchitis) and video-delivered training. Primary outcome was dispensing rate of target antibiotic classes (routinely used for ARIs), extracted for 12 months before, and following, randomization. Secondary outcomes were GPs' knowledge of antibiotic benefit-harm evidence; prescribing influences; acceptability, usefulness, and self-reported resource use; and dispensing rate of all antibiotics.

RESULTS

The baseline mean dispensing rate of ARI-related antibiotics was 3.5% (intervention GPs) and 3.2% (control GPs) of consultations. After 12 months, mean rates decreased (to 2.9% intervention; 2.6% control): an 18% relative reduction from baseline but similar in both groups (rate ratio 1.01; 95% CI, 0.89-1.15). Greater increases in knowledge were seen in the intervention group than control; a significant increase (average 3.6; 95% CI, 2.4-4.7, P <.001) in the number of correct responses to the 22 knowledge questions. There were no between-group differences for other secondary outcomes. The intervention was well received, perceived as useful, and reported as used by about two-thirds of intervention GPs.

CONCLUSIONS

A brief shared decision-making intervention provided to GPs did not reduce antibiotic dispensing more than usual care, although GPs' knowledge of relevant benefit-harm evidence increased significantly.

Impact of the shared decision-making process on lung cancer screening decisions

Background

Professional organizations recommend the use of shared decision‐making (SDM) in supporting patients’ decisions about lung cancer screening (LCS). The objective of this study was to assess the impact of the SDM process on patient knowledge about LCS, decisional conflict, intentions to adhere to screening recommendations, and its role in how the patient made the final decision.

Methods

This study surveyed patients screened for lung cancer within 12 months of the survey, recruited from two academic tertiary care centers in the South Central Region of the U.S. (May to July 2018).

Results

Two hundred and sixty‐four patients completed the survey (87.9% White, 52% male, and mean age of 64.81). Higher SDM process scores (which indicates a better SDM process reported by patients) were significantly associated with greater knowledge of LCS (b = 0.17 p < 0.01). Higher SDM process scores were associated with less decisional conflict about their screening choice (b = 0.45, p < 0.001), greater intentions to make the same decision again (OR = 1.42, 95% CI = [1.06–1.89]), and greater intentions to undergo LCS again (OR = 1.32, 95% CI = [1.08–1.62]). The SDM process score was not associated with patients’ report of whether or not they shared the final decision with the healthcare provider (OR = 1.07, 95% CI = [0.85–1.35]).

Conclusion(s)

This study found that a better SDM process was associated with better affective‐cognitive outcomes among patients screened for lung cancer.

The impact of the shared decision‐making (SDM) process on patient outcomes in the context of lung cancer screening is understudied. This study found that a better SDM process was associated with greater knowledge of LCS, less decisional conflict, and intentions to adhere to LCS screening guidelines.

Supporting residential aged care through a Community of Practice

Transfers to Emergency Departments and hospitalizations are common for older people living in residential aged care who experience acute deterioration. This paper shares reflections from 10 years of work across a region in New South Wales, Australia, to develop a new model of care in141 residential aged care homes. The model successfully reduced Emergency Department transfers and admissions to hospital. Using an exemplar patient case, the paper describes the Aged Care Emergency Program and associated research outputs. An interprofessional, multi-agency Community of Practice supported this work. The authors reflect on the successes and challenges of using a Community of Practice to implement the model of care. We conclude that the Community of Practice, with its iterative evaluation, facilitated change and provided a mechanism for interprofessional practice. Broader systemic change requires clarity in goals of care, shared decision-making, working across sectors, and appropriate resource allocation. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Predictors of Regret among Older Men after Stress Urinary Incontinence Treatment Decisions

PURPOSE

When seeking treatment for male stress urinary incontinence (mSUI), patients are faced with weighing complex risks and benefits in making treatment decisions within their individual context. We sought to quantify the frequency of decisional regret among this population and to determine factors associated with regret.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A cohort of 130 males aged ≥65 years seen for initial mSUI consultation at the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center and the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center between June 2015 and March 2020 was developed. Using retrospective chart review and telephone interviews, we ascertained decisional regret as well as other patient-, disease- and treatment-related characteristics. Decisional regret was analyzed by treatment type and patient-, disease- and treatment-related factors. Multivariable logistic regression models were built to examine the factors most associated with decisional regret.

RESULTS

Among the entire cohort, 22% reported moderate to severe decisional regret. Regret was highest among those electing conservative management, with 34.7% having decisional regret (vs with surgery: 8.3% sling, 8.2% sphincter; p <0.001). In multivariable analysis, depression, lower rating of shared decision making and higher current incontinence scores were significantly associated with decisional regret.

CONCLUSIONS

Recognition of depression, improved efforts at shared decision making and more individualized treatment counseling have the potential to improve patient satisfaction with treatment choice. In addition, given high levels of regret among those electing conservative treatment, we may be underutilizing mSUI surgery in this population.

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.

Factors affecting the decision to investigate older adults with potential cancer symptoms: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Older age and frailty increase the risk of morbidity and mortality from cancer surgery and intolerance of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. The effect of old age on diagnostic intervals is unknown; however, older adults need a balanced approach to the diagnosis and management of cancer symptoms, considering the benefits of early diagnosis, patient preferences, and the likely prognosis of a cancer.

AIM

To examine the association between older age and diagnostic processes for cancer, and the specific factors that affect diagnosis.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A systematic literature review.

METHOD

Electronic databases were searched for studies of patients aged >65 years presenting with cancer symptoms to primary care considering diagnostic decisions. Studies were analysed using thematic synthesis and according to the Synthesis Without Meta-analysis guidelines.

RESULTS

Data from 54 studies with 230 729 participants were included. The majority of studies suggested an association between increasing age and prolonged diagnostic interval or deferral of a decision to investigate cancer symptoms. Thematic synthesis highlighted three important factors that resulted in uncertainty in decisions involving older adults: presence of frailty, comorbidities, and cognitive impairment. Data suggested patients wished to be involved in decision making, but the presence of cognitive impairment and the need for additional time within a consultation were significant barriers.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review has highlighted uncertainty in the management of older adults with cancer symptoms. Patients and their family wished to be involved in these decisions. Given the uncertainty regarding optimum management of this group of patients, a shared decision-making approach is important.

Role of GPs in shared decision making with patients about palliative cancer treatment: a qualitative study in the Netherlands

Background

GPs are well placed to enhance shared decision making (SDM) about treatment for patients with advanced cancer. However, to date, little is known about GPs’ views about their contribution to SDM.

Aim

To explore GPs’ perspectives on their role in SDM about palliative cancer treatment and the requirements they report to fulfil this role.

Design and setting

Qualitative interview study among Dutch GPs.

Method

GPs were sampled purposefully and conveniently. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were conducted, recorded, and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed by thematic analysis.

Results

Fifteen GPs took part in this study. Most of them reported practices that potentially support SDM: checking the quality of a decision, complementing SDM, and enabling SDM. Even though most of the GPs believed that decision making about systemic cancer treatment is primarily the oncologist’s responsibility, they did recognise their added value in the SDM process because of their gatekeeper position, the additional opportunity they offer patients to discuss treatment decisions, and their knowledge and experience as primary healthcare providers at the end of life. Requirements for them to support the SDM process were described as: good collaboration with oncologists; sufficient information about the disease and its treatment; time to engage in conversations about treatment; a trusting relationship with patients; and patient-centred communication.

Conclusion

GPs may support SDM by checking the quality of a decision and by complementing and enabling the SDM process to reach high-quality decisions. This conceptualisation of the GP’s supporting role in SDM may help us to understand how SDM is carried out through interprofessional collaboration and provide tools for how to adopt a role in the interprofessional SDM process.

Committee Opinion No. 419: Coercion Free Contraceptive Care

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidance on culturally competent contraception counselling that is free of coercion and promotes shared decision-making and patient autonomy.

TARGET POPULATION

Individuals of reproductive age who seek contraception or counselling for family planning.

OPTIONS

Contraception counselling is provided within a rights-based family planning framework, where the individual's beliefs, culture, preferences, and ability to use the chosen method are respected.

OUTCOMES

To promote patient autonomy in decision-making surrounding family planning, including the right to access and use their contraceptive method of choice, to decline contraception or use less effective methods of contraception, and to freely choose to discontinue a method of contraception, as well as the right to unbiased, non-coercive contraception counselling and evidence-based information from their health care provider BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: Implementation of these recommendations would reduce real or perceived coercive contraceptive care, particularly among vulnerable populations, resulting in improved patient autonomy and a better patient experience in health care settings.

EVIDENCE

Databases searched: MEDLINE, Cochrane, PubMed, and CanLII. Medical terms used: contraception, family planning services, informed consent, coercion, decision making, sterilization, permanent contraception, counselling. Legal terms searched: forced sterilization, and aboriginal. Initial search conducted in 2020 and updated in 2021.

INTENDED AUDIENCE

This committee opinion is intended for health care providers (obstetricians, gynaecologists, family physicians, general surgeons, nurse practitioners, nurses, midwives, undergraduate/postgraduate medical trainees, and other health care providers) who provide sexual and reproductive health services.

Factors predicting statin prescribing for primary prevention: a historical cohort study

Background

Initiation of statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) should be based on CVD risk estimates, but their use is suboptimal.

Aim

To investigate the factors influencing statin prescribing when clinicians code and do not code estimated CVD risk (QRISK2).

Design and setting

A historical cohort of patients who had lipid tests in a database (IQVIA Medical Research Data) of UK primary care records.

Method

The cohort comprised 686 560 entries (lipid test results) between 2012 and 2016 from 383 416 statin-naive patients without previous CVD. Coded QRISK2 scores were extracted, with variables used in calculating QRISK2 and factors that might influence statin prescribing. If a QRISK2 score was not coded, it was calculated post hoc. The outcome was initiation of a statin within 60 days of the lipid test result.

Results

Of the entries, 146 693 (21.4%) had a coded QRISK2 score. Statins were initiated in 6.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 6.4% to 6.7%) of those with coded and 4.1% (95% CI = 4.0% to 4.1%) of uncoded QRISK2 (P<0.001). Statin initiations were consistent with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline recommendations in 85.0% (95% CI = 84.2% to 85.8%) of coded and 44.2% (95% CI = 43.5% to 44.9%) of uncoded QRISK2 groups (P<0.001). When coded, QRISK2 score was the main predictor of statin initiation, but total cholesterol was the main predictor when a QRISK2 score was not coded.

Conclusion

When a QRISK2 score is coded, prescribing is more consistent with guidelines. With no QRISK2 score, prescribing is mainly based on total cholesterol. Using QRISK2 is associated with statin prescribing that is more likely to benefit patients. Promoting the routine CVD risk estimation is essential to optimise decision making.

Guideline No. 413: Surgical Management of Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Women

OBJECTIVE

To compare success and complication rates of apical suspension procedures for the surgical management of symptomatic uterine or vaginal vault prolapse.

TARGET POPULATION

Women with symptomatic uterine or vaginal vault prolapse seeking surgical correction.

OPTIONS

Interventions included abdominal apical reconstructive repairs (sacrocolpopexy, sacrohysteropexy, or uterosacral hysteropexy) via open, laparoscopic, or robotic approaches; vaginal apical reconstructive repairs (vault suspensions or hysteropexy, sacrospinous, uterosacral, iliococcygeus, McCall's, or Manchester types); and vaginal obliterative procedures (with or without uterus in situ). Individual procedures or broad categories of procedures were compared: (1) vaginal versus abdominal routes for reconstruction, (2) abdominal procedures for reconstruction, (3) vaginal procedures for reconstruction, (4) hysterectomy and suspension versus hysteropexy for reconstruction, and (5) reconstructive versus obliterative options.

OUTCOMES

The Urogynaecology Committee selected outcomes of interest: objective failure (obtained via validated pelvic organ prolapse [POP] quantification systems and defined as overall objective failure as well as failure rate by compartment); subjective failure (recurrence of bulge symptoms determined subjectively, with or without use of a validated questionnaire); reoperation for POP recurrence; complications of postoperative lower urinary tract symptoms (de novo or postoperative stress urinary incontinence; reoperation for persistent, recurrent, or de novo stress urinary incontinence; urge urinary incontinence; and voiding dysfunction); perioperatively recognized urinary tract injury (bladder or ureter); other complications (mesh exposure, defined as mesh being visible and exposed in the vagina, and non-sexual pelvic pain); and sexual function (de novo dyspareunia and sexual function score according to a validated questionnaire).

BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS

This guideline will benefit patients seeking surgical correction of apical POP by improving counselling on surgical treatment options and possible outcomes. It will also benefit surgical providers by improving their knowledge of various surgical approaches. Data presented could be used to develop frameworks and tools for shared decision-making.

EVIDENCE

We searched Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Embase from 2002 to 2019. The search included multiple terms for apical POP surgical procedures, approaches, and complications. We excluded POP repairs using transvaginal mesh and studies that compared procedures without apical suspension. We included randomized controlled trials and prospective or retrospective comparative studies. We limited language of publication to English and French and accessibility to full text. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed.

VALIDATION METHODS

The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. See online Appendix A (Tables A1 for definitions and A2 for interpretations of strong and weak recommendations).

INTENDED USERS

Gynaecologists, urologists, urogynaecologists, and other health care providers who assess, counsel, and care for women with POP.

SUMMARY STATEMENTS

All statements refer to correction of apical vaginal prolapse in the short and medium term (up to 5 years), except when otherwise specified.

RECOMMENDATIONS

An Electronically Delivered Patient-Activation Tool for Intensification of Medications for Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: The EPIC-HF Trial

BACKGROUND

Major gaps exist in the routine initiation and dose up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT) for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Without novel approaches to improve prescribing, the cumulative benefits of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction treatment will be largely unrealized. Direct-to-consumer marketing and shared decision making reflect a culture where patients are increasingly involved in treatment choices, creating opportunities for prescribing interventions that engage patients.

METHODS

The EPIC-HF (Electronically Delivered, Patient-Activation Tool for Intensification of Medications for Chronic Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction) trial randomized patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from a diverse health system to usual care versus patient activation tools-a 3-minute video and 1-page checklist-delivered electronically 1 week before, 3 days before, and 24 hours before a cardiology clinic visit. The tools encouraged patients to work collaboratively with their clinicians to "make one positive change" in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction prescribing. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with GDMT medication initiations and dose intensifications from immediately preceding the cardiology clinic visit to 30 days after, compared with usual care during the same period.

RESULTS

EPIC-HF enrolled 306 patients, 290 of whom attended a clinic visit during the study period: 145 were sent the patient activation tools and 145 were controls. The median age of patients was 65 years; 29% were female, 11% were Black, 7% were Hispanic, and the median ejection fraction was 32%. Preclinic data revealed significant GDMT opportunities, with no patients on target doses of β-blocker, sacubitril/valsartan, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. From immediately preceding the cardiology clinic visit to 30 days after, 49.0% in the intervention and 29.7% in the control experienced an initiation or intensification of their GDMT (P=0.001). The majority of these changes were made at the clinician encounter itself and involved dose uptitrations. There were no deaths and no significant differences in hospitalization or emergency department visits at 30 days between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A patient activation tool delivered electronically before a cardiology clinic visit improved clinician intensification of GDMT. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03334188.

GP involvement after a cancer diagnosis; patients' call to improve decision support

BACKGROUND

Shared decision making (SDM) is considered important to realise personalised cancer care. Increased GP involvement after a diagnosis is advocated to improve SDM.

AIM

To explore whether patients with cancer are in need of GP involvement in cancer care in general and in SDM, and whether GP involvement occurs.

DESIGN & SETTING

An online national survey was distributed by the Dutch Federation of Cancer Patient Organisations (NFK) in May 2019.

METHOD

The survey was sent to (former) patients with cancer. Topics included GP involvement in cancer care in general and in SDM. Descriptive statistics and quotes were used.

RESULTS

Among 4763 (former) patients with cancer, 59% (n = 2804) expressed a need for GP involvement in cancer care. Of these patients, 79% (n = 2193) experienced GP involvement. Regarding GP involvement in SDM, 82% of patients (n = 3724) expressed that the GP should 'listen to patients' worries and considerations', 69% (n = 3130) to 'check patients' understanding of information', 66% (n = 3006) to 'discuss patients' priorities in life and the consequences of treatment options for these priorities', and 67% (n = 3045) to 'create awareness of the patient's role in the decision making'. This happened in 47%, 17%, 15% and 10% of these patients, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The majority of (former) patients with cancer expressed a need for active GP involvement in cancer care. GP support in the fundamental SDM steps is presently insufficient. Therefore, GPs should be made aware of these needs and enabled to support their patients with cancer in SDM.

The content and conduct of GP consultations for dermatology problems: a cross-sectional study

Background

Skin complaints are common in primary care, and poor outcomes in long-term conditions are often due to low adherence to treatment. Shared decision making and self-management support may help, yet there is little understanding of patient involvement or the support provided by GPs.

Aim

To describe the content of primary care consultations for skin problems, including shared decision making practice, delivery of self-management advice, and follow-up.

Design and setting

Cross-sectional study of video-recorded UK adult GP consultations and linked data.

Method

A coding tool was developed and applied to all consultations with skin problems. Shared decision making was assessed using the observer OPTION⁵ scale.

Results

A total of 45/318 consultations (14.2%) related to one or more skin problems, which were discussed alongside other problems in 71.1% (32/45) of consultations. Of the 100 different problems discussed in these consultations, 51 were dermatological. The mean amount of time spent on skin problems in the consultations was 4 minutes 16 seconds. Medication was recommended for 66.7% (34/51) of skin problems, with low shared decision making (mean OPTION⁵ score = 10.7). Self-management advice (verbal only) was given for 47.1% (24/51) of skin problems. Most skin problems (84.3%; 43/51) were not referred to secondary care; 32.6% (14/43) of the skin problems not referred were seen again in primary care within 12 weeks, of which 35.7% (5/14) follow-up appointments were not planned.

Conclusion

In this study, skin problems were usually presented alongside other complaints and resulted in a medication recommendation. Shared decision making was uncommon and self-management advice not consistently given, with re-attendance for the same problem common. GPs’ training should reflect how frequently skin problems are seen and seek to improve patient involvement in decision making and support self-management.

Revisiting the Care Pathway for Trial of Labour After Cesarean: The Decision-to-Delivery Interval Is Key

Centres providing maternity care and offering a trial of labour after cesarean must develop and use maternal educational and consent processes that emphasize choice and autonomy related to options for and decisions surrounding vaginal birth after cesarean and elective repeat cesarean delivery. These centres should have administrative systems and processes that take into account local resources for cesarean delivery services, including team-based complex maternity risk support and an urgency consensus on the fetal, maternal, and maternal-fetal indications for a surgical delivery to ensure an appropriate decision-to-delivery interval.

Exploring how GPs discuss statin deprescribing with older people: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Given uncertainty surrounding benefits and harms, shifts in patient health status, and changing patient goals and preferences, statin deprescribing may be considered in some older people. This decision should be carefully discussed between GPs and patients.

AIM

To explore how GPs discuss deprescribing of statins with their older patients.

DESIGN & SETTING

A qualitative study was undertaken using face-to-face, semi-structured interviews with Danish GPs from the regions of Southern Demark and Zealand.

METHOD

The GP participants belonged to group practices and were identified from personal networks and snowballing. The interviews lasted approximately 30 minutes and were conducted in English. They were analysed using systematic text condensation.

RESULTS

A total of 11 GPs were interviewed and three themes were identified. (1) Reason for initiating a discussion: statin deprescribing mainly came up when GPs reviewed medication lists. There were differences between GPs regarding when or if they brought up deprescribing. (2) Discussion topics: GPs often discussed their interpretation of evidence surrounding statin use in older people. There were differences in how and if GPs discussed patient preferences. GPs viewed uncertainty and life expectancy as difficult to discuss. (3) Depth of discussion: the perceived level of patient engagement, and clinical context, could influence the extent of discussion.

CONCLUSION

GPs identified a range of topics that could be discussed with patients surrounding statin deprescribing. The depth and content of discussions varied according to the situation, and between GPs. Challenges may exist in communicating around certain topics, such as uncertainty and life expectancy. Further understanding of how to best communicate around challenging topics, and development of structured frameworks, may help facilitate statin deprescribing discussions. Identifying what patients think is important to discuss would provide necessary insight to promote quality discussions and shared understanding of the decision.

Maternal Preferences for Vitamin D Supplementation in Breastfed Infants

Daily vitamin D supplementation is recommended for breastfed infants, but alternative methods include enriching breast milk with vitamin D through maternal supplementation or intermittent high-dose vitamin D. We determined maternal preferences for vitamin D supplementation in 140 mothers with exclusively breastfed infants, and 44 who used both breast and formula milk. Only 101 (55%) supplemented their infants with vitamin D. One hundred sixty (88%) preferred supplementing themselves rather than their infants, and 102 (57%) preferred daily to monthly supplementation. Safety was most important in choosing a method of supplementation. Taking maternal preferences into consideration may improve adequate intakes of vitamin D in breastfed infants.

Using quantitative risk information in decisions about statins: a qualitative study in a community setting

Background

A large literature informs guidance for GPs about communicating quantitative risk information so as to facilitate shared decision making. However, relatively little has been written about how patients utilise such information in practice.

Aim

To understand the role of quantitative risk information in patients’ accounts of decisions about taking statins.

Design and setting

This was a qualitative study, with participants recruited and interviewed in community settings.

Method

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 34 participants aged >50 years, all of whom had been offered statins. Data were analysed thematically, using elements of the constant comparative method.

Results

Interviewees drew frequently on numerical test results to explain their decisions about preventive medication. In contrast, they seldom mentioned quantitative risk information, and never offered it as a rationale for action. Test results were spoken of as objects of concern despite an often-explicit absence of understanding, so lack of understanding seems unlikely to explain the non-use of risk estimates. Preventive medication was seen as ‘necessary’ either to treat test results, or because of personalised, unequivocal advice from a doctor.

Conclusion

This study’s findings call into question the assumption that people will heed and use numerical risk information once they understand it; these data highlight the need to consider the ways in which different kinds of knowledge are used in practice in everyday contexts. There was little evidence from this study that understanding probabilistic risk information was a necessary or valued condition for making decisions about statin use.

An Observational Study to Evaluate the Usability and Intent to Adopt an Artificial Intelligence-Powered Medication Reconciliation Tool

BACKGROUND

Medication reconciliation (the process of creating an accurate list of all medications a patient is taking) is a widely practiced procedure to reduce medication errors. It is mandated by the Joint Commission and reimbursed by Medicare. Yet, in practice, medication reconciliation is often not effective owing to knowledge gaps in the team. A promising approach to improve medication reconciliation is to incorporate artificial intelligence (AI) decision support tools into the process to engage patients and bridge the knowledge gap.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to improve the accuracy and efficiency of medication reconciliation by engaging the patient, the nurse, and the physician as a team via an iPad tool. With assistance from the AI agent, the patient will review his or her own medication list from the electronic medical record (EMR) and annotate changes, before reviewing together with the physician and making decisions on the shared iPad screen.

METHODS

In this study, we developed iPad-based software tools, with AI decision support, to engage patients to "self-service" medication reconciliation and then share the annotated reconciled list with the physician. To evaluate the software tool's user interface and workflow, a small number of patients (10) in a primary care clinic were recruited, and they were observed through the whole process during a pilot study. The patients are surveyed for the tool's usability afterward.

RESULTS

All patients were able to complete the medication reconciliation process correctly. Every patient found at least one error or other issues with their EMR medication lists. All of them reported that the tool was easy to use, and 8 of 10 patients reported that they will use the tool in the future. However, few patients interacted with the learning modules in the tool. The physician and nurses reported the tool to be easy-to-use, easy to integrate into existing workflow, and potentially time-saving.

CONCLUSIONS

We have developed a promising tool for a new approach to medication reconciliation. It has the potential to create more accurate medication lists faster, while better informing the patients about their medications and reducing burden on clinicians.

Shared Decision Making in Pediatrics: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the impact of interventions to support shared decision making (SDM) with pediatric patients.

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the efficacy of SDM interventions in pediatrics on patient-centered outcomes.

DATA SOURCES

We searched Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, Ovid Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, and Ovid PsycInfo from database inception to December 30, 2013, and performed an environmental scan.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included interventions designed to engage pediatric patients, parents, or both in a medical decision, regardless of study design or reported outcomes.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS

We reviewed all studies in duplicate for inclusion, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. Meta-analysis was performed on 3 outcomes: knowledge, decisional conflict, and satisfaction.

RESULTS

Sixty-one citations describing 54 interventions met eligibility criteria. Fifteen studies reported outcomes such that they were eligible for inclusion in meta-analysis. Heterogeneity across studies was high. Meta-analysis revealed SDM interventions significantly improved knowledge (standardized mean difference [SMD] 1.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.26 to 2.17, P = .01) and reduced decisional conflict (SMD -1.20, 95% CI -2.01 to -0.40, P = .003). Interventions showed a nonsignificant trend toward increased satisfaction (SMD 0.37, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.78, P = .08).

LIMITATIONS

Included studies were heterogeneous in nature, including their conceptions of SDM.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS

A limited evidence base suggests that pediatric SDM interventions improve knowledge and decisional conflict, but their impact on other outcomes is unclear.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42013004761 (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42013004761).

Shared decision making and motivational interviewing: achieving patient-centered care across the spectrum of health care problems

Patient-centered care requires different approaches depending on the clinical situation. Motivational interviewing and shared decision making provide practical and well-described methods to accomplish patient-centered care in the context of situations where medical evidence supports specific behavior changes and the most appropriate action is dependent on the patient's preferences. Many clinical consultations may require elements of both approaches, however. This article describes these 2 approaches-one to address ambivalence to medically indicated behavior change and the other to support patients in making health care decisions in cases where there is more than one reasonable option-and discusses how clinicians can draw on these approaches alone and in combination to achieve patient-centered care across the range of health care problems.