Search

Introduction. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services mandate that clinicians use a shared decision-making interaction to provide information about the harms and benefits of lung cancer screening (LCS). Methods. We enrolled patients from 3 geographically diverse medical centers after a decision-making interaction about undergoing LCS but before receiving a low-dose computed tomography (CT) scan. We performed the primary analysis based on the primary knowledge question, “Which of these conditions do you think that the CT scan screens for?” We used the knowledge summary score in secondary analyses. We evaluated LCS care experience by using validated instruments to measure participant-reported communication quality (Consultation Care Measure), perception of the primary LCS clinician (Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems), and decision conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale). Results. Of the 409 participants, 44% correctly answered the primary LCS knowledge question. Clinician communication quality was rated positively by 93% of participants. Most (93%) participants rated their LCS clinician as good. Only 14% reported decision conflict. Correctly answering the primary LCS knowledge question was associated with higher patient-clinician communication quality scores (b = 0.4; 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.1, 0.7]; R 2 change = 0.03) and higher LCS clinician ratings (b = 0.4; 95% CI [0.0, 0.7]; R 2 change = 0.02) but not with decision conflict. In secondary analyses, higher total LCS knowledge score was associated with lower Decisional Conflict Scale scores (b = −2.2; 95% CI [−3.4, −0.9]; R 2 change = 0.24), indicating lower decision conflict. Conclusions. After an LCS decision-making interaction, many patients do not retain basic knowledge about LCS but nevertheless had low levels of decision conflict. Primary LCS knowledge may be important but insufficient to ensure high-quality, patient-centered LCS care. Highlights Survey of patients with a lung cancer screening (LCS) decision-making interaction. Only 44% of patients correctly answered the knowledge question about LCS. Primary LCS knowledge was not associated with decision conflict. Patient knowledge about LCS may not equate to high-quality patient-centered care.

Objectives: This study was designed to understand the experience and needs surrounding advance care planning (ACP) discussions for surrogate decision-makers of persons with advanced dementia (PWAD). Methods: Semi-structured qualitative interviews based on end-of-life communication models with a convenience sample of 17 clinicians, and 15 surrogates of PWAD. We used a hybrid approach of deductive and inductive thematic analysis. Results: Two main themes emerged. 1)Deficits in communication: Often surrogates did not fully comprehend the disease trajectory or medical treatments, like the likelihood of pneumonia and use of mechanical ventilation, nor concepts related to ACP, particularly legal documents and orders such as Do Not Hospitalize, which made decision-making challenging as perceived by clinicians. 2)Decision-making conflicts: Clinicians perceived a disconnect between surrogates' understanding of their loved one's preferences and knowing how or when to operationalize them. Conclusions: Significant gaps in knowledge surrounding disease trajectory and complications, such as pneumonia, and aspects of ACP, exist. These gaps create decision-making challenges for surrogates and clinicians alike. Innovation: This study assessed both clinicians and surrogate decision-makers' perspectives on communication and decision-making concerning care preferences, goals, and ACP. The study findings from a national cohort can inform decision-support interventions for clinicians and surrogate decision-makers of PWAD.

Objective: Evidence-based decision support resources do not exist for persons with lung cancer. We sought to develop and refine a treatment decision support, or conversation tool, to improve shared decision-making (SDM). Methods: We conducted a multi-site study among patients with stage I-IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who completed or had ongoing lung cancer treatment using semi-structured, cognitive qualitative interviews to assess participant understanding of content. We used an integrated approach of deductive and inductive thematic analysis. Results: Twenty-seven patients with NSCLC participated. Participants with prior cancer experiences or those with family members with prior cancer experiences reported better preparedness for cancer treatment decision-making. All participants agreed the conversation tool would be helpful to clarify their thinking about values, comparisons, and goals of treatment, and to help patients communicate more effectively with their clinicians. Conclusion: Participants reported that the tool may empower them with confidence and agency to actively participate in cancer treatment SDM. The conversation tool was acceptable, comprehensible, and usable. Next steps will test effectiveness on patient-centered and decisional outcomes. Innovation: A personalized conversation tool using consequence tables and core SDM components is novel in that it can encourage a tailored, conversational dynamic and includes patient-centered values along with traditional decisional outcomes.