Search

Elizabeth H Golembiewski,1 Montserrat Leon-Garcia,1– 3 Derek Loy Gravholt,1 Juan P Brito,1 Erica S Spatz,4 Markus A Bendel,5 Victor M Montori,1 Andrea P Maraboto,1 Sandra A Hartasanchez,1 Ian G Hargraves1 1Knowledge and Evaluation (KER) Unit, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA; 2Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, Spain; 3Department of Pediatrics, Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Preventive Medicine, Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain; 4Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA; 5Division of Pain Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USACorrespondence: Ian G Hargraves, Knowledge and Evaluation Research (KER) Unit, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN, 55905, USA, Email hargraves.ian@mayo.eduPurpose: To compare three methods for identifying patient preferences (MIPPs) at the point of decision-making: analysis of video-recorded patient-clinician encounters, post-encounter interviews, and post-encounter surveys.Patients and Methods: For the decision of whether to use a spinal cord stimulator device (SCS), a video coding scheme, interview guide, and patient survey were iteratively developed with 30 SCS decision-making encounters in a tertiary academic medical center pain clinic. Burke’s grammar of motives was used to classify the attributed source or justification for a potential preference for each preference block. To compare the MIPPs, 13 patients’ encounters with their clinician were video recorded and subsequently analyzed by 4 coders using the final video coding scheme. Six of these patients were interviewed, and 7 surveyed, immediately following their encounters.Results: For videos, an average of 66 (range 33– 106) sets of utterances potentially indicating a patient preference (a preference block), surveys 33 (range 32– 34), and interviews 25 (range 18– 30) were identified. Thirty-eight unique themes (75 subthemes), each a preference topic, were identified from videos, surveys 19 themes (12 subthemes), and interviews 39 themes (54 subthemes). The proportion of preference blocks that were judged as expressing a preference that was clearly important to the patient or affected their decision was highest for interviews (72.8%), surveys (68.0%), and videos (27.0%). Videos mostly attributed preferences to the patient’s situation (scene) (65%); interviews, the act of receiving or living with SCS (43%); surveys, the purpose of SCS (40%).Conclusion: MIPPs vary in the type of preferences identified and the clarity of expressed preferences in their data sets. The choice of which MIPP to use depends on projects’ goals and resources, recognizing that the choice of MIPP may affect which preferences are found.Keywords: patient preferences, decision making, regulatory, preference identification, preference elicitation

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnancy is a major cause of maternal morbidity and mortality, and the use of preventive low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) can be challenging. Clinical guidelines recommend eliciting pregnant individuals' preferences towards the use of daily injections of LMWH and discussing the best option through a shared decision-making (SDM) approach. Our aim was to identify individuals' preferences concerning each of the main clinical outcomes, and categorize attributes influencing the use of LMWH during pregnancy., Methods: Design: Convergent mixed-methods., Participants: Pregnant women or those planning a pregnancy with VTE recurrence risk., Intervention: A SDM intervention about thromboprophylaxis with LMWH in pregnancy., Analysis: Quantitatively, we report preference scores assigned to each of the health states. Qualitatively, we categorized preference attributes using Burke's pentad of motives framework: act (what needs to be done), scene (patient's context), agent (perspectives and influence of people involved in the decision), agency (aspects of the medication), and purpose (patient's goals). We use mixed-method convergent analysis to report findings using side-by-side comparison of concordance/discordance., Results: We comprehensively determined preferences for using LMWH by pregnant individuals at risk of VTE: through value elicitation exercises we found that the least valued health state was to experience a pulmonary embolism (PE), followed by major obstetrical bleeding (MOB), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and using daily injections of LMWH (valued as closest to a 'healthy pregnancy'); through interviews we found that: previous experiences, access to care (scene) and shared decision-making (agent) affected preferences. LMWH's benefits were noted, but substantial drawbacks were described (agency). For participants, the main goal of using LMWH was avoiding any risks in pregnancy (purpose). Side-by-side comparisons revealed concordance and discordance between health states and motives., Conclusions: Mixed-methods provide a nuanced understanding of LMWH preferences, by quantifying health states preferences and exploring attributes qualitatively. Incorporating both methods may improve patient-centered care around preference-sensitive decisions in thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: We pilot-tested an encounter conversation aid to support shared decision making (SDM) between patients with thyroid nodules and their clinicians., Objective: Characterize the clinician feedback after providing care to patients with thyroid nodules using a tool to promote SDM conversations during the clinical encounter, and evaluate how clinicians used the tool during the visit., Methods: Mixed method study in two academic centers in the U.S., including adult patients presenting for evaluation of thyroid nodules and their clinicians. We thematically analyzed interviews with clinicians after they used the SDM tool in at least three visits to characterize their feedback. Additionally, investigators evaluated visits recordings to determine the extent to which clinicians engaged patients in the decision-making process (OPTION score, scale 0 to 100, higher levels indicating higher involvement), the tool's components used (fidelity), and encounter duration. Using a post-visit survey, we evaluated the extent to which clinicians felt the tool was easy to use, helpful, and supportive of the patient-clinician collaboration., Results: Thirteen clinicians participated in the study and used the SDM tool in the care of 53 patients. Clinicians thought the tool was well-organized and beneficial to patients and clinicians. Clinicians noticed a change in their routine with the use of the conversation aid and suggested it needed to be more flexible to better support varying conversations. The median OPTION score was 34, the fidelity of use 75%, and the median visit duration 17 min. In most encounters, clinicians agreed or strongly agreed the tool was easy to use (86%), helpful (65%), and supported collaboration (62%)., Conclusion: Clinicians were able to use a SDM tool in the care of patients with thyroid nodules. Although they wished it were more flexible, they found on the whole that its use in the clinical encounter was beneficial to patients and clinicians., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

The objective of this study is to evaluate thyroid cancer risk clinician-patient communication among patients receiving usual counseling and counseling enhanced by a conversation aid. A secondary analysis of clinical visit recordings and post-visit surveys obtained during a trial assessing the impact of a conversation aid for patients with thyroid nodules was conducted. We assessed how thyroid cancer risk was communicated, different risk communication strategies between groups, and predictors of accurate cancer risk perception. Fifty-nine patients were analyzed. Most were women (90%) and middle-aged (median 57 years). A verbal description of thyroid cancer risk was present most frequently (83%) and was more frequent in the conversation aid than the usual care group (100% vs. 63%, p < 0.001). A numerical description using percentages was present in 41% of visits and was more frequent in the conversation aid group (59% vs. 19%, p = 0.012). Natural frequencies (7%) and positive/negative framing (10%) were utilized less commonly. Uncertainty about risks was not discussed. No predictors of accurate risk perception were identified. Clinicians most commonly present a verbal description of thyroid cancer risk. Less commonly, natural frequencies, negative/positive framing, or uncertainty is discussed. Clinicians caring for patients with thyroid nodules should be aware of different strategies for communicating thyroid cancer risk., (© 2022. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to American Association for Cancer Education.)

Objective: To identify the components of the collaborative diagnostic conversations between clinicians, patients, and their families and how deficiencies in these conversations can lead to diagnostic errors., Patients and Methods: We purposively selected 60 video recordings of clinical encounters that included diagnosis conversations. These videos were obtained from the internal medicine, and family medicine services at Mayo Clinic's campus in Rochester, Minnesota. These clinical encounters were recorded between November 2017, and December 2021, during the conduct of studies aiming at developing or testing shared decision-making interventions. We followed a critically reflective approach model for data analysis., Results: We identified 3 components of diagnostic conversations as follows: (1) recognizing diagnostic situations, (2) setting priorities, and (3) creating and reconciling a diagnostic plan. Deficiencies in diagnostic conversations could lead to framing issues in a way that sets diagnostic activities off in an incorrect or undesirable direction, incorrect prioritization of diagnostic concerns, and diagnostic plans of care that are not feasible, desirable, or productive., Conclusion: We identified 3 clinician-and-patient diagnostic conversation components and mapped them to potential diagnostic errors. This information may inform additional research to identify areas of intervention to decrease the frequency and harm associated with diagnostic errors in clinical practice., Competing Interests: Dr Hargraves reports support from Mayo Clinic Department of General Internal Medicine. Dr Ospina was supported by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number K08CA248972 and reports grant from the National Academy of Medicine Scholar in Diagnostic Excellence. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. The other authors report no competing interests., (© 2023 The Authors.)

Introduction: Decision aids (DAs) are helpful instruments used to support shared decision making (SDM). Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) face complex decisions regarding stroke prevention strategies. While a few DAs have been made for AF stroke prevention, an encounter DA (EDA) and patient DA (PDA) have not been created to be used in conjunction with each other before., Design: Using iterative user-centered design, we developed 2 DAs for anticoagulation choice and stroke prevention in AF. Prototypes were created, and we elicited feedback from patients and experts via observations of encounters, usability testing, and semistructured interviews., Results: User testing was done with 33 experts (in AF and SDM) and 51 patients from 6 institutions. The EDA and PDA underwent 1 and 4 major iterations, respectively. Major differences between the DAs included AF pathophysiology and a preparation to meet with the clinician in the PDA as well as different language throughout. Content areas included personalized stroke risk, differences between anticoagulants, and risks of bleeding. Based on user feedback, developers 1) addressed feelings of isolation with AF, 2) improved navigation options, 3) modified content and flow for users new to AF and those experienced with AF, 4) updated stroke risk pictographs, and 5) added structure to the preparation for decision making in the PDA., Limitations: These DAs focus only on anticoagulation for stroke prevention and are online, which may limit participation for those less comfortable with technology., Conclusions: Designing complementary DAs for use in tandem or separately is a new method to support SDM between patients and clinicians. Extensive user testing is essential to creating high-quality tools that best meet the needs of those using them., Highlights: First-time complementary encounter and patient decision aids have been designed to work together or separately.User feedback led to greater structure and different experiences for patients naïve or experienced with anticoagulants in patient decision aids.Online tools allow for easier dissemination, use in telehealth visits, and updating as new evidence comes out., Competing Interests: The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: BAS is supported by the National Heart, Lung, And Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (#K23HL143156) and also reports research support from AHA/PCORI, Abbott, Boston Scientific, Cardiva, and AltaThera and consulting to Janssen and AltaThera., (© The Author(s) 2023.)

Purpose: To characterize the feedback of patients with thyroid nodules receiving care using a shared decision making (SDM) tool designed to improve conversations with their clinicians related to diagnostic options (e.g. thyroid biopsy, ultrasound surveillance)., Methods: Investigators qualitatively analyzed post-encounter interviews with patients to characterize their feedback of a SDM tool used during their clinical visits. Additionally, investigators counted instances of diagnostic choice awareness and of patients' expression of a diagnostic management preference in recordings of clinical encounters of adult patients presenting for evaluation of thyroid nodules in which the SDM tool was used., Results: In total, 53 patients (42 (79%) women); median age 62 years were enrolled and had consultations supported by the SDM tool. Patients were favorable about the design of the SDM tool and its ability to convey information about options and support patient-clinician interactions. Patients identified opportunities to improve the tool through adding more content and improve its use in practice through training of clinicians in its use. There was evidence of diagnostic choice awareness in 52 (98%) of these visits and patients expressed a diagnostic management preference in 40 (76%)., Conclusion: User centered design including feedback from patients and real life observation supports the use of the SDM tool to facilitate collaboration between patients and clinicians., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

The goals of vascular composite allotransplantation (VCA) for hand are to maximize functional status and psychosocial wellbeing and to improve quality of life. Candidates are carefully vetted by transplant programs through an extensive evaluation process to exclude those patients with contraindications and to select those that are most likely to attain functional or quality of life benefit from transplant. Patient choice for any treatment, however, requires that candidates be able to understand the risks, benefits, and alternatives before choosing to proceed. This study aimed to understand patients' knowledge and perceptions about treatment options for hand loss, including hand transplant. This study will be used to inform a standardized education approach and develop conversation aids for use by clinicians and patients throughout the treatment decision process. Ten individuals who had experienced hand amputation or had congenital limb loss were interviewed to better understand previous and current decisions about treatment, experiences in adjusting to their treatment, and perceptions about hand VCA. From this qualitative interview data, four findings emerged: (1) knowledge and education around VCA as a treatment option; (2) adaptation of individuals with limb loss; (3) fear of risk associated with transplantation; (4) issues of aging and overuse injuries to existing limbs. Results suggests that there is opportunity for expanding education about all treatment options for patients with new loss, long-term loss, and congenital limb loss. Establishing a baseline of knowledge about all options-prosthetics, rehabilitative strategies, and VCA-can help patients evaluate their values and goals of treatment. Issues associated with aging, including overuse and injury, and adaptability over the life course should be included in considerations about treatment choices. Data indicate the need for routinely assessing patient preferences about treatment choice so patients can plan for their future as they adapt and age and as technology for treatments change. To assure that thorough information is provided for current and future decision-making, education about treatment choices and selection procedures for VCA should be standardized., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Finnie, Griffin, Kennedy, Schaepe, Boehmer, Hargraves, Amer and Jowsey-Gregoire.)

Background: Trial recruitment of Black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) is key for interventions that interact with socioeconomic factors and cultural norms, preferences, and values. We report on our experience enrolling BIPOC participants into a multicenter trial of a shared decision-making intervention about anticoagulation to prevent strokes, in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF)., Methods: We enrolled patients with AF and their clinicians in 5 healthcare systems (three academic medical centers, an urban/suburban community medical center, and a safety-net inner-city medical center) located in three states (Minnesota, Alabama, and Mississippi) in the United States. Clinical encounters were randomized to usual care with or without a shared decision-making tool about anticoagulation., Analysis: We analyzed BIPOC patient enrollment by site, categorized reasons for non-enrollment, and examined how enrollment of BIPOC patients was promoted across sites., Results: Of 2247 patients assessed, 922 were enrolled of which 147 (16%) were BIPOC patients. Eligible Black participants were significantly less likely (p < .001) to enroll (102, 11%) than trial-eligible White participants (185, 15%). The enrollment rate of BIPOC patients varied by site. The inclusion and prioritization of clinical practices that care for more BIPOC patients contributed to a higher enrollment rate into the trial. Specific efforts to reach BIPOC clinic attendees and prioritize their enrollment had lower yield., Conclusions: Best practices to optimize the enrollment of BIPOC participants into trials that examined complex and culturally sensitive interventions remain to be developed. This study suggests a high yield from enrolling BIPOC patients from practices that prioritize their care., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02905032)., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Shared decision making (SDM) improves the likelihood that patients will receive care in a manner consistent with their priorities. To facilitate SDM, decision aids (DA) are commonly used, both to prepare a patient before their clinician visit, as well as to facilitate discussion during the visit. However, the relative efficacy of patient-focused or encounter-based DAs on SDM and patient outcomes remains largely unknown. We aim to directly estimate the comparative effectiveness of two DA's on SDM observed in encounters to discuss stroke prevention strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF)., Methods: The study aims to recruit 1200 adult patients with non-valvular AF who qualify for anticoagulation therapy, and their clinicians who manage stroke prevention strategies, in a 2x2 cluster randomized multi-center trial at six sites. Two DA's were developed as interactive, online, non-linear tools: a patient decision aid (PDA) to be used by patients before the encounter, and an encounter decision aid (EDA) to be used by clinicians with their patients during the encounter. Patients will be randomized to PDA or usual care; clinicians will be randomized to EDA or usual care., Results: Primary outcomes are quality of SDM, patient decision making, and patient knowledge. Secondary outcomes include anticoagulation choice, adherence, and clinical events., Conclusion: This trial is the first randomized, head-to-head comparison of the effects of an EDA versus a PDA on SDM. Our results will help to inform future SDM interventions to improve patients' AF outcomes and experiences with stroke prevention strategies., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest Dr Steinberg reports research support from Abbott, Cardiva, AltaThera, Boston Scientific, and Janssen; and consulting to Janssen, AltaThera, Merit Medical, and Crowley Fleck, LLP; and speaking for NACCME (funded by Sanofi). Dr Witt reports research support from and consulting to Roche Diagnostics. Dr Barnes reports consulting for Pfizer/Bristol-Myers Squibb, Janssen, and Acelis Connected Health. Dr Noseworthy is a study investigator in an ablation trial sponsored by Medtronic, is involved in potential equity/royalty relationship with AliveCor, has served on an expert advisory panel for Optum, and has filed patents related to the application of AI to the ECG for diagnosis and risk stratification., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Prognostic information is key to shared decision-making, particularly in life-limiting illness like advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD)., Objective: To understand the prognostic information preferences expressed by older patients with CKD., Design and Participants: Qualitative study of 28 consecutively enrolled patients over 65 years of age with non-dialysis dependent CKD stages 3b-5, receiving care in a multi-disciplinary CKD clinic., Approach: Semi-structured telephone or in-person interviews to explore patients' preference for and perceived value of individualized prognostic information. Interviews were analyzed using inductive content analysis., Key Results: We completed interviews with 28 patients (77.7 ± SD 6.8 years, 69% men). Patients varied in their preference for prognostic information and more were interested in their risk of progression to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) than in life expectancy. Many conflated ESKD risk with risk of death, perceiving a binary choice between dialysis and quick decline and death. Patients expressed that prognostic information would allow them to plan, take care of important business, and think about their treatment options. Patients were accepting of prognostic uncertainty and imagined leveraging it to nurture hope or motivate them to better manage risk factors. They endorsed the desire to receive prognosis of life expectancy even though it may be hard to accept or difficult to talk about but worried it could create helplessness for other patients in their situation., Conclusion: Most, but not all, patients were interested in prognostic information and could see its value in motivating behavior change and allowing planning. Some patients expressed concern that information on life expectancy might cause depression and hopelessness. Therefore, prognostic information is most appropriate as part of a clinical conversation that fosters shared decision-making and helps patients consider treatment risks, benefits, and burdens in context of their lives., (© 2021. Society of General Internal Medicine.)

Objective: To support patient-centred care and the collaboration of patients and clinicians, we developed and pilot tested a conversation aid for patients with thyroid nodules., Design, Patient and Measurements: We developed a web-based Thyroid NOdule Conversation aid (TNOC) following a human-centred design. A proof of concept observational pre-post study was conducted (TNOC vs. usual care [UC]) to assess the impact of TNOC on the quality of conversations. Data sources included recordings of clinical visits, post-encounter surveys and review of electronic health records. Summary statistics and group comparisons are reported., Results: Sixty-five patients were analysed (32 in the UC and 33 in the TNOC cohort). Most patients were women (89%) with a median age of 57 years and were incidentally found to have a thyroid nodule (62%). Most thyroid nodules were at low risk for thyroid cancer (71%) and the median size was 1.4 cm. At baseline, the groups were similar except for higher numeracy in the TNOC cohort. The use of TNOC was associated with increased involvement of patients in the decision-making process, clinician satisfaction and discussion of relevant topics for decision making. In addition, decreased decisional conflict and fewer thyroid biopsies as the next management step were noted in the TNOC cohort. No differences in terms of knowledge transfer, length of consultation, thyroid cancer risk perception or concern for thyroid cancer diagnosis were found., Conclusion: In this pilot observational study, using TNOC in clinical practice was feasible and seemed to help the collaboration of patients and clinicians., (© 2021 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: To use quantitative and qualitative methods to characterize the work patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) enact and explore the interactions between illness, treatment, and life., Patients and Methods: In this mixed-methods, descriptive study, adult patients with T2DM seen at the outpatient diabetes clinic at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, from February 1, 2016, through March 31, 2017, were invited to participate. The study had 3 phases. In phase 1, the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-management (PETS) scale was used to quantify treatment burden. In phase 2, a convenience sample of patients used a smartphone application to describe, in real time, time spent completing diabetes self-management tasks and to upload descriptive digital photographs. In phase 3, these data were explored in qualitative interviews that were analyed by 2 investigators using deductive analysis., Results: Of 162 participants recruited, 160 returned the survey (phase 1); of the 50 participants who used the smartphone application (phase 2), we interviewed 17 (phase 3). The areas in which patients reported highest treatment burden were difficulty with negotiating health services (eg, coordinating medical appointments), medical expenses, and mental/physical exhaustion with self-care. Participants reported that medical appointments required about 2.5 hours per day, and completing administrative tasks related to health care required about 45 minutes. Time spent on health behaviors varied widely-from 2 to 60 minutes in a given 3-hour period. Patients' experience of a task's burden did not always correlate with the time spent on that task., Conclusion: The most burdensome tasks to patients with T2DM included negotiating health care services, affording medications, and completing administrative tasks even though they were not the most time-consuming activities. To be minimally disruptive, diabetes care should minimize the delegation of administrative tasks to patients., (© 2021 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Goals: To develop an encounter decision aid [Barrett's esophagus Choice (BE-Choice)] for patients and clinicians to engage in shared decision making (SDM) for management of BE with low-grade dysplasia (BE-LGD) and assess its impact on patient-important outcomes., Background: Currently, there are 2 strategies for management of BE-LGD-endoscopic surveillance and ablation. SDM can help patients decide on their preferred management option., Study: Phase-I: Patients and clinicians were engaged in a user-centered design approach to develop BE-Choice. Phase-I included review of evidence on BE-LGD management, observation of usual care (UC), creation, field-testing, and iterative development of BE-Choice in clinical settings. Phase-II: Impact of BE-Choice on patient-important outcomes (patient knowledge, decisional conflict, and patient involvement in decision making) was assessed using a controlled before-after study design (UC vs. BE-Choice)., Results: Phase-I: Initial prototype was designed with observation of 8 clinical encounters. With field-testing, 3 successive iterations were made before finalizing BE-Choice. BE-Choice was paper based and fulfilled the qualifying criteria of International patient decision aid standards. Phase II: 29 patients were enrolled, 8 to UC and 21 to BE-Choice. Compared with UC, use of BE-Choice improved patient knowledge (90.4% vs. 70.5%; P=0.03), decisional comfort (89.6 vs. 71.9; P=0.01), and patient involvement (OPTION score: 27.1 vs. 19.2; P=0.01)., Conclusions: BE-Choice is a feasible and effective decision aid to promote SDM in the management of BE-LGD. On pilot testing, BE-Choice had promising impact on patient-important outcomes. A larger multicenter trial is needed to confirm our results and promote widespread use of BE-Choice.

We reflect on Dr. Iserson's article in this journal, in which he suggests that clinicians must "shove" patients towards appropriate care. While recognizing that overt clinical guidance is part of care, we suggest that its use should be tempered by the guidance's responsiveness to the human and emotional experience of each patient., (Copyright 2020 The Journal of Clinical Ethics. All rights reserved.)

Background: Guidelines recommend shared decision making (SDM) for determining whether to use statins to prevent cardiovascular events in at-risk patients. We sought to develop a toolkit to facilitate the cross-organizational spread and scale of a SDM intervention called the Statin Choice Conversation Aid (SCCA) by (i) assessing the work stakeholders must do to implement the tool; and (ii) orienting the resulting toolkit's components to communicate and mitigate this work., Methods: We conducted multi-level and mixed methods (survey, interview, observation, focus group) characterizations of the contexts of 3 health systems (n = 86, 84, and 26 primary care clinicians) as they pertained to the impending implementation of the SCCA. We merged the data within implementation outcome domains of feasibility, appropriateness, and acceptability. Using Normalization Process Theory, we then characterized and categorized the work stakeholders did to implement the tool. We used clinician surveys and IP address-based tracking to calculate SCCA usage over time and judged how stakeholder effort was allocated to influence outcomes at 6 and 18 months. After assessing the types and impact of the work, we developed a multi-component toolkit., Results: At baseline, the three contexts differed regarding feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of implementation. The work of adopting the tool was allocated across many strategies in complex and interdependent ways to optimize these domains. The two systems that allocated the work strategically had higher uptake (5.2 and 2.9 vs. 1.1 uses per clinician per month at 6 months; 3.8 and 2.1 vs. 0.4 at 18 months, respectively) than the system that did not. The resulting toolkit included context self-assessments intended to guide stakeholders in considering the early work of SCCA implementation; and webinars, EMR integration guides, video demonstrations, and an implementation team manual aimed at supporting this work., Conclusions: We developed a multi-component toolkit for facilitating the scale-up and spread of a tool to promote SDM across clinical settings. The theory-based approach we employed aimed to distinguish systems primed for adoption and support the work they must do to achieve implementation. Our approach may have value in orienting the development of multi-component toolkits and other strategies aimed at facilitating the efficient scale up of interventions., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02375815 .

The prevalence of chronic conditions is growing; to date, 1 in 4 Americans lives with at least one chronic condition. In the population aged 65 years and older, most live with multiple chronic conditions, or multimorbidity. Coaching interventions have been widely touted as a potential way to prevent chronic illness and as a way to help patients better self-manage their chronic illnesses. Health and Wellness Coaching (HWC) is now a respected discipline that offers certification, and HWC for patients with chronic conditions has demonstrated the potential to positively change behaviors and health outcomes. Yet, despite the enthusiasm and advancement of the discipline, the role of HWC has not been examined in light of the latest conceptual and theoretical work in the treatment of multimorbidity. In this article, we briefly describe HWC activities and the way in which they can be modified in alignment with the progress in the field of multimorbidity to form a new type of coaching, Capacity Coaching., (Copyright © 2018 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality conducted internal work to formulate a model that could be used to analyze the Agency's research portfolio, identify gaps, develop and prioritize its research agenda, and evaluate its performance. Existing models described the structure and components of the healthcare system. Instead, we produced a model of two functions: caring and learning. Central to this model is the commitment to and participation of people-patients, communities, and health professionals-and the organization of systems to respond to people's problems using evidence. As a product of caring, the system produces evidence that is then used to adapt and continuously improve this response, closely integrating caring and learning. The Agency and the health services research and improvement communities can use this Care and Learn Model to frame an evidence-based understanding of vexing clinical, healthcare delivery, and population health problems and to identify targets for investment, innovation, and investigation.

Background: The 2015 American Thyroid Association guidelines recognize active surveillance as an alternative to immediate surgery in patients with papillary microcarcinomas (PMCs). As a way to incorporate active surveillance as one of the management options for patients with PMCs, we developed and tested a tool to support conversations between clinicians and patients with PMCs considering treatment options., Methods: Thyroid Cancer Treatment Choice was developed using an iterative process based on the principles of interaction, design, and participatory action research. To evaluate the impact of the tool on treatment choice, a prospective study was conducted in two thyroid cancer clinics in Seongnam-si and Seoul, South Korea. Both clinics had the expertise to offer active surveillance as well as immediate surgery. One clinic was trained in the use of the conversation aid, while the other clinic continued to care for patients without access to the conversation aid., Results: Between May 2016 and April 2017, 278 patients, mostly women (n = 220, 79%), were included in the study; 152 (53%) received care at the clinic using the conversation aid. Age, sex, and mean (±SD) tumor size (6.6 ± 1.6 mm and 6.5 ± 1.9 mm) distributions were similar across clinics. Overall, 233 (84%) patients opted for active surveillance and 53 (16%) for thyroid surgery. Patients in the conversation aid group were more likely to choose active surveillance than the patients seen in the usual care clinic (relative risk = 1.16 [confidence interval 1.04-1.29]). Of all patients opting for active surveillance, more patients in the conversation aid group had thyroid cancer nodules >5 mm than in the usual care group (81% vs. 67%; p = 0.013)., Conclusions: Thyroid Cancer Treatment Choice is an evidence-based tool that supports the presentation of treatment options for PMCs. Pilot testing suggests that this conversation tool increases acceptance of active surveillance, suggesting that this option is an acceptable and preferable alternative for informed patients. Further studies are warranted to confirm this finding.

Objective: To assess the extent to which (1) clinicians, using or not using conversation aids, foster choice awareness during clinical encounters and (2) fostering choice awareness, with or without conversation aids, is associated with greater patient involvement in shared decision making (SDM)., Patients and Methods: We randomly selected 100 video-recorded encounters, stratified by topic and study arm, from a database of 10 clinical trials of SDM interventions in 7 clinical contexts: low-risk acute chest pain, stable angina, diabetes, depression, osteoporosis, and Graves disease. Reviewers, unaware of our hypothesis, coded recordings with the OPTION-12 scale to quantify the extent to which clinicians involved patients in decision making (SDM, 0-100 score). Blinded to OPTION-12 scale scores, we used a self-developed coding scale to code whether and how choice awareness was fostered., Results: Clinicians fostered choice awareness in 53 of 100 encounters. Fostering choice awareness was associated with a higher OPTION-12 scale score (adjusted [for using vs not using a conversation aid] predicted mean difference, 20; 95% CI, 11-29). Using a conversation aid was associated with a higher, nonsignificant chance of fostering choice awareness (N=31 of 50 [62%] vs N=22 of 50 [44%]; adjusted [for trial] P =.34) and with a higher OPTION-12 scale score, although adjusting for fostering choice awareness mitigated this effect (adjusted predicted mean difference 5.8; 95% CI, -1.3-12.8)., Conclusion: Fostering choice awareness is linked to a better execution of other SDM steps, such as informing patients or discussing preferences, even when SDM tools are not available or not used.

Background: Oral anticoagulation is recommended as a lifelong therapy for most patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, data on long-term outcomes in clinical practice on these drugs are scarce, particularly for the recently approved agents. We aimed to describe differences in characteristics between patients in everyday practice and those enrolled in the pivotal trials, and to report long-term outcomes on oral anticoagulation in practice., Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort analysis using a large U.S. administrative database to identify patients with AF initiating oral anticoagulation and examine incident stroke (effectiveness endpoint, including ischemic stroke and systemic embolism) and major bleeding (safety endpoint)., Results: We identified 107,373 patients with AF initiating anticoagulants 7/1/2006-6/30/2016. These patients were more likely to be elderly, female, or to have advanced kidney disease in comparison to those enrolled in the trials. The event rates for major bleeding (3.1%, 2.8%, 4.0% and 4.9%/year for in apixaban-, dabigatran-, rivaroxaban- and warfarin-treated patients, respectively) were higher than those observed in trials. The event rates for stroke 0.9%, 1.0%, 0.9% and 1.4%/year the four drug cohorts), were similar to the trials. The three-year risk of stroke was 2.3%, 2.1%, 2.3% and 3.5%, and the three year risk of major bleeding was 5.4%, 7.0%, 8.2%, and 11.7% in the four drug cohorts., Conclusions: Clinical trials represent a narrow spectrum of the general AF population. The trials may underestimate the bleeding risk observed in practice. This study provides important data to help clinicians communicate expected outcomes to patient during shared decision-making., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common ongoing health problem that places patients at risk of stroke. Whether and how a patient addresses this risk depends on each patient's goals, context, and values. Consequently, leading cardiovascular societies recommend using shared decision making (SDM) to individualize antithrombotic treatment in patients with AF. The aim of this study is to assess the extent to which the ANTICOAGULATION CHOICE conversation tool promotes high-quality SDM and influences anticoagulation uptake and adherence in patients with AF at risk of strokes., Methods: This study protocol describes a multicenter, encounter-level, randomized trial to assess the effect of using the ANTICOAGULATION CHOICE conversation tool in the clinical encounter, compared to usual care. The participating centers include an academic hospital system, a suburban community group practice, and an urban safety net hospital, all in Minnesota, USA. Patients with ongoing nonvalvular AF at risk of strokes (CHA 2 DS 2 -VASc score ≥ 1 in men, or ≥ 2 in women) will be eligible for participation. We aim to include 999 patients and their clinicians. The primary outcome is the quality of SDM as perceived by participants, and as assessed by a post-encounter survey that ascertains (a) knowledge transfer, (b) concordance of the decision made, (c) quality of communication, and (d) satisfaction with the decision-making process. Recordings of encounters will be reviewed to assess the extent of patient involvement and how participants use the tool (fidelity). Anticoagulant use, choice of agent, and adherence will be drawn from patients' medical and pharmacy records. Strokes and bleeding events will be drawn from patient records., Discussion: This study will provide a valid and precise measure of the effect of the ANTICOAGULATION CHOICE conversation tool on SDM quality and processes, and on the treatment choices and adherence to therapy among AF patients at risk of stroke., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02905032 . Registered on 9 September 2016.

The data report details the baseline characteristics and observed outcomes among patients included in a large US administrative claims database (Optum Labs Data Warehouse) and those enrolled in the pivotal phase III clinical trials examining apixaban, dabigratan, edoxaban and rivaroxaban versus warfarin for the prevention of cardio embolism (Granger et al., 2011; Cannolly et al., 2009; Patel et al., 2011; Giugliano et al., 2013) [1], [2], [3], [4]. These data are to be interpreted in the context of the linked publication (Noseworthy et al., 2017) [5]. These data illustrate baseline characteristics in patients treated in routine practice and those enrolled in clinical trials. For instance, patients treated with apixaban in practice tended to be slightly older and we more likely to be female than those enrolled in the apixaban clinical trial. Patient treated with rivaroxaban in practice tended to have lower CHADS 2 scores than those included in the rivaroxaban clinical trial. Overall, and stratified by baseline CHADS 2 scores, patients treated with NOACs in routine practice had comparable or slightly lower stroke risks than those in the clinical trials. Patients treated with NOACs in routine practice had slightly higher bleeding risk in practice, particularly in high-risk patients with CHADS 2 ≥ 3, compared to those in the clinical trials. These data may serve as a benchmark for realized outcomes among anticoagulated patients with atrial fibrillation in the United States and may serve as a useful comparison to other datasets or countries.

Patients with diabetes mellitus often have several medical problems and carry a burden imposed by their illness and treatment. Health care often ignores the values, preferences and context of patients, leading to treatments that do not fit into patients’ overwhelmed lives. Shared Decision Making (SDM) emerges as a way to answer the question: “What’s best for the patient?”. SDM promotes an empathic conversation between patients and clinicians that integrates the best evidence available with their values, preferences and context. We discuss three SDM approaches for patients with diabetes: one focused on sharing information, another on making choices, and a third one on helping patients and clinicians to talk about how to address the problems of living with diabetes and its comorbidities. Despite the benefits demonstrated in studies conducted in the U.S. and Europe, the implementation of SDM continues to be a challenge. In Latin America, healthcare and socio-economic conditions render the implementation of SDM more challenging. Research aimed to respond to this challenge is necessary. Meanwhile, clinicians can practice SDM by sharing evidence-based information, giving voice to patients’ values and preferences in making choices, and creating empathic conversations aimed at decisions aligned with patients’ context, dreams, goals, and life expectations.

In this narrative review, we locate within the tradition of great diagnosticians in internal medicine, a fundamental development in patient-centered care: shared decision making (SDM). In this way, we present SDM as a core component of the clinical method, one in which diagnosis of the situation and of the actions that resolve it is essential toward the practice of evidence-based medicine., (Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Life and healthcare demand work from patients, more so from patients living with multimorbidity. Patients must respond by mobilizing available abilities and resources, their so-called capacity. We sought to summarize accounts of challenges that reduce patient capacity to access or use healthcare or to enact self-care while carrying out their lives., Methods: We conducted a systematic review and synthesis of the qualitative literature published since 2000 identifying from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psychinfo, and CINAHL and retrieving selected abstracts for full text assessment for inclusion. After assessing their methodological rigor, we coded their results using a thematic synthesis approach., Results: The 110 reports selected, when synthesized, showed that patient capacity is an accomplishment of interaction with (1) the process of rewriting their biographies and making meaningful lives in the face of chronic condition(s); (2) the mobilization of resources; (3) healthcare and self-care tasks, particularly, the cognitive, emotional, and experiential results of accomplishing these tasks despite competing priorities; (4) their social networks; and (5) their environment, particularly when they encountered kindness or empathy about their condition and a feasible treatment plan., Conclusion: Patient capacity is a complex and dynamic construct that exceeds "resources" alone. Additional work needs to translate this emerging theory into useful practice for which we propose a clinical mnemonic (BREWS) and the ICAN Discussion Aid.

The growth of shared decision making has been driven largely by the understanding that patients need information and choices regarding their health care. But while these are important elements for patients who make decisions in partnership with their clinicians, our experience suggests that they are not enough to address the larger issue: the need for the patient and clinician to jointly create a course of action that is best for the individual patient and his or her family. The larger need in evidence-informed shared decision making is for a patient-clinician interaction that offers conversation, not just information, and care, not just choice., (Project HOPE—The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc.)

Authors from the Mayo Clinic discuss situational goals in diabetes care, because quality targets enforced too strictly may harm patients who are working hard to manage their disease.

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a collaborative process by which patients and clinicians work together in a deliberative dialogue. The purpose of this dialogue is to identify reasonable management options that best fit and addresses the unique situation of the patient. SDM supports the patient-centered translation of research into practice. SDM also helps implement a core principle of evidence-based medicine: evidence is necessary but never sufficient to make a clinical decision, as consideration of patient values and context is also required. SDM conversations build on a partnership between the patient and the clinician, draw on the body of evidence with regard to the different treatment options, and consider options in light of the values, preferences, and context of the patient. SDM is appropriate for diabetes care because diabetes care often requires consideration of management options that differ in ways that matter to patients, such as the way in which they place significant demands on patient's life and living. In the last decade, SDM has proven feasible and useful for sharing evidence with patients and for involving patients in making decisions with their clinicians. Health care and clinical policies advocate SDM, but these policies have yet to impact diabetes care. In this paper, we describe what SDM is, its known impact on diabetes care, and needed work to implement this patient-centered approach in the care of the millions of patients with diabetes.

Patients with chronic conditions or multimorbidity, and often their caregivers, have to adjust their lives and mobilise their capacity (ability) to respond to the workload (demands) imposed by treatments and the care of their conditions. There is a continuous and complex interaction between workload and capacity. When capacity proves insufficient to address the treatment workload, creating a burden, patients may place a lower priority on other aspects of their lives, or reduce engagement with healthcare. Guidelines usually focus on disease-centred outcomes without consideration of limited capacity or demanding workload (burden) from treatment regimens. It seems reasonable to consider that healthcare needs reshaping so that care that pursues goals important to patients as well as those suggested by evidence-based medicine. This can be achieved by using shared decision approaches guided by the expertise of clinicians to deliver optimal care while minimising the burden of treatment on patients, their caregivers, and the healthcare system. What we need is minimally disruptive medicine.