Shared Decision-Making for Patients Hospitalized with Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Randomized Trial.

Objective: Adherence to guideline-recommended medications after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is suboptimal. Patient fidelity to treatment regimens may be related to their knowledge of the risk of death following AMI, the pros and cons of medications, and to their involvement in treatment decisions. Shared decision-making may improve both patients' knowledge and involvement in treatment decisions. Methods: In a pilot trial, patients hospitalized with AMI were randomized to the use of the AMI Choice conversation tool or to usual care. AMI Choice includes a pictogram of the patient's estimated risk of mortality at 6 months with and without guideline-recommended medications, ie, aspirin, statins, beta-blockers, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Primary outcomes were patient knowledge and conflict with the decision made assessed via post-encounter surveys. Secondary outcomes were patient involvement in the decision-making process (observer-based OPTION12 scale) and 6-month medication adherence. Results: Patient knowledge of the expected survival benefit from taking medications was significantly higher (62% vs 16%, p<0.0001) in the AMI Choice group (n = 53) compared to the usual care group (n = 53). Both groups reported similarly low levels of conflict with the decision to start the medications (13 (SD 24.2) vs 16 (SD 22) out of 100; p=0.16). The extent to which clinicians in the AMI Choice group involved their patients in the decision-making process was high (OPTION12 score 53 out of 100, SD 12). Medication adherence at 6-months was relatively high in both groups and not different between groups. Conclusion: The AMI Choice conversation tool improved patients' knowledge of their estimated risk of short-term mortality after an AMI and the pros and cons of treatments to reduce this risk. The effect on patient fidelity to recommended medications of using this SDM tool and of SDM in general should be tested in larger trials enrolling patients at high risk for nonadherence. Trial Registration Number: NCT00888537.

Making sense of diabetes medication decisions: a mixed methods cluster randomized trial using a conversation aid intervention.

PURPOSE: To determine the effectiveness of a shared decision-making (SDM) tool versus guideline-informed usual care in translating evidence into primary care, and to explore how use of the tool changed patient perspectives about diabetes medication decision making. METHODS: In this mixed methods multicenter cluster randomized trial, we included patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and their primary care clinicians. We compared usual care with or without a within-encounter SDM conversation aid. We assessed participant-reported decisions made and quality of SDM (knowledge, satisfaction, and decisional conflict), clinical outcomes, adherence, and observer-based patient involvement in decision-making (OPTION12-scale). We used semi-structured interviews with patients to understand their perspectives. RESULTS: We enrolled 350 patients and 99 clinicians from 20 practices and interviewed 26 patients. Use of the conversation aid increased post-encounter patient knowledge (correct answers, 52% vs. 45%, p = 0.02) and clinician involvement of patients (Mean between-arm difference in OPTION12, 7.3 (95% CI 3, 12); p = 0.003). There were no between-arm differences in treatment choice, patient or clinician satisfaction, encounter length, medication adherence, or glycemic control. Qualitative analyses highlighted differences in how clinicians involved patients in decision making, with intervention patients noting how clinicians guided them through conversations using factors important to them. CONCLUSIONS: Using an SDM conversation aid improved patient knowledge and involvement in SDM without impacting treatment choice, encounter length, medication adherence or improved diabetes control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Future interventions may need to focus specifically on patients with signs of poor treatment fit. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01502891.

Minimally disruptive medicine (MDM) in clinical practice: a qualitative case study of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) clinic care model.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests the need to reframe healthcare delivery for patients with chronic conditions, with emphasis on minimizing healthcare footprint/workload on patients, caregivers, clinicians and health systems through the proposed Minimally Disruptive Medicine (MDM) care model named. HIV care models have evolved to further focus on understanding barriers and facilitators to care delivery while improving patient-centered outcomes (e.g., disease progression, adherence, access, quality of life). It is hypothesized that these models may provide an example of MDM care model in clinic practice. Therefore, this study aimed to observe and ascertain MDM-concordant and discordant elements that may exist within a tertiary-setting HIV clinic care model for patients living with HIV or AIDS (PLWHA). We also aimed to identify lessons learned from this setting to inform improving the feasibility and usefulness of MDM care model. METHODS: This qualitative case study occurred in multidisciplinary HIV comprehensive-care clinic within an urban tertiary-medical center. Participants included Adult PLWHA and informal caregivers (e.g. family/friends) attending the clinic for regular appointments were recruited. All clinic staff were eligible for recruitment. Measurements included; semi-guided interviews with patients, caregivers, or both; semi-guided interviews with varied clinicians (individually); and direct observations of clinical encounters (patient-clinicians), as well as staff daily operations in 2015-2017. The qualitative-data synthesis used iterative, mainly inductive thematic coding. RESULTS: Researcher interviews and observations data included 28 patients, 5 caregivers, and 14 care-team members. With few exceptions, the clinic care model elements aligned closely to the MDM model of care through supporting patient capacity/abilities (with some patients receiving minimal social support and limited assistance with reframing their biography) and minimizing workload/demands (with some patients challenged by the clinic hours of operation). CONCLUSIONS: The studied HIV clinic incorporated many of the MDM tenants, contributing to its validation, and informing gaps in knowledge. While these findings may support the design and implementation of care that is both minimally disruptive and maximally supportive, the impact of MDM on patient-important outcomes and different care settings require further studying.

Long-term ungrounded cable support for short-to-shield syndrome.

Short-to-shield (STS) is a potential complication for left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients supported by the HeartMate II (HMII) pump. This phenomenon occurs when a damaged internal wire within the driveline makes contact with the surrounding sheath, resulting in insufficient power delivery to the motor when connected to a grounded power base unit (PBU). An ungrounded cable can be used to negate these effects, but the long-term safety of this treatment strategy is unknown. In this case series, we present our institutional experience treating 17 STS patients with an ungrounded cable. In total, we present 4922 patient-days (13.4 patient-years) of ungrounded cable support after primary STS treatment. There were no deaths or complications related to STS. These data suggest that the long-term use of an ungrounded cable is a reasonable treatment option for patients who cannot or do not wish to undergo pump exchange or splice repair.

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

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 .

Capacity Coaching: A New Strategy for Coaching Patients Living With Multimorbidity and Organizing Their Care.

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.

Integrating community-based health promotion programs and primary care: a mixed methods analysis of feasibility.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of evidence-based programs (EBPs) for disease self-management and prevention is a policy priority. It is challenging to implement EBPs offered in community settings and to integrate them with healthcare. We sought to understand, categorize, and richly describe key challenges and opportunities related to integrating EBPs into routine primary care practice in the United States. METHODS: As part of a parent, participatory action research project, we conducted a mixed methods evaluation guided by the PRECEDE implementation planning model in an 11-county region of Southeast Minnesota. Our community-partnered research team interviewed and surveyed 15 and 190 primary care clinicians and 15 and 88 non-clinician stakeholders, respectively. We coded interviews according to pre-defined PRECEDE factors and by participant type and searched for emerging themes. We then categorized survey items-before looking at participant responses-according to their ability to generate further evidence supporting the PRECEDE factors and emerging themes. We statistically summarized data within and across responder groups. When consistent, we merged these with qualitative insight. RESULTS: The themes we found, "Two Systems, Two Worlds," "Not My Job," and "Seeing is Believing," highlighted the disparate nature of prescribed activities that different stakeholders do to contribute to health. For instance, primary care clinicians felt pressured to focus on activities of diagnosis and treatment and did not imagine ways in which EBPs could contribute to either. Quantitative analyses supported aspects of all three themes, highlighting clinicians' limited trust in community-placed activities, and the need for tailored education and system and policy-level changes to support their integration with primary care. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care and community-based programs exist in disconnected worlds. Without urgent and intentional efforts to bridge well-care and sick-care, interventions that support people's efforts to be and stay well in their communities will remain outside of-if not at odds with-healthcare.

Shared decision making for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

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 (CHA2DS2-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.

PCI Choice: Cardiovascular clinicians' perceptions of shared decision making in stable coronary artery disease.

OBJECTIVE: Describe cardiovascular clinicians' perceptions of Shared Decision Making following use of a decision aid (DA) for stable coronary artery disease (CAD) "PCI Choice", in a randomized controlled trial. METHODS: We conducted a semi-structured qualitative interview study with cardiologists and physician extenders (n=13) after using PCI Choice in practice. Interviews were transcribed then coded. Codes were organized into salient themes. Final themes were determined by consensus with all authors. RESULTS: Most clinicians (70%) had no prior knowledge of SDM or DAs. Mixed views about the role of the DA in the visit were related to misconceptions of how patient education differed from SDM. Qualitative assessment of clinician perceptions generated three themes: 1) Gaps exist in clinician knowledge around SDM; 2) Clinicians are often uncomfortable with modifying baseline practice; and 3) Clinicians express interest in using DAs after initial exposure within a research setting. CONCLUSIONS: Use of DAs by clinicians during clinic visits may improve understanding of SDM. Initial use is marked by a reluctance to modify established practice patterns. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: As clinicians explore new approaches to benefit their patients, there is an opportunity for DAs that provide clinician instruction on core elements of SDM to lead to enhanced SDM in clinical practice.

PCI Choice Decision Aid for Stable Coronary Artery Disease: A Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for stable coronary artery disease does not reduce the risk of death and myocardial infarction compared with optimal medical therapy (OMT), but many patients think otherwise. PCI Choice, a decision aid (DA), was designed for use during the clinical visit and includes information on quality of life and mortality outcomes for PCI with OMT versus OMT alone for stable coronary artery disease. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a randomized trial to assess the impact of the PCI Choice DA compared with usual care when there is a choice between PCI and optimal medical therapy. Primary outcomes were patient knowledge and decisional conflict, and the secondary outcome was an objective measure of shared decision making. A total of 124 patients were eligible for final analysis. Knowledge was higher among patients receiving the DA compared with usual care (60% DA; 40% usual care; P=0.034), and patients felt more informed (P=0.043). Other measures of decisional quality were not improved, and engagement of the patient by the clinician in shared decision making did not change with use of the DA. There was evidence that clinicians used the DA as an educational tool. CONCLUSIONS: The PCI Choice DA improved patient knowledge but did not significantly impact decisional quality. Further work is needed to effectively address clinician knowledge gaps in shared decision-making skills, even in the context of carefully designed DAs. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT01771536.

Shared Decision Making for Antidepressants in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Trial.

IMPORTANCE: For antidepressants, the translation of evidence of comparative effectiveness into practice is suboptimal. This deficit directly affects outcomes and quality of care for patients with depression. To overcome this problem, we developed the Depression Medication Choice (DMC) encounter decision aid, designed to help patients and clinicians consider the available antidepressants and the extent to which they improved depression and other issues important to patients. OBJECTIVE: Estimate the effect of DMC on quality of the decision-making process and depression outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a cluster randomized trial of adults with moderate to severe depression considering treatment with an antidepressant. Primary care practices in 10 rural, suburban, and urban primary care practices across Minnesota and Wisconsin were randomly allocated to treatment of depression with or without use of the DMC decision aid. INTERVENTION: Depression Medication Choice, a series of cards, each highlighting the effect of the available options on an issue of importance to patients for use during face-to-face consultations. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Decision-making quality as judged by patient knowledge and involvement in decision making, patient and clinician decisional comfort (Decisional Conflict Scale) and satisfaction, encounter duration, medication adherence, depression symptoms, and the Patient Health Questionnaire for depression (PHQ-9). RESULTS: We enrolled 117 clinicians and 301 patients (67% women; mean [SD] age, 44 [15] years; mean [SD] PHQ-9 score, 15 [4]) into the trial. Compared with usual care (UC), use of DMC significantly improved patients' decisional comfort (DMC, 80% vs UC, 75%; P = .02), knowledge (DMC, 65% vs UC, 56%; P = .03), satisfaction (risk ratio [RR], from 1.25 [P = .81] to RR, 2.4 [P = .002] depending on satisfaction domain), and involvement (DMC, 47% vs UC, 33%; P<.001). It also improved clinicians' decisional comfort (DMC, 80% vs UC, 68%; P < .001) and satisfaction (RR, 1.64; P = .02). There were no differences in encounter duration, medication adherence, or improvement of depression control between arms. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The DMC decision aid helped primary care clinicians and patients with moderate to severe depression select antidepressants together, improving the decision-making process without extending the visit. On the other hand, DMC had no discernible effect on medication adherence or depression outcomes. By translating comparative effectiveness into patient-centered care, use of DMC improved the quality of primary care for patients with depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01502891.

Variability in infection control measures for the percutaneous lead among programs implanting long-term ventricular assist devices in the United States.

Ventricular assist devices (VADs) are a surgical treatment for heart failure. These devices may be implanted as a bridge to transplant or as destination therapy. After surgical recovery and education regarding device care, patients are discharged home. Meticulous care of the driveline must be taken to prevent infection and trauma of the site throughout the perioperative event and for the duration of support. Currently a standardized protocol for care of the driveline and exit site does not exist. VAD coordinators from across the country discussed the variability in care at different centers in the United States through a series of conference calls. A survey consisting of 16 questions was developed. The survey included questions on preoperative antibiotic recommendations, driveline placement and exit site suturing, frequency of dressing changes, and showering practices. VAD coordinators shared center-specific dressing protocols and any driveline success stories. This survey was sent to 73 centers; 38 centers (52%) responded. The purpose of the survey was to define current practice in order to move toward a standard of practice or protocol based on expert opinion for VAD driveline care and to assess the need for future studies.

Complications associated with the use of left ventricular assist device therapy in an adult patient with Ebstein's anomaly.

This case describes issues related to left ventricular assist device placement in an adult with ischemic heart disease with well-compensated Ebstein's anomaly who subsequently developed severe right heart dysfunction. We discuss strategies for dealing with this rare but structurally important congenital heart defect.