Do patients use decision and communication aids as prompted when meeting with breast cancer specialists?

BACKGROUND: Our breast cancer clinic promotes patient use of decision and communication aids (DAs/CAs) through two mechanisms: coaching and prompting. From January through September 2010, we provided services to 462 of 1106 new visitors (42%). Of those 462 visitors, 267 (58%) received coaching. For the remainder (195 or 42%), the best we could do was prompt them to self-administer the DA and CAs. OBJECTIVE: We wanted to learn whether patients prompted to use DAs/CAs did so. METHODS: We surveyed prompted patients after their visits. We asked how much of each DA they reviewed, whether they listed questions, made notes and audio-recorded their consultations. We tallied frequencies and explored associations using logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 195 prompted patients, 82 responded to surveys (42%). Nearly all (66/73 or 90%) reported reviewing some or all of the booklets and 52/73 (71%) reported viewing some or all of the DVDs. While 63/78 (81%) responded that they wrote a question list, only 14/61 (23%) said they showed it to their doctor. Two-thirds (51/77 or 66%) said someone took notes, but only 16/79 (20%) reported making audio recordings. DISCUSSION: More patients reported following prompts to use DAs than CAs. Few reported showing question lists to physicians or recording their visits. Our exploratory analyses surfaced associations between using CAs and race/ethnicity or education that merit further investigation. CONCLUSION: Prompting patients assures better use of decision than communication aids. Clinicians may need to take a more active role to ensure patients receive adequate notes and recordings.

Impact of socioeconomic factors on informed decision making and treatment choice in patients with hip and knee OA.

It is unclear how socioeconomic (SES) status influences the effectiveness of shared decision making (SDM) tools. The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of SES on the utility of SDM tools among patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA). We performed a secondary analysis of data from a randomized controlled trial of 123 patients with hip or knee OA. Higher education and higher income were independently associated with higher knowledge survey scores. Patients with private insurance were 2.7 times more likely than patients with Medicare to arrive at a decision after the initial office visit. Higher education was associated with lower odds of choosing surgery, even after adjusting for knowledge. Patient knowledge of their medical condition and treatment options varies with SES.

Breast cancer treatment across health care systems: linking electronic medical records and state registry data to enable outcomes research.

BACKGROUND: Understanding of cancer outcomes is limited by data fragmentation. In the current study, the authors analyzed the information yielded by integrating breast cancer data from 3 sources: electronic medical records (EMRs) from 2 health care systems and the state registry. METHODS: Diagnostic test and treatment data were extracted from the EMRs of all patients with breast cancer treated between 2000 and 2010 in 2 independent California institutions: a community-based practice (Palo Alto Medical Foundation; "Community") and an academic medical center (Stanford University; "University"). The authors incorporated records from the population-based California Cancer Registry and then linked EMR-California Cancer Registry data sets of Community and University patients. RESULTS: The authors initially identified 8210 University patients and 5770 Community patients; linked data sets revealed a 16% patient overlap, yielding 12,109 unique patients. The percentage of all Community patients, but not University patients, treated at both institutions increased with worsening cancer prognostic factors. Before linking the data sets, Community patients appeared to receive less intervention than University patients (mastectomy: 37.6% vs 43.2%; chemotherapy: 35% vs 41.7%; magnetic resonance imaging: 10% vs 29.3%; and genetic testing: 2.5% vs 9.2%). Linked Community and University data sets revealed that patients treated at both institutions received substantially more interventions (mastectomy: 55.8%; chemotherapy: 47.2%; magnetic resonance imaging: 38.9%; and genetic testing: 10.9% [P < .001 for each 3-way institutional comparison]). CONCLUSIONS: Data linkage identified 16% of patients who were treated in 2 health care systems and who, despite comparable prognostic factors, received far more intensive treatment than others. By integrating complementary data from EMRs and population-based registries, a more comprehensive understanding of breast cancer care and factors that drive treatment use was obtained.

Patient, surgeon, and healthcare purchaser views on the use of decision and communication aids in orthopaedic surgery: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence that decision and communication aids are effective for enhancing the quality of preference-sensitive decisions, their adoption in the field of orthopaedic surgery has been limited. The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to evaluate the perceived value of decision and communication aids among different healthcare stakeholders. METHODS: Patients with hip or knee arthritis, orthopaedic surgeons who perform hip and knee replacement procedures, and a group of large, self-insured employers (healthcare purchasers) were surveyed regarding their views on the value of decision and communication aids in orthopaedics. Patients with hip or knee arthritis who participated in a randomized controlled trial involving decision and communication aids were asked to complete an online survey about what was most and least beneficial about each of the tools they used, the ideal mode of administration of these tools and services, and their interest in receiving comparable materials and services in the future. A subset of these patients were invited to participate in a telephone interview, where there were asked to rank and attribute a monetary value to the interventions. These interviews were analyzed using a qualitative and mixed methods analysis software. Members of the American Hip and Knee Surgeons (AAHKS) were surveyed on their perceptions and usage of decision and communication aids in orthopaedic practice. Healthcare purchasers were interviewed about their perspectives on patient-oriented decision support. RESULTS: All stakeholders saw value in decision and communication aids, with the major barrier to implementation being cost. Both patients and surgeons would be willing to bear at least part of the cost of implementing these tools, while employers felt health plans should be responsible for shouldering the costs. CONCLUSIONS: Decision and communication aids can be effective tools for incorporating patients preferences and values into preference-sensitive decisions in orthopaedics. Future efforts should be aimed at assessing strategies for efficient implementation of these tools into widespread orthopaedic practice.

Measuring decision quality: psychometric evaluation of a new instrument for breast cancer chemotherapy.

BACKGROUND: Women diagnosed with early stage (I or II) breast cancer face a highly challenging decision - whether or not to undergo adjuvant chemotherapy. We developed a decision quality instrument for chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer and sought to evaluate its performance. METHODS: Cross-sectional, mailed survey of recent breast cancer survivors, providers, and healthy controls and a retest survey of survivors. The decision quality instrument includes questions on knowledge and personal goals. It results in a knowledge score and concordance score, which reflects the percentage of patients who received treatments that match their goals. Hypotheses related to acceptability, feasibility, validity, and reliability of the survey instrument were examined. RESULTS: Responses were received from 352 patients, 89 providers and 35 healthy controls. The decision quality instrument was feasible to implement with few missing data. The knowledge scores had good retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) =0.75). Knowledge scores discriminated between providers and patients (mean difference 31.1%, 95% CI 26.9, 35.3) and between patients and healthy controls (mean difference 11.2, 95% CI 5.4, 17.1). Most providers reported that the knowledge items covered essential content. Two of the five goal items had a ceiling effect, and one goal had low content validity. The goal items had moderate retest reliability (ICC's 0.57 to 0.78). In the multivariable model of treatment, none of the patient goals was associated with receipt of chemotherapy. Age and hormone receptor status were the only variables independently associated with chemotherapy. Most patients (77.6%) had treatment concordant with that predicted by the model. Patients who had concordant treatment had similar levels of confidence and regret as those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: The Decision Quality Instrument is a reliable and valid measure of patient knowledge about chemotherapy, but its ability to measure concordance with patient goals is limited. In this sample, patient goals were not associated with treatment, and most patients reported they were not asked their preference, suggesting that goals were not adequately considered in decision making.

Testing the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of a 'decision navigation' intervention for early stage prostate cancer patients in Scotland--a randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Does decision navigation (DN) increase prostate cancer patients' confidence and certainty in treatment decisions, while reducing regret associated with the decisions made? METHODS: Two hundred eighty-nine newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients were eligible. 123 consented and were randomised to usual care (n = 60) or navigation (n = 63). The intervention involved a 'navigator' guiding the patient in creating a personal question list for a consultation and providing a CD and typed summary of the consultation to patients, the general practitioner and physician. The primary outcome was decisional self efficacy. Secondary outcomes included decisional conflict (DCS) and decisional regret (RS). Measures of mood (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) and adjustment (Mental Adjustment to Cancer Scale) were included to detect potential adverse effects of the intervention. RESULTS: ANOVA showed a main effect for the group (F = 7.161, df 1, p = 0.009). Post hoc comparisons showed significantly higher decisional self efficacy in the navigated patients post-consultation and 6 months later. Decisional conflict was lower for navigated patients initially (t = 2.005, df = 105, p = 0.047), not at follow-up (t = 1.969, df = 109, p = 0.052). Regret scores were significantly lower in the navigation group compared to the controls 6 months later (t = -2.130, df = 100, p = 0.036). There was no impact of the intervention on mood or adjustment. CONCLUSION: Compared to control patients, navigated patients were more confident in making decisions about cancer treatment, were more certain they had made the right decision after the consultation and had less regret about their decision 6 months later. Decision navigation was feasible, acceptable and effective for newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients in Scotland.

Sustainment of the TeleSleep program for rural veterans.

Background: In fiscal year 2021, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) provided care for sleep disorders to 599,966 Veterans, including 189,932 rural Veterans. To further improve rural access, the VA Office of Rural Health developed the TeleSleep Enterprise-Wide Initiative (EWI). TeleSleep's telemedicine strategies include tests for sleep apnea at the Veteran's home rather than in a sleep lab; Clinical Video Telehealth applications; and other forms of virtual care. In 2017 and 2020, VHA provided 3-year start-up funding to launch new TeleSleep programs at rural-serving VA medical facilities. Methods: In early 2022, we surveyed leaders of 24 sites that received TeleSleep funding to identify successes, failures, facilitators, and barriers relevant to sustaining TeleSleep implementations upon expiration of startup funding. We tabulated frequencies on the multiple choice questions in the survey, and, using the survey's critical incident framework, summarized the responses to open-ended questions. TeleSleep program leaders discussed the responses and synthesized recommendations for improvement. Results: 18 sites reported sustainment, while six were "on track." Sustainment involved medical centers or regional entities incorporating TeleSleep into their budgets. Facilitators included: demonstrating value; aligning with local priorities; and collaborating with spoke sites serving rural Veterans. Barriers included: misalignment with local priorities; and hiring delays. COVID was a facilitator, as it stimulated adoption of telehealth practices; and also a barrier, as it consumed attention and resources. Recommendations included: longer startup funding; dedicated funding for human resources to accelerate hiring; funders communicating with local facility leaders regarding how TeleSleep aligns with organizational priorities; hiring into job classifications aligned with market pay; and obtaining, from finance departments, projections and outcomes for the return on investment in TeleSleep.

Validation Study on Risk-Reduction Activities after Exposure to a Personalized Breast Cancer Risk-Assessment Education Tool in High-Risk Women in the WISDOM Study.

We performed a 318-participant validation study of an individualized risk assessment tool in women identified as having high- or highest-risk of breast cancer in the personalized arm of the Women Informed to Screen Depending on Measures of risk (WISDOM) trial. Per protocol, these women were educated about their risk and risk reducing options using the Breast Health Decisions (BHD) tool, which uses patient-friendly visuals and 8th grade reading level language to convey risk and prevention options. Prior to exposure to the educational tool, 4.7% of women were already taking endocrine risk reduction, 38.7% were reducing alcohol intake, and 62.6% were exercising. Three months after initial use of BHD, 8.4% of women who considered endocrine risk reduction, 33% of women who considered alcohol reduction, and 46% of women who considered exercise pursued the risk-reducing activities. Unlike lifestyle interventions which are under the control of the patient, additional barriers at the level of the healthcare provider may be impeding the targeted use of endocrine risk reduction medications in women with elevated breast cancer risk.

Veterans Health Administration response to 2021 recall of Philips Respironics devices: A case study.

This case study describes, for the time frame of June 2021 through August 2022, the U.S. Veterans Health Administration (VHA) organizational response to a manufacturer's recall of positive airway pressure devices used in the treatment of sleep disordered breathing. VHA estimated it could take over a year for Veterans to receive replacement devices. Veterans awaiting a replacement faced a dilemma. They could continue using the recalled devices and bear the product safety risks that led to the recall, or they could stop using them and bear the risks of untreated sleep disordered breathing. Using a program monitoring approach, we report on the processes VHA put in place to respond to the recall. Specifically, we report on the strategic, service, and operational plans associated with VHA's response to the recall for Veterans needing replacement devices. In program monitoring, the strategic plan reflects the internal process objectives for the program. The service plan articulates how the delivery of services will intersect the customer journey. The operational plan describes how the program's resources and actions must support the service delivery plan. VHA's strategic plan featured a clinician-led, as opposed to primarily legal or administrative response to the recall. The recall response team also engaged with VHA's medical ethics service to articulate an ethical framework guiding the allocation of replacement devices under conditions of scarcity. This framework proposed allocating scarce devices to Veterans according to their clinical need. The service plan invited Veterans to schedule visits with sleep providers who could assess their clinical need and counsel them accordingly. The operational plan distributed devices according to clinical need as they became available. Monitoring our program processes in real time helped VHA launch and adapt its response to a recall affecting more than 700,000 Veterans.

Measuring decision quality: psychometric evaluation of a new instrument for breast cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this paper is to examine the acceptability, feasibility, reliability and validity of a new decision quality instrument that assesses the extent to which patients are informed and receive treatments that match their goals. METHODS: Cross-sectional mail survey of recent breast cancer survivors, providers and healthy controls and a retest survey of survivors. The decision quality instrument includes knowledge questions and a set of goals, and results in two scores: a breast cancer surgery knowledge score and a concordance score, which reflects the percentage of patients who received treatments that match their goals. Hypotheses related to acceptability, feasibility, discriminant validity, content validity, predictive validity and retest reliability of the survey instrument were examined. RESULTS: We had responses from 440 eligible patients, 88 providers and 35 healthy controls. The decision quality instrument was feasible to implement in this study, with low missing data. The knowledge score had good retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.70) and discriminated between providers and patients (mean difference 35%, p<0.001). The majority of providers felt that the knowledge items covered content that was essential for the decision. Five of the 6 treatment goals met targets for content validity. The five goals had moderate to strong retest reliability (0.64 to 0.87). The concordance score was 89%, indicating that a majority had treatments concordant with that predicted by their goals. Patients who had concordant treatment had similar levels of confidence and regret as those who did not. CONCLUSIONS: The decision quality instrument met the criteria of feasibility, reliability, discriminant and content validity in this sample. Additional research to examine performance of the instrument in prospective studies and more diverse populations is needed.

Mobile Audio Recording Technology to Promote Informed Decision Making in Advanced Prostate Cancer.

PURPOSE: Men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer increasingly encounter complex treatment decisions. Consultation audio recordings and summaries promote patient informed decision making but are underutilized. Mobile recording software applications may increase access. Little is known regarding the feasibility of implementation in clinical encounters. METHODS: We conducted a mixed-methods pilot study in men with progressive metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. We instructed patients to use a mobile software application to record an oncology visit. Patients could share the recording with our patient scribing program to receive a written summary. We assessed feasibility and acceptability with postvisit surveys. We measured patient-reported helpfulness of the intervention in decision making and change in Decisional Conflict Scale-informed subscale. We conducted semistructured interviews to explore implementation and analyzed transcripts using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Across 20 patients, 18 (90%) recorded their visits. Thirteen of 18 (72%) listened to the recording, and 14 of 18 (78%) received a summary. Eighteen of 20 (90%) visits were telehealth. Fourteen patients (70% of all 20; 78% of 18 question respondents) found the application easy to use. Nine patients (50% of 18 recording patients; 90% of 10 question respondents) reported that the recording helped treatment decision making. Decisional conflict decreased from baseline to 1-week postvisit (47.4-28.5, P < .001). Interviews revealed benefits, facilitators, contextual factors, and technology and patient-related barriers to recordings and summaries. CONCLUSION: In this single-institution academic setting, a mobile application for patients to record consultations was a feasible, acceptable, and potentially valued intervention that improved decision making in the telehealth setting. Studies in larger, diverse populations are needed.

Does use of the adjuvant! model influence use of adjuvant therapy through better risk communication?

Adjuvant! is a model that provides recurrence and mortality risk predictions for patients with breast cancer considering adjuvant therapies. Although low-risk patients who saw Adjuvant! chose adjuvant therapy less frequently, whether this was because of educational or other aspects of the decision aid is unknown. The authors explored whether Adjuvant! affects choice of therapy through increased patient knowledge. A subset of data were analyzed from a cluster randomized trial in which oncology practices in 2 major United States cities were randomly assigned to use either Adjuvant! or an informational pamphlet to educate patients. Of 405 patients, 48 were low-risk, with 28 assigned to the decision aid and 20 to the pamphlet. Among the low-risk patients, using frequency tables and Fisher exact tests, the authors explored whether Adjuvant! was associated with more accurate patient estimates of survival; whether accuracy was associated with treatment choice; and whether, after controlling for accuracy, any remaining association was seen between Adjuvant! and treatment choice. Adjuvant! was associated with more accurate estimates of baseline prognosis compared with the pamphlet (57% vs. 25%; P = .04). Patients who had more accurate estimates of baseline prognosis were less likely to choose adjuvant therapy (62% vs. 89%; P = .04). After controlling for accuracy, no statistically significant association was found between the use of Adjuvant! and adjuvant therapy (P = .59 and P = .11 for inaccurate and accurate patients, respectively). Adjuvant! seems to influence patient choice through educational rather than other means of persuasion. However, many patients held inaccurate risk perceptions after viewing Adjuvant!.

Extending the Population Health Workforce Through Service Learning Internships During COVID: A Community Case Study.

This report arises from the intersection of service learning and population health at an academic medical center. At the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), the Office of Population Health and Accountable Care (OPHAC) employs health care navigators to help patients access and benefit from high-value care. In early 2020, facing COVID-19, UCSF leaders asked OPHAC to help patients and employees navigate testing, treatment, tracing, and returning to work protocols. OPHAC established a COVID hotline to route callers to the appropriate resources, but needed to increase the capacity of the navigator workforce. To address this need, OPHAC turned to UCSF's service learning program for undergraduates, the Patient Support Corps (PSC). In this program, UC Berkeley undergraduates earn academic credit in exchange for serving as unpaid patient navigators. In July 2020, OPHAC provided administrative funding for the PSC to recruit and deploy students as COVID hotline navigators. In September 2020, the PSC deployed 20 students collectively representing 2.0 full-time equivalent navigators. After training and observation, and with supervision and escalation pathways, students were able to fill half-day shifts and perform near the level of staff navigators. Key facilitators relevant to success reflected both PSC and OPHAC strengths. The PSC onboards student interns as institutional affiliates, giving them access to key information technology systems, and trains them in privacy and other regulatory requirements so they can work directly with patients. OPHAC strengths included a learning health systems culture that fosters peer mentoring and collaboration. A key challenge was that, even after training, students required around 10 h of supervised practice before being able to take calls independently. As a result, students rolled on to the hotline in waves rather than all at once. Post-COVID, OPHAC is planning to use student navigators for outreach. Meanwhile, the PSC is collaborating with pipeline programs in hopes of offering this internship experience to more students from backgrounds that are under-represented in healthcare. Other campuses in the University of California system are interested in replicating this program. Adopters see the opportunity to increase capacity and diversity while developing the next generation of health and allied health professionals.

Development and pilot evaluation of a personalized decision support intervention for low risk prostate cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES: Development and pilot evaluation of a personalized decision support intervention to help men with early-stage prostate cancer choose among active surveillance, surgery, and radiation. METHODS: We developed a decision aid featuring long-term survival and side effects data, based on focus group input and stakeholder endorsement. We trained premedical students to administer the intervention to newly diagnosed men with low-risk prostate cancer seen at the University of California, San Francisco. Before the intervention, and after the consultation with a urologist, we administered the Decision Quality Instrument for Prostate Cancer (DQI-PC). We hypothesized increases in two knowledge items from the DQI-PC: How many men diagnosed with early-stage prostate cancer will eventually die of prostate cancer? How much would waiting 3 months to make a treatment decision affect chances of survival? Correct answers were: "Most will die of something else" and "A little or not at all." RESULTS: The development phase involved 6 patients, 1 family member, 2 physicians, and 5 other health care providers. In our pilot test, 57 men consented, and 44 received the decision support intervention and completed knowledge surveys at both timepoints. Regarding the two knowledge items of interest, before the intervention, 35/56 (63%) answered both correctly, compared to 36/44 (82%) after the medical consultation (P = .04 by chi-square test). CONCLUSIONS: The intervention was associated with increased patient knowledge. Data from this pilot have guided the development of a larger scale randomized clinical trial to improve decision quality in men with prostate cancer being treated in community settings.

Oncologist use of the Adjuvant! model for risk communication: a pilot study examining patient knowledge of 10-year prognosis.

BACKGROUND: Our purpose was to collect preliminary data on newly diagnosed breast cancer patient knowledge of prognosis before and after oncology visits. Many oncologists use a validated prognostic software model, Adjuvant!, to estimate 10-year recurrence and mortality outcomes for breast cancer local and adjuvant therapy. Some oncologists are printing Adjuvant! screens to use as visual aids during consultations. No study has reported how such use of Adjuvant! printouts affects patient knowledge of prognosis. We hypothesized that Adjuvant! printouts would be associated with significant changes in the proportion of patients with accurate understanding of local therapy prognosis. METHODS: We recruited a convenience sample of 20 patients seen by 2 senior oncologists using Adjuvant! printouts of recurrence and mortality screens in our academic medical center. We asked patients for their estimates of local therapy recurrence and mortality risks and counted the number of patients whose estimates were within +/- 5% of Adjuvant! before and after the oncology visit, testing whether pre/post changes were significant using McNemar's two-sided test at a significance level of 5%. RESULTS: Two patients (10%) accurately estimated local therapy recurrence and mortality risks before the oncology visit, while seven out of twenty (35%) were accurate afterwards (p = 0.125). CONCLUSION: A majority of patients in our sample were inaccurate in estimating their local therapy recurrence and mortality risks, even after being shown printouts summarizing these risks during their oncology visits. Larger studies are needed to replicate or repudiate these preliminary findings, and test alternative methods of presenting risk estimates. Meanwhile, oncologists should be wary of relying exclusively on Adjuvant! printouts to communicate local therapy recurrence and mortality estimates to patients, as they may leave a majority of patients misinformed.

Are patients getting the "gist" in risk communication? Patient understanding of prognosis in breast cancer treatment.

BACKGROUND: Many oncologists consult the Adjuvant! prognostic model to communicate risk with breast cancer patients; however, little is known about how effective that communication is. METHODS: The authors analyzed this small data set featuring 20 breast cancer patients' risk estimates, focusing on rankings or gist of the estimates. RESULTS: Overall, there was no gain in the accuracy of patient rankings. The number of patients with more accurate estimates was matched by the number of patients with less accurate estimates after consultation. CONCLUSIONS: The current methods used by oncologists to present Adjuvant! risks were not effective in helping patients to get the gist of their risks.

Impact of Timing on Measurement of Decision Quality and Shared Decision Making: Longitudinal Cohort Study of Breast Cancer Patients.

Purpose.The objective of this study was to examine whether scores of shared decision-making measures differ when collected shortly after (1 month) or long after (1 year) breast cancer surgical treatment decisions. Methods. Longitudinal, multisite survey of breast cancer (BC) patients, with measurements at 1 month and 1 year after surgery at 4 cancer centers. Patients completed the BC Surgery Decision Quality Instrument (used to generate a knowledge score, ratings of goals, and concordance with treatment preferences) and Shared Decision Making (SDM) Process survey at both time points. We tested several hypotheses related to the scores over time, including whether the scores discriminated between sites that did and did not offer formal decision support services. Exploratory analyses examined factors associated with large increases and decreases in scores over time. Results. Across the 4 sites, 229 patients completed both assessments. The mean total knowledge scores (69.2% [SD 16.6%] at 1 month and 69.4% [SD 17.7%] at 1 year, P = 0.86), SDM Process scores (2.7 [SD 1.1] 1 month v. 2.7 [SD 1.2] 1 year, P = 0.68), and the percentage of patients receiving their preferred treatment (92% at 1 month and 92% at 1 year, P = 1.0) were not significantly different over time. The site using formal decision support had significantly higher knowledge and SDM Process scores at 1 month, and only the SDM Process scores remained significantly higher at 1 year. A significant percentage of patients had large changes in their individual knowledge and SDM Process scores, with increases balancing out decreases. Conclusion. For population-level assessments, it is reasonable to survey BC patients up to a year after the decision, greatly increasing feasibility of measurement. For those evaluating decision support interventions, shorter follow-up is more likely to detect an impact on knowledge scores.

Monitoring the implementation of Consultation Planning, Recording, and Summarizing in a breast care center.

OBJECTIVE: We implemented and monitored a clinical service, Consultation Planning, Recording and Summarizing (CPRS), in which trained facilitators elicit patient questions for doctors, and then audio-record, and summarize the doctor-patient consultations. METHODS: We trained 8 schedulers to offer CPRS to breast cancer patients making treatment decisions, and trained 14 premedical interns to provide the service. We surveyed a convenience sample of patients regarding their self-efficacy and decisional conflict. We solicited feedback from physicians, schedulers, and CPRS staff on our implementation of CPRS. RESULTS: 278 patients used CPRS over the 22-month study period, an exploitation rate of 32% compared to our capacity. 37 patients responded to surveys, providing pilot data showing improvements in self-efficacy and decisional conflict. Physicians, schedulers, and premedical interns recommended changes in the program's locations; delivery; products; and screening, recruitment and scheduling processes. CONCLUSION: Our monitoring of this implementation found elements of success while surfacing recommendations for improvement. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: We made changes based on study findings. We moved Consultation Planning to conference rooms or telephone sessions; shortened the documents produced by CPRS staff; diverted slack resources to increase recruitment efforts; and obtained a waiver of consent in order to streamline and improve ongoing evaluation.

The Effects of Coaching Patients to List Questions Before Visiting Cancer Specialists: Retrospective Evaluation of Visit Preparation in a Rural, Underserved Setting.

BACKGROUND: A community-based organization implemented an evidence-based intervention to help rural cancer patients list questions before oncology visits. OBJECTIVE: Was the question-listing intervention effective in reducing anxiety and increasing decision self-efficacy? METHODS: The organization surveyed patients on decision self-efficacy (273 respondents, 99% response rate) and anxiety (190, 68%) before and after question-listing interventions delivered from 2006 - 2011. We analyzed responses using two-sided paired t-tests at 5% significance and conducted linear regression to identify significant predictors of change. We examined predictors related to the patient (location, demographics, disease status and baseline decision self-efficacy and anxiety); the intervention (including interventionist case volume); and the visit (including type of doctor seen). RESULTS: Question-listing was associated with higher mean decision self-efficacy (2.70/3.43 pre/post, 1-4 min-max, P<.001) and lower mean anxiety (7.26/5.87, 1-10 min-max, P<.001). Significant predictors of change in decision self-efficacy included: patient location; interventionist case volume; baseline decision self-efficacy and anxiety. Higher baseline anxiety was also associated with reductions in anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: In a sustained community-based implementation, the intervention helped patients prepare for oncology visits. Patients reported higher self-efficacy and lower anxiety.

Evaluation of a visit preparation intervention implemented in two rural, underserved counties of Northern California.

OBJECTIVE: Evaluate satisfaction with visit preparation at three rural resource center sites. METHODS: The resource centers sent eight employees and two volunteers for training at UCSF in Consultation Planning (CP). CP is a service to help patients make a list of questions before seeing their doctors. Researchers used multivariate ordered logistic regression analysis to investigate the variation in satisfaction among 99 CP Clients served by the resource centers in 2003. RESULTS: Sixty-seven CP Clients who completed surveys were highly satisfied (mean=8.67, standard deviation (S.D.)=1.85, range=5-10). Variation in satisfaction was associated only with whether or not the CP Provider was a breast cancer survivor serving a breast patient (p=0.005). Satisfaction was not associated with CP Client demographics; type of upcoming medical visit; or CP Provider age, remuneration status, nursing background, and volume of CP Clients. CONCLUSION: Community-based resource centers have implemented CP to the satisfaction of their clients. Further research should expand the delivery of CP to more underserved members of the community and evaluate its acceptability and impact. There may be a therapeutic alliance formed when survivors provide CP to newly diagnosed patients. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: CP should be considered by patient support programs wishing to expand their client services to include visit preparation.