Interventions to de-implement unnecessary antibiotic prescribing for ear infections (DISAPEAR Trial): protocol for a cluster-randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Watchful waiting management for acute otitis media (AOM), where an antibiotic is used only if the child's symptoms worsen or do not improve over the subsequent 2-3 days, is an effective approach to reduce antibiotic exposure for children with AOM. However, studies to compare the effectiveness of interventions to promote watchful waiting are lacking. The objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness and implementation outcomes of two pragmatic, patient-centered interventions designed to facilitate use of watchful waiting in clinical practice. METHODS: This will be a cluster-randomized trial utilizing a hybrid implementation-effectiveness design. Thirty-three primary care or urgent care clinics will be randomized to one of two interventions: a health systems-level intervention alone or a health systems-level intervention combined with use of a shared decision-making aid. The health systems-level intervention will include engagement of a clinician champion at each clinic, changes to electronic health record antibiotic orders to facilitate delayed antibiotic prescriptions as part of a watchful waiting strategy, quarterly feedback reports detailing clinicians' use of watchful waiting individually and compared with peers, and virtual learning sessions for clinicians. The hybrid intervention will include the health systems-level intervention plus a shared decision-making aid designed to inform decision-making between parents and clinicians with best available evidence. The primary outcomes will be whether an antibiotic was ultimately taken by the child and parent satisfaction with their child's care. We will explore the differences in implementation effectiveness by patient population served, clinic type, clinical setting, and organization. The fidelity, acceptability, and perceived appropriateness of the interventions among different clinician types, patient populations, and clinical settings will be compared. We will also conduct formative qualitative interviews and surveys with clinicians and administrators, focus groups and surveys of parents of patients with AOM, and engagement of two stakeholder advisory councils to further inform the interventions. DISCUSSION: This study will compare the effectiveness of two pragmatic interventions to promote use of watchful waiting for children with AOM to reduce antibiotic exposure and increase parent satisfaction, thus informing national antibiotic stewardship policy development. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT06034080.

Problem-based shared decision making: The role of canonical SDM steps.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the extent to which the canonical steps of shared decision making (SDM) take place in clinical encounters in practice and across SDM forms. METHODS: We assessed 100 randomly selected video-recorded primary care encounters, obtained as part of a randomized trial of an SDM intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes. Two coders, working independently, noted each instance of SDM, classified it as one of four problem-based forms to SDM (weighing alternatives, negotiating conflicting issues, solving problems, or developing existential insight), and noted the occurrence and timing of each of the four canonical SDM steps: fostering choice awareness, providing information, stating preferences, and deciding. Descriptive analyses sought to determine the relative frequency of these steps across each of the four SDM forms within each encounter. RESULTS: There were 485 SDM steps noted (mean 4.85 steps per encounter), of which providing information and stating preferences were the most common. There were 2.7 (38 steps in 14 encounters) steps per encounter observed in encounters with no discernible SDM form, 3.4 (105 steps in 31 encounters) with one SDM form, 5.2 (129 steps in 25 encounters) with two SDM forms, and 7.1 (213 steps in 30 encounters) when ≥3 SDM forms were observed within the encounter. The prescribed order of the four SDM steps was observed in, at best, 16 of the 100 encounters. Stating preferences was a common step when weighing alternatives (38%) or negotiating conflicts (59.3%) but less common when solving problems (29.2%). The distribution of SDM steps was similar to usual care with or without the SDM intervention. CONCLUSION: The normative steps of SDM are infrequently observed in their prescribed order regardless of whether an SDM intervention was used. Some steps are more likely in some SDM forms but no pattern of steps appears to distinguish among SDM forms. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01293578.

Management reasoning and patient-clinician interactions: Insights from shared decision-making and simulated outpatient encounters.

PURPOSE: To expand understanding of patient-clinician interactions in management reasoning. METHODS: We reviewed 10 videos of simulated patient-clinician encounters to identify instances of problematic and successful communication, then reviewed the videos again through the lens of two models of shared decision-making (SDM): an 'involvement-focused' model and a 'problem-focused' model. Using constant comparative qualitative analysis we explored the connections between these patient-clinician interactions and management reasoning. RESULTS: Problems in patient-clinician interactions included failures to: encourage patient autonomy; invite the patient's involvement in decision-making; convey the health impact of the problem; explore and address concerns and questions; explore the context of decision-making (including patient preferences); meet the patient where they are; integrate situational preferences and priorities; offer >1 viable option; work with the patient to solve a problem of mutual concern; explicitly agree to a final care plan; and build the patient-clinician relationship. Clinicians' 'management scripts' varied along a continuum of prioritizing clinician vs patient needs. Patients also have their own cognitive scripts that guide their interactions with clinicians. The involvement-focused and problem-focused SDM models illuminated distinct, complementary issues. CONCLUSIONS: Management reasoning is a deliberative interaction occurring in the space between individuals. Juxtaposing management reasoning alongside SDM generated numerous insights.

Thyroid Cancer Risk Communication in Patients with Thyroid Nodules.

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.

Randomized evaluation of decision support interventions for atrial fibrillation: Rationale and design of the RED-AF study.

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.

Development and pilot testing of a conversation aid to support the evaluation of patients with thyroid nodules.

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.

Older Patients with Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease and Their Perspectives on Prognostic Information: a Qualitative Study.

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.

Enrolling people of color to evaluate a practice intervention: lessons from the shared decision-making for atrial fibrillation (SDM4AFib) trial.

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).

Development and Pilot Testing of Decision Aid for Shared Decision Making in Barrett's Esophagus With Low-Grade Dysplasia.

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.

Development of a Shared Decision-Making Tool for Adolescents With Scoliosis to Decide Between Observation Versus Fusion Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Adolescent patients with moderate to severe idiopathic scoliosis who have completed their skeletal growth face a significant choice in their treatment path: watchful waiting or spinal fusion. Shared decision making (SDM) assists patients and clinicians to find treatments that make intellectual, practical and emotional sense. Our objective was to develop a tool that supports SDM for patients with scoliosis and their families. METHODS: We used a user-centered design approach that included collaboration between patients, surgeons and SDM experts, observation of clinician encounters, and literature review. We focused on adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients 13 or more years of age with less than 1 year of growth remaining (Risser stage 3 or greater) and curves between 40 and 65 degrees. RESULTS: We included 22 patients, and collected 22 video recordings. From these videos, we identified salient patient priorities for decision making including treatment benefits, surgical complications, pain, scheduling and recovery, and cost. For each theme, we conducted a focused review to obtain the best estimate of effect. Then, an expert SDM designer developed an electronic prototype called Scoliosis Choice. CONCLUSIONS: The initial prototype of the scoliosis SDM was finalized and is currently being field tested in clinic. Scoliosis Choice may help patients and surgeons better understand the potential risks and benefits of spinal fusion vs. observation for scoliosis treatment and improve validated measures of quality in patient-parent-surgeon communication.

Curare Aude-Caring for Patients, with Them.

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.

The Care and Learn Model: a Practice and Research Model for Improving Healthcare Quality and Outcomes.

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.

Reflecting on shared decision making: A reflection-quantification study.

BACKGROUND: Reflecting ("stop-and-think") before rating may help patients consider the quality of shared decision making (SDM) and mitigate ceiling/halo effects that limit the performance of self-reported SDM measures. METHODS: We asked a diverse patient sample from the United States to reflect on their care before completing the 3-item CollaboRATE SDM measure. Study 1 focused on rephrasing CollaboRATE items to promote reflection before each item. Study 2 used 5 open-ended questions (about what went well and what could be improved upon, signs that the clinician understood the patient's situation, how the situation will be addressed, and why this treatment plan makes sense) to invite reflection before using the whole scale. A linear analogue scale assessed the extent to which the plan of care made sense to the patient. RESULTS: In Study 1, 107 participants completed surveys (84% response rate), 43 (40%) rated a clinical decision of which 27 (63%) after responding to reflection questions. Adding reflection lowered CollaboRATE scores ("less" SDM) and reduced the proportion of patients giving maximum (ceiling) scores (not statistically significant). In Study 2, 103 of 212 responders (49%) fully completed the version containing reflection questions. Reflection did not significantly change the distribution of CollaboRATE scores or of top scores. Participants indicated high scores on the sense of their care plan (mean 9.7 out of 10, SD 0.79). This rating was weakly correlated with total CollaboRATE scores (rho = .4, P = .0001). CONCLUSION: Reflection-before-quantification interventions may not improve the performance of patient-reported measures of SDM with substantial ceiling/halo effects.

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 .

[Shared decision making in patients with diabetes mellitus]. / Toma de decisiones compartidas en la atención de pacientes con diabetes mellitus: un desafío para Latinoamérica.

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.

Meaningful conversations in living with and treating chronic conditions: development of the ICAN discussion aid.

BACKGROUND: The needs of the growing population of complex patients with multiple chronic conditions calls for a different approach to care. Clinical teams need to acknowledge, respect, and support the work that patients do and the capacity they mobilize to enact this work, and to adapt and self-manage. Tools that enable this approach to care are needed. METHODS: Using user-centered design principles, we set out to create a discussion aid for use by patients, clinicians, and other health professionals during clinical encounters. We observed clinical encounters, visited patient homes, and dialogued with patient support groups. We then developed and tested prototypes in routine clinical practice. Then we refined a final prototype with extensive stakeholder feedback. RESULTS: From this process resulted the ICAN Discussion Aid, a tool completed by the patient and reviewed during the consultation in which patients classified domains that contribute to capacity as sources of burden or satisfaction; clinical demands were also classified as sources of help or burden. The clinical review facilitated by ICAN generates hypotheses regarding why some treatment plans may be problematic and may not be enacted in the patient's situation. CONCLUSION: We successfully created a discussion aid to elucidate and share insights about the capacity patients have to enact the treatment plan and hypotheses as to why this plan may or may not be enacted. Next steps involve the evaluation of the impact of the ICAN Discussion Aid on clinical encounters with a variety of health professionals and the impact of ICAN-informed treatment plans on patient-important outcomes.

Patient capacity and constraints in the experience of chronic disease: a qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis.

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.

Shared Decision-Making in Diabetes Care.

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.

Comparing Methods for Identifying Post-Market Patient Preferences at the Point of Decision-Making: Insights from Patients with Chronic Pain Considering a Spinal Cord Stimulator Device.

Purpose: 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.

Clinician feedback using a shared decision-making tool for the evaluation of patients with thyroid nodules-an observational study.

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.