Shared Decision-Making Is Associated with Better Outcomes in Patients with Knee But Not Hip Osteoarthritis: The DECIDE-OA Randomized Study.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend shared surgical decision-making, yet it is unclear whether shared decision-making improves health outcomes in patients who are considering knee and hip replacement. The purpose of the present study was to examine whether patients who made high-quality, informed, patient-centered (IPC) decisions had better health outcomes, higher satisfaction, and less decision regret compared with those who made lower-quality decisions. METHODS: A multisite, randomized study of 2 decision aids for patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis was utilized to collect data on decision-making and health outcomes at 2 time points: shortly after the initial surgical evaluation and about 6 months after treatment. We calculated the percentage of patients who made an IPC decision and examined the a priori hypotheses that IPC decisions would be associated with better health outcomes, satisfaction, and less regret at 6 months. Linear and logistic regression models were utilized to examine the relationships. RESULTS: The analytic sample included 854 patients with a mean age of 65 years (standard deviation, 9 years), of whom 58% were female, 93% were White non-Hispanic, 67% had knee (compared with hip) osteoarthritis, and 62% underwent operative treatment within 6 months of the initial evaluation. The majority of patients (68%) made IPC decisions. The IPC group had significantly larger gains in quality of life (mean difference in EuroQol-5 Dimension, 0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.02 to 0.07; p < 0.001) compared with the non-IPC group. For knee patients, the IPC group also had significantly better Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores (mean difference, 4.9; 95% CI, 1.5 to 8.3; p = 0.004), higher satisfaction (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.7; 95% CI, 1.2 to 2.3; p = 0.003), much better pain relief (aOR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.3 to 3.5; p = 0.002), and were more likely to have no decision regret (aOR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.3 to 4.1; p = 0.003). For hip patients, IPC decisions were not associated with better Harris hip scores or satisfaction and were associated with more regret. CONCLUSIONS: Higher-quality decisions predicted small improvements in health outcomes, as well as greater satisfaction and less regret for patients with knee osteoarthritis, but not for patients with hip osteoarthritis. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Decision Support Strategies for Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis: Less Is More: A Randomized Comparative Effectiveness Trial (DECIDE-OA Study).

BACKGROUND: As guidelines and payers increasingly recommend use of patient decision aids (DAs), evidence about the comparative effectiveness of available DAs is critical for organizations interested in implementing them. The primary purpose of this study was to compare 2 DAs with regard to their ability to help patients become informed and receive their preferred treatment (that is, make an informed patient-centered decision), shared decision-making, surgical rates, and surgeon satisfaction. METHODS: We performed a multisite factorial randomized trial enrolling patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis. Patients were randomly assigned to use a long, detailed DA (long DA) or short, interactive DA (short DA). Eight surgeons were randomly assigned to receive a patient preference report detailing the patient's goals and treatment preferences or to administer usual care. RESULTS: We distributed 1,636 pre-visit surveys, 1,220 of which were returned (75% response rate), and 1,124 post-visit surveys, 967 of which were returned (86% response rate). The patients in the sample had a mean age (and standard deviation) of 65 ± 10 years, 57% were female, 89% were white non-Hispanic, and 67% had knee osteoarthritis. The majority (67.2%) made informed patient-centered decisions, and the rate did not vary significantly between the DA groups (p = 0.97) or between the surgeon groups (p = 0.23). Knowledge scores were higher for the short-DA group (mean difference = 9%; p < 0.001). More than half of the sample (60.5%) had surgery within 6 months after the visit, and rates did not differ significantly by DA or surgeon group. Overall, the surgeons were highly satisfied and reported that the majority (88.7%) of the visits were of normal duration or shorter. CONCLUSIONS: The DECIDE-OA study is, to our knowledge, the first randomized comparative effectiveness study of 2 orthopaedic DAs. The short DA outperformed the long DA with regard to knowledge scores and was comparable with respect to other outcomes. The surgeons reported high satisfaction and normal visit duration with both DAs. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Surgeons need to ensure that patients with osteoarthritis are well-informed and have a clear preference regarding whether to undergo hip or knee replacement surgery. The DAs used in this study may help surgeons involve patients in elective surgery decisions and meet the requirements of informed consent.

Increasing the use of patient decision aids in orthopaedic care: results of a quality improvement project.

OBJECTIVE: To integrate patient decision aid (DA) delivery to promote shared decision-making and provide more patient-centred care within an orthopaedic surgery department for treatment of hip and knee osteoarthritis, lumbar herniated disc and lumbar spinal stenosis. METHODS: Different strategies were used across three distinct phases to promote DA delivery. First, we used a quality improvement bonus to generate awareness and interest in the DAs among specialists. Second, we adapted the electronic referral management system to enable DA orders at referral to a specialist. Third, we engaged clinic staff and specialists to design workflows that promoted DA delivery. We tracked the number of patients who received a DA, who ordered the DA, and collected usage data from a subset of patients. Our target was to reach 60% of patients with DAs. RESULTS: In phase 1, 28% (43/155) of spine patients and 37% (114/308) of hip/knee patients received a DA. In phase 2, 54% (64/118) of spine referrals and 58% (189/324) of hip/knee referrals included a request to send a patient a DA. In phase 3, 56% (90/162) of spine patients and 69% (213/307) of hip/knee patients received a DA, significantly more than in phase 1 (P<0.0001). In phase 3, both more DAs were ordered by clinic staff compared with specialists (56% phase 3 vs 34% phase 1, P<0.001) and sent before the visit (74% phase 3 vs 17% phase 1, P<0.001). Patients were more likely to report reviewing the DA when delivered before the visit (63% before vs 50% after, P=0.005). CONCLUSION: DA implementation into clinic workflow is possible and facilitated by engagement of the entire care team and the support of health information technology.