Finding social need-les in a haystack: ascertaining social needs of Medicare patients recorded in the notes of care managers.

BACKGROUND: Unmet social needs may impair health and access to health care, and intervening on these holds particular promise in high-risk patient populations, such as those with multiple chronic conditions. Our objective was to identify social needs in a patient population at significant risk-Medicare enrollees with multiple chronic illnesses enrolled in care management services-and measure their prevalence prior to any systematic screening. METHODS: We partnered with Renova Health, an independent Medicare Chronic Care Management (CCM) provider with patients in 10 states during our study period (January 2017 through August 2020). Our data included over 3,000 Medicare CCM patients, representing nearly 20,000 encounters. We used a dictionary-based natural language processing approach to ascertain the prevalence of six domains of barriers to care (food insecurity, housing instability, utility hardship) and unmet social needs (health care affordability, need for supportive services, transportation) in notes taken during telephonic Medicare CCM patient encounters. RESULTS: Barriers to care, specifically need for supportive services (2.4%) and health care affordability (0.8%), were the most prevalent domains identified. Transportation as a barrier to care came up relatively less frequently in CCM encounters (0.1%). Unmet social needs were identified at a comparatively lower rate, with potential housing instability (0.3%) flagged most followed by potential utility hardship (0.2%) and food insecurity (0.1%). CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial untapped opportunity to systematically screen for social determinants of health and unmet social needs in care management.

Patient Experience of Managing Adherence to Repeat Lung Cancer Screening.

Lung cancer screening (LCS) is a process involving multiple low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) scans over multiple years. While adherence to recommended follow-up is critical in reducing lung cancer mortality, little is known about factors influencing adherence following the initial LDCT scan. The purpose of this study was to examine patients' and providers' depictions of continued screening and their understandings of patients' decisions to return for follow-up. Qualitative methodology involves interviews with patients about their understanding of the screening process and perceptions of lung cancer risk, including motivations to adhere to follow-up screening and surveillance. Analysis of interview transcripts followed the general procedures of grounded theory methodology. Patient adherence to LCS was influenced by their understanding of the process of screening, and their expectations for the next steps. Perceptions of lung cancer risk and associated motivation were not static and changed throughout the screening process. Recognizing that patients' motivations may be dynamic over the course of screening and surveillance will assist providers in helping patients make decisions regarding continued engagement with LCS.

The chosen and the unchosen: How eligibility for liver transplant influences the lived experiences of patients with advanced liver disease.

Advanced liver disease is often uncurable and fatal. Liver transplant is the only curative option for patients with advanced, irreversible liver disease, but the need for new livers far exceeds the supply. Patients with the greatest need as well as the greatest likelihood of benefit, based on a complex array of biomedical and psychosocial considerations, are prioritized for transplant. The opportunity to receive a life-saving surgery no doubt has enormous consequences for patients and their healthcare providers, as does the absence of that opportunity. But these consequences are poorly characterized, especially for patients deemed poor candidates for liver transplant. Through in-depth interviews with patients living with advanced liver disease and the providers who care for them, we explore how eligibility status affects illness experiences, including patients' interactions with clinicians, knowledge about their disease, expectations for the future, and efforts to come to terms with a life-limiting illness. We describe how the clinical and social requirements needed to secure eligibility for liver transplant lend themselves to a clinical and cultural logic that delineates "worthy" and "unworthy" patients. We describe how providers and candidates discuss the possibility of moral redemption for such patients through transplant surgeries, a discourse notably absent among patients not eligible for transplant.

Prognosis conversations in advanced liver disease: A qualitative interview study with health professionals and patients.

Advanced Liver Disease (AdvLD) is common, morbid, and associated with high likelihood of death. Patients may not fully understand their prognosis and are often unprepared for the course of illness. Little is known about how and when to deliver prognosis-related information to patients with AdvLD, who should participate, and what should be discussed. We conducted in-depth interviews with a multi-profession sample of Hepatology clinicians and patients with AdvLD. Participants were drawn from three geographically diverse facilities (New England, Texas, California). We used inductive and deductive qualitative data analysis approaches to identify themes related to AdvLD prognosis discussions. Thematic analysis focused on content, timing, and participants' roles in prognosis discussions. In total, 31 patients with AdvLD and 26 multi-profession clinicians completed interviews. Most participants provided a broad conceptualization of prognosis beyond predictions of survival, including expectations about illness course, ways to manage or avoid complications and a need to address patients' emotions. Patients favored initiating discussions early in the AdvLD course and welcomed a multi-profession approach to conducting discussions. Clinicians favored a larger role for specialty physicians. All participants recognized that AdvLD prognosis discussions occur infrequently and favored a structured, standardized approach to broadly discussing prognosis. Patients with AdvLD and their clinicians favored a multifaceted approach to prognosis conversations including discussions of life expectancy, predictions about likely course of liver disease, and expected changes in function and capabilities over time. Structured and early prognosis discussions should be part of routine AdvLD care.

Motherhood, pregnancy and gateways to intervene in substance use disorder.

Motherhood increases women's use of health and social services, presenting opportunities to identify and refer women with substance use disorder (SUD) to treatment. We pooled 4 years (2015-2018) of cross-sectional data from National Survey on Drug Use and Health on women of child-bearing age (18-44) in the United States (n = 64,346). (1) We compared the use of services (health, social and criminal justice involvement) by SUD and 'motherhood' (pregnant or has one or more children under 18). We used multivariable logistic regression models to estimate the association between motherhood, SUD and their interaction with the use of services. (2) We estimated the association between the use of different services and SUD treatment use among women with SUD. Among women of child-bearing age, 9.7% had SUD. Mothers who had SUD were more likely to use social services (AOR = 1.48 [95% CI: 1.22, 1.79]) and mental health services compared with non-mothers who did not have SUD (AOR = 1.40 [95% CI: 1.19, 1.65]). The following factors were associated with increased odds of receiving SUD treatment among mothers: mental health treatment utilisation (AOR = 1.94 [95% CI: 1.29, 2.93]); Medicaid coverage (AOR = 2.48 [95% CI: 1.64, 3.76]); and criminal justice involvement (AOR = 3.38 [95% CI: 1.97, 5.80]). To increase treatment access, it is important to address women's different stages in life, including how to best engage women in SUD care across different settings.

Differential Gateways, Facilitators, and Barriers to Substance Use Disorder Treatment for Pregnant Women and Mothers: A Scoping Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Access to substance use disorder (SUD) treatment is complex, and more so for pregnant women and mothers who experience unique barriers. This scoping systematic review aimed to summarize contemporary findings on gateways, facilitators, and barriers to treatment for pregnant women and mothers with SUD. METHODS: We used the scoping review methodology and a systematic search strategy via MEDLINE/PubMed and Google Scholar. The search was augmented by the similar article lists for sources identified in PubMed. Scholarly and peer-reviewed articles that were published in English from 1996 to 2019 were included. A thematic analysis of the selected studies was used to summarize pathways to SUD treatment and to identify research gaps. RESULTS: The analysis included 41 articles. Multiple gateway institutions were identified: health care settings, social service agencies, criminal justice settings, community organizations, and employers. Some of the identified facilitators and barriers to SUD treatment were unique to pregnant women and mothers (eg, fear of incarceration for child abuse). Both personal (emotional support and social support) and child-related factors (loss of children, suspension or termination of parental rights, the anticipation of reuniting with children) motivated women to seek treatment. Major access barriers included fear, stigma, charges of child abuse, inconvenience, and financial hardship. CONCLUSIONS: There has been progress in implementing different types of interventions and treatments for that were attentive to pregnant women and mothers' needs. We developed a conceptual model that characterized women's pathways to treatment by deciphering women's potential engagement in gateway settings.

Two mental models of integrated care for advanced liver disease: qualitative study of multidisciplinary health professionals.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this paper is to present two divergent mental models of integrated advanced liver disease (AdvLD) care among 26 providers who treat patients with AdvLD. SETTING: 3 geographically dispersed United States Veterans Health Administration health systems. PARTICIPANTS: 26 professionals (20 women and 6 men) participated, including 9 (34.6%) gastroenterology, hepatology, and transplant physicians, 2 (7.7%) physician assistants, 7 (27%) nurses and nurse practitioners, 3 (11.5%) social workers and psychologists, 4 (15.4%) palliative care providers and 1 (3.8%) pharmacist. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We conducted qualitative in-depth interviews of providers caring for patients with AdvLD. We used framework analysis to identify two divergent mental models of integrated AdvLD care. These models vary in timing of initiating various constituents of care, philosophy of integration, and supports and resources needed to achieve each model. RESULTS: Clinicians described integrated care as an approach that incorporates elements of curative care, symptom and supportive care, advance care planning and end-of-life services from a multidisciplinary team. Analysis revealed two mental models that varied in how and when these constituents are delivered. One mental model involves sequential transitions between constituents of care, and the second mental model involves synchronous application of the various constituents. Participants described elements of teamwork and coordination supports necessary to achieve integrated AdvLD care. Many discussed the importance of having a multidisciplinary team integrating supportive care, symptom management and palliative care with liver disease care. CONCLUSIONS: Health professionals agree on the constituents of integrated AdvLD care but describe two competing mental models of how these constituents are integrated. Health systems can promote integrated care by assembling multidisciplinary teams, and providing teamwork and coordination supports, and training that facilitates patient-centred AdvLD care.

Estimating the impact on initiating medications for opioid use disorder of state policies expanding Medicaid and prohibiting substance use during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Medicaid expansion increased access to addiction treatment services for pregnant women. However, states' imposition of civil or criminal child abuse sanctions for drug use during pregnancy could inhibit access to treatment. We estimated the effects of Medicaid expansion on pregnant women's medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD) use, and its interaction with statutes that prohibit substance use during pregnancy. METHODS: Using the Treatment Episode Dataset for Discharge (2010-2018), we identified the initial treatment episode of pregnant women with opioid use disorder (OUD). We described changes in MOUD use and estimated adjusted difference-in-differences and event study models to evaluate differences in changes in MOUD between states that prohibit substance use during pregnancy and states that do not. FINDINGS: Among a total of 16,070 treatment episodes for pregnant women with OUD from 2010 to 2018, most (74%) were in states that expanded Medicaid. By one year post-expansion, the proportion of episodes receiving MOUD in states not prohibit substance use during pregnancy increased by 8.7% points (95% CI: 2.7, 14.7) from the pre-expansion period compared to a 5.6% point increase in states prohibiting substance use during pregnancy (95% CI: -3.3, 14.8). In adjusted event study analysis, the expansion was associated with an increase in MOUD use by 15.3% by year 2 in states not prohibiting versus 1.5% percentage points in states prohibiting substance use during pregnancy, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: State policies prohibiting substance use during pregnancy may limit the salutary effects of Medicaid expansion for pregnant women who could benefit from MOUD treatment.

Provider and Practice Experience Integrating the Dose-HPV Intervention into Clinical Practice.

INTRODUCTION: Few studies have rigorously evaluated the drivers of successful implementation of interventions to improve human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination rates. The aim of this study was to evaluate the implementation of Development of Systems and Education for HPV Vaccination (DOSE HPV), a performance improvement intervention. METHODS: Primary care providers (PCPs), nurses, and individuals with leadership roles from pediatric and family medicine practices who attended DOSE HPV intervention sessions participated in qualitative interviews immediately following intervention completion. The study team professionally transcribed interviews and performed qualitative coding using inductive methods. Final analysis employed the Promoting Action on Research implementation in Health Services (PARiHS) model. RESULTS: Twenty-six individuals participated: 12 PCPs, 5 nurses, and 9 individuals with dual leadership and PCP roles. Participants described five factors that they felt contributed to program success: (1) evidence-based, goal-directed education; (2) personalized data feedback; (3) clinical leadership support; (4) collaborative facilitation; (5) repeated contacts/longitudinal structure of the intervention. Barriers to implementing the intervention included: (1) inability to standardize workflow across practices; (2) low pediatric volume, (3) competing priorities/lack of incentives, (4) ineffective involvement of nurses, (5) poor communication between clinical leadership and staff. DISCUSSION: Although many HPV testing interventions have been implemented, findings have been mixed. It is clear that having an effective, evidence-based intervention by itself is not enough to get it into practice. Rather, it is crucial to consider implementation factors to ensure consistent implementation and sustainability. Key factors for the success of the DOSE HPV intervention appear to include a collaborative approach, provision of useful evidence to motivate behavior change, and repeated contacts to ensure accountability for implementing changes. Workflow issues, ineffective lines of communication, and competing priorities at both the visit and the patient and population management levels can hinder implementation.

Veterans Affairs and Rural Community Providers' Perspectives on Interorganizational Care Coordination: A Qualitative Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate challenges in care coordination between US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) clinics and community providers serving rural veterans. METHODS: We completed qualitative interviews in 2017-2018 with a geographically diverse sample of 57 VA and community staff. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. We used Rapid Qualitative Inquiry (RQI) to guide analyses. RESULTS: Results suggested 5 pivotal domains related to interorganizational care coordination at these sites: organizational mechanisms; organizational culture; relational coordination; contextual factors; and the role of the third party administrators charged with management of scheduling and reimbursement of community services through recent legislation. Across these domains, strategies to bridge gaps between organizations (eg, contracts with third party administrators, development of VA-based community care offices, provision of boundary-spanning staff) at times exacerbated coordination challenges. CONCLUSIONS: Steps taken to improve interorganizational care coordination between VA and community clinics may inadvertently complicate an already complex process. Our findings emphasize the importance of attending to key contextual barriers in coordinating care for rural veterans, and they illustrate the value of fundamental structural and relational approaches to enhancing such care coordination.

Improving HPV Vaccination Rates: A Stepped-Wedge Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of a stepped-wedge randomized trial of Development of Systems and Education for Human Papillomavirus Vaccination (DOSE HPV), a multilevel intervention. METHODS: DOSE HPV is a 7-session program that includes interprofessional provider education, communication training, data feedback, and tailored systems change. Five primary care pediatric and/or family medicine practices completed interventions between 2016 and 2018; all chose to initiate vaccination at ages 9 to 10. We compared vaccination rates in the preintervention, intervention, and postintervention periods among 9- to 17-year-olds using random-effects generalized linear regression models appropriate for stepped-wedge design, accounting for calendar time and clustering of patients by providers and clinic. Outcomes included (1) the likelihood that eligible patients would receive vaccination during clinic visits; (2) the likelihood that adolescents would complete the series by age 13; and (3) the cumulative effect on population-level vaccine initiation and completion rates. Postintervention periods ranged from 6 to 18 months. RESULTS: In the intervention and postintervention periods, the adjusted likelihood of vaccination at an eligible visit increased by >10 percentage points for ages 9 to 10 and 11 to 12, and completion of the vaccine series by age 13 increased by 4 percentage points (P < .001 for all comparisons). Population-level vaccine initiation coverage increased from 75% (preintervention) to 84% (intervention) to 90% (postintervention), and completion increased from 60% (preintervention) to 63% (intervention) to 69% (postintervention). CONCLUSIONS: Multilevel interventions that include provider education, data feedback, tailored systems changes, and early initiation of the human papillomavirus vaccine series may improve vaccine series initiation and completion beyond the conclusion of the intervention period.

Patient vs Clinician Perspectives on Communication About Results of Lung Cancer Screening: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: In the incidental pulmonary nodule and breast cancer screening settings, high-quality patient-centered communication can improve adherence to evaluation and mitigate patient distress. Although guidelines emphasize shared decision-making before lung cancer screening, little is known about patient-clinician communication after lung cancer screening. RESEARCH QUESTION: How do patients and clinicians perceive communication and results notification after lung cancer screening, and are there approaches that may mitigate or exacerbate distress? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted interviews and focus groups with 49 patients who underwent lung cancer screening in the prior year and 36 clinicians who communicate screening results (primary care providers, pulmonologists, nurses), recruited from lung cancer screening programs at 4 hospitals. We analyzed transcripts using conventional content analysis. RESULTS: Clinicians and patients diverged in their impressions of the quality of communication after lung cancer screening. Clinicians recognized the potential for patient distress and tailored their approach to disclosure based on how clinically concerning they perceived results to be. Disclosure of normal or low-risk findings usually occurred by letter; clinicians believed this process was efficient and well received by patients. Yet many patients were dissatisfied: several could not recall receiving results at all, and others reported that receiving results by letter left them confused and concerned, with little opportunity to ask questions. By contrast, patients with larger nodules typically received results during an immediate phone call or clinic visit, and both patients and clinicians agreed that these conversations represented high-quality communication that met patient needs. Regardless of their cancer risk, patients who learned their results in a conversation appreciated the opportunity to discuss both the meaning of the nodule and the evaluation plan, and to have their concerns addressed, preempting distress. INTERPRETATION: Tension exists between clinicians' interest in efficiency of results notification by letter in low-risk cases and patients' need to understand and be reassured about screening results, their implications, and the plan for subsequent screening or nodule evaluation-even when clinicians did not perceive results as concerning. Brief conversations to discuss lung cancer screening results may improve patient understanding and satisfaction while reducing distress.

Calling the Shots? Adolescents' Influence on Human Papillomavirus Vaccine Decision-Making During Clinical Encounters.

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to examine adolescents' influence on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine decision-making and receipt during clinical visits. METHODS: We recruited English- and/or Spanish-speaking parents and their adolescent children aged 9-17 years who were eligible for the first HPV vaccine dose and seeking routine care at pediatric and family medicine clinics in the Greater Boston area enrolled in a multilevel intervention to improve HPV vaccination coverage. Parents completed previsit surveys that included parental intention to vaccinate. We coded transcripts of adolescents' clinical encounters to define adolescents' participation in vaccine discussions and cooperation with immunization. Adolescents' influence on vaccine decision-making was determined based on analyses of their participation in discussions and parents' previsit vaccine intentions. RESULTS: A total of 113 adolescents and their parents participated. Eighty-seven percent of adolescents received their first HPV vaccine dose during the visit. Most reactions were negative (23% mild, 23% moderate, and 10% extreme); nearly all objections were concerns related to the pain of injection rather than specific to HPV vaccination. A minority of reactions were positive (12%), 33% were neutral, and 12% did not participate in vaccine discussions. All adolescents with positive or neutral reactions received vaccination, as did 91% of those with negative reactions. After accounting for parents' previsit vaccine intentions and analyzing discussions during clinical encounters, only 5% of adolescents appeared to influence vaccination either positively (n = 3) or negatively (n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, adolescents rarely influenced parents' vaccine decision-making, although many exhibited distress over the pain of injections. This suggests that increasing adolescents' involvement in vaccine discussions may have limited effects on vaccination rates.

Patient-Physician Discussions on Lung Cancer Screening: A Missed Teachable Moment to Promote Smoking Cessation.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about whether patients and physicians perceive lung cancer screening (LCS) as a teachable moment to promote smoking cessation or the degree to which physicians in "real world" settings link LCS discussions with smoking cessation counseling. We sought to characterize patient and physician perspectives of discussions about smoking cessation during LCS. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study (interviews and focus groups) with 21 physicians and 28 smokers screened in four diverse hospitals. Transcripts were analyzed for characteristics of communication about smoking cessation and LCS, the perceived effect on motivation to quit smoking, the degree to which physicians leverage LCS as a teachable moment to promote smoking cessation, and suggestions to improve patient-physician communication about smoking cessation in the context of LCS. RESULTS: Patients reported that LCS made them more cognizant of the health consequences of smoking, priming them for a teachable moment. While physicians and patients both acknowledged that smoking cessation counseling was frequent, they described little connection between their discussions regarding LCS and smoking cessation counseling. Physicians identified several barriers to integrating discussions on smoking cessation and LCS. They volunteered communication strategies by which LCS could be leveraged to promote smoking cessation. CONCLUSIONS: LCS highlights the harms of smoking to patients who are chronic, heavy smokers and thus may serve as a teachable moment for promoting smoking cessation. However, this opportunity is typically missed in clinical practice. IMPLICATIONS: LCS highlights the harms of smoking to heavily addicted smokers. Yet both physicians and patients reported little connection between LCS and tobacco treatment discussions due to multiple barriers. On-site tobacco treatment programs and post-screening messaging tailored to the LCS results are needed to maximize the health outcomes of LCS, including smoking quit rates and longer-term smoking-related morbidity and mortality.

Integrated Model for Patient-Centered Advanced Liver Disease Care.

Advanced liver disease (AdvLD) is a high-risk common condition with a progressive, highly morbid, and often fatal course. Despite effective treatments, there are substantial shortfalls in access to and use of evidence-based supportive and palliative care for AdvLD. Although patient-centered, chronic illness models that integrate early supportive and palliative care with curative treatments hold promise, there are several knowledge gaps that hinder development of an integrated model for AdvLD. We review these evidence gaps. We also describe a conceptual framework for a patient-centered approach that explicates key elements needed to improve integrated care. An integrated model of AdvLD would allow clinicians, patients, and caregivers to work collaboratively to identify treatments and other healthcare that best align with patients' priorities.

Relative contributions of parental intention and provider recommendation style to HPV and meningococcal vaccine receipt.

We described the relative contributions of parental intention and provider recommendation style to HPV and meningococcal vaccine receipt. Parent-child dyads that were eligible for both meningococcal and HPV vaccines participated in pre-visit surveys and consented to audio recording of their clinical interactions with healthcare providers related to vaccination. Surveys were analyzed for parent and child demographics and parental intention to vaccinate children with HPV and/or meningococcal vaccines. Audio recordings were analyzed for provider recommendation style, defined as indicated (provider stated vaccine was due at that visit) or not, and for child receipt of vaccines. Linear and logistic regression models were used to determine the relative contributions of parental intention and provider recommendation style to vaccine receipt. 56 parents/child dyads participated. 79% of children received HPV vaccines, and 93% received meningococcal vaccines. After controlling for demographic variables, parental intention did not differ by vaccine type. However, providers were less likely to use an indicated recommendation for HPV than for meningococcal vaccine. After controlling for demographic factors, parental intention, and provider recommendation style, vaccine type (HPV or meningococcal) was no longer associated with vaccine receipt Differences that were previously attributed to vaccine-specific factors may be explained by parents' and providers' roles in vaccine receipt. These findings suggest that interventions and policy recommendations regarding adolescent vaccination should focus on increasing parental demand for vaccines and ensuring that providers present all vaccines as the medical standard of care.

"It's like a mirror image of my illness": Exploring Patient Perceptions About Illness Using Health Mind Mapping-a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: A patient's self-management of chronic disease is influenced in part by their explanatory model of illness (EMI) and daily lived experiences (DLE). Unfortunately, assessing patient's EMI and using this information to engage patients in chronic illness self-management continues to be a challenge. OBJECTIVE: "Health mind mapping" (HMM) is a novel process that captures a patient's EMI and DLE through the use of a graphic representation of ideas. We aimed to explore patient's experiences using HMM. DESIGN: Qualitative study utilizing semi-structured interviews. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with uncontrolled type 2 diabetes from a primary care clinic. APPROACH: A facilitator guided 20 participants through the process of developing a health mind map. Subsequently, each participant completed a semi-structured interview about their experience with the process and perceptions about how their maps could be used. The process and interviews were video and audio recorded. We conducted a content analysis of the maps and a thematic analysis, using an inductive approach, of the interview data. RESULTS: Participants explored a wide range of EMs and DLEs in their HMM process. Participants reported that the HMM process (1) helped to develop insight about self and illness; (2) was a catalyst for wanting to take actions to improve illness; and (3) represented an opportunity to actively share illness experiences. They reported potential uses of the map: (1) to communicate about their illness to others in their social network; (2) to communicate about their illness to providers; (3) to help others with diabetes manage their illness; and (4) to encourage ongoing engagement in diabetes self-care. CONCLUSIONS: Participants reported that HMM helped them develop new insight about their illness and was a catalyst for encouraging them to take control of their illness. HMM has the potential to facilitate communication with providers and engage patients in collaborative goal setting to improve self-care in chronic illness.

Indicated or elective? The association of providers' words with HPV vaccine receipt.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate provider recommendation is crucial to raising HPV vaccination uptake, yet scant research has explored actual conversations between providers and parents, the effect of parental pre-visit vaccine intention on vaccination, or the effect of conversation style on parental satisfaction with that conversation. METHODS: We analyzed 146 audio-recorded clinical encounters between providers, parents/guardians, and HPV vaccine-eligible adolescents, from May 2015 to March 2017, at eight practices in Northeastern U.S. Parents completed pre-visit measures of intent to vaccinate and post-visit assessments of satisfaction with vaccine conversations. We qualitatively analyzed transcribed audio recordings and evaluated associations between providers' vaccine introductions and vaccine receipt. RESULTS: Provider recommendations were empirically defined as "indicated" (clear recommendation that the child receive HPV vaccination at that visit), "elective" (vaccination presented as optional), or "contraindicated" (delay recommended). The vaccination rates were 87%, 68%, and 0% following "indicated," "elective," and "contraindicated" presentations respectively. Providers' statements attesting to the vaccine's value to the child did not affect receipt. Parental pre-visit intent to vaccinate was associated with vaccine receipt: 100% for likely/very likely compared to 28% for very unlikely. The association between vaccine recommendation style and vaccine receipt was most pronounced with undecided parents, with 92% accepting vaccination after an "indicated" recommendation vs. 68% after an "elective" recommendation. Satisfaction with vaccine conversations was high regardless of recommendation style. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the words used to introduce HPV vaccination have the potential to inform parents' HPV vaccination decisions. Providers should be encouraged to simply state, "Your child is due for the HPV vaccine today."

Patient and Clinician Perspectives on Shared Decision-making in Early Adopting Lung Cancer Screening Programs: a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend, and Medicare requires, shared decision-making between patients and clinicians before referring individuals at high risk of lung cancer for chest CT screening. However, little is known about the extent to which shared decision-making about lung cancer screening is achieved in real-world settings. OBJECTIVE: To characterize patient and clinician impressions of early experiences with communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening and perceived barriers to achieving shared decision-making. DESIGN: Qualitative study entailing semi-structured interviews and focus groups. PARTICIPANTS: We enrolled 36 clinicians who refer patients for lung cancer screening and 49 patients who had undergone lung cancer screening in the prior year. Participants were recruited from lung cancer screening programs at four hospitals (three Veterans Health Administration, one urban safety net). APPROACH: Using content analysis, we analyzed transcripts to characterize communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening. Our analysis focused on the recommended components of shared decision-making (information sharing, deliberation, and decision aid use) and barriers to achieving shared decision-making. KEY RESULTS: Clinicians varied in the information shared with patients, and did not consistently incorporate decision aids. Clinicians believed they explained the rationale and gave some (often purposely limited) information about the trade-offs of lung cancer screening. By contrast, some patients reported receiving little information about screening or its trade-offs and did not realize the CT was intended as a screening test for lung cancer. Clinicians and patients alike did not perceive that significant deliberation typically occurred. Clinicians perceived insufficient time, competing priorities, difficulty accessing decision aids, limited patient comprehension, and anticipated patient emotions as barriers to realizing shared decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Due to multiple perceived barriers, patient-clinician conversations about lung cancer screening may fall short of guideline-recommended shared decision-making supported by a decision aid. Consequently, patients may be left uncertain about lung cancer screening's rationale, trade-offs, and process.

Physician Approaches to Conflict with Families Surrounding End-of-Life Decision-making in the Intensive Care Unit. A Qualitative Study.

RATIONALE: Families of critically ill patients are often asked to make difficult decisions to pursue, withhold, or withdraw aggressive care or resuscitative measures, exercising "substituted judgment" from the imagined standpoint of the patient. Conflict may arise between intensive care unit (ICU) physicians and family members regarding the optimal course of care. OBJECTIVES: To characterize how ICU physicians approach and manage conflict with surrogates regarding end-of-life decision-making. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 18 critical care physicians from four academically affiliated hospitals. Interview transcripts were analyzed using methods of grounded theory. RESULTS: Physicians described strategies for engaging families to resolve conflict about end-of-life decision-making and tending to families' emotional health. Physicians commonly began by gauging family receptiveness to recommendations from the healthcare team. When faced with resistance to recommendations for less aggressive care, approaches ranged from deference to family wishes to various persuasive strategies designed to change families' minds, and some of those strategies may be counterproductive or harmful. The likelihood of deferring to family in the event of conflict was associated with the perceived sincerity of the family's "substituted judgment" and the ability to control patient pain and suffering. Physicians reported concern for the family's emotional needs and made efforts to alleviate the burden on families by assuming decision-making responsibility and expressing nonabandonment and commitment to the patient. Physicians were attentive to repairing damage to their relationship with the family in the aftermath of conflict. Finally, physicians described their own emotional responses to conflict, ranging from frustration and anxiety to satisfaction with successful resolution of conflict. CONCLUSIONS: Critical care physicians described a complex and multilayered approach to physician-family conflict. The reported strategies offer insight into pragmatic approaches to achieving resolution of conflict while attending to both family and physician emotional impact, and they also highlight some potentially unhelpful or harmful behaviors that should be avoided. Further research is needed to evaluate how these strategies are perceived by families and other ICU clinicians and how they affect patient, family, and clinician outcomes.