Inclusion of person-centred care in UK postgraduate medical education curricula: Interviews and documentary analysis.

BACKGROUND: Person-centred care (PCC) involves placing people at the centre of their healthcare decision making to ensure it meets their needs, values, and personal circumstances. Increasingly, PCC is promoted in healthcare policy and guidance, but little is known about how this is embedded in postgraduate medical training. The aim of this research was to understand how PCC is embedded in UK postgraduate medical training and explore factors influencing inclusion of PCC in curricula content. METHODS: To explore this, we interviewed senior professionals with key roles in the curricula from four UK Royal Colleges (Psychiatrists; Physicians; Surgeons; and GPs) and used framework analysis on interviews and relevant curricula documents to identify themes. RESULTS: Legislation and professional/educational guidance influenced inclusion. PCC definitions and terminology differed and placement within curricula was variable. Royal Colleges defined the curriculum and provided training to ensure competence, but local deaneries independently implemented the curriculum. Trainer engagement was greater than trainee buy in. Quality assurance focused on feedback from trainers and trainees rather than patients, and patient and public involvement in curriculum development, teaching, and assessment was limited. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for cross-organisation collaboration to develop a PCC competence framework that defines the skills and level of competence required at different points in training, with clarity around the differences between undergraduate and postgraduate requirements. Greater auditing and quality assurance of programme delivery would help identify successful practices to share within and across Royal Colleges, while still maintaining the flexibility of local provision. Engagement with patients and the public in this work can only strengthen provision.

The Recognition-Response Gap in Acute Stroke: Examining the Relationship between Stroke Recognition and Response in a General Population Survey.

BACKGROUND: Benefits of reperfusion therapies in acute ischemic stroke are highly time-dependent. It is crucial that people who witness the onset of symptoms call emergency medical services (EMS) immediately. The aim of this study was to examine whether there is a gap between recognition of stroke and responding correctly by calling EMS using a scenario-based measure. METHODS: Population-based survey of 1406 individuals from Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, examining stroke recognition and response knowledge using 12 scenario-based vignettes. The response rate was 32% out of 5000 contacted individuals. In total, 16,574 responses to scenarios were examined to investigate whether respondents would recognise stroke symptoms and indicate to call EMS immediately. RESULTS: In 16% of cases people recognised stroke but did not correctly respond by indicating to call EMS. In 49% of responses people recognised stroke and would respond correctly, while in 31% of cases people both failed to correctly recognise and failed to identify the correct response to the stroke scenario. In 5% of cases stroke was not identified but a correct response was indicated. When stroke was recognised, in 25% of responses people indicated that they would not call EMS. Recognition self-efficacy and response self-efficacy were associated with correct response. CONCLUSIONS: A recognition-response gap was identified among UK adults in hypothetical scenarios concerning stroke. Both recognition and translation to adequate EMS response should be explicitly addressed in interventions aiming to improve witness response to stroke. Self-efficacy may be a promising target to close the recognition-response gap.

A novel design process for selection of attributes for inclusion in discrete choice experiments: case study exploring variation in clinical decision-making about thrombolysis in the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke.

BACKGROUND: A discrete choice experiment (DCE) is a method used to elicit participants' preferences and the relative importance of different attributes and levels within a decision-making process. DCEs have become popular in healthcare; however, approaches to identify the attributes/levels influencing a decision of interest and to selection methods for their inclusion in a DCE are under-reported. Our objectives were: to explore the development process used to select/present attributes/levels from the identified range that may be influential; to describe a systematic and rigorous development process for design of a DCE in the context of thrombolytic therapy for acute stroke; and, to discuss the advantages of our five-stage approach to enhance current guidance for developing DCEs. METHODS: A five-stage DCE development process was undertaken. Methods employed included literature review, qualitative analysis of interview and ethnographic data, expert panel discussions, a quantitative structured prioritisation (ranking) exercise and pilot testing of the DCE using a 'think aloud' approach. RESULTS: The five-stage process reported helped to reduce the list of 22 initial patient-related factors to a final set of nine variable factors and six fixed factors for inclusion in a testable DCE using a vignette model of presentation. CONCLUSIONS: In order for the data and conclusions generated by DCEs to be deemed valid, it is crucial that the methods of design and development are documented and reported. This paper has detailed a rigorous and systematic approach to DCE development which may be useful to researchers seeking to establish methods for reducing and prioritising attributes for inclusion in future DCEs.

Development of a decision analytic model to support decision making and risk communication about thrombolytic treatment.

BACKGROUND: Individualised prediction of outcomes can support clinical and shared decision making. This paper describes the building of such a model to predict outcomes with and without intravenous thrombolysis treatment following ischaemic stroke. METHODS: A decision analytic model (DAM) was constructed to establish the likely balance of benefits and risks of treating acute ischaemic stroke with thrombolysis. Probability of independence, (modified Rankin score mRS ≤ 2), dependence (mRS 3 to 5) and death at three months post-stroke was based on a calibrated version of the Stroke-Thrombolytic Predictive Instrument using data from routinely treated stroke patients in the Safe Implementation of Treatments in Stroke (SITS-UK) registry. Predictions in untreated patients were validated using data from the Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive (VISTA). The probability of symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage in treated patients was incorporated using a scoring model from Safe Implementation of Thrombolysis in Stroke-Monitoring Study (SITS-MOST) data. RESULTS: The model predicts probabilities of haemorrhage, death, independence and dependence at 3-months, with and without thrombolysis, as a function of 13 patient characteristics. Calibration (and inclusion of additional predictors) of the Stroke-Thrombolytic Predictive Instrument (S-TPI) addressed issues of under and over prediction. Validation with VISTA data confirmed that assumptions about treatment effect were just. The C-statistics for independence and death in treated patients in the DAM were 0.793 and 0.771 respectively, and 0.776 for independence in untreated patients from VISTA. CONCLUSIONS: We have produced a DAM that provides an estimation of the likely benefits and risks of thrombolysis for individual patients, which has subsequently been embedded in a computerised decision aid to support better decision-making and informed consent.

Development of a computerised decision aid for thrombolysis in acute stroke care.

BACKGROUND: Thrombolytic treatment for acute ischaemic stroke improves prognosis, although there is a risk of bleeding complications leading to early death/severe disability. Benefit from thrombolysis is time dependent and treatment must be administered within 4.5 hours from onset of symptoms, which presents unique challenges for development of tools to support decision making and patient understanding about treatment. Our aim was to develop a decision aid to support patient-specific clinical decision-making about thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke, and clinical communication of personalised information on benefits/risks of thrombolysis by clinicians to patients/relatives. METHODS: Using mixed methods we developed a COMPuterised decision Aid for Stroke thrombolysiS (COMPASS) in an iterative staged process (review of available tools; a decision analytic model; interactive group workshops with clinicians and patients/relatives; and prototype usability testing). We then tested the tool in simulated situations with final testing in real life stroke thrombolysis decisions in hospitals. Clinicians used COMPASS pragmatically in managing acute stroke patients potentially eligible for thrombolysis; their experience was assessed using self-completion forms and interviews. Computer logged data assessed time in use, and utilisation of graphical risk presentations and additional features. Patients'/relatives' experiences of discussions supported by COMPASS were explored using interviews. RESULTS: COMPASS expresses predicted outcomes (bleeding complications, death, and extent of disability) with and without thrombolysis, presented numerically (percentages and natural frequencies) and graphically (pictographs, bar graphs and flowcharts). COMPASS was used for 25 patients and no adverse effects of use were reported. Median time in use was 2.8 minutes. Graphical risk presentations were shared with 14 patients/relatives. Clinicians (n = 10) valued the patient-specific predictions of benefit from thrombolysis, and the support of better risk communication with patients/relatives. Patients (n = 2) and relatives (n = 6) reported that graphical risk presentations facilitated understanding of benefits/risks of thrombolysis. Additional features (e.g. dosage calculator) were suggested and subsequently embedded within COMPASS to enhance usability. CONCLUSIONS: Our structured development process led to the development of a gamma prototype computerised decision aid. Initial evaluation has demonstrated reasonable acceptability of COMPASS amongst patients, relatives and clinicians. The impact of COMPASS on clinical outcomes requires wider prospective evaluation in clinical settings.

Pain relief in labour: a qualitative study to determine how to support women to make decisions about pain relief in labour.

BACKGROUND: Engagement in decision making is a key priority of modern healthcare. Women are encouraged to make decisions about pain relief in labour in the ante-natal period based upon their expectations of what labour pain will be like. Many women find this planning difficult. The aim of this qualitative study was to explore how women can be better supported in preparing for, and making, decisions during pregnancy and labour regarding pain management. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 primiparous and 10 multiparous women at 36 weeks of pregnancy and again within six weeks postnatally. Data collection and analysis occurred concurrently to identify key themes. RESULTS: Three main themes emerged from the data. Firstly, during pregnancy women expressed a degree of uncertainty about the level of pain they would experience in labour and the effect of different methods of pain relief. Secondly, women reflected on how decisions had been made regarding pain management in labour and the degree to which they had felt comfortable making these decisions. Finally, women discussed their perceived levels of control, both desired and experienced, over both their bodies and the decisions they were making. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the current approach of antenatal preparation in the NHS, of asking women to make decisions antenatally for pain relief in labour, needs reviewing. It would be more beneficial to concentrate efforts on better informing women and on engaging them in discussions around their values, expectations and preferences and how these affect each specific choice rather than expecting them to make to make firm decisions in advance of such an unpredictable event as labour.

Health state descriptions to elicit stroke values: do they reflect patient experience of stroke?

BACKGROUND: To explore whether stroke health state descriptions used in preference elicitation studies reflect patients' experiences by comparing published descriptions with qualitative studies exploring patients' lived experience. METHODS: Two literature reviews were conducted: on stroke health state descriptions used in direct preference elicitation studies and the qualitative literature on patients' stroke experience. Content and comparative thematic analysis was used to identify characteristics of stroke experience in both types of study which were further mapped onto health related quality of life (HRQOL) domains relevant to stroke. Two authors reviewed the coded text, categories and domains. RESULTS: We included 35 studies: seven direct preference elicitation studies and 28 qualitative studies on patients' experience. Fifteen coded categories were identified in the published health state descriptions and 29 in the qualitative studies. When mapped onto domains related to HRQOL, qualitative studies included a wider range of categories in every domain that were relevant to the patients' experience than health state descriptions. CONCLUSIONS: Variation exists in the content of health state descriptions for all levels of stroke severity, most critically with a major disjuncture between the content of descriptions and how stroke is experienced by patients. There is no systematic method for constructing the content/scope of health state descriptions for stroke, and the patient perspective is not incorporated, producing descriptions with major deficits in reflecting the lived experience of stroke, and raising serious questions about the values derived from such descriptions and conclusions based on these values.

The impact of the UK 'Act FAST' stroke awareness campaign: content analysis of patients, witness and primary care clinicians' perceptions.

BACKGROUND: The English mass media campaign 'Act FAST' aimed to raise stroke awareness and the need to call emergency services at the onset of suspected stroke. We examined the perceived impact and views of the campaign in target populations to identify potential ways to optimise mass-media interventions for stroke. METHODS: Analysis of semi-structured interviews conducted as part of two qualitative studies, which examined factors influencing patient/witness response to acute stroke symptoms (n = 19 stroke patients, n = 26 stroke witnesses) and perceptions about raising stroke awareness in primary care (n = 30 clinicians). Both studies included questions about the 'Act FAST' campaign. Interviews were content analysed to determine campaign awareness, perceived impact on decisions and response to stroke, and views of the campaign. RESULTS: Most participants were aware of the Act FAST campaign. Some patients and witnesses reported that the campaign impacted upon their stroke recognition and response, but the majority reported no impact. Clinicians often perceived campaign success in raising stroke awareness, but few thought it would change response behaviours. Some patients and witnesses, and most primary care clinicians expressed positive views towards the campaign. Some more critical participant comments included perceptions of dramatic, irrelevant, and potentially confusing content, such as a prominent 'fire in the brain' analogy. CONCLUSIONS: Act FAST has had some perceived impact on stroke recognition and response in some stroke patients and witnesses, but the majority reported no campaign impact. Primary care clinicians were positive about the campaign, and believed it had impacted on stroke awareness and recognition but doubted impact on response behaviour. Potential avenues for optimising and complementing mass media campaigns such as 'Act FAST' were identified.

A review of decision support, risk communication and patient information tools for thrombolytic treatment in acute stroke: lessons for tool developers.

BACKGROUND: Tools to support clinical or patient decision-making in the treatment/management of a health condition are used in a range of clinical settings for numerous preference-sensitive healthcare decisions. Their impact in clinical practice is largely dependent on their quality across a range of domains. We critically analysed currently available tools to support decision making or patient understanding in the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke with intravenous thrombolysis, as an exemplar to provide clinicians/researchers with practical guidance on development, evaluation and implementation of such tools for other preference-sensitive treatment options/decisions in different clinical contexts. METHODS: Tools were identified from bibliographic databases, Internet searches and a survey of UK and North American stroke networks. Two reviewers critically analysed tools to establish: information on benefits/risks of thrombolysis included in tools, and the methods used to convey probabilistic information (verbal descriptors, numerical and graphical); adherence to guidance on presenting outcome probabilities (IPDASi probabilities items) and information content (Picker Institute Checklist); readability (Fog Index); and the extent that tools had comprehensive development processes. RESULTS: Nine tools of 26 identified included information on a full range of benefits/risks of thrombolysis. Verbal descriptors, frequencies and percentages were used to convey probabilistic information in 20, 19 and 18 tools respectively, whilst nine used graphical methods. Shortcomings in presentation of outcome probabilities (e.g. omitting outcomes without treatment) were identified. Patient information tools had an aggregate median Fog index score of 10. None of the tools had comprehensive development processes. CONCLUSIONS: Tools to support decision making or patient understanding in the treatment of acute stroke with thrombolysis have been sub-optimally developed. Development of tools should utilise mixed methods and strategies to meaningfully involve clinicians, patients and their relatives in an iterative design process; include evidence-based methods to augment interpretability of textual and probabilistic information (e.g. graphical displays showing natural frequencies) on the full range of outcome states associated with available options; and address patients with different levels of health literacy. Implementation of tools will be enhanced when mechanisms are in place to periodically assess the relevance of tools and where necessary, update the mode of delivery, form and information content.

Information provision and decision-making in the treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm: A qualitative study of patient experience.

INTRODUCTION: Shared decision making (SDM) refers to patients and health care professionals working together to reach a decision about treatment/care. In abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) treatment options are influenced by patients' clinical characteristics, their preferences, and potential trade-offs between alternative interventions. This is a prime example of where SDM is essential to ensure the right decision is made for the right patient, yet we have little understanding of what happens in practice. This study explored patient experiences to understand SDM practice in AAA surgery. METHODS: We used a qualitative approach to describe, and identify improvements to, current treatment decision making in abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) surgery. Two groups of patients were interviewed: those at the point of discussing treatment options (with corresponding digitally recorded consultation data) and following surgical intervention from one hospital. Framework analysis was used. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were interviewed, seven at the point of discussing treatment options and eight following surgical intervention. Timing, format and sources of information, verbal framing of interventions and level of patient engagement were key themes. Four areas for improvement were identified: earlier provision and more detailed written information along with signposting to quality on-line information; both intervention options, risks, benefits, and consequences, were not always discussed; some clinicians were somewhat directive in the decision-making process; and patients' treatment values/preferences were not explored-the only example was in one of the eight recorded consultations. Patients could feel overwhelmed by the information and decision and fearful of the impending surgery. CONCLUSIONS: More emphasis should be placed on the provision of full information and the exploration of patient values and preferences for treatment. Clinician training and support for patients, including decision aids, could facilitate the decision-making process. Providing written information earlier and guidance on reliable on-line resources would benefits patients and their families.

Validating the stroke-thrombolytic predictive instrument in a population in the United kingdom.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This study aimed to test the explanatory qualities of the Stroke-Thrombolytic Predictive Instrument (S-TPI) when applied to patients treated in routine practice. METHODS: S-TPI predictions were compared with observed outcomes in terms of normal/near-normal (modified Rankin Scale score, ≤1) and catastrophic outcome (modified Rankin Scale score, ≥5) at 3 months. Logistic regression was used to calibrate and expand the S-TPI. RESULTS: The S-TPI overestimated probability of catastrophic outcomes and overestimated the probability of a normal/near normal outcome above 0.4 and underestimated those below. Calibrating the S-TPI minimized discrepancies between predicted and observed outcomes, in the case of normal/near-normal outcomes, where including additional predictors (serum glucose and signs of current infarction on pretreatment brain scan) further reduced discrepancies between predicted and observed outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The explanatory power of the S-TPI in thrombolytic-treated patients can be improved to reflect outcomes seen in routine practice.

Inclusion of person-centred care in medical and nursing undergraduate curricula in the UK: Interviews and documentary analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to understand how person-centred care (PCC) is represented in UK professional standards for undergraduate medical/nursing education and explored how these are reflected in programme provision. METHODS: We identified PCC components in medical (GMC) and nursing (NMC) professional standards and university curricula documents provided. We also identified themes from interviews with high-level informants for medical/nursing undergraduate programmes using framework analysis. RESULTS: The GMC appears to promote a more paternalistic model of care with discrete PCC components in specific sections and the NMC a more collaborative model with PCC distributed throughout. These differences persisted into education delivery. Medical educators perceived greater barriers to inclusion of PCC than nursing educators; however, both consistently identified cultural and organisational attributes. Clarity was lacking regarding PCC definition, how to teach/assess PCC, and competence expectations. CONCLUSION: Development of a PCC skills competence framework would increase consistency and support teaching and assessment in undergraduate curricula. Further research to understand the perspectives of healthcare professionals involved in placements would help inform PCC teaching recommendations. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: High-level support from senior HEI leaders; multi-disciplinary approaches to curricula development, teaching, and assessment; and greater inclusion of service users would ensure higher quality PCC education for undergraduate students.

'You can't start a car when there's no petrol left': a qualitative study of patient, family and clinician perspectives on implantable cardioverter defibrillator deactivation.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the attitudes towards implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) deactivation and initiation of deactivation discussions among patients, relatives and clinicians. DESIGN: A multiphase qualitative study consisting of in situ hospital ICD clinic observations, and semistructured interviews of clinicians, patients and relatives. Data were analysed using a constant comparative approach. SETTING: One tertiary and two district general hospitals in England. PARTICIPANTS: We completed 38 observations of hospital consultations prior to ICD implantation, and 80 interviews with patients, family members and clinicians between 2013 and 2015. Patients were recruited from preimplantation to postdeactivation. Clinicians included cardiologists, cardiac physiologists, heart failure nurses and palliative care professionals. RESULTS: Four key themes were identified from the data: the current status of deactivation discussions; patients' perceptions of deactivation; who should take responsibility for deactivation discussions and decisions; and timing of deactivation discussions. We found that although patients and doctors recognised the importance of advance care planning, including ICD deactivation at an early stage in the patient journey, this was often not reflected in practice. The most appropriate clinician to take the lead was thought to be dependent on the context, but could include any appropriately trained member of the healthcare team. It was suggested that deactivation should be raised preimplantation and regularly reviewed. Identification of trigger points postimplantation for deactivation discussions may help ensure that these are timely and inappropriate shocks are avoided. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for early, ongoing and evolving discussion between ICD recipients and clinicians regarding the eventual need for ICD deactivation. The most appropriate clinician to instigate deactivation discussions is likely to vary between patients and models of care. Reminders at key trigger points, and routine discussion of deactivation at implantation and during advance care planning could prevent distressing experiences for both the patient and their family at the end of life.

Systematic review of mass media interventions designed to improve public recognition of stroke symptoms, emergency response and early treatment.

BACKGROUND: Mass media interventions have been implemented to improve emergency response to stroke given the emergence of effective acute treatments, but their impact is unclear. METHODS: Systematic review of mass media interventions aimed at improving emergency response to stroke, with narrative synthesis and review of intervention development. RESULTS: Ten studies were included (six targeted the public, four both public and professionals) published between 1992 and 2010. Only three were controlled before and after studies, and only one had reported how the intervention was developed. Campaigns aimed only at the public reported significant increase in awareness of symptoms/signs, but little impact on awareness of need for emergency response. Of the two controlled before and after studies, one reported no impact on those over 65 years, the age group at increased risk of stroke and most likely to witness a stroke, and the other found a significant increase in awareness of two or more warning signs of stroke in the same group post-intervention. One campaign targeted at public and professionals did not reduce time to presentation at hospital to within two hours, but increased and sustained thrombolysis rates. This suggests the campaign had a primary impact on professionals and improved the way that services for stroke were organised. CONCLUSIONS: Campaigns aimed at the public may raise awareness of symptoms/signs of stroke, but have limited impact on behaviour. Campaigns aimed at both public and professionals may have more impact on professionals than the public. New campaigns should follow the principles of good design and be robustly evaluated.

Response to symptoms of stroke in the UK: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The English National Stroke Strategy suggests that there is a need to improve the response of patients and witnesses to the symptoms of acute stroke to increase rapid access to specialist care. We wished to review the evidence base regarding the knowledge, attitudes and behaviours of stroke patients, witnesses and the public to the symptoms of stroke and the need for an urgent response at the onset of symptoms. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of UK articles reporting empirical research on a) awareness of and response to the symptoms of acute stroke or TIA, and b) beliefs and attitudes about diagnosis, early treatment and consequences of acute stroke or TIA. Nine electronic databases were searched using a robust search strategy. Citations and abstracts were screened independently by two reviewers. Data were extracted by two researchers independently using agreed criteria. RESULTS: 11 studies out of 7144 citations met the inclusion criteria. Methods of data collection included: postal survey (n = 2); interview survey (n = 6); review of hospital documentation (n = 2) and qualitative interviews (n = 1). Limited data reveal a good level of knowledge of the two commonest stroke symptoms (unilateral weakness and speech disturbance), and of the need for an emergency response among the general public and at risk patients. Despite this, less than half of patients recognised they had suffered a stroke. Symptom recognition did not reduce time to presentation. For the majority, the first point of contact for medical assistance was a general practitioner. CONCLUSIONS: There is an assumption that, in the UK, public knowledge of the symptoms of stroke and of the need for an emergency response is lacking, but there is little published research to support this. Public awareness raising campaigns to improve response to the symptoms of stroke therefore may not produce an increase in desired behaviours. Further research is needed to understand why people who experience or witness stroke symptoms frequently do not call emergency services.

Professional centred shared decision making: patient decision aids in practice in primary care.

BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids are increasingly regarded as important components of clinical practice that enable shared decision making (SDM) and evidence based patient choice. Despite broad acceptance of their value, there remains little evidence of their successful implementation in primary care settings. METHODS: Health care practitioners from five general practice surgeries in northern England participated in focus group sessions around the themes of patient decision aids, patient and practitioner preferences and SDM. Participants included general practitioners (n = 19), practice nurses (n = 5) and auxiliary staff (n = 3). Transcripts were analysed using a framework approach. RESULTS: We report a) practitioners' discussion of the current impetus towards sharing decisions and their perspectives on barriers to SDM, and b) the implementation of patient decision aids in practice and impediments such as lack of an evidence base and time available in consultations. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate two orientations to sharing decisions: practitioner-centred and patient-centred with the former predominating. We argue that it is necessary to rethink the changes required in practice for the implementation of SDM.

Factors that influence clinicians' decisions to offer intravenous alteplase in acute ischemic stroke patients with uncertain treatment indication: Results of a discrete choice experiment.

Background Treatment with intravenous alteplase for eligible patients with acute ischemic stroke is underused, with variation in treatment rates across the UK. This study sought to elucidate factors influencing variation in clinicians' decision-making about this thrombolytic treatment. Methods A discrete choice experiment using hypothetical patient vignettes framed around areas of clinical uncertainty was conducted with UK-based clinicians. Mixed logit regression analyses were conducted on the data. Results A total of 138 clinicians completed the discrete choice experiment. Seven patient factors were individually predictive of increased likelihood of immediately offering IV alteplase (compared to reference levels in brackets): stroke onset time 2 h 30 min [50 min]; pre-stroke dependency mRS 3 [mRS 4]; systolic blood pressure 185 mm/Hg [140 mm/Hg]; stroke severity scores of NIHSS 5 without aphasia, NIHSS 14 and NIHSS 23 [NIHSS 2 without aphasia]; age 85 [68]; Afro-Caribbean [white]. Factors predictive of withholding treatment with IV alteplase were: age 95 [68]; stroke onset time of 4 h 15 min [50 min]; severe dementia [no memory problems]; SBP 200 mm/Hg [140 mm/Hg]. Three clinician-related factors were predictive of an increased likelihood of offering IV alteplase (perceived robustness of the evidence for IV alteplase; thrombolyzing more patients in the past 12 months; and high discomfort with uncertainty) and one with a decreased likelihood (high clinician comfort with treating patients outside the licensing criteria). Conclusions Both patient- and clinician-related factors have a major influence on the use of alteplase to treat patients with acute ischemic stroke. Clinicians' views of the evidence, comfort with uncertainty and treating patients outside the license criteria are important factors to address in programs that seek to reduce variation in care quality regarding treatment with IV alteplase. Further research is needed to further understand the differences in clinical decision-making about treating patients with acute ischemic stroke with IV alteplase.

Quality of reporting of patient decision aids in recent randomized controlled trials: A descriptive synthesis and comparative analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Variable reporting of patient decision aids (PDAs) in published articles raises uncertainty about whether the intervention meets the definition of a PDA. We appraised the quality of reporting of PDA characteristics in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: RCTs eligible for the Cochrane review of PDAs and published June 2012 to April 2015 were included. Quality of PDA reporting was appraised using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Instrument (v4.0). We descriptively synthesized and comparatively analysed qualifying and certification criteria reported in each publication against their presence in actual PDAs. RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs evaluating sixteen PDAs were included. Ten PDAs (58.8%) were reported using all qualifying criteria. Two (11.8%) were reported using all certification criteria. The median score for reporting qualifying criteria was 6 of 6 (range 4-6). The median score for reporting certification criteria was 2 of 10 (range 2-3) for screening and 1 of 6 (range 0-6) for treatment decisions. CONCLUSION: Reporting of PDAs in RCTs is suboptimal. Incomplete reporting poses challenges for clinicians and researchers needing to identify PDA content for clinical practice and/or future research. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Authors should report IPDASi (v4.0) criteria in published articles. Reporting guidelines for PDA evaluation studies are in development to improve reporting within the scientific literature.