Feasibility study of an EHR-integrated mobile shared decision making application.

INTRODUCTION: Integrating mobile applications (apps) into users' standard electronic health record (EHR) workflows may be valuable, especially for apps that both read and write data. This report details the lessons learned during the integration of a patient decision aid - prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing for prostate cancer screening - into our users' standard EHR workflow for a small usability assessment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This feasibility study included two steps. First we enabled realtime, secure bidirectional data exchange between the mobile app and EHR for 14 data elements, and second we pilot tested the production environment app with 9 primary care patients aged 60-65 years. Our primary usability metric was a net promoter score (NPS), based on users' recommendation of the app to a friend or family member; we also assessed the proportion of users who 1) updated their prostate cancer risk factor information present in the EHR and 2) submitted more than one unique response regarding their preference to have PSA testing. RESULTS: The seven web services necessary to read and write data required considerable configuration, but successfully delivered risk factor-specific educational content and recorded patients' values and decision preference directly within the EHR. Seven of the 9 patients (78%) would recommend this app to a friend/family member (NPS = 55.6%), one patient used the app to update risk factor information, and 4/9 (44%) changed their decision preference while using the app. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to implement a decision aid directly into users' standard EHR workflow for limited usability testing. Broad scale implementation may have a positive effect on patient engagement and improve shared decision making, but several challenges exist with proprietary EHR vendor application programming interfaces (API)s.

Increasing confidence and changing behaviors in primary care providers engaged in genetic counselling.

BACKGROUND: Screening and counseling for genetic conditions is an increasingly important part of primary care practice, particularly given the paucity of genetic counselors in the United States. However, primary care physicians (PCPs) often have an inadequate understanding of evidence-based screening; communication approaches that encourage shared decision-making; ethical, legal, and social implication (ELSI) issues related to screening for genetic mutations; and the basics of clinical genetics. This study explored whether an interactive, web-based genetics curriculum directed at PCPs in non-academic primary care settings was superior at changing practice knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors when compared to a traditional educational approach, particularly when discussing common genetic conditions. METHODS: One hundred twenty one PCPs in California and Pennsylvania physician practices were randomized to either an Intervention Group (IG) or Control Group (CG). IG physicians completed a 6 h interactive web-based curriculum covering communication skills, basics of genetic testing, risk assessment, ELSI issues and practice behaviors. CG physicians were provided with a traditional approach to Continuing Medical Education (CME) (clinical review articles) offering equivalent information. RESULTS: PCPs in the Intervention Group showed greater increases in knowledge compared to the Control Group. Intervention PCPs were also more satisfied with the educational materials, and more confident in their genetics knowledge and skills compared to those receiving traditional CME materials. Intervention PCPs felt that the web-based curriculum covered medical management, genetics, and ELSI issues significantly better than did the Control Group, and in comparison with traditional curricula. The Intervention Group felt the online tools offered several advantages, and engaged in better shared decision making with standardized patients, however, there was no difference in behavior change between groups with regard to increases in ELSI discussions between PCPs and patients. CONCLUSION: While our intervention was deemed more enjoyable, demonstrated significant factual learning and retention, and increased shared decision making practices, there were few differences in behavior changes around ELSI discussions. Unfortunately, barriers to implementing behavior change in clinical genetics is not unique to our intervention. Perhaps the missing element is that busy physicians need systems-level support to engage in meaningful discussions around genetics issues. The next step in promoting active engagement between doctors and patients may be to put into place the tools needed for PCPs to easily access the materials they need at the point-of-care to engage in joint discussions around clinical genetics.

A comparison of Web-based and small-group palliative and end-of-life care curricula: a quasi-randomized controlled study at one institution.

PURPOSE: Few studies have compared the effect of Web-based eLearning versus small-group learning on medical student outcomes. Palliative and end-of-life (PEOL) education is ideal for this comparison, given uneven access to PEOL experts and content nationally. METHOD: In 2010, the authors enrolled all third-year medical students at the University of California, Davis School of Medicine into a quasi-randomized controlled trial of Web-based interactive education (eDoctoring) compared with small-group education (Doctoring) on PEOL clinical content over two months. Students participated in three 3-hour PEOL sessions with similar content. Outcomes included a 24-item PEOL-specific self-efficacy scale with three domains (diagnosis/treatment [Cronbach alpha=0.92; CI: 0.91-0.93], communication/prognosis [alpha=0.95; CI: 0.93-0.96], and social impact/self-care [alpha=0.91; CI: 0.88-0.92]); 8 knowledge items; 10 curricular advantage/disadvantages; and curricular satisfaction (both students and faculty). RESULTS: Students were randomly assigned to Web-based eDoctoring (n=48) or small-group Doctoring (n=71) curricula. Self-efficacy and knowledge improved equivalently between groups (e.g., prognosis self-efficacy, 19%; knowledge, 10%-42%). Student and faculty ratings of the Web-based eDoctoring curriculum and the small-group Doctoring curriculum were equivalent for most goals, and overall satisfaction was equivalent for each, with a trend toward decreased eDoctoring student satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Findings showed equivalent gains in self-efficacy and knowledge between students participating in a Web-based PEOL curriculum in comparison with students learning similar content in a small-group format. Web-based curricula can standardize content presentation when local teaching expertise is limited, but it may lead to decreased user satisfaction.

Impact of a randomized controlled educational trial to improve physician practice behaviors around screening for inherited breast cancer.

BACKGROUND: Many primary care physicians (PCPs) are ill-equipped to provide screening and counseling for inherited breast cancer. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the outcomes of an interactive web-based genetics curriculum versus text curriculum for primary care physicians. DESIGN: Randomized two-group design. PARTICIPANTS: 121 California and Pennsylvania community physicians. INTERVENTION: Web-based interactive genetics curriculum, evaluated against a control group of physicians who studied genetics review articles. After education, physicians interacted with an announced standardized patient (SP) at risk for inherited breast cancer. MAIN MEASURES: Transcripts of visit discussions were coded for presence or absence of 69 topics relevant to inherited breast cancer. KEY RESULTS: Across all physicians, history-taking, discussions of test result implications, and exploration of ethical and legal issues were incomplete. Approximately half of physicians offered a genetic counseling referral (54.6%), and fewer (43.8%) recommended testing. Intervention physicians were more likely than controls to explore genetic counseling benefits (78.3% versus 60.7%, P = 0.048), encourage genetic counseling before testing (38.3% versus 21.3%, P = 0.048), ask about a family history of prostate cancer (25.0% versus 6.6%, P = 0.006), and report that a positive result indicated an increased risk of prostate cancer for male relatives (20.0% versus 1.6%, P = 0.001). Intervention-group physicians were less likely than controls to ask about Ashkenazi heritage (13.3% versus 34.4%, P = 0.01) or to reply that they would get tested when asked, "What would you do?" (33.3% versus 54.1%, P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians infrequently performed key counseling behaviors, and this was true regardless of whether they had completed the web-based interactive training or read clinical reviews.

Physician communication regarding prostate cancer screening: analysis of unannounced standardized patient visits.

PURPOSE: Prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is a controversial issue. The present study aimed to explore physician behaviors during an unannounced standardized patient encounter that was part of a randomized controlled trial to educate physicians using a prostate cancer screening, interactive, Web-based module. METHODS: Participants included 118 internal medicine and family medicine physicians from 5 health systems in California, in 2007-2008. Control physicians received usual education about prostate cancer screening (brochures from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention). Intervention physicians participated in the prostate cancer screening module. Within 3 months, all physicians saw unannounced standardized patients who prompted prostate cancer screening discussions in clinic. The encounter was audio-recorded, and the recordings were transcribed. Authors analyzed physician behaviors around screening: (1) engagement after prompting, (2) degree of shared decision making, and (3) final recommendations for prostate cancer screening. RESULTS: After prompting, 90% of physicians discussed prostate cancer screening. In comparison with control physicians, intervention physicians showed somewhat more shared decision making behaviors (intervention 14 items vs control 11 items, P <.05), were more likely to mention no screening as an option (intervention 63% vs control 26%, P <.05), to encourage patients to consider different screening options (intervention 62% vs control 39%, P <.05) and seeking input from others (intervention 25% vs control 7%, P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: A brief Web-based interactive educational intervention can improve shared decision making, neutrality in recommendation, and reduce PSA test ordering. Engaging patients in discussion of the uses and limitations of tests with uncertain value can decrease utilization of the tests.

Pairing physician education with patient activation to improve shared decisions in prostate cancer screening: a cluster randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Most expert groups recommend shared decision making for prostate cancer screening. Most primary care physicians, however, routinely order a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test with little or no discussion about whether they believe the potential benefits justify the risk of harm. We sought to assess whether educating primary care physicians and activating their patients to ask about prostate cancer screening had a synergistic effect on shared decision making, rates and types of discussions about prostate cancer screening, and the physician's final recommendations. METHODS: Our study was a cluster randomized controlled trial among primary care physicians and their patients, comparing usual education (control), with physician education alone (MD-Ed), and with physician education and patient activation (MD-Ed+A). Participants included 120 physicians in 5 group practices, and 712 male patients aged 50 to 75 years. The interventions comprised a Web-based educational program for all intervention physicians and MD-Ed+A patients compared with usual education (brochures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). The primary outcome measure was patients' reported postvisit shared decision making regarding prostate cancer screening; secondary measures included unannounced standardized patients' reported shared decision making and the physician's recommendation for prostate cancer screening. RESULTS: Patients' ratings of shared decision making were moderate and did not differ between groups. MD-Ed+A patients reported that physicians had higher prostate cancer screening discussion rates (MD-Ed+A = 65%, MD-Ed = 41%, control=38%; P <.01). Standardized patients reported that physicians seeing MD-Ed+A patients were more neutral during prostate cancer screening recommendations (MD-Ed+A=50%, MD-Ed=33%, control=15%; P <.05). Of the male patients, 80% had had previous PSA tests. CONCLUSIONS: Although activating physicians and patients did not lead to significant changes in all aspects of physician attitudes and behaviors that we studied, interventions that involved physicians did have a large effect on their attitudes toward screening and in the discussions they had with patients, including their being more likely than control physicians to engage in prostate cancer screening discussions and more likely to be neutral in their final recommendations.

A test of knowledge about prostate cancer screening. Online pilot evaluation among Southern California Physicians.

BACKGROUND: Although the benefits of prostate cancer screening are uncertain and guidelines recommend that physicians share the screening decision with their patients, most U.S. men over age 50 are routinely screened, often without counseling. OBJECTIVE: To develop an instrument for assessing physicians' knowledge related to the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendations on prostate cancer screening. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy internists, family physicians, and general practitioners in the Los Angeles area who deliver primary care to adult men. MEASUREMENTS: We assessed knowledge related to prostate cancer screening (natural history, test characteristics, treatment effects, and guideline recommendations), beliefs about the net benefits of screening, and prostate cancer screening practices for men in different age groups, using an online survey. We constructed a knowledge scale having 15 multiple-choice items. RESULTS: Participants' mean knowledge score was 7.4 (range 3 to 12) of 15 (Cronbach's alpha=0.71). Higher knowledge scores were associated with less belief in a mortality benefit from prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing (r=-.49, P<.001). Participants could be categorized as low, age-selective, and high users of routine PSA screening. High users had lower knowledge scores than age-selective or low users, and they believed much more in mortality benefits from PSA screening. CONCLUSIONS: Based on its internal consistency and its correlations with measures of physicians' net beliefs and self-reported practices, the knowledge scale developed in this study holds promise for measuring the effects of professional education on prostate cancer screening. The scale deserves further evaluation in broader populations.