My anesthesia Choice-HF: development and preliminary testing of a tool to facilitate conversations about anesthesia for hip fracture surgery.

BACKGROUND: Patients often desire involvement in anesthesia decisions, yet clinicians rarely explain anesthesia options or elicit preferences. We developed My Anesthesia Choice-Hip Fracture, a conversation aid about anesthesia options for hip fracture surgery and tested its preliminary efficacy and acceptability. METHODS: We developed a 1-page, tabular format, plain-language conversation aid with feedback from anesthesiologists, decision scientists, and community advisors. We conducted an online survey of English-speaking adults aged 50 and older. Participants imagined choosing between spinal and general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery. Before and after viewing the aid, participants answered a series of questions regarding key outcomes, including decisional conflict, knowledge about anesthesia options, and acceptability of the aid. RESULTS: Of 364/409 valid respondents, mean age was 64 (SD 8.9) and 59% were female. The proportion indicating decisional conflict decreased after reviewing the aid (63-34%, P < 0.001). Median knowledge scores increased from 50% correct to 67% correct (P < 0.001). 83% agreed that the aid would help them discuss options and preferences. 76.4% would approve of doctors using it. CONCLUSION: My Anesthesia Choice-Hip Fracture decreased decisional conflict and increased knowledge about anesthesia choices for hip fracture surgery. Respondents assessed it as acceptable for use in clinical settings. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Use of clinical decision aids may increase shared decision-making; further testing is warranted.

Explorative observational study of Dutch patient-clinician interactions: operationalisation of personal perspective elicitation as part of shared decision-making in real-life audio-recorded consultations.

OBJECTIVES: Patients' preferences, values and contexts are important elements of the shared decision-making (SDM) process. We captured those elements into the concept of 'personal perspective elicitation' (PPE), which reflects the need to elicit patients' preferences, values and contexts in patient-clinician conversations. We defined PPE as: 'the disclosure (either elicited by the clinician or spontaneously expressed by the patient) of information related to the patient's personal preferences, values and/or contexts potentially relevant to decision-making'. Our goal was to operationalise the concept of PPE through the evaluation of preferences, values and contexts and explore how PPE occurs in clinical encounters. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study: observational coding based on a novel coding scheme of audio-recorded outpatient clinical encounters where encounter patient decision aids were applied. SETTING: We audio-recorded patient-clinician interactions at three Dutch outpatient clinics. PPE was analysed using a novel observational coding scheme, distinguishing preferences, contexts and four Armstrong taxonomy value types (global, decisional, external and situational). We measured SDM using the Observer OPTION5. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty patients who suffered from psoriasis or ovarian cysts; four clinicians. RESULTS: We included 20 audio-recordings. The mean Observer OPTION5 score was 57.5 (SD:10.1). The audio-recordings gave a rich illustration of preferences, values and contexts that were discussed in the patient-clinician interactions. Examples of identified global values: appearance, beliefs, personality traits. Decisional values were related to the process of decision-making. External values related to asking advice from for example, the clinician or significant others. An identified situational value: a new job ahead. Contexts related to how the illness impacted the life (eg, sexuality, family, sports, work life) of patients. CONCLUSIONS: The operationalisation of PPE, an important aspect of SDM, explores which preferences, values and contexts were discussed during patient-clinician interactions where an ePDA was used. The coding scheme appeared feasible to apply but needs further refinement.

Exploring Decisional Conflict Experienced by Individuals Considering Metoidioplasty and Phalloplasty Gender-affirming Surgery.

Background: Metoidioplasty and phalloplasty gender-affirming surgery (MaPGAS) is increasingly performed and requires patients to make complex decisions that may lead to decisional uncertainty. This study aimed to evaluate decisional conflict in individuals considering MaPGAS. Methods: We administered a cross-sectional survey to adult participants assigned female sex at birth and considering MaPGAS, recruited via social media platforms and community health centers. We collected data on demographics, medical and surgical history, MaPGAS type considered, and the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). DCS scores range from 0 to 100 (>37.5 indicates greater decisional conflict). Demographic characteristics and DCS scores were compared between subgroups, using descriptive and chi-square statistics. Participants commented on MaPGAS uncertainty, and their comments were evaluated and thematically analyzed. Results: Responses from 264 participants were analyzed: mean age 29 years; 64% (n = 168) trans men, 80% (n = 210) White, 78% (n = 206) nonrural, 45% (n = 120) privately insured, 56% (n = 148) had 4 or more years of college, 23% (n = 84) considering metoidioplasty, 24% (n = 87) considering phalloplasty, and 26% (n = 93) considering metoidioplasty and phalloplasty. DCS total scores were significantly higher (39.8; P < 0.001) among those considering both MaPGAS options, as were mean ratings on the Uncertainty subscale [64.1 (SD 25.5; P < 0.001)]. Concerns surrounding complications were the top factor contributing to uncertainty and decisional conflict. Conclusions: In a cross-sectional national sample of individuals seeking MaPGAS, decisional uncertainty was the highest for those considering both MaPGAS options compared with metoidioplasty or phalloplasty alone. This suggests this cohort would benefit from focused decision support.

Clinician-Spoken Plain Language in Health Care Encounters: A Qualitative Analysis to Assess Measurable Elements.

PURPOSE: Good communication and use of plain language in health care encounters improve outcomes, including emotional health, symptom resolution, and functional status. Yet there is limited research on how to measure and report spoken plain language, which is the use of familiar, clear language. The authors aimed to describe key, measurable elements of spoken plain language that can be assessed and reported back to clinicians for self-reflection. METHOD: The authors conducted secondary analysis of transcripts from recorded encounters between breast cancer surgeons and patients with early-stage breast cancer. Two coders used a hybrid qualitative analysis with a framework based on U.S. Federal Plain Language Guidelines. To develop major themes, they examined (1) alignment with the Guidelines and (2) code frequencies within and across transcripts. They also noted minor themes. RESULTS: From 74 transcripts featuring 13 surgeons, the authors identified 2 major themes representing measurable elements of spoken plain language: (1) clinicians had a propensity to use both explained and unexplained medical terms, and (2) clinicians delivered information using either short turns (one unit of someone speaking) with 1 topic or long turns with multiple topics. There were 3 minor themes that were not indicative of whether or not clinicians used spoken plain language. First, clinicians regularly used absolute risk communication techniques. Second, question-asking techniques varied and included open-ended, close-ended, and comprehension checks. Third, some clinicians used imagery to describe complex topics. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians' propensity to use medical terms with and without explanation and parse encounters into shorter or longer turns are measurable elements of spoken plain language. These findings will support further research on the development of a tool that can be used in medical education and other settings. This tool could provide direct and specific feedback to improve the plain language practices of clinicians in training and beyond.

Evaluation of the nurse-assisted eHealth intervention 'eHealth@Hospital-2-Home' on self-care by patients with heart failure and colorectal cancer post-hospital discharge: protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Patients with heart failure (HF) and colorectal cancer (CRC) are prone to comorbidity, a high rate of readmission, and complex healthcare needs. Self-care for people with HF and CRC after hospitalisation can be challenging, and patients may leave the hospital unprepared to self-manage their disease at home. eHealth solutions may be a beneficial tool to engage patients in self-care. METHODS: A randomised controlled trial with an embedded evaluation of intervention engagement and cost-effectiveness will be conducted to investigate the effect of eHealth intervention after hospital discharge on the self-efficacy of self-care. Eligible patients with HF or CRC will be recruited before discharge from two Norwegian university hospitals. The intervention group will use a nurse-assisted intervention-eHealth@Hospital-2-Home-for six weeks. The intervention includes remote monitoring of vital signs; patients' self-reports of symptoms, health and well-being; secure messaging between patients and hospital-based nurse navigators; and access to specific HF and CRC health-related information. The control group will receive routine care. Data collection will take place before the intervention (baseline), at the end of the intervention (Post-1), and at six months (Post-2). The primary outcome will be self-efficacy in self-care. The secondary outcomes will include measures of burden of treatment, health-related quality of life and 30- and 90-day readmissions. Sub-study analyses are planned in the HF patient population with primary outcomes of self-care behaviour and secondary outcomes of medication adherence, and readmission at 30 days, 90 days and 6 months. Patients' and nurse navigators' engagement and experiences with the eHealth intervention and cost-effectiveness will be investigated. Data will be analysed according to intention-to-treat principles. Qualitative data will be analysed using thematic analysis. DISCUSSION: This protocol will examine the effects of the eHealth@ Hospital-2-Home intervention on self-care in two prevalent patient groups, HF and CRC. It will allow the exploration of a generic framework for an eHealth intervention after hospital discharge, which could be adapted to other patient groups, upscaled, and implemented into clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trials.gov (ID 301472).

Is There Room for Individual Patient-Specified Preferences in the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Revolution?

Purpose: The study aim was to test the feasibility of collecting qualitative patient-preferred outcomes or goals and the degree of their attainment as an addition to a standardized process for collecting quantitative composite patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) from patients undergoing knee joint replacement. Methods: Patients of a large Midwestern medical group scheduled to have total replacement of their knee joint have been asked to complete a PROMs survey preoperatively and at 3 and 12 months after surgery since 2014. In March 2020, an open-ended question about their most important preferred outcome was added to the existing questionnaire. The responses for all 3 time periods from the first 6 months of this addition were summarized quantitatively and analyzed by 2 reviewers. Results: During that 6-month period, 1481 people completed the main survey while 1463 (98.8%) also completed the open-ended question. At baseline, 90.8% of the 590 baseline respondents identified a preferred outcome. If multiple-choice categories had been used, 82.7% of the responses would have lost some or a large amount of their preferred goals' meaning. Of the 144 who completed surveys at both baseline and 3 months, 86.1% reported another outcome in addition to pain relief, while 54.2% reported "Complete or Mostly" achieving their self-identified preferred outcome. Conclusions: Most people who have joint replacement surgery and respond to a quantitative PROMs survey are willing to report on their other preferred outcomes as well. Adding an open-ended question to PROMs surveys may increase clinician focus on addressing outcomes important to each patient.

The Costs of Implementing a Conversation Aid for Uterine Fibroids in Multiple Health Care Settings.

BACKGROUND: Health care organizations considering adopting a conversation aid (CA), a type of patient decision aid innovation, need information about the costs of implementation. OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to: (1) calculate the costs of introducing a CA in a study of supported implementation in 5 gynecologic settings that manage individuals diagnosed with uterine fibroids and (2) estimate the potential costs of future clinical implementation efforts in hypothetical settings. RESEARCH DESIGN: We used time-driven activity-based costing to estimate the costs of CA implementation at multiple steps: integration with an electronic health record, preimplementation, implementation, and sustainability. We then estimated costs for 2 disparate hypothetical implementation scenarios. SUBJECTS AND DATA COLLECTION: We conducted semistructured interviews with participants and examined internal documentation. RESULTS: We interviewed 41 individuals, analyzed 51 documents and 100 emails. Overall total implementation costs over ∼36 months of activities varied significantly across the 5 settings, ranging from $14,157 to $69,134. Factors influencing costs included size/complexity of the setting, urban/rural location, practice culture, and capacity to automate patient identification. Initial investments were substantial, comprising mostly personnel time. Settings that embedded CA use into standard workflows and automated identification of appropriate patients had the lowest initial investment and sustainability costs. Our estimates of the costs of sustaining implementation were much lower than initial investments and mostly attributable to CA subscription fees. CONCLUSION: Initiation and implementation of the interventions require significant personnel effort. Ongoing costs to maintain use are much lower and are a small fraction of overall organizational operating costs.

The impact of adding cost information to a conversation aid to support shared decision making about low-risk prostate cancer treatment: Results of a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Decision aids help patients consider the benefits and drawbacks of care options but rarely include cost information. We assessed the impact of a conversation-based decision aid containing information about low-risk prostate cancer management options and their relative costs. METHODS: We conducted a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial in outpatient urology practices within a US-based academic medical center. We randomised five clinicians to four intervention sequences and enroled patients newly diagnosed with low-risk prostate cancer. Primary patient-reported outcomes collected postvisit included the frequency of cost conversations and referrals to address costs. Other patient-reported outcomes included: decisional conflict postvisit and at 3 months, decision regret at 3 months, shared decision-making postvisit, financial toxicity postvisit and at 3 months. Clinicians reported their attitudes about shared decision-making pre- and poststudy, and the intervention's feasibility and acceptability. We used hierarchical regression analysis to assess patient outcomes. The clinician was included as a random effect; fixed effects included education, employment, telehealth versus in-person visit, visit date, and enrolment period. RESULTS: Between April 2020 and March 2022, we screened 513 patients, contacted 217 eligible patients, and enroled 117/217 (54%) (51 in usual care, 66 in the intervention group). In adjusted analyses, the intervention was not associated with cost conversations (ß = .82, p = .27), referrals to cost-related resources (ß = -0.36, p = .81), shared decision-making (ß = -0.79, p = .32), decisional conflict postvisit (ß = -0.34, p= .70), or at follow-up (ß = -2.19, p = .16), decision regret at follow-up (ß = -9.76, p = .11), or financial toxicity postvisit (ß = -1.32, p = .63) or at follow-up (ß = -2.41, p = .23). Most clinicians and patients had positive attitudes about the intervention and shared decision-making. In exploratory unadjusted analyses, patients in the intervention group experienced more transient indecision (p < .02) suggesting increased deliberation between visit and follow-up. DISCUSSION: Despite enthusiasm from clinicians, the intervention was not significantly associated with hypothesised outcomes, though we were unable to robustly test outcomes due to recruitment challenges. Recruitment at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic impacted eligibility, sample size/power, study procedures, and increased telehealth visits and financial worry, independent of the intervention. Future work should explore ways to support shared decision-making, cost conversations, and choice deliberation with a larger sample. Such work could involve additional members of the care team, and consider the detail, quality, and timing of addressing these issues. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients and clinicians were engaged as stakeholder advisors meeting monthly throughout the duration of the project to advise on the study design, measures selected, data interpretation, and dissemination of study findings.

Implementing shared decision making for early-stage breast cancer treatment using a coproduction learning collaborative: the SHAIR Collaborative protocol.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) in breast cancer care improves outcomes, but it is not routinely implemented. Results from the What Matters Most trial demonstrated that early-stage breast cancer surgery conversation aids, when used by surgeons after brief training, improved SDM and patient-reported outcomes. Trial surgeons and patients both encouraged using the conversation aids in routine care. We will develop and evaluate an online learning collaborative, called the SHared decision making Adoption Implementation Resource (SHAIR) Collaborative, to promote early-stage breast cancer surgery SDM by implementing the conversation aids into routine preoperative care. Learning collaboratives are known to be effective for quality improvement in clinical care, but no breast cancer learning collaborative currently exists. Our specific aims are to (1) provide the SHAIR Collaborative resources to clinical sites to use with eligible patients, (2) examine the relationship between the use of the SHAIR Collaborative resources and patient reach, and (3) promote the emergence of a sustained learning collaborative in this clinical field, building on a partnership with the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS). METHODS: We will conduct a two-phased implementation project: phase 1 pilot at five sites and phase 2 scale up at up to an additional 32 clinical sites across North America. The SHAIR Collaborative online platform will offer free access to conversation aids, training videos, electronic health record and patient portal integration guidance, a feedback dashboard, webinars, support center, and forum. We will use RE-AIM for data collection and evaluation. Our primary outcome is patient reach. Secondary data will include (1) patient-reported data from an optional, anonymous online survey, (2) number of active sites and interviews with site champions, (3) Normalization MeAsure Development questionnaire data from phase 1 sites, adaptations data utilizing the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Extended/-Implementation Strategies, and tracking implementation facilitating factors, and (4) progress on sustainability strategy and plans with ASBrS. DISCUSSION: The SHAIR Collaborative will reach early-stage breast cancer patients across North America, evaluate patient-reported outcomes, engage up to 37 active sites, and potentially inform engagement factors affecting implementation success and may be sustained by ASBrS.

Decision making in metoidioplasty and phalloplasty gender-affirming surgery: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Gender-affirming surgical procedures, such as metoidioplasty and phalloplasty for those assigned female at birth, are complex and multistaged and involve risks. Individuals considering these procedures experience greater uncertainty or decisional conflict, compounded by difficulty finding trustworthy information. AIM: (1) To explore the factors contributing to decisional uncertainty and the needs of individuals considering metoidioplasty and phalloplasty gender-affirming surgery (MaPGAS) and (2) to inform development of a patient-centered decision aid. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was based on mixed methods. Adult transgender men and nonbinary individuals assigned female at birth at various stages of MaPGAS decision making were recruited from 2 study sites in the United States to participate in semistructured interviews and an online gender health survey, which included measures of gender congruence, decisional conflict, urinary health, and quality of life. Trained qualitative researchers conducted all interviews with questions to explore constructs from the Ottawa decision support framework. OUTCOMES: Outcomes included goals and priorities for MaPGAS, expectations, knowledge, and decisional needs, as well as variations in decisional conflict by surgical preference, surgical status, and sociodemographic variables. RESULTS: We interviewed 26 participants and collected survey data from 39 (24 interviewees, 92%) at various stages of MaPGAS decision making. In surveys and interviews, affirmation of gender identity, standing to urinate, sensation, and the ability to "pass" as male emerged as highly important factors for deciding to undergo MaPGAS. A third of survey respondents reported decisional conflict. Triangulation of data from all sources revealed that conflict emerged most when trying to balance the strong desire to resolve gender dysphoria through surgical transition against the risks and unknowns in urinary and sexual function, appearance, and preservation of sensation post-MaPGAS. Insurance coverage, age, access to surgeons, and health concerns further influenced surgery preferences and timing. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The findings add to the understanding of decisional needs and priorities of those considering MaPGAS while revealing new complexities among knowledge, personal factors, and decisional uncertainty. STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS: This mixed methods study was codeveloped by members of the transgender and nonbinary community and yielded important guidance for providers and individuals considering MaPGAS. The results provide rich qualitative insights for MaPGAS decision making in US contexts. Limitations include low diversity and sample size; both are being addressed in work underway. CONCLUSIONS: This study increases understanding of the factors important to MaPGAS decision making, and results are being used to guide development of a patient-centered surgical decision aid and informed survey revision for national distribution.

Epistemic justice is the basis of shared decision making.

BACKGROUND: There is little evidence that share decision-making (SDM) is being successfully implemented, with a significant gap between theory and clinical practice. In this article we look at SDM explicitly acknowledging its social and cultural situatedness and examine it as a set of practices (e.g. actions, such as communicating, referring, or prescribing, and decisions relating to them). We study clinicians' communicative performance as anchored in the context of professional and institutional practice and within the expected behavioural norms of actors situated in clinical encounters. DISCUSSION: We propose to see conditions for shared decision-making in terms of epistemic justice, an explicit acknowledgment and acceptance of the legitimacy of healthcare users and their accounts and knowledges. We propose that shared decision-making is primarily a communicative encounter which requires both participants to have equal communicative rights. It is a process that is started by the clinician's decision and requires the suspension of their inherent interactional advantage. CONCLUSION: The epistemic-justice perspective we adopt leads to at least three implications for clinical practices. First, clinical training must go beyond the development of communication skills and focus more on an understanding of healthcare as a set of social practices. Second, we suggest medicine develop a stronger relationship with humanities and the social sciences. Third, we advocate that shared decision-making has issues of justice, equity, and agency at its core.

Patient-Reported Outcome Dashboards Within the Electronic Health Record to Support Shared Decision-making: Protocol for Co-design and Clinical Evaluation With Patients With Advanced Cancer and Chronic Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes-symptoms, treatment side effects, and health-related quality of life-are important to consider in chronic illness care. The increasing availability of health IT to collect patient-reported outcomes and integrate results within the electronic health record provides an unprecedented opportunity to support patients' symptom monitoring, shared decision-making, and effective use of the health care system. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study are to co-design a dashboard that displays patient-reported outcomes along with other clinical data (eg, laboratory tests, medications, and appointments) within an electronic health record and conduct a longitudinal demonstration trial to evaluate whether the dashboard is associated with improved shared decision-making and disease management outcomes. METHODS: Co-design teams comprising study investigators, patients with advanced cancer or chronic kidney disease, their care partners, and their clinicians will collaborate to develop the dashboard. Investigators will work with clinic staff to implement the co-designed dashboard for clinical testing during a demonstration trial. The primary outcome of the demonstration trial is whether the quality of shared decision-making increases from baseline to the 3-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include longitudinal changes in satisfaction with care, self-efficacy in managing treatments and symptoms, health-related quality of life, and use of costly and potentially avoidable health care services. Implementation outcomes (ie, fidelity, appropriateness, acceptability, feasibility, reach, adoption, and sustainability) during the co-design process and demonstration trial will also be collected and summarized. RESULTS: The dashboard co-design process was completed in May 2020, and data collection for the demonstration trial is anticipated to be completed by the end of July 2022. The results will be disseminated in at least one manuscript per study objective. CONCLUSIONS: This protocol combines stakeholder engagement, health care coproduction frameworks, and health IT to develop a clinically feasible model of person-centered care delivery. The results will inform our current understanding of how best to integrate patient-reported outcome measures into clinical workflows to improve outcomes and reduce the burden of chronic disease on patients and health care systems. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/38461.

A Rectal Cancer Surgical Decision Aid Is Not Enough: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Rectal cancer patients often face complex surgical treatment decisions, but there are few available tools to aid in decision-making. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to identify content and delivery preferences of rectal cancer patients and colorectal surgeons to guide future surgical decision aid creation. DESIGN: Qualitative study: inductive thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews. SETTING: In-person and phone interviews. PATIENTS: We purposively sampled 15 rectal cancer survivors based on demographics and surgery type. Five caregivers also participated. We purposively selected 10 surgeons based on practice type and years of experience. INTERVENTIONS: Semi-structured interviews. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Major and minor themes for survivors and surgeons with thematic saturation. RESULTS: Interviews were a median of 61 minutes (41-93) for patients and 35 minutes (25-59) for surgeons. Nine survivors were younger than 65 years; 7 were female. Surgeons had been practicing for a mean of 10 years (SD 7.4), with 7 in academic and 3 in private settings. Participating survivors and surgeons wanted a comprehensive educational tool-not just a surgical decision aid. Survivors wanted more information on rectal cancer basics and lifestyle, care timelines, and resources during treatment. Surgeons thought patients mostly desired information about surgical options and bowel function. Both patients and surgeons wanted a tool that was personalized, simple, understandable, visually appealing, interactive, short, and in multiple formats. LIMITATIONS: Results may not be generalizable due to selection bias of participants. CONCLUSION: Rectal cancer survivors, their caregivers, and colorectal surgeons wanted an educational support tool that would address substantial educational needs through the continuum of disease rather than a surgical decision aid focusing on a discrete surgical choice only. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/C20 . UNA AYUDA PARA LA DECISIN QUIRRGICA DEL CNCER DE RECTO NO ES SUFICIENTE UN ESTUDIO CUALITATIVO: ANTECEDENTES:Los pacientes con cáncer de recto a menudo enfrentan decisiones de tratamiento quirúrgico complejas, pero hay pocas herramientas disponibles para ayudar en la toma de decisiones.OBJETIVO:Nuestro objetivo fue identificar el contenido y las preferencias de entrega de los pacientes con cáncer de recto y los cirujanos colorrectales para guiar la futura creación de ayuda para la toma de decisiones quirúrgicas.DISEÑO:Estudio cualitativo: análisis temático inductivo de entrevistas semiestructuradas.ESCENARIO:Entrevistas en persona y por teléfono.PACIENTES:Tomamos muestras intencionalmente de 15 sobrevivientes de cáncer de recto, según la demografía y el tipo de cirugía. También participaron cinco cuidadores. Seleccionamos intencionalmente a 10 cirujanos según el tipo de práctica y los años de experiencia.INTERVENCIONES:Entrevistas semiestructuradas.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Temas principales y secundarios para sobrevivientes y cirujanos con saturación temática.RESULTADOS:Las entrevistas tuvieron una mediana de 61 minutos (41-93) para pacientes y 35 minutos (25-59) para cirujanos. Nueve sobrevivientes tenían menos de 65 años; siete eran mujeres. Los cirujanos habían estado ejerciendo una media de 10 años (DE 7,4), con siete en entornos académicos y 3 en entornos privados. Los sobrevivientes y cirujanos participantes querían una herramienta educativa comprensible, no solo una ayuda para la decisión quirúrgica. Los sobrevivientes querían más información sobre los conceptos básicos y el estilo de vida del cáncer de recto, los plazos de atención y los recursos durante el tratamiento. Los cirujanos pensaron que los pacientes en su mayoría deseaban información sobre las opciones quirúrgicas y la función intestinal. Tanto los pacientes como los cirujanos querían una herramienta que fuera personalizada, simple, comprensible, visualmente atractiva, interactiva, corta y en múltiples formatos.LIMITACIONES:Los resultados pueden no ser generalizables debido al sesgo de selección de los participantes.CONCLUSIÓN:Los sobrevivientes de cáncer rectal, sus cuidadores y los cirujanos colorrectales querían una herramienta de apoyo educativo que cubriera las necesidades educativas sustanciales a lo largo del tratamiento de la enfermedad en lugar de una ayuda para la decisión quirúrgica que se centre solo en una opción quirúrgica discreta. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/C20 . (Traducción-Dr. Yolanda Colorado ).

Development of an adjective-selection measure evaluating clinicians' attitudes towards using patient decision aids: The ADOPT measure.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of shared decision-making and patient decision aids (PDAs) is impeded by clinicians' attitudes. OBJECTIVE: To develop a measure of clinician attitude towards PDAs. METHODS: To develop the ADOPT measure, we used four stages, culminating in measure responses by medically qualified clinicians, 25 from each of the following specialties: emergency medicine, family medicine, oncology, obstetrics and gynaecology, orthopaedics, and psychiatry. To assess validity, we also posed three questions to assess the participants' attitudinal and behavioural endorsement of PDAs. Allocating a point per adjective, we calculated the sum as well as positive and negative scores. We used univariate logistic regression to determine associations between the scores and attitudinal or behavioural endorsements. RESULTS: 152 clinicians completed the measure. 'Time-saving' (39%) and 'easy' (34%) were the most frequently selected adjectives. 'Time-consuming' and 'unfamiliar' were the most frequently selected negative adjectives (both 19%). The sum scores were significantly associated with behavioural endorsement of PDAs. DISCUSSION: Clinicians were able to respond to adjective-selection methods and the ADOPT measure could help assess clinician attitudes to PDAs. Validation will require further research. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The ADOPT measure could help identify the extent and source of attitudinal resistance.

Potential impact of encounter patient decision aids on the patient-clinician dialogue: a qualitative study on Dutch and American medical specialists' experiences.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the experiences among Dutch and American clinicians on the impact of using encounter patient decision aids (ePDAs) on their clinical practice, and subsequently to formulate recommendations for sustained ePDA use in clinical practice. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with clinicians who used 11 different ePDAs (applicable to their specialty) for 3 months after a short training. The verbatim transcribed interviews were coded with thematic analysis by six researchers via ATLAS.ti. SETTING: Nine hospitals in the Netherlands and two hospitals in the USA. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-five clinicians were interviewed: 16 Dutch medical specialists from four different disciplines (gynaecologists, ear-nose-throat specialists, neurologists and orthopaedic surgeon), 5 American gynaecologists and 4 American gynaecology medical trainees. RESULTS: The interviews showed that the ePDA potentially impacted the patient-clinician dialogue in several ways. We identified six themes that illustrate this: that is, (1) communication style, for example, structuring the conversation; (2) the patient's role, for example, encouraging patients to ask more questions; (3) the clinician's role, for example, prompting clinicians to discuss more information; (4) workflow, for example, familiarity with the ePDA's content helped to integrate it into practice; (5) shared decision-making (SDM), for example, mixed experiences whether the ePDA contributed to SDM; and (6) content of the ePDA. Recommendations to possibly improve ePDA use based on the clinician's experiences: (1) add pictorial health information to the ePDA instead of text only and (2) instruct clinicians how to use the ePDA in a flexible (depending on their discipline and setting) and personalised way adapting the ePDA to the patients' needs (e.g., mark off irrelevant options). CONCLUSIONS: ePDAs contributed to the patient-clinician dialogue in several ways according to medical specialists. A flexible and personalised approach appeared appropriate to integrate the use of ePDAs into the clinician's workflow, and customise their use to individual patients' needs.

Unexpected Outcomes of Measuring Decision Regret: Using a Breast Cancer Decision-Making Case Example.

Shared decision making can help patients feel supported and empowered when deciding between healthcare options. Decision regret can be a meaningful measure of the quality of that encounter. However, in a patient-engaged research study examining shared decision making for breast cancer surgery, decision regret was a difficult construct to assess, and asking questions about decision regret caused the patient to experience that emotion upon reflection. In this article, we consider the complexity of decision regret, and discuss the difficulty of measuring that emotion through existing instruments. We call for clarity in definitions of decision regret and offer suggestions for developing a set of questions that can capture regret in a more meaningful way.

Is Shared Decision-making Associated with Better Patient-reported Outcomes? A Longitudinal Study of Patients Undergoing Total Joint Arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Although shared decision-making (SDM) has knowledge and satisfaction benefits for patients and is promising, we lack data demonstrating that SDM is associated with better patient-reported functional outcomes. Such data would support the integration and prioritization of SDM into all aspects of orthopaedic care. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: (1) Is a measure of SDM before total joint arthroplasty associated with better patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) 1 year postoperatively? (2) What is the relationship between the measure of SDM and two measures of patient experience (patient rating of the provider and patient likelihood of recommending the provider) at 1 year postoperatively? METHODS: In this observational longitudinal survey-based study, patients receiving an initial THA or TKA from a large, multispecialty medical group in the Midwestern United States were surveyed after they were scheduled for surgery and again at 12 months after their procedure. The three-item collaboRATE measure of SDM was added to existing patient surveys of PROMs. However, the surgeons and their department had no organized approach to SDM during this time. The surveys also included the Oxford knee or hip score and two validated measures of patient experience (patient rating of the provider and whether a patient would recommend the provider). Of the 2779 eligible primary joint arthroplasties that occurred from April 23, 2018 to May 1, 2019, 48% (1334 procedures; 859 TKAs and 485 THAs) of the patients responded to both the preoperative and 12-month postoperative surveys. Most of the patients who were included in the analytic sample were white (93%; 1255 of 1344), with only 3% (37) using Medicaid benefits at the time of surgery. Differences between responders and nonresponders were present and explored in an analysis. Patient responses were analyzed in regression models to estimate the association between preoperative collaboRATE scores and the Oxford knee or hip scores, and patient experience measures 12 months postoperatively. RESULTS: There was a moderate, positive association between preoperative collaboRATE scores and the Oxford scores at 12 months, after adjustment for potential confounders such as patient age and preoperative functional score (ß = 0.58; 95% CI 0.14-1.02; p = 0.01). Similarly, patients with preoperative collaboRATE scores had marginally higher patient experience scores at 12 months postoperatively (ß = 0.14; 95% CI 0.05-0.24; p = 0.003) and were more likely to recommend their surgeon (OR 1.43; 95% CI 1.11-1.84; p = 0.005). The patient experience measures were also modestly correlated with collaboRATE scores in cross-sectional associations, both preoperatively and at 12 months postoperatively (0.29 ≤ r ≤ 0.54; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: The association between preoperative collaboRATE scores and Oxford hip or knee scores suggests that SDM could be one tool to encourage better outcomes. Although previous studies have shown that SDM can improve patient experience, the lack of a strong correlation in our study suggests that PROMs and experience measures are separate domains, at least partly. Improving preoperative SDM between the surgeon and patient might help improve surgical outcomes for patients undergoing TKA and THA. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, therapeutic study.

Urethral outcomes in metoidioplasty and phalloplasty gender affirming surgery (MaPGAS) and vaginectomy: a systematic review.

Background: There is currently a paucity of data on urethral-related outcomes in metoidioplasty and phalloplasty gender affirming surgery (MaPGAS) with urethral lengthening (UL)and vaginectomy. Methods: A systematic review was performed utilizing MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Europe PMC, OSF Preprints, and EMBASE. Methodologic quality was scored using Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies (MINORS) criteria. Four independent reviewers performed the article evaluation, data extraction, and methodologic quality assessment. Primary outcomes included standing to urinate/pee (STP), penile length, glanular meatus, urethral stricture, fistula, and flap necrosis. Results were summarized qualitatively with descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 2,881 articles of which 11 retrospective reviews of 13 cohorts met criteria; 4.3/16 average (avg) MINORS score. Six metoidioplasty cohorts had an average penile length of 6 cm, 74% reported successful STP, and a quarter developed stricture or fistula. Phalloplasty cohorts included radial forearm flap (RF) and Anterolateral Thigh flap (ALT). Of the 4 RF studies nearly a third developed a stricture or fistula and only one study reported 99% STP with a glanular meatus. Three ALT studies reported no length but had 80-90% STP with a glanular meatus and a quarter with stricture or fistula. Conclusions: Urethral complications in MaPGAS-UL in a cohort with prior vaginectomy are common and variably reported. Patient centered outcome measures as well as clearly defined outcome metrics created in partnership with community members are needed.