A bundle of opioid-sparing strategies to eliminate routine opioid prescribing in a urogynecology practice.

BACKGROUND: Current evidence supports that many patients do not use prescribed opioids following reconstructive pelvic surgery, yet it remains unclear if it is feasible to eliminate routine opioid prescriptions without a negative impact on patients or providers. OBJECTIVE: To determine if there is a difference in the proportion of patients discharged without opioids after implementing a bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol compared to usual care after minimally invasive pelvic reconstructive surgery (transvaginal, laparoscopic, or robotic). Secondary objectives include measures of patient-perceived pain control and provider workload. STUDY DESIGN: The bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol intervention was implemented as a division-wide evidence-based practice change on August 1, 2022. This retrospective cohort compares a 6-month postintervention (bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol) cohort to 6-month preintervention (usual care) of patients undergoing minimally invasive pelvic reconstructive surgery. A 3-month washout period was observed after bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol initiation. We excluded patients <18 years, failure to consent to research, combined surgery with other specialties, urge urinary incontinence or urinary retention procedures alone, and minor procedures not typically requiring opioids. Primary outcome was measured by proportion discharged without opioids and total oral morphine equivalents prescribed. Pain control was measured by pain scores, postdischarge prescriptions and refills, phone calls and visits related to pain, and satisfaction with pain control. Provider workload was demonstrated by phone calls and postdischarge prescription refills. Data were obtained through chart review on all patients who met inclusion criteria. Primary analysis only included patients prescribed opioids according to the bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol protocol. Two sample t tests compared continuous variables and chi-square tests compared categorical variables. RESULTS: Four hundred sixteen patients were included in the primary analysis (207 bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol, 209 usual care). Baseline demographics were similar between groups, except a lower proportion of irritable bowel syndrome (13% vs 23%; P<.01) and pelvic pain (15% vs 24.9%; P=.01), and higher history of prior gynecologic surgery (69.1% vs 58.4%; P=.02) in the bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol cohort. The bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol cohort was more likely to be discharged without opioids (68.1% vs 10.0%; P<.01). In those prescribed opioids, total oral morphine equivalents on discharge was significantly lower in the bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol cohort (48.1 vs 81.8; P<.01). The bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol cohort had a 20.6 greater odds (confidence interval 11.4, 37.1) of being discharged without opioids after adjusting for surgery type, arthritis/joint pain, IBS, pelvic pain, and contraindication to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol cohort was also less likely to receive a rescue opioid prescription after discharge (1.4% vs 9.5%; P=.03). There were no differences in opioid prescription refills (19.7% vs 18.1%; P=.77), emergency room visits for pain (3.4% vs 2.9%; P=.76), postoperative pain scores (mean 4.7 vs 4.0; P=.07), or patient satisfaction with pain control (81.5% vs 85.6%; P=.21). After bundle of opioid-sparing strategies and tiered prescribing protocol implementation, the proportion of postoperative phone calls for pain also decreased (12.6% vs 21.5%; P=.02). Similar results were identified when nonadherent prescribing was included in the analysis. CONCLUSION: A bundle of evidence-based opioid sparing strategies and tiered prescribing based on inpatient use increases the proportion of patients discharged without opioids after minimally invasive pelvic reconstructive surgery without evidence of uncontrolled pain or increased provider workload.

Clinical and Demographic Characteristics of Patient-Initiated Encounters Before the 6-Week Postpartum Visit.

OBJECTIVE: To identify characteristics associated with a higher likelihood of patient-initiated encounters with a health care professional before the scheduled 6-week postpartum visit. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of postpartum persons who received prenatal care and delivered at a single academic level IV maternity care center in 2019. We determined associations between maternal sociodemographic and obstetric characteristics and the likelihood of patient-initiated early postpartum encounters with χ2 tests for categorical variables and Wilcoxon rank sum tests for continuous and ordinal variables. RESULTS: A total of 796 patients were included in our analysis, and 324 (40.7%) initiated an early postpartum encounter. Significantly more postpartum persons who initiated early postpartum encounters were primiparous persons (54.3%) than multiparous (33.8%) persons (P < .001). Postpartum persons who desired breastfeeding or who had prolonged maternal hospitalization, episiotomy, or cesarean or operative vaginal delivery were also significantly more likely to initiate early postpartum encounters (all P≤.002). Of postpartum persons who initiated early encounters, 44 (13.6%) initiated in-person visits, 138 (42.6%) initiated telephone or patient portal communication, and 142 (43.8%) initiated encounters of both types. Specifically, 39.2% of postpartum persons initiated at least one early postpartum encounter for lactation support, and nearly half of early postpartum encounters occurred during the first week after hospital discharge. CONCLUSION: Early postpartum encounters were more common among primiparas and postpartum persons who were breastfeeding or had prolonged hospitalization, episiotomy, cesarean delivery, or operative vaginal delivery. Future studies should focus on the development of evidence-based guidelines for recommending early postpartum visits.

Baseline Quality of Life is a Strong and Independent Prognostic Factor for Overall Survival in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have established that higher baseline quality of life (QOL) scores are associated with improved survival in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We examined the relationship between overall survival (OS) and baseline QOL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 1 247 patients with mCRC participating in N9741 (comparing bolus 5-FU/LV, irinotecan [IFL] vs infusional 5-FU/leucovorin [LV]/oxaliplatin [FOLFOX] vs. irinotecan/oxaliplatin [IROX]) provided data at baseline on overall QOL using a single-item linear analogue self-assessment (LASA) 0-100 point scale. The association of OS according to clinically deficient (defined as CD-QOL, score 0-50) vs not clinically deficient (nCD-QOL, score 51-100) baseline QOL scores was tested. A multivariable analysis using Cox proportional hazards modeling was performed to adjust for the effects of multiple baseline factors. An exploratory analysis was performed evaluating OS according to baseline QOL status among patients who did or did not receive second-line therapy. RESULTS: Baseline QOL was a strong predictor of OS for the whole cohort (CD-QOL vs nCD-QOL: 11.2 months vs 18.4 months, P < .0001), and in each arm IFL 12.4 vs 15.1 months, FOLFOX 11.1 months vs 20.6 months, and IROX 8.9 months vs 18.1 months. Baseline QOL was associated with baseline performance status (PS) (P < .0001). After adjusting for PS and treatment arm, baseline QOL was still associated with OS (P = .017). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline QOL is an independent prognostic factor for OS in patients with mCRC. The demonstration that patient-assessed QOL and PS are independent prognostic indicators suggests that these assessments provide important complementary prognostic information.

Fetal surgery is not associated with increased inflammatory placental pathology.

OBJECTIVE: Fetal surgery has improved neonatal outcomes; however, it is unknown if the intervention contributes to the developmental of inflammatory pathologies in the placenta. Here, an association between fetal surgery and placental pathology was examined. METHOD: This case-control study compared pregnancies with fetal surgery (n = 22), pregnancies with an indication for fetal surgery but without an intervention being done (n = 13), and gestational-age and fetus-number matched controls (n = 36). Data on maternal, infant, and placental outcomes were abstracted. Additionally, immunohistochemistry identified expression of lymphoid and myeloid cells in the placenta on a subset of cases. Comparisons were performed using Kruskal-Wallis or Pearson's chi-squared tests. RESULTS: Maternal characteristics were comparable between groups. Most fetal interventions were for diaphragmatic hernia, spina bifida, or twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome. Fetuses who were operated on before birth were more likely to be born preterm (p = 0.02). There was no increase in the rate of observed placental pathologies or immune cell infiltration in fetal surgery cases compared to controls. CONCLUSION: The data suggest that fetal surgery is not associated with increased inflammatory or morphologic pathology in the placenta. This observation supports the growing field of fetal surgery.

Problem-based shared decision making: The role of canonical SDM steps.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the extent to which the canonical steps of shared decision making (SDM) take place in clinical encounters in practice and across SDM forms. METHODS: We assessed 100 randomly selected video-recorded primary care encounters, obtained as part of a randomized trial of an SDM intervention in patients with type 2 diabetes. Two coders, working independently, noted each instance of SDM, classified it as one of four problem-based forms to SDM (weighing alternatives, negotiating conflicting issues, solving problems, or developing existential insight), and noted the occurrence and timing of each of the four canonical SDM steps: fostering choice awareness, providing information, stating preferences, and deciding. Descriptive analyses sought to determine the relative frequency of these steps across each of the four SDM forms within each encounter. RESULTS: There were 485 SDM steps noted (mean 4.85 steps per encounter), of which providing information and stating preferences were the most common. There were 2.7 (38 steps in 14 encounters) steps per encounter observed in encounters with no discernible SDM form, 3.4 (105 steps in 31 encounters) with one SDM form, 5.2 (129 steps in 25 encounters) with two SDM forms, and 7.1 (213 steps in 30 encounters) when ≥3 SDM forms were observed within the encounter. The prescribed order of the four SDM steps was observed in, at best, 16 of the 100 encounters. Stating preferences was a common step when weighing alternatives (38%) or negotiating conflicts (59.3%) but less common when solving problems (29.2%). The distribution of SDM steps was similar to usual care with or without the SDM intervention. CONCLUSION: The normative steps of SDM are infrequently observed in their prescribed order regardless of whether an SDM intervention was used. Some steps are more likely in some SDM forms but no pattern of steps appears to distinguish among SDM forms. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01293578.

Maternal Factors and Placental Pathologies Associated with a Diagnosis of Chronic Villitis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate maternal risk factors associated with chronic villitis of unknown etiology (VUE) and to describe cooccurring placental pathologies. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective case-control study was conducted using placental pathology records from deliveries ≥ 20 weeks between 2010 and 2018. Cases were placentas with documented chronic villitis without infectious cause, hereafter called VUE. Controls were placentas without this diagnosis, matched to the cases 2:1. Maternal and neonatal demographic and clinical data were collected. Descriptive statistics are reported with Fisher's exact test or a chi-squared test, as appropriate, and multivariable conditional logistic regression was conducted. RESULTS: Our study included 352 cases with VUE and 657 controls. A diagnosis of gestational diabetes (p = 0.03) and gestational hypertension (p = 0.06) was 1.5 times more likely to occur in those with a VUE diagnosis. A trend was also seen for chronic hypertension (odds ratio [OR] = 1.7, p = 0.07) and preeclampsia (OR = 1.5, p = 0.09) compared with controls. Placentas with VUE, specifically high-grade VUE, were more likely to be small for gestational age (p = 0.01), and to be diagnosed with other placental findings including lymphoplasmacytic or chronic deciduitis (p < 0.01), maternal (p < 0.01) and fetal vascular malperfusion (p = 0.02), and chorionitis (acute or chronic; p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Gestational diabetes and hypertension were associated with a diagnosis of VUE, and overall, VUE placentas have more abnormal placental findings compared with control. Understanding VUE risk factors may facilitate prenatal care strategies and counseling to achieve the best outcomes for pregnant patients and their neonates. KEY POINTS: · VUE is a common inflammatory lesion of the placenta.. · Gestational diabetes and hypertension are associated with a VUE diagnosis.. · Findings of other placental pathologies increase in VUE..

Enrolling people of color to evaluate a practice intervention: lessons from the shared decision-making for atrial fibrillation (SDM4AFib) trial.

BACKGROUND: Trial recruitment of Black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) is key for interventions that interact with socioeconomic factors and cultural norms, preferences, and values. We report on our experience enrolling BIPOC participants into a multicenter trial of a shared decision-making intervention about anticoagulation to prevent strokes, in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: We enrolled patients with AF and their clinicians in 5 healthcare systems (three academic medical centers, an urban/suburban community medical center, and a safety-net inner-city medical center) located in three states (Minnesota, Alabama, and Mississippi) in the United States. Clinical encounters were randomized to usual care with or without a shared decision-making tool about anticoagulation. ANALYSIS: We analyzed BIPOC patient enrollment by site, categorized reasons for non-enrollment, and examined how enrollment of BIPOC patients was promoted across sites. RESULTS: Of 2247 patients assessed, 922 were enrolled of which 147 (16%) were BIPOC patients. Eligible Black participants were significantly less likely (p < .001) to enroll (102, 11%) than trial-eligible White participants (185, 15%). The enrollment rate of BIPOC patients varied by site. The inclusion and prioritization of clinical practices that care for more BIPOC patients contributed to a higher enrollment rate into the trial. Specific efforts to reach BIPOC clinic attendees and prioritize their enrollment had lower yield. CONCLUSIONS: Best practices to optimize the enrollment of BIPOC participants into trials that examined complex and culturally sensitive interventions remain to be developed. This study suggests a high yield from enrolling BIPOC patients from practices that prioritize their care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02905032).

Optimizing Huddle Engagement Through Leadership and Problem Solving Within Primary Care: Results from a Cluster-Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Leaders play a crucial role in implementing and sustaining changes in clinical practice, yet there is limited evidence on the strategies to engage them in team problem solving and communication. OBJECTIVE: Examine the impact of an intervention focused on facilitating leadership during daily huddles on optimizing team-based care and improving outcomes. DESIGN: Cluster-randomized trial using intention-to-treat analysis to measure the effects of the intervention (n = 13 teams) compared with routine practice (n = 16 teams). PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-nine primary care clinics affiliated with a large integrated health system in the upper Midwest; representing differing practice types and geographic settings. INTERVENTION: Full-day leadership training retreat for team leaders to facilitate of care team huddles. Biweekly coaching calls and two site visits with an assigned coach. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes of team development and function were collected, pre- and post-intervention using surveys. Patient satisfaction and quality outcomes were compared pre- and post-intervention as secondary outcomes. Leadership engagement and adherence to the intervention were also assessed. KEY RESULTS: A total of 279 pre-intervention and 272 post-intervention surveys were completed. We found no impact on team development (- 0.98, 95% CI (- 3.18, 1.22)), improved team credibility (0.18, 95% CI (0.00, 0.35)), but worse psychological safety (- 0.19, 95% CI (- 0.38, 0.00)). No differences were observed in patient satisfaction; however, results were mixed among quality outcomes. Post hoc analysis within the intervention group showed higher adherence to the intervention was associated with improvement in team coordination (0.47, 95% CI (0.18, 0.76)), credibility (0.28, 95% CI (0.02, 0.53)), team learning (0.42, 95% CI (0.10, 0.74)), and knowledge creation (0.74, 95% CI (0.35, 1.13)) compared to teams that were less engaged. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this evaluation showed that leadership training and facilitation were not associated with better team functioning. Additional components to the intervention tested may be necessary to enhance team functioning. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT03062670. Registration Date: February 23, 2017. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03062670.

Disease-free Survival and Local Recurrence for Laparoscopic Resection Compared With Open Resection of Stage II to III Rectal Cancer: Follow-up Results of the ACOSOG Z6051 Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the disease-free survival (DFS) and recurrence after the treatment of patients with rectal cancer with open (OPEN) or laparoscopic (LAP) resection. BACKGROUND: This randomized clinical trial (ACOSOG [Alliance] Z6051), performed between 2008 and 2013, compared LAP and OPEN resection of stage II/III rectal cancer, within 12 cm of the anal verge (T1-3, N0-2, M0) in patients who received neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy. The rectum and mesorectum were resected using open instruments for rectal dissection (included hybrid hand-assisted laparoscopic) or with laparoscopic instruments under pneumoperitoneum. The 2-year DFS and recurrence were secondary endpoints of Z6051. METHODS: The DFS and recurrence were not powered, and are being assessed for superiority. Recurrence was determined at 3, 6, 9, 12, and every 6 months thereafter, using carcinoembryonic antigen, physical examination, computed tomography, and colonoscopy. In all, 486 patients were randomized to LAP (243) or OPEN (243), with 462 eligible for analysis (LAP = 240 and OPEN = 222). Median follow-up is 47.9 months. RESULTS: The 2-year DFS was LAP 79.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 74.4-84.9) and OPEN 83.2% (95% CI 78.3-88.3). Local and regional recurrence was 4.6% LAP and 4.5% OPEN. Distant recurrence was 14.6% LAP and 16.7% OPEN.Disease-free survival was impacted by unsuccessful resection (hazard ratio [HR] 1.87, 95% CI 1.21-2.91): composite of incomplete specimen (HR 1.65, 95% CI 0.85-3.18); positive circumferential resection margins (HR 2.31, 95% CI 1.40-3.79); positive distal margin (HR 2.53, 95% CI 1.30-3.77). CONCLUSION: Laparoscopic assisted resection of rectal cancer was not found to be significantly different to OPEN resection of rectal cancer based on the outcomes of DFS and recurrence.

A Multicenter Comparison of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Discussions in Oncology Care: The Role of Time, Patient-Centeredness, and Practice Context.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is discussed in cancer care across varied settings in the U.S. METHODS: In two practices affiliated with one academic medical center in southern California (SoCal), and one in the upper Midwest (UM), we audio-recorded patient-clinician interactions in medical oncology outpatient practices. We counted the frequency and duration of CAM-related conversations. We coded recordings using the Roter Interaction Analysis System. We used chi-square tests for bivariate analysis of categorical variables and generalized linear models for continuous variables to examine associations between dialogue characteristics, practice setting, and population characteristics with the occurrence of CAM discussion in each setting followed by multivariate models adjusting for clinician clustering. RESULTS: Sixty-one clinicians and 529 patients participated. Sixty-two of 529 (12%) interactions included CAM discussions, with significantly more observed in the SoCal university practice than in the other settings. Visits that included CAM were on average 6 minutes longer, with CAM content lasting an average of 78 seconds. In bivariate tests of association, conversations containing CAM included more psychosocial statements from both clinicians and patients, higher patient-centeredness, more positive patient and clinician affect, and greater patient engagement. In a multivariable model including significant bivariate terms, conversations containing CAM were independently associated with higher patient-centeredness, slightly longer visits, and being at the SoCal university site. CONCLUSION: The frequency of CAM-related discussion in oncology varied substantially across sites. Visits that included CAM discussion were longer and more patient centered. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The Institute of Medicine and the American Society of Clinical Oncology have called for more open discussions of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). But little is known about the role population characteristics and care contexts may play in the frequency and nature of those discussions. The present data characterizing actual conversations in practice complements a much larger literature based on patient and clinician self-report about CAM disclosure and use. It was found that CAM discussions in academic oncology visits varied significantly by practice context, that the majority were initiated by the patient, and that they may occur more when visit time exists for lifestyle, self-care, and psychosocial concerns.

Prediction of individual outcomes for asthma sufferers.

We consider the problem of individual-specific medication level recommendation (initiation, removal, increase, or decrease) for asthma sufferers. Asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases in both adults and children, affecting 8% of the US population and costing $37-63 billion/year in the United States of America. Asthma is a complex disease, whose symptoms may wax and wane, making it difficult for clinicians to predict outcomes and prognosis. Improved ability to predict prognosis can inform decision making and may promote conversations between clinician and provider around optimizing medication therapy. Data from the US Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS) years 2000-2010 were used to fit a longitudinal model for a multivariate response of adverse events (Emergency Department or in-patient visits, excessive rescue inhaler use, and oral steroid use). To reduce bias in the estimation of medication effects, medication level was treated as a latent process which was restricted to be consistent with prescription refill data. This approach is demonstrated to be effective in the MEPS cohort via predictions on a validation hold out set and a synthetic data simulation study. This framework can be easily generalized to medication decisions for other conditions as well.

Eliciting the Patient's Agenda- Secondary Analysis of Recorded Clinical Encounters.

BACKGROUND: Eliciting patient concerns and listening carefully to them contributes to patient-centered care. Yet, clinicians often fail to elicit the patient's agenda and, when they do, they interrupt the patient's discourse. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe the extent to which patients' concerns are elicited across different clinical settings and how shared decision-making tools impact agenda elicitation. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: We performed a secondary analysis of a random sample of 112 clinical encounters recorded during trials testing the efficacy of shared decision-making tools. MAIN MEASURES: Two reviewers, working independently, characterized the elicitation of the patient agenda and the time to interruption or to complete statement; we analyzed the distribution of agenda elicitation according to setting and use of shared decision-making tools. KEY RESULTS: Clinicians elicited the patient's agenda in 40 of 112 (36%) encounters. Agendas were elicited more often in primary care (30/61 encounters, 49%) than in specialty care (10/51 encounters, 20%); p = .058. Shared decision-making tools did not affect the likelihood of eliciting the patient's agenda (34 vs. 37% in encounters with and without these tools; p = .09). In 27 of the 40 (67%) encounters in which clinicians elicited patient concerns, the clinician interrupted the patient after a median of 11 seconds (interquartile range 7-22; range 3 to 234 s). Uninterrupted patients took a median of 6 s (interquartile range 3-19; range 2 to 108 s) to state their concern. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians seldom elicit the patient's agenda; when they do, they interrupt patients sooner than previously reported. Physicians in specialty care elicited the patient's agenda less often compared to physicians in primary care. Failure to elicit the patient's agenda reduces the chance that clinicians will orient the priorities of a clinical encounter toward specific aspects that matter to each patient.

Randomized comparison of a reduced-visit prenatal care model enhanced with remote monitoring.

BACKGROUND: Standard prenatal care, consisting of 12-14 visits per pregnancy, is expensive and resource intensive, with limited evidence supporting the structure, rhythm, or components of care. Some studies suggest a reduced-frequency prenatal care model is as safe as the standard model of care for low-risk pregnant women, but evidence is limited. We developed and evaluated an innovative, technology-enhanced, reduced prenatal visit model (OB Nest). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the acceptability and effectiveness of OB Nest, a reduced-frequency prenatal care model enhanced with remote home monitoring devices and nursing support. STUDY DESIGN: A single-center randomized controlled trial, composed of pregnant women, aged 18-36 years, recruited from an outpatient obstetric tertiary academic center in the Midwest United States. OB Nest care consisted of 8 onsite appointments with an obstetric provider; 6 virtual visits consisting of phone or online communication with an assigned nurse, supplemented with fetal Doppler and sphygmomanometer home monitoring devices; and access to an online community of pregnant women. Usual care consisted of 12 prescheduled prenatal clinic appointments with obstetric providers. Acceptability of OB Nest was measured by validated surveys of patient satisfaction with care at 36 weeks; perception of stress at 14, 24, and 36 weeks; and perceived quality of care at 36 weeks of gestation. Effectiveness was analyzed by comparing adherence to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommended routine prenatal and ancillary services, maternal and fetal safety outcomes, and healthcare utilization. RESULTS: Three hundred pregnant women at <13 weeks of gestation were recruited and randomized to OB Nest or usual care (150 in each arm) using a minimization algorithm. Demographic characteristics were similar between groups. Compared to usual care, patients in OB Nest had higher satisfaction on a 100-point validated modified Littlefield and Adams Satisfaction scale (OB Nest = 93.9% vs usual care = 78.9%, P < .01). Pregnancy-related stress, measured, on a 0-2 point PreNatal Maternal Stress validated scale, with higher scores indicating higher levels of stress, was lower among OB Nest participants at 14 weeks (OB Nest = 0.32 vs usual care = 0.41, P < .01) and at 36 weeks of gestation (OB Nest = 0.34 vs usual care = 0.40, P < .03). There was no statistical difference in perceived quality of care. Adherence to the provision of American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists prenatal services was similar in both arms. Maternal and fetal clinical outcomes were similar between groups. Total reported nursing time was higher in OB Nest (OB Nest = 171.2 minutes vs usual care = 108.2 minutes, 95% confidence interval, 48.7-77.4). CONCLUSION: OB Nest is an innovative, acceptable, and effective reduced-frequency prenatal care model. Compared to routine prenatal care, OB Nest resulted in higher patient satisfaction and lower prenatal stress, while reducing the number of appointments with clinicians and maintaining care standards for pregnant women. This program is a step toward evidence-driven prenatal care that improves patient satisfaction.

Reflecting on shared decision making: A reflection-quantification study.

BACKGROUND: Reflecting ("stop-and-think") before rating may help patients consider the quality of shared decision making (SDM) and mitigate ceiling/halo effects that limit the performance of self-reported SDM measures. METHODS: We asked a diverse patient sample from the United States to reflect on their care before completing the 3-item CollaboRATE SDM measure. Study 1 focused on rephrasing CollaboRATE items to promote reflection before each item. Study 2 used 5 open-ended questions (about what went well and what could be improved upon, signs that the clinician understood the patient's situation, how the situation will be addressed, and why this treatment plan makes sense) to invite reflection before using the whole scale. A linear analogue scale assessed the extent to which the plan of care made sense to the patient. RESULTS: In Study 1, 107 participants completed surveys (84% response rate), 43 (40%) rated a clinical decision of which 27 (63%) after responding to reflection questions. Adding reflection lowered CollaboRATE scores ("less" SDM) and reduced the proportion of patients giving maximum (ceiling) scores (not statistically significant). In Study 2, 103 of 212 responders (49%) fully completed the version containing reflection questions. Reflection did not significantly change the distribution of CollaboRATE scores or of top scores. Participants indicated high scores on the sense of their care plan (mean 9.7 out of 10, SD 0.79). This rating was weakly correlated with total CollaboRATE scores (rho = .4, P = .0001). CONCLUSION: Reflection-before-quantification interventions may not improve the performance of patient-reported measures of SDM with substantial ceiling/halo effects.

Developing a toolkit to implement the Statin Choice Conversation Aid at scale: application of a work reduction model.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend shared decision making (SDM) for determining whether to use statins to prevent cardiovascular events in at-risk patients. We sought to develop a toolkit to facilitate the cross-organizational spread and scale of a SDM intervention called the Statin Choice Conversation Aid (SCCA) by (i) assessing the work stakeholders must do to implement the tool; and (ii) orienting the resulting toolkit's components to communicate and mitigate this work. METHODS: We conducted multi-level and mixed methods (survey, interview, observation, focus group) characterizations of the contexts of 3 health systems (n = 86, 84, and 26 primary care clinicians) as they pertained to the impending implementation of the SCCA. We merged the data within implementation outcome domains of feasibility, appropriateness, and acceptability. Using Normalization Process Theory, we then characterized and categorized the work stakeholders did to implement the tool. We used clinician surveys and IP address-based tracking to calculate SCCA usage over time and judged how stakeholder effort was allocated to influence outcomes at 6 and 18 months. After assessing the types and impact of the work, we developed a multi-component toolkit. RESULTS: At baseline, the three contexts differed regarding feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of implementation. The work of adopting the tool was allocated across many strategies in complex and interdependent ways to optimize these domains. The two systems that allocated the work strategically had higher uptake (5.2 and 2.9 vs. 1.1 uses per clinician per month at 6 months; 3.8 and 2.1 vs. 0.4 at 18 months, respectively) than the system that did not. The resulting toolkit included context self-assessments intended to guide stakeholders in considering the early work of SCCA implementation; and webinars, EMR integration guides, video demonstrations, and an implementation team manual aimed at supporting this work. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a multi-component toolkit for facilitating the scale-up and spread of a tool to promote SDM across clinical settings. The theory-based approach we employed aimed to distinguish systems primed for adoption and support the work they must do to achieve implementation. Our approach may have value in orienting the development of multi-component toolkits and other strategies aimed at facilitating the efficient scale up of interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02375815 .

Comparison of audio vs. audio + video for the rating of shared decision making in oncology using the observer OPTION5 instrument: an exploratory analysis.

BACKGROUND: How non-verbal data may influence observer-administered ratings of shared decision making is unknown. Our objective for this exploratory analysis was to determine the effect of mode of data collection (audio+video vs. audio only) on the scoring of the OPTION5 instrument, an observer rated measure of shared decision making. METHODS: We analyzed recordings of 15 encounters between cancer patients and clinicians in which a clinical decision was made. Audio+video or audio only recordings of the encounters were randomly assigned to four trained raters, who reviewed them independently. We compared the adjusted mean scores of audio+video and audio only. RESULTS: Forty-one unique decisions were identified within the 15 encounters. The mean OPTION5 score for audio+video was 17.5 (95% CI 13.5, 21.6) and for audio only was 21.8 (95% CI 17.2, 26.4) with a mean difference of 4.28 (95% CI = 0.36, 8.21; p = 0.032). CONCLUSION: A rigorous and well established measure of shared decision making performs differently when the data source is audio only. Data source may influence rating of observer administered measures of shared decision making. This potential bias needs to be confirmed as video recording to examine communication behaviors becomes more common.

Does gender bias in cardiac stress testing still exist? A videographic analysis nested in a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Despite a high prevalence of coronary heart disease in both genders, studies show a gender disparity in evaluation whereby women are less likely than men to undergo timely or comprehensive cardiac investigation. Using videographic analysis, we sought to quantify gender differences in provider recommendations and patient evaluations. METHODS: We analyzed video recordings from our Chest Pain Choice trial, a single center patient-level randomized trial in which emergency department patients with chest pain being considered for cardiac stress testing were randomized to shared decision-making or usual care. Patient-provider interactions were video recorded. We compared characteristics and outcomes by gender. RESULTS: Of the 204 patients enrolled (101 decision aid; 103 usual care), 120 (58.8%) were female. Of the 75 providers evaluated, 20 (26.7%) were female. The mean (SD) pretest probability of acute coronary syndrome was lower in women [3.7% (2.2) vs 6.7% (4.4), P=.0002]. There was no gender effect on duration of discussion, clinician recommendations, OPTION scores, patient perceptions, or eventual patient dispositions. When the clinician and patient gender matched, OPTION scores were lower (interaction P=.002), and patients were less likely to find the information to be very helpful (interaction P=.10). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a lower pretest probability of acute coronary syndrome in women, we did not observe any significant gender disparity in how patients were managed and evaluated. When the patients' and providers' gender matched, the provider involved them less in the decision making process, and the information provided was less helpful than when the genders did not match.

Comparative safety and costs of stepping down asthma medications in patients with controlled asthma.

BACKGROUND: Limited data exist regarding outcomes after stepping down asthma medication. OBJECTIVE: We sought to compare the safety and costs of stepping down asthma controller medications with maintaining current treatment levels in patients with controlled asthma. METHODS: Patients with persistent asthma were identified from the US Medical Expenditure Panel Survey years 2000-2010. Each patient had Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data for 2 years, and measurement was divided into 5 periods of 4 to 5 months each. Eligibility for stepping down asthma controller medications included no hospitalizations or emergency department visits for asthma in periods 1 to 3 and no systemic corticosteroid and 3 or less rescue inhalers dispensed in periods 2 and 3. Steps were defined by type and dose of chronic asthma medication based on current guidelines when comparing period 4 with period 3. The primary outcome of complete asthma control in period 5 was defined as no asthma hospitalizations, emergency department visits, and dispensed systemic corticosteroids and 2 or fewer dispensed rescue inhalers. Multivariable analyses were conducted to assess safety and costs after step down compared with those who maintained the treatment level. RESULTS: Overall, 29.9% of patients meeting the inclusion criteria (n = 4235) were eligible for step down; 89.4% (95% CI, 86.4% to 92.4%) of those who stepped down had preserved asthma control compared with 83.5% (95% CI, 79.9% to 87.0%) of those who were similarly eligible for step down but maintained their treatment level. The average monthly asthma-related cost savings was $34.02/mo (95% CI, $5.42/mo to $61.24/mo) with step down compared with maintenance of the treatment level. CONCLUSION: Stepping down asthma medications in those whose symptoms were controlled led to similar clinical outcomes at reduced cost compared with those who maintained their current treatment level.

Genders of patients and clinicians and their effect on shared decision making: a participant-level meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Gender differences in communication styles between clinicians and patients have been postulated to impact patient care, but the extent to which the gender dyad structure impacts outcomes in shared decision making remains unclear. METHODS: Participant-level meta-analysis of 775 clinical encounters within 7 randomized trials where decision aids, shared decision making tools, were used at the point of care. Outcomes analysed include decisional conflict scale scores, satisfaction with the clinical encounter, concordance between stated decision and action taken, and degree of patient engagement by the clinician using the OPTION scale. An estimated minimal important difference was used to determine if nonsignificant results could be explained by low power. RESULTS: We did not find a statistically significant interaction between clinician/patient gender mix and arm for decisional conflict, satisfaction with the clinical encounter or patient engagement. A borderline significant interaction (p = 0.05) was observed for one outcome: concordance between stated decision and action taken, where encounters with female clinician/male patient showed increased concordance in the decision aid arm compared to control (8% more concordant encounters). All other gender dyads showed decreased concordance with decision aid use (6% fewer concordant encounters for same-gender, 16% fewer concordant encounters for male clinician/female patient). CONCLUSIONS: In this participant-level meta-analysis of 7 randomized trials, decision aids used at the point of care demonstrated comparable efficacy across gender dyads. Purported barriers to shared decision making based on gender were not detected when tested for a minimum detected difference. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00888537, NCT01077037, NCT01029288, NCT00388050, NCT00578981, NCT00949611, NCT00217061.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Physiologic Variables in Sheep Fetuses.

The fetal sheep model has been widely used in fetal therapy research. However, there is a significant degree of variability among published normal values. Our study aimed to evaluate the literature available on normal values for hemodynamics, blood gases, and acid-base status in the sheep fetus and to determine the best possible estimation of such physiologic values. We conducted a systematic review with a comprehensive search of several databases. We included 189 articles in the database and over 2,800 sheep fetuses. Analysis revealed a mean umbilical blood flow of 202 mL/kg/min (95% CI: 182 to 223); mean arterial pCO2 of 49.8 mm Hg (95% CI: 49.2 to 50.3); mean arterial pO2 of 22.3 mm Hg (95% CI: 21.9 to 22.7); mean arterial pH of 7.35 (95% CI: 7.3487 to 7.3562); and mean arterial oxygen saturation of 59.8 (95% CI; 58 to 61.7). Our findings were punctuated by a high heterogeneity, for which we conducted several subanalyses. The results showed high heterogeneity and small study effect in the literature available and provided our best assessment of relevant variables on normal hemodynamics, blood gases, and acid-base status in the fetus after using strategies to mitigate the risk of bias present in the literature.