The power of the group: comparison of interviews and group concept mapping for identifying patient-important outcomes of care.

BACKGROUND: Data are limited regarding how to effectively and efficiently identify patient priorities for research or clinical care. Our goal was to compare the comprehensiveness and efficiency of group concept mapping (GCM), a group participatory method, to interviews for identifying patient goals when seeking care. METHODS: We engaged patients with moderately- to poorly-controlled diabetes mellitus in either GCM or an individual interview. The primary outcome was the comprehensiveness of GCM brainstorming (the first stage of GCM) as compared to interviews for eliciting patient-important outcomes (PIOs) related to seeking care. Secondary outcomes included 1) comprehensiveness of GCM brainstorming and interviews compared to a master list of PIOs and 2) efficiency of GCM brainstorming, the entire GCM process and interviews. RESULTS: We engaged 89 interview participants and 52 GCM participants (across 3 iterations of GCM) to identify outcomes most important to patients when making decisions related to diabetes management. We identified 26 PIOs in interviews, 33 PIOs in the first GCM brainstorming session, and 38 PIOs across all three GCM brainstorming sessions. The initial GCM brainstorming session identified 77% (20/26) of interview PIOs, and all 3 GCM brainstorming sessions combined identified 88% (23/26). When comparing GCM brainstorming and interviews to the master list of PIOs, the initial GCM brainstorming sessions identified 80% (33/41), all 3 GCM brainstorming sessions identified 93% (38/41) and interviews identified 63% (26/41) of all PIOs. Compared to interviews, GCM brainstorming required less research team time, more patient time, and had a lowest cost. The entire GCM process still required less research team time than interviews, though required more patient time and had a higher cost than interviews. CONCLUSIONS: GCM brainstorming is a powerful tool for effectively and efficiently identifying PIOs in certain scenarios, though it does not provide the breadth and depth of individual interviews or the higher level conceptual organization of the complete process of GCM. Selection of the optimal method for patient engagement should include consideration of multiple factors including depth of patient input desired, research team expertise, resources, and the population to be engaged. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02792777. Registration information submitted 6/2/2016, with the registration first posted on the ClinicalTrials.gov website 6/8/2016. Data collection began on 4/29/2016.

Eliciting patient-important outcomes through group brainstorming: when is saturation reached?

PURPOSE: Group brainstorming is a technique for the elicitation of patient input that has many potential uses, however no data demonstrate concept saturation. In this study we explore concept saturation in group brainstorming performed in a single session as compared to two or three sessions. METHODS: Fifty-two predominately African American adults patients with moderately to poorly controlled Diabetes Mellitus participated in three separate group brainstorming sessions as part of a PCORI-funded group concept mapping study examining comparing methods for the elicitation of patient important outcomes (PIOs). Brainstorming was unstructured, in response to a prompt designed to elicit PIOs in diabetes care. We combined similar brainstormed responses from all three sessions into a 'master list' of unique PIOs, and then compared the proportion obtained at each individual session, as well as those obtained in combinations of 2 sessions, to the master list. RESULTS: Twenty-four participants generated 85 responses in session A, 14 participants generated 63 in session B, and 14 participants generated 47 in session C. Compared to the master list, the individual sessions contributed 87%, 76%, and 63% of PIOs. Session B added 3 unique PIOs not present in session A, and session C added 2 PIOs not present in either A or B. No single session achieved >90% saturation of the master list, but all 3 combinations of 2 sessions achieved > 90%. CONCLUSIONS: Single sessions elicited only 63-87% of the patient-important outcomes obtained across all three sessions, however all combinations of two sessions elicited over 90% of the master list, suggesting that 2 sessions are sufficient for concept saturation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02792777 . Registered 2 June 2016.

The 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference, "Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: Development of a Policy-relevant Patient-centered Research Agenda" Diagnostic Testing Breakout Session Report.

Diagnostic testing is an integral component of patient evaluation in the emergency department (ED). Emergency clinicians frequently use diagnostic testing to more confidently exclude "worst-case" diagnoses rather than to determine the most likely etiology for a presenting complaint. Increased utilization of diagnostic testing has not been associated with reductions in disease-related mortality but has led to increased overall healthcare costs and other unintended consequences (e.g., incidental findings requiring further workup, unnecessary exposure to ionizing radiation or potentially nephrotoxic contrast). Shared decision making (SDM) presents an opportunity for clinicians to discuss the benefits and harms associated with diagnostic testing with patients to more closely tailor testing to patient risk. This article introduces the challenges and opportunities associated with incorporating SDM into emergency care by summarizing the conclusions of the diagnostic testing group at the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference on SDM. Three primary domains emerged: 1) characteristics of a condition or test appropriate for SDM, 2) critical elements of and potential barriers to SDM discussions on diagnostic testing, and 3) financial aspects of SDM applied to diagnostic testing. The most critical research questions to improve engagement of patients in their acute care diagnostic decisions were determined by consensus.

Adapting Conceptual Frameworks for Patient Engagement in Emergency Department Research.

For many people the emergency department (ED) is the first point of access to healthcare for acute needs and a recurring location for many with chronic healthcare needs. While the ED is well placed to identify unmet needs it can also be a net that people slip through when faced with uncoordinated and expensive healthcare challenges. Thus the ED has a responsibility to set patients on a safe and meaningful care trajectory, which can only be done in consultation and partnership with the patients themselves. The purpose of this article is to present crucial aspects of patient engagement that are essential for future research to foster an environment of colearning and respect that encourages ongoing involvement by patients, families, and staff.