Promoting Informed Decisions About Colorectal Cancer Screening in Older Adults (PRIMED Study): a Physician Cluster Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: For adults aged 76-85, guidelines recommend individualizing decision-making about whether to continue colorectal cancer (CRC) testing. These conversations can be challenging as they need to consider a patient's CRC risk, life expectancy, and preferences. OBJECTIVE: To promote shared decision-making (SDM) for CRC testing decisions for older adults. DESIGN: Two-arm, multi-site cluster randomized trial, assigning physicians to Intervention and Comparator arms. Patients were surveyed shortly after the visit to assess outcomes. Analyses were intention-to-treat. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Primary care physicians affiliated with 5 academic and community hospital networks and their patients aged 76-85 who were due for CRC testing and had a visit during the study period. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention arm physicians completed a 2-h online course in SDM communication skills and received an electronic reminder of patients eligible for CRC testing shortly before the visit. Comparator arm received reminders only. MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was patient-reported SDM Process score (range 0-4 with higher scores indicating more SDM); secondary outcomes included patient-reported discussion of CRC screening, knowledge, intention, and satisfaction with the visit. KEY RESULTS: Sixty-seven physicians (Intervention n=34 and Comparator n=33) enrolled. Patient participants (n=466) were on average 79 years old, 50% with excellent or very good self-rated overall health, and 66% had one or more prior colonoscopies. Patients in the Intervention arm had higher SDM Process scores (adjusted mean difference 0.36 (95%CI (0.08, 0.64), p=0.01) than in the Comparator arm. More patients in the Intervention arm reported discussing CRC screening during the visit (72% vs. 60%, p=0.03) and had higher intention to follow through with their preferred approach (58.0% vs. 47.1, p=0.03). Knowledge scores and visit satisfaction did not differ significantly between arms. CONCLUSION: Physician training plus reminders were effective in increasing SDM and frequency of CRC testing discussions in an age group where SDM is essential. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03959696).

Colorectal Cancer Screening During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Shared decision-making (SDM) can help patients make good decisions about preventive health interventions such as cancer screening. We illustrate the use of SDM in the case of a 53-year-old man who had a new patient visit with a primary care physician and had never been screened for colorectal cancer (CRC). The patient had recently recovered from a serious COVID-19 infection requiring weeks of mechanical ventilation. When the primary care physician initially offered a screening colonoscopy, the man expressed great reluctance to return to the hospital for the exam. The PCP then offered a stool test, which could be completed at home, but emphasized that if it were positive, a colonoscopy would be required. He agreed to complete the stool test, and unfortunately, it was positive. He then agreed to undergo colonoscopy, which uncovered a large rectal cancer. The carcinoma had invaded the mesorectal fat but there were no metastases. After undergoing neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by a low anterior resection of the tumor, he has no evidence of recurrence so far. Many clinicians favor colonoscopy for CRC screening, but evidence suggests that patients who are offered more than one reasonable option are more likely to undergo screening. If screening had been delayed in this patient until he was willing to accept a screening colonoscopy, there was the potential the cancer may have been more advanced when diagnosed, with a worse outcome. Shared decision-making was a key approach to understanding the patient's feelings related to this screening decision and making a decision consistent with his preferences.

Role of patient-provider communication on older adults' preferences for continuing colorectal cancer testing and visit satisfaction.

OBJECTIVE: To identify possible predictors of older adults' preferences for stopping or continuing colorectal cancer (CRC) testing and satisfaction with medical visits. METHODS: Cross-sectional, secondary analysis of patient data. The parent study was a two-arm, multi-site clustered randomized trial, assigning primary care physicians to receive shared decision making training plus a reminder, or reminders alone for patients who were due for CRC testing. For the current analysis, patient data were pooled and analyzed without regard to study arm. Patients were aged 76-85 years. RESULTS: In total, 375 patients reported their preference: 74 % preferred continued testing while 26 % preferred no further testing. In multivariable models, patients were more likely to prefer CRC testing if they had more maximizing preferences for health care, higher anticipated regret at missing a diagnosis, and lower anticipated regret about colonoscopy complications. Patients were more likely to report being extremely satisfied with the visit with longer duration spent discussing testing options. CONCLUSION: Anticipated decision regret and medical maximizing were associated with preferences for CRC testing. Time spent discussing CRC testing was associated with visit satisfaction. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: To support informed decision making, older adults should be given thorough information about CRC testing, treatments, and post-treatment follow up.

Shared Decision-Making in Colorectal Cancer Screening for Older Adults: A Secondary Analysis of a Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Decisions about whether to stop colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests in older adults can be difficult and may benefit from shared decision-making (SDM). Objective: To evaluate the effect of physician training in SDM and electronic previsit reminders (intervention) vs reminders only (comparator) on receipt of the patient-preferred approach to CRC screening and on overall CRC screening rates of older adults at 12 months. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a secondary analysis of the Promoting Informed Decisions About Colorectal Cancer Screening in Older Adults (PRIMED) cluster randomized clinical trial. In the PRIMED trial, primary care physicians (PCPs) from 36 primary care practices in Massachusetts and Maine were enrolled between May 1 and August 30, 2019, and were randomized to the intervention group or the comparator group. Patients aged 76 to 85 years who were overdue for CRC screening and did not have a prior diagnosis of CRC enrolled between October 21, 2019, and April 8, 2021. Data analysis was performed between May 24, 2022, and May 10, 2023. Interventions: Primary care physicians in the intervention group completed an SDM training course and received previsit reminders of patients eligible for CRC testing discussion, whereas PCPs in the comparator group received reminders only. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was concordance, or the percentage of patients who received their preferred screening approach. Postvisit surveys were administered to assess patient preference for testing, and electronic health record review was used to assess CRC testing at 12 months. Heterogeneity of treatment effect analyses examined interaction between study groups and different factors on concordance rates. Results: This study included 59 physicians and 466 older adults. Physicians had a mean (SD) age of 52.7 (9.4) years and a mean (SD) of 21.6 (10.2) years in practice; 30 (50.8%) were women and 16 (27.1%) reported prior training in SDM. Patients had a mean (SD) age of 80.3 (2.8) years; 249 (53.4%) were women and 238 (51.1%) reported excellent or very good overall health. Patients preferred stool-based tests (161 [34.5%]), followed by colonoscopy (116 [24.8%]) or no further screening (97 [20.8%]); 75 (16.1%) were not sure. The distribution of patient preferences was similar across groups (P = .36). At 12 months, test uptake was also similar for both the intervention group (29 [12.3%] for colonoscopy, 62 [26.3%] for stool-based tests, and 145 [61.4%] for no testing) and the comparator group (32 [13.9%] for colonoscopy, 35 [15.2%] for stool-based tests, and 163 [70.9%] for no testing; P = .08). Approximately half of patients in the intervention group received their preferred approach vs the comparator group (115 of 226 [50.9%] vs 103 of 223 [46.2%]; P = .47). Heterogeneity of treatment effect analyses found significantly higher rates with the intervention vs the comparator for patients with a strong intention to follow through with the preferred approach (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.79 [95% CI, 1.11-2.89]; P = .02, P = .05 for interaction) and for patients who reported more than 5 minutes (AOR, 3.27 [95% CI, 1.25-8.59]; P = .02, P = .05 for interaction) of discussion with their PCP regarding screening. Higher rates were also observed among patients who reported 2 to 5 minutes of discussion with their PCP, although this finding was not significant (AOR, 1.89 [95% CI, 0.93-3.84]; P = .08, P = .05 for interaction). Conclusions and Relevance: In this secondary analysis of a cluster randomized clinical trial, approximately half of older patients received their preferred approach to CRC screening. Physician training in SDM did not result in higher concordance rates overall but may have benefitted some subgroups. Future work to refine and evaluate clinical decision support (in the form of an electronic advisory or reminder) as well as focused SDM skills training for PCPs may promote high-quality, preference-concordant decisions about CRC testing for older adults. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03959696.

Informed, Patient-Centered Decisions Associated with Better Health Outcomes in Orthopedics: Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: A goal of shared decision making (SDM) is to ensure patients are well informed and receive preferred treatments. However, the relationship between SDM and health outcomes is not clear. OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to examine whether patients who are well informed and receive their preferred treatment have better health outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective cohort study at an academic medical center surveyed new patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis, herniated disc, or spinal stenosis 1 week after seeing a specialist and again 6 months later. Main Outcomes and Measures. The survey assessed knowledge, preferred treatment, and quality of life (QoL). The percentage of patients who were well informed and received preferred treatment was calculated (informed, patient centered [IPC]). A follow-up survey assessed QoL, decision regret, and satisfaction. Regression analyses with generalized estimating equations to account for clustering tested a priori hypotheses that patients who made IPC decisions would have higher QoL. RESULTS: Response rate was 70.3% (652/926) for initial and 85% (551/648) for follow-up. The sample was 63.9 years old, 52.8% were female, 62.6% were college educated, and 49% had surgery. One-third (37.4%) made IPC decisions. Participants who made IPC decisions had significantly better overall (0.05 points (SE 0.02) for EQ-5D, P = 0.004) and disease-specific quality of life (4.22 points [SE 1.82] for knee, P = 0.02; 4.46 points [SE 1.54] for hip, P = 0.004; and 6.01 points [SE 1.51] for back, P < 0.0001), higher satisfaction and less regret. LIMITATIONS: Observational study at a single academic center with limited diversity. CONCLUSIONS: Well-informed patients who receive their preferred treatment also had better health outcomes and higher satisfaction.

Increasing the use of patient decision aids in orthopaedic care: results of a quality improvement project.

OBJECTIVE: To integrate patient decision aid (DA) delivery to promote shared decision-making and provide more patient-centred care within an orthopaedic surgery department for treatment of hip and knee osteoarthritis, lumbar herniated disc and lumbar spinal stenosis. METHODS: Different strategies were used across three distinct phases to promote DA delivery. First, we used a quality improvement bonus to generate awareness and interest in the DAs among specialists. Second, we adapted the electronic referral management system to enable DA orders at referral to a specialist. Third, we engaged clinic staff and specialists to design workflows that promoted DA delivery. We tracked the number of patients who received a DA, who ordered the DA, and collected usage data from a subset of patients. Our target was to reach 60% of patients with DAs. RESULTS: In phase 1, 28% (43/155) of spine patients and 37% (114/308) of hip/knee patients received a DA. In phase 2, 54% (64/118) of spine referrals and 58% (189/324) of hip/knee referrals included a request to send a patient a DA. In phase 3, 56% (90/162) of spine patients and 69% (213/307) of hip/knee patients received a DA, significantly more than in phase 1 (P<0.0001). In phase 3, both more DAs were ordered by clinic staff compared with specialists (56% phase 3 vs 34% phase 1, P<0.001) and sent before the visit (74% phase 3 vs 17% phase 1, P<0.001). Patients were more likely to report reviewing the DA when delivered before the visit (63% before vs 50% after, P=0.005). CONCLUSION: DA implementation into clinic workflow is possible and facilitated by engagement of the entire care team and the support of health information technology.

Prevention of Prostate Cancer Morbidity and Mortality: Primary Prevention and Early Detection.

More than any other cancer, prostate cancer screening with the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests increases the risk a man will have to face a diagnosis of prostate cancer. The best evidence from screening trials suggests a small but finite benefit from prostate cancer screening in terms of prostate cancer-specific mortality, about 1 fewer prostate cancer death per 1000 men screened over 10 years. The more serious harms of prostate cancer screening, such as erectile dysfunction and incontinence, result from cancer treatment with surgery or radiation, particularly for men whose PSA-detected cancers were never destined to cause morbidity or mortality.

Patient Decision Aids Improve Decision Quality and Patient Experience and Reduce Surgical Rates in Routine Orthopaedic Care: A Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids are effective in randomized controlled trials, yet little is known about their impact in routine care. The purpose of this study was to examine whether decision aids increase shared decision-making when used in routine care. METHODS: A prospective study was designed to evaluate the impact of a quality improvement project to increase the use of decision aids for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis, lumbar disc herniation, or lumbar spinal stenosis. A usual care cohort was enrolled before the quality improvement project and an intervention cohort was enrolled after the project. Participants were surveyed 1 week after a specialist visit, and surgical status was collected at 6 months. Regression analyses adjusted for clustering of patients within clinicians and examined the impact on knowledge, patient reports of shared decision-making in the visit, and surgical rates. With 550 surveys, the study had 80% to 90% power to detect a difference in these key outcomes. RESULTS: The response rates to the 1-week survey were 70.6% (324 of 459) for the usual care cohort and 70.2% (328 of 467) for the intervention cohort. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in any patient characteristic between the 2 cohorts. More patients received decision aids in the intervention cohort at 63.6% compared with the usual care cohort at 27.3% (p = 0.007). Decision aid use was associated with higher knowledge scores, with a mean difference of 18.7 points (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.4 to 26.1 points; p < 0.001) for the usual care cohort and 15.3 points (95% CI, 7.5 to 23.0 points; p = 0.002) for the intervention cohort. Patients reported more shared decision-making (p = 0.009) in the visit with their surgeon in the intervention cohort, with a mean Shared Decision-Making Process score (and standard deviation) of 66.9 ± 27.5 points, compared with the usual care cohort at 62.5 ± 28.6 points. The majority of patients received their preferred treatment, and this did not differ by cohort or decision aid use. Surgical rates were lower in the intervention cohort for those who received the decision aids at 42.3% compared with 58.8% for those who did not receive decision aids (p = 0.023) and in the usual care cohort at 44.3% for those who received decision aids compared with 55.7% for those who did not receive them (p = 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: The quality improvement project successfully integrated patient decision aids into a busy orthopaedic clinic. When used in routine care, decision aids are associated with increased knowledge, more shared decision-making, and lower surgical rates. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: There is increasing pressure to design systems of care that inform and involve patients in decisions about elective surgery. In this study, the authors found that patient decision aids, when used as part of routine orthopaedic care, were associated with increased knowledge, more shared decision-making, higher patient experience ratings, and lower surgical rates.

Ten Years, Forty Decision Aids, And Thousands Of Patient Uses: Shared Decision Making At Massachusetts General Hospital.

Shared decision making is a core component of population health strategies aimed at improving patient engagement. Massachusetts General Hospital's integration of shared decision making into practice has focused on the following three elements: developing a culture receptive to, and health care providers skilled in, shared decision making conversations; using patient decision aids to help inform and engage patients; and providing infrastructure and resources to support the implementation of shared decision making in practice. In the period 2005-15, more than 900 clinicians and other staff members were trained in shared decision making, and more than 28,000 orders for one of about forty patient decision aids were placed to support informed patient-centered decisions. We profile two different implementation initiatives that increased the use of patient decision aids at the hospital's eighteen adult primary care practices, and we summarize key elements of the shared decision making program.

Tethered capsule endomicroscopy: from bench to bedside at a primary care practice.

Due to the relatively high cost and inconvenience of upper endoscopic biopsy and the rising incidence of esophageal adenocarcinoma, there is currently a need for an improved method for screening for Barrett's esophagus. Ideally, such a test would be applied in the primary care setting and patients referred to endoscopy if the result is suspicious for Barrett's. Tethered capsule endomicroscopy (TCE) is a recently developed technology that rapidly acquires microscopic images of the entire esophagus in unsedated subjects. Here, we present our first experience with clinical translation and feasibility of TCE in a primary care practice. The acceptance of the TCE device by the primary care clinical staff and patients shows the potential of this device to be useful as a screening tool for a broader population.

Responses to a Decision Aid on Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care Practices.

INTRODUCTION: Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing remains controversial, with most guidelines recommending shared decision making. This study describes men's PSA screening preferences before and after viewing a decision aid and relates these preferences to subsequent clinician visit content. METHODS: Men were recruited from two health systems in 2009-2013. Participants answered a questionnaire before and after decision aid viewing addressing PSA screening preferences and five basic knowledge questions. At one health system, participants also answered a survey after a subsequent clinician visit. Data were analyzed in 2014. RESULTS: One thousand forty-one predominantly white, well-educated men responded to the pre- and post-viewing questionnaire (25% and 29% response rates at the two sites). After viewing, the proportion of patients leaning away from PSA screening increased significantly (p<0.001), with 386 (38%) leaning toward PSA screening versus 436 (43%) before viewing; 174 (17%) unsure versus 319 (32%) before; and 448 (44%) leaning away versus 253 (25%) before. Higher knowledge scores were associated with being more likely to lean against screening and less likely to be unsure (p<0.001). Among 278 men who also completed a questionnaire after a subsequent clinician visit, participants who planned to discuss PSA screening with their clinicians were significantly more likely to report such discussions than participants who did not (148/217 [68%] vs 16/46 [35%], respectively [p<0.001]). CONCLUSIONS: A decision aid reduces men's interest in PSA screening, particularly among the initially unsure. Men who plan to discuss PSA screening with their clinician after a decision aid are more likely to do so.