Expanding the Paradigm for Cardiovascular Palliative Care.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death worldwide. Despite medical advances, patients with CVD experience high morbidity and mortality rates, affecting their quality of life and death. Among CVD conditions, palliative care has been studied mostly in patients with heart failure, where palliative care interventions have been associated with improvements in patient-centered outcomes, including quality of life, end-of-life care, and health care use. Although palliative care is now incorporated into the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology/Heart Failure Society of America guidelines for heart failure, the role of palliative care for non-heart failure CVD remains uncertain. Across all causes of CVD, palliative care can play an important role in all domains of CVD care from initial diagnosis to terminal care. In addition to general cardiovascular palliative care practices applicable to all areas, disease-specific palliative care needs may warrant individualized palliative care models. In this review, we discuss the role of cardiovascular palliative care for ischemic heart disease, valvular disease, arrhythmias, peripheral artery disease, and adult congenital heart disease. Although there are multiple barriers to cardiovascular palliative care, we recommend a framework for studying and developing cardiovascular palliative care models to improve patient-centered goal-concordant care for this underserved patient population.

Shared Decision-Making and Cardiovascular Health: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Shared decision-making is increasingly embraced in health care and recommended in cardiovascular guidelines. Patient involvement in health care decisions, patient-clinician communication, and models of patient-centered care are critical to improve health outcomes and to promote equity, but formal models and evaluation in cardiovascular care are nascent. Shared decision-making promotes equity by involving clinicians and patients, sharing the best available evidence, and recognizing the needs, values, and experiences of individuals and their families when faced with the task of making decisions. Broad endorsement of shared decision-making as a critical component of high-quality, value-based care has raised our awareness, although uptake in clinical practice remains suboptimal for a range of patient, clinician, and system issues. Strategies effective in promoting shared decision-making include educating clinicians on communication techniques, engaging multidisciplinary medical teams, incorporating trained decision coaches, and using tools (ie, patient decision aids) at appropriate literacy and numeracy levels to support patients in their cardiovascular decisions. This scientific statement shines a light on the limited but growing body of evidence of the impact of shared decision-making on cardiovascular outcomes and the potential of shared decision-making as a driver of health equity so that everyone has just opportunities. Multilevel solutions must align to address challenges in policies and reimbursement, system-level leadership and infrastructure, clinician training, access to decision aids, and patient engagement to fully support patients and clinicians to engage in the shared decision-making process and to drive equity and improvement in cardiovascular outcomes.

Surrogate Decision-Making After Stroke in a Community Setting: The OASIS Project.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe stroke often rely on surrogate decision-makers for life-sustaining treatment decisions. We investigated ethnic differences between Mexican Americans (MAs) and non-Hispanic White (NHW) individuals in surrogate reports of physician quality of communication and shared decision-making from the OASIS study (Outcomes Among Surrogate Decision Makers in Stroke) project. METHODS: Patients had ischemic stroke or intracerebral hemorrhage in Nueces County, TX. Surrogates self-identified as being involved in decisions about do-not-resuscitate orders, brain surgery, ventilator, feeding tube, or hospice/comfort care. Surrogate reports of physician quality of communication (scale score, range from 0 to 10) and shared decision-making (CollaboRATE scale score, binary score 1 versus 0) were compared by ethnicity with linear or logistic regression using generalized estimating equations, adjusted for prespecified demographics, clinical factors, and confounders. RESULTS: Between April 2016 and September 2020, 320 surrogates for 257 patients with stroke enrolled (MA, 158; NHW, 85; and other, 14). Overall quality of communication score was better among surrogates of MA patients than NHW individuals after adjustment for demographics, stroke severity, and patient survival though the ethnic difference was attenuated (ß, 0.47 [95% CI, -0.17 to 1.12]; P=0.15) after adjustment for trust in the medical profession and frequency of personal prayer. High CollaboRATE scale scores were more common among surrogates of MA patients than NHW individuals (unadjusted odds ratio, 1.75 [95% CI, 1.04-2.95]). This association persisted after adjustment for demographic and clinical factors though there was an interaction between patient age and ethnicity (P=0.04), suggesting that this difference was primarily in older patients. CONCLUSIONS: Surrogate decision-makers of MA patients generally reported better outcomes on validated measures of quality of communication and shared decision-making than NHW individuals. Further study of outcomes among diverse populations of stroke surrogate decision-makers may help to identify sources of strength and resiliency that may be broadly applicable.

Cost-of-care discussions for individuals with advanced non-small cell lung cancer and melanoma: Findings from a large, population-based pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Costs of cancer care can result in patient financial hardship; many professional organizations recommend provider discussions about treatment costs as part of high-quality care. In this pilot study, the authors examined patient-provider cost discussions documented in the medical records of individuals who were diagnosed with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and melanoma-cancers with recently approved, high-cost treatment options. METHODS: Individuals who were newly diagnosed in 2017-2018 with stage III/IV NSCLC (n = 1767) and in 2018 with stage III/IV melanoma (n = 689) from 12 Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results regions were randomly selected for the National Cancer Institute Patterns of Care Study. Documentation of cost discussions was abstracted from the medical record. The authors examined patient, treatment, and hospital factors associated with cost discussions in multivariable logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Cost discussions were documented in the medical records of 20.3% of patients with NSCLC and in 24.0% of those with melanoma. In adjusted analyses, privately insured (vs. publicly insured) patients were less likely to have documented cost discussions (odds ratio [OR], 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.80). Patients who did not receive systemic therapy or did not receive any cancer-directed treatment were less likely to have documented cost discussions than those who did receive systemic therapy (OR, 0.39 [95% CI, 0.19-0.81] and 0.46 [95% CI, 0.30-0.70], respectively), as were patients who were treated at hospitals without residency programs (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.42-0.98). CONCLUSIONS: Cost discussions were infrequently documented in the medical records of patients who were diagnosed with advanced NSCLC and melanoma, which may hinder identifying patient needs and tracking outcomes of associated referrals. Efforts to increase cost-of-care discussions and relevant referrals, as well as their documentation, are warranted.

"I've been really happy since I got that letter!": Longitudinal patient perspectives on lung cancer screening communication.

OBJECTIVE: Experts recommend structured shared decision making when discussing lung cancer screening (LCS) and reporting low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) results. We examined patients' reactions to pre- and post-LDCT results communication processes at three medical centers in the US with established LCS programs. METHODS: Multicenter, qualitative, longitudinal study of patients considering and receiving LCS using data from semi-structured interviews guided by a patient-centered communication model using conventional content analysis. We conducted 61 interviews among 32 patients (sixteen of whom had a nodule on their LDCT) at one month and 12 months after an initial LCS decision making interaction. RESULTS: Participants were mostly satisfied with LCS communication processes pre- and post-LDCT even though guideline concordant shared decision making was rare. Most participants reported no more than mild distress even if the LDCT detected a pulmonary nodule, felt relief after getting the results, and reported the perceived benefits of LCS outweighed their distress. Nearly all participants were satisfied with recommended follow-up plans. They reported that they trusted their clinicians and health care system to provide appropriate care and recommendations. They did not appear to regret their decision since almost all participants planned to get their next LDCT. However, they were at risk of non-adherence to follow-up recommendations since they often relied on the health care system to ensure they received timely follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Despite receiving guideline discordant decision-making communication, patients seem very satisfied, rarely experience severe distress, and have low decisional regret after LCS decision making and receiving the results of their LDCT.

Roles and competencies of nurses and physicians in shared decision-making in cardiac surgery: A scoping review.

AIM: Identification and synthesis of research data related to the roles and competencies of physicians and nurses that are prerequisites for careful shared decision-making with patients potentially undergoing cardiac surgery. DESIGN: A scoping review was conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology for scoping reviews and the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched from inception dates up to March 2022, to identify primary studies published in a peer-reviewed journal. Study selection, assessment of the methodological quality and data extracting of the included studies were done by at least two independent researchers. To describe the findings of the studies, an emergent synthesis approach was used to visualize a descriptive representation of professional roles and competencies in shared decision-making, in an overview. RESULTS: The systematic search revealed 10,055 potential papers, 8873 articles were screened on title and abstract and 76 full texts were retrieved. Eight articles were included for final evaluation. For nurses and physicians, 26 different skills were identified in the literature to practice shared decision-making in cardiac surgery. The skills that emerged were divided into five professional roles: moderator; health educator; data collector; psychological supporter and translator. CONCLUSIONS: This review specifies the professional roles and required competencies related to shared decision-making in cardiac surgery. Further research is needed to compare our findings with other clinical areas and from there to arrive at a professional division of roles between the different clinical disciplines involved. IMPACT: The visualization of generic shared decision-making competencies and roles should establish the professional division of positions between various clinical physician and nurse disciplines in order to create a treatment plan based on evidence, values, preferences and the patient's personal situation. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.

Effectiveness of interventions to enhance shared decision-making in wound care: A systematic review.

AIMS: To explore the effectiveness of interventions to enhance patient participation in shared decision-making in wound care and tissue viability. BACKGROUND: Caring for people living with a wound is complex due to interaction between wound healing, symptoms, psychological wellbeing and treatment effectiveness. To respond to this complexity, there has been recent emphasis on the importance of delivering patient centred wound care and shared decision-making to personalise health care. However, little is known about the effectiveness of existing interventions to support shared decision-making in wound care. DESIGN: Systematic review of interventional studies to enhance shared decision-making in wound care or tissue viability. This was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines 2020. METHODS: Interventional primary research studies published in English up to January 2023 were included. Screening, data extraction and quality appraisal were undertaken independently by two authors. DATA SOURCES: Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trails (trials database), CINAHL, British Nursing Index (BNI), WorldCat (thesis database), Scopus and registries of ongoing studies (ISRCTN registry and clinicaltrials.gov). RESULTS: 1063 abstracts were screened, and eight full-text studies included. Findings indicate, interventions to support shared decision-making are positively received. Goal or need setting components may assist knowledge transfer between patient and clinician, and could lower short term decisional conflict. However, generally findings within this study had very low certainty due to the inconsistencies in outcomes reported, and the variation and complexity of single and multiple interventions used. CONCLUSIONS: Future research on shared decision-making interventions in wound care should include the involvement of stakeholders and programme theory to underpin the interventions developed to consider the complexity of interventions. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND PATIENT CARE: Patients setting out their needs or goals and exploring patient questions are important and should be considered in clinical care. REGISTRATION: The review protocol was prospectively registered (PROSPERO database: CRD42023389820). NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Not applicable as this is a systematic review.

Early Shared Decision-Making for Older Adults with Traumatic Brain Injury: Using Time-Limited Trials and Understanding Their Limitations.

Older adults account for a disproportionate share of the morbidity and mortality after traumatic brain injury (TBI). Predicting functional and cognitive outcomes for individual older adults after TBI is challenging in the acute phase of injury. Given that neurologic recovery is possible and uncertain, life-sustaining therapy may be pursued initially, even if for some, there is a risk of survival to an undesired level of disability or dependence. Experts recommend early conversations about goals of care after TBI, but evidence-based guidelines for these discussions or for the optimal method for communicating prognosis are limited. The time-limited trial (TLT) model may be an effective strategy for managing prognostic uncertainty after TBI. TLTs can provide a framework for early management: specific treatments or procedures are used for a defined period of time while monitoring for an agreed-upon outcome. Outcome measures, including signs of worsening and improvement, are defined at the outset of the trial. In this Viewpoint article, we discuss the use of TLTs for older adults with TBI, their potential benefits, and current challenges to their application. Three main barriers limit the implementation of TLTs in these scenarios: inadequate models for prognostication; cognitive biases faced by clinicians and surrogate decision-makers, which may contribute to prognostic discordance; and ambiguity regarding appropriate endpoints for the TLT. Further study is needed to understand clinician behaviors and surrogate preferences for prognostic communication and how to optimally integrate TLTs into the care of older adults with TBI.

An Electronically Delivered Patient-Activation Tool for Intensification of Medications for Chronic Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction: The EPIC-HF Trial.

BACKGROUND: Major gaps exist in the routine initiation and dose up-titration of guideline-directed medical therapies (GDMT) for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Without novel approaches to improve prescribing, the cumulative benefits of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction treatment will be largely unrealized. Direct-to-consumer marketing and shared decision making reflect a culture where patients are increasingly involved in treatment choices, creating opportunities for prescribing interventions that engage patients. METHODS: The EPIC-HF (Electronically Delivered, Patient-Activation Tool for Intensification of Medications for Chronic Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction) trial randomized patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction from a diverse health system to usual care versus patient activation tools-a 3-minute video and 1-page checklist-delivered electronically 1 week before, 3 days before, and 24 hours before a cardiology clinic visit. The tools encouraged patients to work collaboratively with their clinicians to "make one positive change" in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction prescribing. The primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with GDMT medication initiations and dose intensifications from immediately preceding the cardiology clinic visit to 30 days after, compared with usual care during the same period. RESULTS: EPIC-HF enrolled 306 patients, 290 of whom attended a clinic visit during the study period: 145 were sent the patient activation tools and 145 were controls. The median age of patients was 65 years; 29% were female, 11% were Black, 7% were Hispanic, and the median ejection fraction was 32%. Preclinic data revealed significant GDMT opportunities, with no patients on target doses of ß-blocker, sacubitril/valsartan, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists. From immediately preceding the cardiology clinic visit to 30 days after, 49.0% in the intervention and 29.7% in the control experienced an initiation or intensification of their GDMT (P=0.001). The majority of these changes were made at the clinician encounter itself and involved dose uptitrations. There were no deaths and no significant differences in hospitalization or emergency department visits at 30 days between groups. CONCLUSIONS: A patient activation tool delivered electronically before a cardiology clinic visit improved clinician intensification of GDMT. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03334188.

Predictors of Regret among Older Men after Stress Urinary Incontinence Treatment Decisions.

PURPOSE: When seeking treatment for male stress urinary incontinence (mSUI), patients are faced with weighing complex risks and benefits in making treatment decisions within their individual context. We sought to quantify the frequency of decisional regret among this population and to determine factors associated with regret. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cohort of 130 males aged ≥65 years seen for initial mSUI consultation at the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center and the San Francisco Veterans Affairs Medical Center between June 2015 and March 2020 was developed. Using retrospective chart review and telephone interviews, we ascertained decisional regret as well as other patient-, disease- and treatment-related characteristics. Decisional regret was analyzed by treatment type and patient-, disease- and treatment-related factors. Multivariable logistic regression models were built to examine the factors most associated with decisional regret. RESULTS: Among the entire cohort, 22% reported moderate to severe decisional regret. Regret was highest among those electing conservative management, with 34.7% having decisional regret (vs with surgery: 8.3% sling, 8.2% sphincter; p <0.001). In multivariable analysis, depression, lower rating of shared decision making and higher current incontinence scores were significantly associated with decisional regret. CONCLUSIONS: Recognition of depression, improved efforts at shared decision making and more individualized treatment counseling have the potential to improve patient satisfaction with treatment choice. In addition, given high levels of regret among those electing conservative treatment, we may be underutilizing mSUI surgery in this population.

Breast cancer screening in women with extremely dense breasts recommendations of the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI).

Breast density is an independent risk factor for the development of breast cancer and also decreases the sensitivity of mammography for screening. Consequently, women with extremely dense breasts face an increased risk of late diagnosis of breast cancer. These women are, therefore, underserved with current mammographic screening programs. The results of recent studies reporting on contrast-enhanced breast MRI as a screening method in women with extremely dense breasts provide compelling evidence that this approach can enable an important reduction in breast cancer mortality for these women and is cost-effective. Because there is now a valid option to improve breast cancer screening, the European Society of Breast Imaging (EUSOBI) recommends that women should be informed about their breast density. EUSOBI thus calls on all providers of mammography screening to share density information with the women being screened. In light of the available evidence, in women aged 50 to 70 years with extremely dense breasts, the EUSOBI now recommends offering screening breast MRI every 2 to 4 years. The EUSOBI acknowledges that it may currently not be possible to offer breast MRI immediately and everywhere and underscores that quality assurance procedures need to be established, but urges radiological societies and policymakers to act on this now. Since the wishes and values of individual women differ, in screening the principles of shared decision-making should be embraced. In particular, women should be counselled on the benefits and risks of mammography and MRI-based screening, so that they are capable of making an informed choice about their preferred screening method. KEY POINTS: • The recommendations in Figure 1 summarize the key points of the manuscript.

A Brief Shared Decision-Making Intervention for Acute Respiratory Infections on Antibiotic Dispensing Rates in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: To determine whether acute respiratory infection (ARI) decision aids and a general practitioner (GP) training package reduces antibiotic dispensing rate and improves GPs' knowledge of antibiotic benefit-harm evidence. METHODS: A cluster randomized trial of 27 Australian general practices (13 intervention, 14 control) involving 122 GPs. Intervention group GPs were given brief decision aids for 3 ARIs (acute otitis media, acute sore throat, acute bronchitis) and video-delivered training. Primary outcome was dispensing rate of target antibiotic classes (routinely used for ARIs), extracted for 12 months before, and following, randomization. Secondary outcomes were GPs' knowledge of antibiotic benefit-harm evidence; prescribing influences; acceptability, usefulness, and self-reported resource use; and dispensing rate of all antibiotics. RESULTS: The baseline mean dispensing rate of ARI-related antibiotics was 3.5% (intervention GPs) and 3.2% (control GPs) of consultations. After 12 months, mean rates decreased (to 2.9% intervention; 2.6% control): an 18% relative reduction from baseline but similar in both groups (rate ratio 1.01; 95% CI, 0.89-1.15). Greater increases in knowledge were seen in the intervention group than control; a significant increase (average 3.6; 95% CI, 2.4-4.7, P <.001) in the number of correct responses to the 22 knowledge questions. There were no between-group differences for other secondary outcomes. The intervention was well received, perceived as useful, and reported as used by about two-thirds of intervention GPs. CONCLUSIONS: A brief shared decision-making intervention provided to GPs did not reduce antibiotic dispensing more than usual care, although GPs' knowledge of relevant benefit-harm evidence increased significantly.

Developing tailored theoretically informed goal-setting interventions for rehabilitation services: a co-design approach.

BACKGROUND: Several active ingredients contribute to the purposes and mechanisms of goal-setting in rehabilitation. Active ingredients in the goal-setting process include, interdisciplinary teamworking, shared decision-making, having meaningful and specific goals, and including action planning, coping planning, feedback, and review. Clinicians have expressed barriers and enablers to implementing these active ingredients in rehabilitation teams. Interventions designed to improve goal-setting practices need to be tailored to address context specific barriers and enablers. Attempts to understand and enhance goal-setting practices in rehabilitation settings should be supported using theory, process models and determinant frameworks. Few studies have been undertaken to enhance goal-setting practices in varied case-mix rehabilitation settings. METHODS: This study is part of a larger program of research guided by the Knowledge to Action (KTA) framework. A multisite, participatory, codesign approach was used in five sites to address three stages of the KTA. (1) Focus groups were conducted to understand barriers and enablers to implementing goal-setting at each site. Following the focus groups three staff co-design workshops and one consumer workshop were run at each site to (2) adapt knowledge to local context, and to (3) select and tailor interventions to improve goal-setting practices. Focus groups were analysed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and informed the selection of behaviour change techniques incorporated into the implementation plan. RESULTS: Barriers and enablers identified in this study were consistent with previous research. Clinicians lacked knowledge and understanding of the differences between a goal and an action plan often confusing both terms. Clinicians were unable to demonstrate an understanding of the importance of comprehensive action planning and review processes that extended beyond initial goal-setting. Interventions developed across the sites included staff training modules, a client held workbook, educational rehabilitation service flyers, interdisciplinary goal-based case conference templates, communication goal boards and a key worker model. Implementation plans were specifically established for each site. CONCLUSIONS: Rehabilitation teams continue to struggle to incorporate a truly client-centred, interdisciplinary model of goal-setting in rehabilitation. Whilst clinicians continue to lack understanding of how they can use aspects of goal-setting to enhance client outcomes and autonomy in rehabilitation settings.

Home care providers' perceptions of shared decision-making with older clients (and their caregivers): A cross-sectional study.

Interprofessional care teams can play a key role in supporting older adults (and caregivers) in making informed health decisions, yet shared decision making is not widely practiced in home care. Based on an earlier needs assessment with older adults (and caregivers) with home care experience, we aimed to explore the perceptions of home care teams on the decisions facing their clients and their perceived involvement in shared decision making. A cross-sectional study was conducted with 614 home care providers (nurses, personal support workers, rehabilitation professionals) in three Canadian provinces (Quebec, Ontario, and Alberta). Home care providers considered the decision "to stay at home or move" as the most difficult for older adults. Those most frequently involved in decision making with older adults were family members and least involved were physicians. Although all home care providers reported high levels of shared decision-making, we detected an effect of respondent's discipline on self-perceived shared decision-making; nurses and rehabilitation professionals reported significantly higher levels of shared decision making than personal support workers. A more tailored approach is required to support shared decision making in interprofessional care teams.

[Influence of the companion in Primary Care consultations on communication skills and interview time]. / Influencia del acompañante en las consultas de Atención Primaria sobre las habilidades en comunicación y el tiempo de entrevista.

OBJETIVES: To know the influence of the companion in triadic clinical encounter on the quality of doctor-patient communication and the duration of the interview. DESIGN: Cross-sectional descriptive study. LOCATION: 10 Primary Care Centers. PARTICIPANTS: Resident doctors of Family and Community Medicine. INTERVENTIONS: Peer review of video recordings of clinical demand consultations. MAIN MEASUREMENTS: CICAA-2 questionnaire to assess communication skills (improvable, acceptable or adequate); age and sex, reasons for consultation and duration of the interview. Bivariate and multivariate analyses. Ethical authorization, oral informed consent and custody of the video recordings. RESULTS: 73 RD (53.8% women, 32.9±7.7 years) participated with 260 interviews (60.3% women and 2.1±1.0 clinical demands). 27.7% of consultations with a companion (female sex 65.3%). The mean duration of the interviews was 8.5±4.0min. Clinical encounters lasted longer when a companion attended (2.7±0.5min more; p<.001 Student t) and with a greater number of clinical demands (40% with ≥3 reasons, p=0.048 X2). The mean value of the total score of the CICAA-2 scale (46.9±16.5; difference 4.6±2.3) and Task 2 (39.3±15.8 with difference 4.4±2.2) were higher when companion was present (p<.05 Student t). The model obtained with logistic regression shows a longer duration of the consultation with a companion (OR 1.2; CI [1.1-1.3]) and possibly a better score in Task 2 communication skills (OR 1.02; CI [0.99-1.1]). CONCLUSIONS: Triadic communications challenge the clinician's communication skills, improving their abilities to identify and understand patient problems, albeit at the cost of a greater investment of time.

A Comparison of Web-Based Cancer Risk Calculators That Inform Shared Decision-making for Lung Cancer Screening.

INTRODUCTION: To align patient preferences and understanding with harm-benefit perception, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) mandates that providers engage patients in a collaborative shared decision-making (SDM) visit before LDCT. Nonetheless, patients and providers often turn instead to the web for help making decisions. Several web-based lung cancer risk calculators (LCRCs) provide risk predictions and screening recommendations; however, the accuracy, consistency, and subsequent user interpretation of these predictions between LCRCs is ambiguous. We conducted a systematic review to assess this variability. DESIGN: Through a systematic Internet search, we identified 10 publicly available LCRCs and categorized their input variables: demographic factors, cancer history, smoking status, and personal/environmental factors. To assess variance in LCRC risk prediction outputs, we developed 16 hypothetical patients along a risk continuum, illustrated by randomly assigned input variables, and individually compared them to each LCRC against the empirically validated "gold-standard" PLCO risk model in order to evaluate the accuracy of the LCRCs within identical time-windows. RESULTS: From the inclusion criteria, 11 calculators were initially identified. The analyzed calculators also vary in output characteristics and risk depiction for hypothetical patients. There were 13 total instances across ten hypothetical patients in which the sample standard error exceeded the mean risk percentage across all general samples and set standard calculations. The largest measured difference is 16.49% for patient 8, and the smallest difference is 0.01% for patient 2. The largest measured difference is 16.49% for patient 8, and the smallest difference is 0.01% for patient 2. CONCLUSION: Substantial variability in the depiction of lung cancer risk for hypothetical patients exists across the web-based LCRCs due to their respective inputs and risk prediction models. To foster informed decision-making in the SDM-LDCT context, the input variables, risk prediction models, risk depiction, and screening recommendations must be standardized to best practice.

Perspectives and experiences of patients and healthcare professionals with geriatric assessment in chronic kidney disease: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Older patients with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) often live with unidentified frailty and multimorbidity. Despite guideline recommendations, geriatric assessment is not part of standard clinical care, resulting in a missed opportunity to enhance (clinical) outcomes including quality of life in these patients. To develop routine geriatric assessment programs for patients approaching ESKD, it is crucial to understand patients' and professionals' experiences with and perspectives about the benefits, facilitators and barriers for geriatric assessment. METHODS: In this qualitative study, semi-structured focus group discussions were conducted with ESKD patients, caregivers and professionals. Participants were purposively sampled from three Dutch hospital-based study- and routine care initiatives involving geriatric assessment for (pre-)ESKD care. Transcripts were analysed inductively using thematic analysis. RESULTS: In six focus-groups, participants (n = 47) demonstrated four major themes: (1) Perceived characteristics of the older (pre)ESKD patient group. Patients and professionals recognized increased vulnerability and (cognitive) comorbidity, which is often unrelated to calendar age. Both believed that often patients are in need of additional support in various geriatric domains. (2) Experiences with geriatric assessment. Patients regarded the content and the time spent on the geriatric assessment predominantly positive. Professionals emphasized that assessment creates awareness among the whole treatment team for cognitive and social problems, shifting the focus from mainly somatic to multidimensional problems. Outcomes of geriatric assessment were observed to enhance a dialogue on suitability of treatment options, (re)adjust treatment and provide/seek additional (social) support. (3) Barriers and facilitators for implementation of geriatric assessment in routine care. Discussed barriers included lack of communication about goals and interpretation of geriatric assessment, burden for patients, illiteracy, and organizational aspects. Major facilitators are good multidisciplinary cooperation, involvement of geriatrics and multidisciplinary team meetings. (4) Desired characteristics of a suitable geriatric assessment concerned the scope and use of tests and timing of assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and professionals were positive about using geriatric assessment in routine nephrology care. Implementation seems achievable, once barriers are overcome and facilitators are endorsed. Geriatric assessment in routine care appears promising to improve (clinical) outcomes in patients approaching ESKD.

Guideline No. 413: Surgical Management of Apical Pelvic Organ Prolapse in Women.

OBJECTIVE: To compare success and complication rates of apical suspension procedures for the surgical management of symptomatic uterine or vaginal vault prolapse. TARGET POPULATION: Women with symptomatic uterine or vaginal vault prolapse seeking surgical correction. OPTIONS: Interventions included abdominal apical reconstructive repairs (sacrocolpopexy, sacrohysteropexy, or uterosacral hysteropexy) via open, laparoscopic, or robotic approaches; vaginal apical reconstructive repairs (vault suspensions or hysteropexy, sacrospinous, uterosacral, iliococcygeus, McCall's, or Manchester types); and vaginal obliterative procedures (with or without uterus in situ). Individual procedures or broad categories of procedures were compared: (1) vaginal versus abdominal routes for reconstruction, (2) abdominal procedures for reconstruction, (3) vaginal procedures for reconstruction, (4) hysterectomy and suspension versus hysteropexy for reconstruction, and (5) reconstructive versus obliterative options. OUTCOMES: The Urogynaecology Committee selected outcomes of interest: objective failure (obtained via validated pelvic organ prolapse [POP] quantification systems and defined as overall objective failure as well as failure rate by compartment); subjective failure (recurrence of bulge symptoms determined subjectively, with or without use of a validated questionnaire); reoperation for POP recurrence; complications of postoperative lower urinary tract symptoms (de novo or postoperative stress urinary incontinence; reoperation for persistent, recurrent, or de novo stress urinary incontinence; urge urinary incontinence; and voiding dysfunction); perioperatively recognized urinary tract injury (bladder or ureter); other complications (mesh exposure, defined as mesh being visible and exposed in the vagina, and non-sexual pelvic pain); and sexual function (de novo dyspareunia and sexual function score according to a validated questionnaire). BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: This guideline will benefit patients seeking surgical correction of apical POP by improving counselling on surgical treatment options and possible outcomes. It will also benefit surgical providers by improving their knowledge of various surgical approaches. Data presented could be used to develop frameworks and tools for shared decision-making. EVIDENCE: We searched Medline, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Embase from 2002 to 2019. The search included multiple terms for apical POP surgical procedures, approaches, and complications. We excluded POP repairs using transvaginal mesh and studies that compared procedures without apical suspension. We included randomized controlled trials and prospective or retrospective comparative studies. We limited language of publication to English and French and accessibility to full text. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed. VALIDATION METHODS: The authors rated the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. See online Appendix A (Tables A1 for definitions and A2 for interpretations of strong and weak recommendations). INTENDED USERS: Gynaecologists, urologists, urogynaecologists, and other health care providers who assess, counsel, and care for women with POP. SUMMARY STATEMENTS: All statements refer to correction of apical vaginal prolapse in the short and medium term (up to 5 years), except when otherwise specified.

Committee Opinion No. 419: Coercion Free Contraceptive Care.

OBJECTIVE: To provide guidance on culturally competent contraception counselling that is free of coercion and promotes shared decision-making and patient autonomy. TARGET POPULATION: Individuals of reproductive age who seek contraception or counselling for family planning. OPTIONS: Contraception counselling is provided within a rights-based family planning framework, where the individual's beliefs, culture, preferences, and ability to use the chosen method are respected. OUTCOMES: To promote patient autonomy in decision-making surrounding family planning, including the right to access and use their contraceptive method of choice, to decline contraception or use less effective methods of contraception, and to freely choose to discontinue a method of contraception, as well as the right to unbiased, non-coercive contraception counselling and evidence-based information from their health care provider BENEFITS, HARMS, AND COSTS: Implementation of these recommendations would reduce real or perceived coercive contraceptive care, particularly among vulnerable populations, resulting in improved patient autonomy and a better patient experience in health care settings. EVIDENCE: Databases searched: MEDLINE, Cochrane, PubMed, and CanLII. Medical terms used: contraception, family planning services, informed consent, coercion, decision making, sterilization, permanent contraception, counselling. Legal terms searched: forced sterilization, and aboriginal. Initial search conducted in 2020 and updated in 2021. INTENDED AUDIENCE: This committee opinion is intended for health care providers (obstetricians, gynaecologists, family physicians, general surgeons, nurse practitioners, nurses, midwives, undergraduate/postgraduate medical trainees, and other health care providers) who provide sexual and reproductive health services.

Revisiting the Care Pathway for Trial of Labour After Cesarean: The Decision-to-Delivery Interval Is Key.

Centres providing maternity care and offering a trial of labour after cesarean must develop and use maternal educational and consent processes that emphasize choice and autonomy related to options for and decisions surrounding vaginal birth after cesarean and elective repeat cesarean delivery. These centres should have administrative systems and processes that take into account local resources for cesarean delivery services, including team-based complex maternity risk support and an urgency consensus on the fetal, maternal, and maternal-fetal indications for a surgical delivery to ensure an appropriate decision-to-delivery interval.