Clinician use of the Statin Choice Shared Decision-making Encounter Tool in a Major Health System.

BACKGROUND: Effective shared decision-making (SDM) tools for use during clinical encounters are available, but, outside of study settings, little is known about clinician use of these tools in practice. OBJECTIVE: To describe real-world use of an SDM encounter tool for statin prescribing, Statin Choice, embedded into the workflow of an electronic health record. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Clinicians and their statin-eligible patients who had outpatient encounters between January 2020 and June 2021 in Cleveland Clinic Health System. MAIN MEASURES: Clinician use of Statin Choice was recorded within the Epic record system. We categorized each patient's 10-year atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease risk into low (< 5%), borderline (5-7.5%), intermediate (7.5-20%), and high (≥ 20%). Other patient factors included age, sex, insurance, and race. We used mixed effects logistic regression to assess the odds of using Statin Choice for statin-eligible patients, accounting for clustering by clinician and site. We generated a residual intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to characterize the impact of the clinician on Statin Choice use. KEY RESULTS: Statin Choice was used in 7% of 68,505 eligible patients. Of 1047 clinicians, 48% used Statin Choice with ≥ 1 patient, and these clinicians used it with a median 9% of their patients (interquartile range: 3-22%). In the mixed effects logistic regression model, patient age (adjusted OR per year: 1.04; 95%CI 1.03-1.04) and 10-year ASVCD risk (aOR for 5-7.5% versus < 5% risk: 1.28; 95%CI: 1.14-1.44) were associated with use of Statin Choice. Black versus White race was associated with a lower odds of Statin Choice use (aOR: 0.83; 95%CI: 0.73-0.95), as was female versus male sex (aOR: 0.83; 95%CI: 0.76-0.90). The model ICC demonstrated that 53% of the variation in use of Statin Choice was clinician-driven. CONCLUSIONS: Patient factors, including race and sex, were associated with clinician use of Statin Choice; half the variation in use was attributable to individual clinicians.

Disparities in Shared Decision-Making Research and Practice: The Case for Black American Patients.

OBJECTIVE: The extent of shared decision making (SDM) use in the care of Black patients is limited. We explored preferences, needs, and challenges of Black patients to enhance SDM offerings. METHODS: We performed interviews with 32 Black patients receiving type 2 diabetes care in safety-net primary care practices caring predominantly for Black people. RESULTS: The following 4 themes emerged: preference for humanistic communication, need to account for the role of family in decision making, need for medical information sharing, and mistrust of clinicians. CONCLUSION: Given the dearth of research on SDM among ethnic and racial minorities, this study offers patient-perspective recommendations to improve SDM offerings for Black patients in primary care settings. To enhance SDM with Black patients, acknowledgment of the importance of storytelling as a strategy, to place medical information in a context that makes it meaningful and memorable, is recommended. Triadic SDM, in which family members are centrally involved in decision making, is preferred over classical dyadic SDM. There is a need to reconsider the universalism assumption underlying contemporary SDM models and the relevancy of current SDM practices that were developed mostly without the feedback of participants of ethnic, racial, and cultural minorities.Annals "Online First" article.

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.

Assessing collaborative efforts of making care fit for each patient: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: For too many people, their care plans are designed without fully accounting for who they are, the lives they live, what matters to them or what they aspire to achieve. We aimed to summarize instruments capable of measuring dimensions of patient-clinician collaboration to make care fit. METHODS: We systematically searched several databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane, Scopus and Web of Science) from inception to September 2021 for studies using quantitative measures to assess, evaluate or rate the work of making care fit by any participant in real-life clinical encounters. Eligibility was assessed in duplicate. After extracting all items from relevant instruments, we coded them deductively on dimensions relevant to making care fit (as presented in a recent Making Care Fit Manifesto), and inductively on the main action described. RESULTS: We included 189 papers, mostly from North America (N = 83, 44%) and in the context of primary care (N = 54, 29%). Half of the papers (N = 88, 47%) were published in the last 5 years. We found 1243 relevant items to assess efforts of making care fit, included within 151 instruments. Most items related to the dimensions 'Patient-clinician collaboration: content' (N = 396, 32%) and 'Patient-clinician collaboration: manner' (N = 382, 31%) and the least related to 'Ongoing and iterative process' (N = 22, 2%) and in 'Minimally disruptive of patient lives' (N = 29, 2%). The items referred to 27 specific actions. Most items referred to 'Informing' (N = 308, 25%) and 'Exploring' (N = 93, 8%), the fewest items referred to 'Following up', 'Comforting' and 'Praising' (each N = 3, 0.2%). DISCUSSION: Measures of the work that patients and clinicians do together to make care fit focus heavily on the content of their collaborations, particularly on exchanging information. Other dimensions and actions previously identified as crucial to making care fit are assessed infrequently or not at all. The breadth of extant measures of making care fit and the lack of appropriate measures of this key construct limit both the assessment and the successful implementation of efforts to improve patient care. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: Patients and caregivers from the 'Making care fit Collaborative' were involved in drafting the dimensions relevant to patient-clinician collaboration.

Telemedicine and the assessment of clinician time: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Telemedicine may improve healthcare access and efficiency if it demands less clinician time than usual care. We sought to describe the degree to which telemedicine trials assess the effect of telemedicine on clinicians' time and to discuss how including the time needed to treat (TNT) in health technology assessment (HTA) could affect the design of telemedicine services and studies. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review by searching clinicaltrials.gov using the search term "telemedicine" and limiting results to randomized trials or observational studies registered between January 2012 and October 2023. We then reviewed trial registration data to determine if any of the outcomes assessed in the trials measured effect on clinicians' time. RESULTS: We found 113 studies and of these 78 studies of telemedicine met the inclusion criteria and were included. Nine (12 percent) of the 78 studies had some measure of clinician time as a primary outcome, and 11 (14 percent) as a secondary outcome. Four studies compared direct measures of TNT with telemedicine versus usual care, but no statistically significant difference was found. Of the sixteen studies including indirect measures of clinician time, thirteen found no significant effects, two found a statistically significant reduction, and one found a statistically significant increase. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review found that clinician time is not commonly measured in studies of telemedicine interventions. Attention to telemedicine's TNT in clinical studies and HTAs of telemedicine in practice may bring attention to the organization of clinical workflows and increase the value of telemedicine.

Patients surviving COVID-19 had increased risk for incident diabetes vs. persons without COVID-19.

SOURCE CITATION: Xie Y, Al-Aly Z. Risks and burdens of incident diabetes in long COVID: a cohort study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2022;10:311-21. 35325624.

In type 2 diabetes, SGLT2 inhibitors reduced risk for serious hyperkalemia without increasing hypokalemia.

SOURCE CITATION: Neuen BL, Oshima M, Agarwal R, et al. Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and risk of hyperkalemia in people with type 2 diabetes: a meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomized, controlled trials. Circulation. 2022;145:1460-70. 35394821.

Decision aids for localized prostate cancer in diverse minority men: Primary outcome results from a multicenter cancer care delivery trial (Alliance A191402CD).

BACKGROUND: Decision aids (DAs) can improve knowledge for prostate cancer treatment. However, the relative effects of DAs delivered within the clinical encounter and in more diverse patient populations are unknown. A multicenter cluster randomized controlled trial with a 2×2 factorial design was performed to test the effectiveness of within-visit and previsit DAs for localized prostate cancer, and minority men were oversampled. METHODS: The interventions were delivered in urology practices affiliated with the NCI Community Oncology Research Program Alliance Research Base. The primary outcome was prostate cancer knowledge (percent correct on a 12-item measure) assessed immediately after a urology consultation. RESULTS: Four sites administered the previsit DA (39 patients), 4 sites administered the within-visit DA (44 patients), 3 sites administered both previsit and within-visit DAs (25 patients), and 4 sites provided usual care (50 patients). The median percent correct in prostate cancer knowledge, based on the postvisit knowledge assessment after the intervention delivery, was as follows: 75% for the pre+within-visit DA study arm, 67% for the previsit DA only arm, 58% for the within-visit DA only arm, and 58% for the usual-care arm. Neither the previsit DA nor the within-visit DA had a significant impact on patient knowledge of prostate cancer treatments at the prespecified 2.5% significance level (P = .132 and P = .977, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: DAs for localized prostate cancer treatment provided at 2 different points in the care continuum in a trial that oversampled minority men did not confer measurable gains in prostate cancer knowledge.

Randomized evaluation of decision support interventions for atrial fibrillation: Rationale and design of the RED-AF study.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) improves the likelihood that patients will receive care in a manner consistent with their priorities. To facilitate SDM, decision aids (DA) are commonly used, both to prepare a patient before their clinician visit, as well as to facilitate discussion during the visit. However, the relative efficacy of patient-focused or encounter-based DAs on SDM and patient outcomes remains largely unknown. We aim to directly estimate the comparative effectiveness of two DA's on SDM observed in encounters to discuss stroke prevention strategies in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: The study aims to recruit 1200 adult patients with non-valvular AF who qualify for anticoagulation therapy, and their clinicians who manage stroke prevention strategies, in a 2x2 cluster randomized multi-center trial at six sites. Two DA's were developed as interactive, online, non-linear tools: a patient decision aid (PDA) to be used by patients before the encounter, and an encounter decision aid (EDA) to be used by clinicians with their patients during the encounter. Patients will be randomized to PDA or usual care; clinicians will be randomized to EDA or usual care. RESULTS: Primary outcomes are quality of SDM, patient decision making, and patient knowledge. Secondary outcomes include anticoagulation choice, adherence, and clinical events. CONCLUSION: This trial is the first randomized, head-to-head comparison of the effects of an EDA versus a PDA on SDM. Our results will help to inform future SDM interventions to improve patients' AF outcomes and experiences with stroke prevention strategies.

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).

Minimally disruptive medicine (MDM) in clinical practice: a qualitative case study of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) clinic care model.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests the need to reframe healthcare delivery for patients with chronic conditions, with emphasis on minimizing healthcare footprint/workload on patients, caregivers, clinicians and health systems through the proposed Minimally Disruptive Medicine (MDM) care model named. HIV care models have evolved to further focus on understanding barriers and facilitators to care delivery while improving patient-centered outcomes (e.g., disease progression, adherence, access, quality of life). It is hypothesized that these models may provide an example of MDM care model in clinic practice. Therefore, this study aimed to observe and ascertain MDM-concordant and discordant elements that may exist within a tertiary-setting HIV clinic care model for patients living with HIV or AIDS (PLWHA). We also aimed to identify lessons learned from this setting to inform improving the feasibility and usefulness of MDM care model. METHODS: This qualitative case study occurred in multidisciplinary HIV comprehensive-care clinic within an urban tertiary-medical center. Participants included Adult PLWHA and informal caregivers (e.g. family/friends) attending the clinic for regular appointments were recruited. All clinic staff were eligible for recruitment. Measurements included; semi-guided interviews with patients, caregivers, or both; semi-guided interviews with varied clinicians (individually); and direct observations of clinical encounters (patient-clinicians), as well as staff daily operations in 2015-2017. The qualitative-data synthesis used iterative, mainly inductive thematic coding. RESULTS: Researcher interviews and observations data included 28 patients, 5 caregivers, and 14 care-team members. With few exceptions, the clinic care model elements aligned closely to the MDM model of care through supporting patient capacity/abilities (with some patients receiving minimal social support and limited assistance with reframing their biography) and minimizing workload/demands (with some patients challenged by the clinic hours of operation). CONCLUSIONS: The studied HIV clinic incorporated many of the MDM tenants, contributing to its validation, and informing gaps in knowledge. While these findings may support the design and implementation of care that is both minimally disruptive and maximally supportive, the impact of MDM on patient-important outcomes and different care settings require further studying.

What is the effect of a decision aid in potentially vulnerable parents? Insights from the head CT choice randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypotheses that use of the Head CT Choice decision aid would be similarly effective in all parent/patient dyads but parents with high (vs low) numeracy experience a greater increase in knowledge while those with low (vs high) health literacy experience a greater increase in trust. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of a cluster randomized trial conducted at seven sites. One hundred seventy-two clinicians caring for 971 children at intermediate risk for clinically important traumatic brain injuries were randomized to shared decision making facilitated by the DA (n = 493) or to usual care (n = 478). We assessed for subgroup effects based on patient and parent characteristics, including socioeconomic status (health literacy, numeracy and income). We tested for interactions using regression models with indicators for arm assignment and study site. RESULTS: The decision aid did not increase knowledge more in parents with high numeracy (P for interaction [Pint ] = 0.14) or physician trust more in parents with low health literacy (Pint  = 0.34). The decision aid decreased decisional conflict more in non-white parents (decisional conflict scale, -8.14, 95% CI: -12.33 to -3.95; Pint  = 0.05) and increased physician trust more in socioeconomically disadvantaged parents (trust in physician scale, OR: 8.59, 95% CI: 2.35-14.83; Pint  = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Use of the Head CT Choice decision aid resulted in less decisional conflict in non-white parents and greater physician trust in socioeconomically disadvantaged parents. Decision aids may be particularly effective in potentially vulnerable parents.

Curare Aude-Caring for Patients, with Them.

We reflect on Dr. Iserson's article in this journal, in which he suggests that clinicians must "shove" patients towards appropriate care. While recognizing that overt clinical guidance is part of care, we suggest that its use should be tempered by the guidance's responsiveness to the human and emotional experience of each patient.

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.

The Care and Learn Model: a Practice and Research Model for Improving Healthcare Quality and Outcomes.

The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality conducted internal work to formulate a model that could be used to analyze the Agency's research portfolio, identify gaps, develop and prioritize its research agenda, and evaluate its performance. Existing models described the structure and components of the healthcare system. Instead, we produced a model of two functions: caring and learning. Central to this model is the commitment to and participation of people-patients, communities, and health professionals-and the organization of systems to respond to people's problems using evidence. As a product of caring, the system produces evidence that is then used to adapt and continuously improve this response, closely integrating caring and learning. The Agency and the health services research and improvement communities can use this Care and Learn Model to frame an evidence-based understanding of vexing clinical, healthcare delivery, and population health problems and to identify targets for investment, innovation, and investigation.

Adaptation and validation of a Spanish version of the treatment burden questionnaire in patients with multiple sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: The Treatment Burden Questionnaire (TBQ) is a self-reported measure of the effect of treatment workload on patient wellbeing. We sought to validate the TBQ in Spanish and use it to estimate the burden of treatment in Argentinian patients with multiple sclerosis (MS). METHODS: The TBQ was forward-backward translated into Spanish. Two focus groups and 25 semi-structured interviews focused on wording and possible item exclusion. Validation was performed in 2 steps. First, 162 patients across a range of MS severity completed the questionnaire. Confirmatory factor analysis assessed the dimensional structure of the TBQ. Construct validity was assessed by studying correlations with fatigue and quality of life (QoL). Then, in a second cohort of 171 patients, we evaluated the association between TBQ scores and patients' sex, age, education level, employment status, type of MS, disease duration, comorbidities, EDSS, pharmacological treatment and medication adherence. RESULTS: The questionnaire presented a 3-factor structure in which burden was related to pharmacological treatment; comprehensive health assistance; and psycho-social-economic context. Composite reliability was > 0.8 for all factors. TBQ showed positive correlation with fatigue (rs = 0.467, p = 0.006), negative correlation with QoL (rs - 0.446, p = 0.009). For the second cohort, total TBQ score was 43 (SD 29). Lowest scores were observed on self-monitoring (0.53, SD 1.3) and highest for administrative load (4.2, SD 3.4). Inverse association was found between the TBQ score and medication adherence (r 0.243 p = 0.001). TBQ scores also correlated with daily patient pill/injection requirements (r 0.175 p = 0.020). Individuals receiving injectable treatment scored higher than patients on oral drugs (total TBQ 51 (SD 32) vs 39 (SD 27) p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The TBQ in Spanish is a reliable instrument and showed adequate correlation with QoL and adherence scales in MS patients. TBQ may benefit health resources allocation and provide tailor therapeutic interventions to construct a minimally disruptive care.

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 .

Noninvasive Ventilation in Patients With Do-Not-Intubate and Comfort-Measures-Only Orders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of noninvasive ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure and do-not-intubate or comfort-measures-only orders. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to January 1, 2017. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of all design types that enrolled patients in the ICU or hospital ward who received noninvasive ventilation and had preset do-not-intubate or comfort-measures-only orders. DATA EXTRACTION: Data abstraction followed Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. Data quality was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. DATA SYNTHESIS: Twenty-seven studies evaluating 2,020 patients with do-not-intubate orders and three studies evaluating 200 patients with comfort-measures-only orders were included. In patients with do-not-intubate orders, the pooled survival was 56% (95% CI, 49-64%) at hospital discharge and 32% (95% CI, 21-45%) at 1 year. Hospital survival was 68% for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 68% for pulmonary edema, 41% for pneumonia, and 37% for patients with malignancy. Survival was comparable for patients treated in a hospital ward versus an ICU. Quality of life of survivors was not reduced compared with baseline, although few studies evaluated this. No studies evaluated quality of dying in nonsurvivors. In patients with comfort-measures-only orders, a single study showed that noninvasive ventilation was associated with mild reductions in dyspnea and opioid requirements. CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of patients with do-not-intubate orders who received noninvasive ventilation survived to hospital discharge and at 1 year, with limited data showing no decrease in quality of life in survivors. Provision of noninvasive ventilation in a well-equipped hospital ward may be a viable alternative to the ICU for selected patients. Crucial questions regarding quality of life in survivors, quality of death in nonsurvivors, and the impact of noninvasive ventilation in patients with comfort-measures-only orders remain largely unanswered.

Twelve Lessons Learned for Effective Research Partnerships Between Patients, Caregivers, Clinicians, Academic Researchers, and Other Stakeholders.

Research increasingly means that patients, caregivers, health professionals, other stakeholders, and academic investigators work in partnership. This requires effective collaboration rooted in mutual respect, involvement of all participants, and good communication. Having conducted such partnered research over multiple projects, and having recently completed a project together funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, we collaboratively developed a list of 12 lessons we have learned about how to ensure effective research partnerships. To foster a culture of mutual respect, hold early in-person meetings, with introductions focused on motivation, offer appropriate orientation for everyone, and maintain awareness of individual and project goals. To actively involve all team members, it is important to ensure sufficient funding for everyone's participation, to ask for and recognize diverse contributions, and to seek the input of quiet members. To facilitate good communication, teams should carefully consider labels, avoid jargon and acronyms, judiciously use homogeneous and heterogeneous subgroups, and keep progress visible. In offering pragmatic, actionable lessons we have learned through our separate and shared experiences, we hope to help foster more patient-centered research via productive and enjoyable research collaborations.