The role of time in involving patients with cancer in treatment decision making: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Time is often perceived as a barrier to shared decision making in cancer care. It remains unclear how time functions as a barrier and how it could be most effectively utilized. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to describe the role of time in patient involvement, and identify strategies to overcome time-related barriers. METHODS: Seven databases were searched for any publications on patient involvement in cancer treatment decisions, focusing on how time is used to involve patients, the association between time and patient involvement, and/or strategies to overcome time-related barriers. Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to select publications and extract data. One coder thematically analyzed data, a second coder checked these analyses. RESULTS: The analysis of 26 eligible publications revealed four themes. Time was a resource 1) to process the diagnosis, 2) to obtain/process/consider information, 3) for patients and clinicians to spend together, and 4) for patient involvement in making decisions. DISCUSSION: Time is a resource throughout the treatment decision-making process, and generic strategies have been proposed to overcome time constraints. PRACTICE VALUE: Clinicians could co-create decision-making timelines with patients, spread decisions across several consultations, share written information with patients, and support healthcare redesigns that allocate the necessary time.

Developing and validating the Unhurried Conversations Assessment Tool (UCAT).

OBJECTIVE: Given the importance of unhurried conversations for providing careful and kind care, we sought to create, test, and validate the Unhurried Conversations Assessment Tool (UCAT) for assessing the unhurriedness of patient-clinician consultations. METHODS: In the first two phases, the unhurried conversation dimensions were identified and transformed into an assessment tool. In the third phase, two independent raters used UCAT to evaluate the unhurriedness of 100 randomly selected consultations from 184 videos recorded for a large research trial. UCAT's psychometric properties were evaluated using this data. RESULTS: UCAT demonstrates content validity based on the literature and expert review. EFA and reliability analyses confirm its construct validity and internal consistency. The seven formative dimensions account for 89.93% of the variance in unhurriedness, each displaying excellent internal consistency (α > 0.90). Inter-rater agreement for the overall assessment item was fair (ICC = 0.59), with individual dimension ICCs ranging from 0.26 (poor) to 0.95 (excellent). CONCLUSION: UCAT components comprehensively assess the unhurriedness of consultations. The tool exhibits content and construct validity and can be used reliably. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: UCAT's design and psychometric properties make it a practical and efficient tool. Clinicians can use it for self-evaluations and training to foster unhurried conversations.

Decisional Regret Surrounding Dialysis Initiation: A Comparative Analysis.

Rationale & Objective: Dialysis comes with a substantial treatment burden, so patients must select care plans that align with their preferences. We aimed to deepen the understanding of decisional regret with dialysis choices. Study Design: This study had a mixed-methods explanatory sequential design. Setting & Participants: All patients from a single academic medical center prescribed maintenance in-center hemodialysis or presenting for home hemodialysis or peritoneal dialysis check-up during 3 weeks were approached for survey. A total of 78 patients agreed to participate. Patients with the highest (15 patients) and lowest decisional regret (20 patients) were invited to semistructured interviews. Predictors: Decisional regret scale and illness intrusiveness scale were used in this study. Analytical Approach: Quantitatively, we examined correlations between the decision regret scale and illness intrusiveness scale and sorted patients into the highest and lowest decision regret scale quartiles for further interviews; then, we compared patient characteristics between those that consented to interview in high and low decisional regret. Qualitatively, we used an adapted grounded theory approach to examine differences between interviewed patients with high and low decisional regret. Results: Of patients invited to participate in the interviews, 21 patients (8 high regret, 13 low regret) agreed. We observed that patients with high decisional regret displayed resignation toward dialysis, disruption of their sense of self and social roles, and self-blame, whereas patients with low decisional regret demonstrated positivity, integration of dialysis into their identity, and self-compassion. Limitations: Patients with the highest levels of decisional regret may have already withdrawn from dialysis. Patients could complete interviews in any location (eg, home, dialysis unit, and clinical office), which may have influenced patient disclosure. Conclusions: Although all patients experienced disruption after dialysis initiation, patients' approach to adversity differs between patients experiencing high versus low regret. This study identifies emotional responses to dialysis that may be modifiable through patient-support interventions.

As part of a quality improvement initiative in our dialysis practice, a patient stated, "I wish I never started dialysis." This quote served as the catalyst for embarking on a research project with the aim to understand why patients living with end-stage kidney disease have regret about starting and continuing dialysis, a lifesaving but time-intensive measure. We surveyed and interviewed patients on the topic and learned that patients experiencing regret had a disrupted sense of self and blamed themselves for their need of dialysis. Patients with little to no regret demonstrated positivity and self-compassion. These findings will help health care professionals as they work with patients considering dialysis or having newly started dialysis.

Does the duration of ambulatory consultations affect the quality of healthcare? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The objective is to examine and synthesise the best available experimental evidence about the effect of ambulatory consultation duration on quality of healthcare. METHODS: We included experimental studies manipulating the length of outpatient clinical encounters between adult patients and clinicians (ie, therapists, pharmacists, nurses, physicians) to determine their effect on quality of care (ie, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness, safety, equity, patient-centredness and patient satisfaction). INFORMATION SOURCES: Using controlled vocabulary and keywords, without restriction by language or year of publication, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Systematic Reviews and Scopus from inception until 15 May 2023. RISK OF BIAS: Cochrane Risk of Bias instrument. DATA SYNTHESIS: Narrative synthesis. RESULTS: 11 publications of 10 studies explored the relationship between encounter duration and quality. Most took place in the UK's general practice over two decades ago. Study findings based on very sparse and outdated evidence-which suggested that longer consultations improved indicators of patient-centred care, education about prevention and clinical referrals; and that consultation duration was inconsistently related to patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes-warrant low confidence due to limited protections against bias and indirect applicability to current practice. CONCLUSION: Experimental evidence for a minimal or optimal duration of an outpatient consultation is sparse and outdated. To develop evidence-based policies and practices about encounter length, randomised trials of different consultation lengths-in person and virtually, and with electronic health records-are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: OSF Registration DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/EUDK8.

Collaborative Diagnostic Conversations Between Clinicians, Patients, and Their Families: A Way to Avoid Diagnostic Errors.

Objective: To identify the components of the collaborative diagnostic conversations between clinicians, patients, and their families and how deficiencies in these conversations can lead to diagnostic errors. Patients and Methods: We purposively selected 60 video recordings of clinical encounters that included diagnosis conversations. These videos were obtained from the internal medicine, and family medicine services at Mayo Clinic's campus in Rochester, Minnesota. These clinical encounters were recorded between November 2017, and December 2021, during the conduct of studies aiming at developing or testing shared decision-making interventions. We followed a critically reflective approach model for data analysis. Results: We identified 3 components of diagnostic conversations as follows: (1) recognizing diagnostic situations, (2) setting priorities, and (3) creating and reconciling a diagnostic plan. Deficiencies in diagnostic conversations could lead to framing issues in a way that sets diagnostic activities off in an incorrect or undesirable direction, incorrect prioritization of diagnostic concerns, and diagnostic plans of care that are not feasible, desirable, or productive. Conclusion: We identified 3 clinician-and-patient diagnostic conversation components and mapped them to potential diagnostic errors. This information may inform additional research to identify areas of intervention to decrease the frequency and harm associated with diagnostic errors in clinical practice.

Comparing Complication Rates of Midline Catheter vs Peripherally Inserted Central Catheter. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Background: Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and midlines are commonly used devices for reliable vascular access. Infection and thrombosis are the main adverse effects of these catheters. We aimed to evaluate the relative risk of complications from midlines and PICCs. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. The primary outcomes were catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) and thrombosis. Secondary outcomes evaluated included mortality, failure to complete therapy, catheter occlusion, phlebitis, and catheter fracture. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Results: Of 8368 citations identified, 20 studies met the eligibility criteria, including 1 RCT and 19 observational studies. Midline use was associated with fewer patients with CRBSI compared with PICCs (odds ratio [OR], 0.24; 95% CI, 0.15-0.38). This association was not observed when we evaluated risk per catheter. No significant association was found between catheters when evaluating risk of localized thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. A subgroup analysis based on location of thrombosis showed higher rates of superficial venous thrombosis in patients using midlines (OR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.48-3.57). We did not identify any significant difference between midlines and PICCs for the secondary outcomes. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that patients who use midlines might experience fewer CRBSIs than those who use PICCs. However, the use of midline catheters was associated with greater risk of superficial vein thrombosis. These findings can help guide future cost-benefit analyses and direct comparative RCTs to further characterize the efficacy and risks of PICCs vs midline catheters.

Video-based observation research: A systematic review of studies in outpatient health care settings.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the use of video-based observation research in outpatient health care encounter research. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane and other databases from database inception to October 2020 for reports of studies that used video recording to investigate ambulatory patient-clinician interactions. Two authors independently reviewed all studies for eligibility and extracted information related to study setting and purpose, participant recruitment and consent processes, data collection procedures, method of analysis, and participant sample characteristics. RESULTS: 175 articles were included. Most studies (65%) took place in a primary care or family practice setting. Study objectives were overwhelmingly focused on patient-clinician communication (81%). Reporting of key study elements was inconsistent across included studies. CONCLUSION: Video recording has been used as a research method in outpatient health care in a limited number and scope of clinical contexts and research domains. In addition, reporting of study design, methodological characteristics, and ethical considerations needs improvement. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Video recording as a method has been relatively underutilized within many clinical and research contexts. This review will serve as a practical resource for health care researchers as they plan and execute future video-based studies.

ABLE to support patient financial capacity: A qualitative analysis of cost conversations in clinical encounters.

OBJECTIVE: To explore how costs of care are discussed in real clinical encounters and what humanistic elements support them. METHODS: A qualitative thematic analysis of 41 purposively selected transcripts of video-recorded clinical encounters from trials run between 2007 and 2015. Videos were obtained from a corpus of 220 randomly selected videos from 8 practice-based randomized trials and 1 pre-post prospective study comparing care with and without shared decision making (SDM) tools. RESULTS: Our qualitative analysis identified two major themes: the first, Space Needed for Cost Conversations, describes patients' needs regarding their financial capacity. The second, Caring Responses, describes humanistic elements that patients and clinicians can bring to clinical encounters to include good quality cost conversations. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that strengthening patient-clinician human connections, focusing on imbalances between patient resources and burdens, and providing space to allow potentially unexpected cost discussions to emerge may best support high quality cost conversations and tailored care plans. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: We recommend clinicians consider 4 aspects of communication, represented by the mnemonic ABLE: Ask questions, Be kind and acknowledge emotions, Listen for indirect signals and (discuss with) Every patient. Future research should evaluate the practicality of these recommendations, along with system-level improvements to support implementation of our recommendations.

Impact of Cost Conversations During Clinical Encounters Aided by Shared Decision-Making Tools on Medication Adherence.

Objective: To investigate the impact of cost conversations occurring with or without the use of encounter shared decision-making (SDM) tools in medication adherence. Patients and Methods: Using a coding scheme that included the occurrence and characteristics of cost conversation, we analyzed a randomly selected sample of 169 video recordings of clinical encounters. These videos were obtained during the conduct of practice-based randomized clinical trials comparing care with and without SDM tools for patients with diabetes, osteoporosis, and depression. Medication adherence was described in 2 ways: as a binary (yes/no) outcome, in which the patient met at least 80% adherence, or as a continuous variable, which was the percent of days that the patient adhered to their medication. The secondary analysis took place in 2018 from trials that ran between 2007 and 2015. Results: Most patients were White (155, 93.4%), educated (104, 63.4% completed college), middle-aged (mean age, 58 years), female (104, 61.5%), and from diabetes (86, 50.9%), depression (43, 25.4%), and osteoporosis (40, 23.7%) trials. Cost conversations occurred in 119 clinical encounters (70%) and were more frequent in those encounters in which SDM tools were used (P=.03). Furthermore, 97 (57.4%) of the participants reported more than 80% medication adherence and 70.3±29.34 percentage of days with adherent medication of 70 days. In the multiple regression model, the only factor associated with adherence (binary or continuous) was the condition of the trial in which people participated. For the participants who had cost conversations, the use of an SDM tool, their sex, the nature of cost conversation (direct or indirect), the nature of cost concerns (treatment or patient issue), and the clinician-offered strategies (yes or no) were not associated with adherence. Conclusion: In this videographic analysis of SDM practice-based clinical trials, cost conversations were not associated with the general measures of medication adherence. Future studies should assess whether a tailored cost conversation intervention would impact the cost-related nonadherence among patients.

Global prevalence of antidepressant drug utilization in the community: protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Antidepressant drugs are the most frequently prescribed medication for mental disorders. They are also used off-label and for non-psychiatric indications. Prescriptions of antidepressants have increased in the last decades, but no systematic review exists on the extent of their use in the community. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review to estimate the prevalence of antidepressant use in the community. We will search for studies published from 1 January 2010 in the Embase and MEDLINE databases using a combination of controlled vocabulary and keywords adjusted for each database without any language restriction. The main inclusion criterion is the presence of prevalence data of antidepressant utilization. Thus, we will include all studies with a descriptive observational design reporting the prevalence of antidepressant use in the community. Study selection (by title/abstract and full-text screening) and data extraction for included studies will be independently conducted by pairs of reviewers. We will then synthesize the data on the prevalence of antidepressant use in individuals living in the community. If possible, we will perform a meta-analysis to generate prevalence-pooled estimates. If the data allows it, we will conduct subgroup analyses by antidepressant class, age, sex, country and other sociodemographic categories. We will evaluate the risk of bias for each included study through a quality assessment using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool: Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data. DistillerSR software will be used for the management of this review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this review as it will not directly involve human or animal subjects. The findings of our systematic review will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals, the Qualaxia Network (https://qualaxia.org), presentations at international conferences on mental health and pharmacoepidemiology, as well as general public events. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021247423.

Older Patients with Advanced Chronic Kidney Disease and Their Perspectives on Prognostic Information: a Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic information is key to shared decision-making, particularly in life-limiting illness like advanced chronic kidney disease (CKD). OBJECTIVE: To understand the prognostic information preferences expressed by older patients with CKD. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Qualitative study of 28 consecutively enrolled patients over 65 years of age with non-dialysis dependent CKD stages 3b-5, receiving care in a multi-disciplinary CKD clinic. APPROACH: Semi-structured telephone or in-person interviews to explore patients' preference for and perceived value of individualized prognostic information. Interviews were analyzed using inductive content analysis. KEY RESULTS: We completed interviews with 28 patients (77.7 ± SD 6.8 years, 69% men). Patients varied in their preference for prognostic information and more were interested in their risk of progression to end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) than in life expectancy. Many conflated ESKD risk with risk of death, perceiving a binary choice between dialysis and quick decline and death. Patients expressed that prognostic information would allow them to plan, take care of important business, and think about their treatment options. Patients were accepting of prognostic uncertainty and imagined leveraging it to nurture hope or motivate them to better manage risk factors. They endorsed the desire to receive prognosis of life expectancy even though it may be hard to accept or difficult to talk about but worried it could create helplessness for other patients in their situation. CONCLUSION: Most, but not all, patients were interested in prognostic information and could see its value in motivating behavior change and allowing planning. Some patients expressed concern that information on life expectancy might cause depression and hopelessness. Therefore, prognostic information is most appropriate as part of a clinical conversation that fosters shared decision-making and helps patients consider treatment risks, benefits, and burdens in context of their lives.

Prevención cuaternaria: Perspectivas desde el Primer nivel de Atención / Quaternary Prevention: Perspectives from Primary Health Care

Introducción: La práctica de la prevención cuaternaria lleva a evitar intervenciones sanitarias innecesarias. Objetivo: Evaluar la relevancia dada a los conceptos de prevención cuaternaria (P4), describir la influencia de entrenamiento en Medicina Basada en Evidencia su práctica y presentar las barreras y facilitadores de la práctica de la P4. El estudio: estudio de métodos mixtos durante 2018 y 2019. Se encuestaron 133 médicos que laboran en atención primaria y se realizaron entrevistas semi-estructuradas a 20 participantes. Se utilizó los principios de la fenomenología para el análisis de los transcritos. Hallazgos: 94% consideran importante la práctica de la P4. A partir de nuestras entrevistas se identificaron barreras y facilitadores para la práctica de la P4 en el primer nivel de atención. Conclusión: Los médicos consideran importante la práctica de la prevención cuaternaria. Las barreras y facilitadores relevantes son las características específicas del sistema sanitario, del paciente y de los médicos.

Background:Thepracticeofquaternarypreventionleadstoavoid unnecessary health interventions.To evaluate the relevance given Objective:to the concepts of quaternary prevention (P4), to describe the influence of training in Evidence Based Medicine on its practice and to present the barriers and facilitators of the practice of P4. Mixed methods study during The Study:2018 and 2019. We surveyed 133 physicians working in primary care and conducted semi-structured interviews with 20 participants. The principles of phenomenology were used for transcript analysis. 94% consider the Findings:practice of P4 to be important. From our interviews, barriers, and facilitators for the practice of P4 at the first level of care were identified. Conclusion:Physicians consider the practice of quaternary prevention to be important. Relevant barriers and facilitators are the specific characteristics of the healthcare system, the patient, and the physicians.

Do patients with high versus low treatment and illness burden have different needs? A mixed-methods study of patients living on dialysis.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 750,000 people in the U.S. live with end-stage kidney disease (ESKD); the majority receive dialysis. Despite the importance of adherence to dialysis, it remains suboptimal, and one contributor may be patients' insufficient capacity to cope with their treatment and illness burden. However, it is unclear what, if any, differences exist between patients reporting high versus low treatment and illness burden. METHODS: We sought to understand these differences using a mixed methods, explanatory sequential design. We enrolled adult patients receiving dialysis, including in-center hemodialysis, home hemodialysis, and peritoneal dialysis. Descriptive patient characteristics were collected. Participants' treatment and illness burden was measured using the Illness Intrusiveness Scale (IIS). Participants scoring in the highest quartile were defined as having high burden, and participants scoring in the lowest quartile as having low burden. Participants in both quartiles were invited to participate in interviews and observations. RESULTS: Quantitatively, participants in the high burden group were significantly younger (mean = 48.4 years vs. 68.6 years respectively, p = <0.001). No other quantitative differences were observed. Qualitatively, we found differences in patient self-management practices, such as the high burden group having difficulty establishing a new rhythm of life to cope with dialysis, greater disruption in social roles and self-perception, fewer appraisal focused coping strategies, more difficulty maintaining social networks, and more negatively portrayed experiences early in their dialysis journey. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Patients on dialysis reporting the greatest illness and treatment burden have difficulties that their low-burden counterparts do not report, which may be amenable to intervention.

Patients' Perspective About the Cost of Diabetes Management: An Analysis of Online Health Communities.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the perspectives of persons' living with diabetes about the increasing cost of diabetes management through an analysis of online health communities (OHCs) and the impact of persons' participation in OHCs on their capacity and treatment burden. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A qualitative study of 556 blog posts submitted between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2017 to 4 diabetes social networking sites was conducted between March 2018 and July 2019. All posts were coded inductively using thematic analysis procedures. Eton's Burden of Treatment Framework and Boehmer's Theory of Patient Capacity directed triangulation of themes with existing theory. RESULTS: Three themes were identified: (1) cost barriers to care: participants describe individual and systemic cost barriers that inhibit prescribed therapy goals; (2) impact of financial cost on health: participants describe the financial effects of care on their physical and emotional health; and (3) saving strategies to overcome cost impact: participants discuss practical strategies that help them achieve therapy goals. Finally, we also identify that the use of OHCs serves to increase persons' capacity with the potential to decrease treatment burden, ultimately improving mental and physical health. CONCLUSION: High cost for diabetes care generated barriers that negatively affected physical health and emotional states. Participant-shared experiences in OHCs increased participants' capacity to manage the burden. Potential solutions include cost-based shared decision-making tools and advocacy for policy change.

Impact of Cost Conversation on Decision-Making Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To understand the impact of cost conversations on the following decision-making outcomes: patients' knowledge about their conditions and treatment options, decisional conflict, and patient involvement. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 2020 we performed a secondary analysis of a randomly selected set of 220 video recordings of clinical encounters from trials run between 2007 and 2015. Videos were obtained from eight practice-based randomized trials and one pre-post-prospective study comparing care with and without shared decision-making (SDM) tools. RESULTS: The majority of trial participants were female (61%) and White (86%), with a mean age of 56, some college education (68%), and an income greater than or equal to $40,000 per year (75%), and who did not participate in an encounter aided by an SDM tool (52%). Cost conversations occurred in 106 encounters (48%). In encounters with SDM tools, having a cost conversation lead to lower uncertainty scores (2.1 vs 2.6, P=.02), and higher knowledge (0.7 vs 0.6, P=.04) and patient involvement scores (20 vs 15.7, P=.009) than in encounters using SDM tools where cost conversations did not occur. In a multivariate model, we found slightly worse decisional conflict scores when patients started cost conversations as opposed to when the clinicians started cost conversations. Furthermore, we found higher levels of knowledge when conversations included indirect versus direct cost issues. CONCLUSION: Cost conversations have a minimal but favorable impact on decision-making outcomes in clinical encounters, particularly when they occurred in encounters aided by an SDM tool that raises cost as an issue.

Shared Decision Making Tools for People Facing Stroke Prevention Strategies in Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Environmental Scan.

OBJECTIVE: Shared decision making (SDM) tools can help implement guideline recommendations for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) considering stroke prevention strategies. We sought to characterize all available SDM tools for this purpose and examine their quality and clinical impact. METHODS: We searched through multiple bibliographic databases, social media, and an SDM tool repository from inception to May 2020 and contacted authors of identified SDM tools. Eligible tools had to offer information about warfarin and ≥1 direct oral anticoagulant. We extracted tool characteristics, assessed their adherence to the International Patient Decision Aids Standards, and obtained information about their efficacy in promoting SDM. RESULTS: We found 14 SDM tools. Most tools provided up-to-date information about the options, but very few included practical considerations (e.g., out-of-pocket cost). Five of these SDM tools, all used by patients prior to the encounter, were tested in trials at high risk of bias and were found to produce small improvements in patient knowledge and reductions in decisional conflict. CONCLUSION: Several SDM tools for stroke prevention in AF are available, but whether they promote high-quality SDM is yet to be known. The implementation of guidelines for SDM in this context requires user-centered development and evaluation of SDM tools that can effectively promote high-quality SDM and improve stroke prevention in patients with AF.

Consequences of suboptimal communication for patients with limited English proficiency in the intensive care unit and suggestions for a way forward: A qualitative study of healthcare team perceptions.

PURPOSE: To understand the healthcare team's perceptions of the negative consequences of suboptimal communication and their recommendations to improve communication with patients and families who have Limited English Proficiency (LEP) in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews of physicians, nurses, and interpreters from 3 ICUs at Mayo Clinic Rochester, between November 2017 and April 2018. RESULTS: We identified 5 consequences of suboptimal communication: 1) Suboptimal assessment and treatment of patient symptoms, 2) Unmet patient and family expectations, 3) Decreased patient autonomy, 4) Unmet end of life wishes and 5) Clinician Distress. Recommendations to improve communication include: 1) Education and training for patients,families, clinicians and interpreters, 4) Greater integration of interpreters into the ICU team 5) Standardized timeline for goals of care conversations with patients and families with LEP. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with LEP are at risk of experiencing suboptimal communication with the healthcare team in the ICU. There are several educational and quality improvement strategies that ICUs and institutions can take to mitigate these issues.

Using Shared Decision-Making Tools and Patient-Clinician Conversations About Costs.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how shared decision-making (SDM) tools used during clinical encounters that raise cost as an issue impact the incidence of cost conversations between patients and clinicians. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomly selected set of 220 video recordings of clinical encounters were analyzed. Videos were obtained from eight practice-based randomized clinical trials and one quasi-randomized clinical trial (pre- and post-) comparing care with and without SDM tools. The secondary analysis took place in 2018 from trials ran between 2007 and 2015. RESULTS: Most patient participants were white (85%), educated (38% completed college), middle-aged (mean age 56 years), and female (61%). There were 105 encounters with and 115 without the SDM tool. Encounters with SDM tools were more likely to include both general cost conversations (62% vs 36%, odds ratio [OR]: 9.6; 95% CI: 4 to 26) as well as conversations on medication costs specifically (89% vs 51%, P=.01). However, clinicians using SDM tools were less likely to address cost issues during the encounter (37% vs 51%, P=.04). Encounters with patients with less than a college degree were also associated with a higher incidence of cost conversations. CONCLUSION: Using SDM tools that raise cost as an issue increased the occurrence of cost conversations but was less likely to address cost issues or offer potential solutions to patients' cost concerns. This result suggests that SDM tools used during the consultation can trigger cost conversations but are insufficient to support them.

Patient Experiences and Perceptions Associated with the Use of Desiccated Thyroid Extract.

Background and objectives: It is unclear why many patients with hypothyroidism prefer the use of desiccated thyroid extract (DTE) as a thyroid hormone replacement formulation over levothyroxine (LT4) treatment, as recommended by clinical practice guidelines. We analyzed patient-reported information from patient online forums to better understand patient preferences for and attitudes toward the use of DTE to treat hypothyroidism. Materials and Methods: We conducted a mixed-methods study by evaluating the content of online posts from three popular hypothyroidism forums from patients currently taking DTE (n = 673). From these posts, we extracted descriptive information on patient demographics and clinical characteristics and qualitatively analyzed posts' content to explore patient perceptions on DTE and other therapies further. Results: Nearly half (46%) of the patients reported that a clinician initially drove their interest in trying DTE. Patients described many reasons for switching from a previous therapeutic approach to DTE, including lack of improvement in hypothyroidism-related symptoms (58%) and the development of side effects (22%). The majority of patients described DTE as moderately to majorly effective overall (81%) and more effective than the previous therapy (77%). The most frequently described benefits associated with DTE use were an improvement in symptoms (56%) and a change in overall well-being (34%). One-fifth of patients described side effects related to the use of DTE. Qualitative analysis of posts' content supported these findings and raised additional issues around the need for individualizing therapy approaches for hypothyroidism (e.g., a sense of each patient has different needs), as well as difficulties obtaining DTE (e.g., issues with pharmacy availability). Conclusions: Lack of individualized treatment and a feeling of not been listened to were recurrent themes among DTE users. A subset of patients may prefer DTE to LT4 for many reasons, including perceived better effectiveness and improved overall well-being, despite the risks associated with DTE.

Validation of the Elderly Risk Assessment Index in the Emergency Department.

OBJECTIVES: The Elderly Risk Assessment (ERA) score is a validated index for primary care patients that predict hospitalizations, mortality, and Emergency Department (ED) visits. The score incorporates age, prior hospital days, marital status, and comorbidities. Our aim was to validate the ERA score in ED patients. METHODS: Observational cohort study of patients age ≥ 60 presenting to an academic ED over a 1-year period. Regression analyses were performed for associations with outcomes (hospitalization, return visits and death). Medians, interquartile range (IQR), odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. RESULTS: The cohort included 27,397 visits among 18,607 patients. Median age 74 years (66-82), 48% were female and 59% were married. Patients from 54% of visits were admitted to the hospital, 16% returned to the ED within 30 days, and 18% died within one year. Higher ERA scores were associated with: hospital admission (score 10 [4-16] vs 5 [1-11], p < 0.0001), return visits (11 [5-17] vs 7 [2-13], p < 0.0001); and death within one year (14 [7-20] vs 6 [2-13], p < 0.0001). Patients with ERA score ≥ 16 were more likely to be admitted to the hospital, OR 2.14 (2.02-2.28, p < 0.0001), return within 30 days OR 1.99 (1.85-2.14), and to die within a year, OR 2.69 (2.54-2.85). CONCLUSION: The ERA score can be automatically calculated within the electronic health record and helps identify patients at increased risk of death, hospitalization and return ED visits. The ERA score can be applied to ED patients, and may help prognosticate the need for advanced care planning.