Aiding shared decision making in lung cancer screening: two decision tools.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) preceding lung cancer screening is important for populations that are underrepresented in lung cancer screening trials. Current evidence-based guidelines; however, do not address personal risk and outcomes in underrepresented populations. This study compared two SDM decision aids (Option Grids and Shouldiscreen.com) for SDM efficacy, decision regret and knowledge. METHODS: We conducted a prospective trial of lung cancer screening patients (N = 237) randomized to SDM with Option Grids or Shouldiscreen.com. To evaluate the SDM process after lung cancer screening, patients answered two questionnaires: CollaboRATE and Decision Regret. Patients also completed a questionnaire to test their knowledge of lung cancer screening. RESULTS: Patients were predominantly African American (61.6%), though multiple races, varying education levels and equal genders were represented. Patients in both Option Grids and Shouldiscreen.com groups reported favorable SDM experiences (P = 0.60) and equivalent knowledge about lung cancer screening (P = 0.43). Patients using Shouldiscreen.com had less knowledge regarding the potential complications of subsequent testing (P = 0.02). Shouldiscreen.com patients had increased regret regarding their decision to pursue screening (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Option Grids and Shouldiscreen.com both facilitated a meaningful SDM process. However, Option Grids patients experienced decreased decision regret and enhanced knowledge of the potential complications of screening.

An Enhanced Shared Decision Making Model to Address Willingness and Ability to Undergo Lung Cancer Screening and Follow-Up Treatment in Minority Underserved Populations.

Failure to address willingness and ability to undergo lung cancer treatment before lung cancer screening could cause patients unnecessary anxiety, cost and care. We employed an enhanced shared decision making (SDM) model to address willingness and ability to undergo lung cancer screening of low dose CT (LDCT) scanning. We hypothesized that enhanced SDM was feasible and did not discourage patients from undergoing lung cancer screening. We performed a prospective study of patients referred for lung cancer screening. We measured adherence to the LCS protocol, including consent to discuss lung cancer treatment if cancer is found and direct questions to patients about willingness and ability to undergo lung cancer treatment. We measured race, gender, adherence to the consent process and questions regarding willingness and ability to undergo lung cancer treatment and subsequent uptake of LDCT. All 190 patients have a documented SDM visit addressing the risks and benefits of lung cancer screening and consented to discuss lung cancer treatment if lung cancer is diagnosed. One hundred and seventy-nine (179) of 190 (94%) answered yes to being willing and able to undergo lung cancer treatment. One hundred and eighty-seven (187) patients underwent LDCT (98.4%). Discussion about willingness and ability to undergo lung cancer treatment should be an essential component of a SDM discussion prior to LDCT. This study demonstrated that an enhanced SDM experience is feasible in a clinical setting. Furthermore, patients proceeded with LDCT following the enhanced SDM process.

Assuring survival of safety-net surgical patients.

BACKGROUND: Survival of surgical inpatients is a key quality metric. Patient, surgeon, and system factors all contribute to inpatient mortality, and sophisticated risk adjustment is required to assess outcomes. When the mortality of general surgery patients was determined to be high at a safety-net hospital, a comprehensive approach was undertaken to improve patient survival. METHODS: General surgical service line mortality was measured in the database of the University HealthSystem Consortium from January 2013 through June 2015. Ten best practices were implemented sequentially to decrease observed and/or increase expected mortality. University HealthSystem Consortium mortality rank, observed, expected, and observed/expected index as well as early deaths were compared with control charts for 30 months. RESULTS: University HealthSystem Consortium general surgery mortality improved from the bottom decile to the top quartile, while Case Mix Index increased from 2.48 to 2.82 (P < .05). Observed mortality decreased from 3.39 to 2.35%. Expected mortality increased from 1.40 to 2.73% (P < .05). The observed/expected mortality index decreased from 2.43 to 0.86 (P < .05). Early deaths decreased from 0.52 to 0% (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Risk-adjusted mortality and early deaths decreased significantly over 30 months in general surgery patients. Systematic implementation of quality best practices was associated with improved survival of general surgery patients at a safety-net medical center.

Transforming Patient Value: Comparison of Hospital, Surgical, and General Surgery Patients.

BACKGROUND: Patient value (V) is enhanced when quality (Q) is increased and cost (C) is diminished (V = Q/C). However, calculating value has been inhibited by a lack of risk-adjusted cost data. The aim of this analysis was to measure patient value before and after implementation of quality improvement and cost reduction programs. STUDY DESIGN: Multidisciplinary efforts to improve patient value were initiated at a safety-net hospital in 2012. Quality improvement focused on adoption of multiple best practices, and minimizing practice variation was the strategy to control cost. University HealthSystem Consortium (UHC) risk-adjusted quality (patient mortality + safety + satisfaction + effectiveness) and cost (length of stay + direct cost) data were used to calculate patient value over 3 fiscal years. Normalized ranks in the UHC Quality and Accountability Scorecard were used in the value equation. RESULTS: For all hospital patients, quality scores improved from 50.3 to 66.5, with most of the change occurring in decreased mortality. Similar trends were observed for all surgery patients (42.6 to 48.4) and for general surgery patients (30.9 to 64.6). For all hospital patients, cost scores improved from 71.0 to 2.9. Similar changes were noted for all surgical (71.6 to 27.1) and general surgery (85.7 to 23.0) patients. Therefore, value increased more than 30-fold for all patients, 3-fold for all surgical patients, and almost 8-fold for general surgery patients. CONCLUSIONS: Multidisciplinary quality and cost efforts resulted in significant improvements in value for all hospitalized patients as well as general surgery patients. Mortality improved the most in general surgery patients, and satisfaction was highest among surgical patients.

What's in a Name? The Necessary Transformation of the Academic Medical Center in the Era of Population Health and Accountable Care.

Academic medical centers (AMCs) and the physicians and other professionals who lead them need to recognize they are in a business that is making a transition from a system of "sickness" care to one of "health" care, accountable for the health of defined populations and for the value (quality divided by cost) of the services provided. This change has profound implications for how AMCs conceive themselves, how they function, and how they are paid for the work that they do. A failure to recognize how the disruption of the mission of AMCs is changing may impair them as irrevocably as other changes caused the demise of Kodak, once the world's leader in the manufacture and sale of photographic film and cameras. Leaders of academic medicine need to understand, respond to, and ultimately lead the transformation of our system of health. In this Commentary, the authors review the pressures driving these changes and potential responses to them-a process already under way. They summarize the issues in the question "Should the words 'health' and 'system' take the place of 'medical' and 'center' in our institutions' names and, more important, in how we conceive of what we do?" The authors propose the name "academic health system" to better identify primary objectives to measure success by the health of patients.