Interventions to de-implement unnecessary antibiotic prescribing for ear infections (DISAPEAR Trial): protocol for a cluster-randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Watchful waiting management for acute otitis media (AOM), where an antibiotic is used only if the child's symptoms worsen or do not improve over the subsequent 2-3 days, is an effective approach to reduce antibiotic exposure for children with AOM. However, studies to compare the effectiveness of interventions to promote watchful waiting are lacking. The objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness and implementation outcomes of two pragmatic, patient-centered interventions designed to facilitate use of watchful waiting in clinical practice. METHODS: This will be a cluster-randomized trial utilizing a hybrid implementation-effectiveness design. Thirty-three primary care or urgent care clinics will be randomized to one of two interventions: a health systems-level intervention alone or a health systems-level intervention combined with use of a shared decision-making aid. The health systems-level intervention will include engagement of a clinician champion at each clinic, changes to electronic health record antibiotic orders to facilitate delayed antibiotic prescriptions as part of a watchful waiting strategy, quarterly feedback reports detailing clinicians' use of watchful waiting individually and compared with peers, and virtual learning sessions for clinicians. The hybrid intervention will include the health systems-level intervention plus a shared decision-making aid designed to inform decision-making between parents and clinicians with best available evidence. The primary outcomes will be whether an antibiotic was ultimately taken by the child and parent satisfaction with their child's care. We will explore the differences in implementation effectiveness by patient population served, clinic type, clinical setting, and organization. The fidelity, acceptability, and perceived appropriateness of the interventions among different clinician types, patient populations, and clinical settings will be compared. We will also conduct formative qualitative interviews and surveys with clinicians and administrators, focus groups and surveys of parents of patients with AOM, and engagement of two stakeholder advisory councils to further inform the interventions. DISCUSSION: This study will compare the effectiveness of two pragmatic interventions to promote use of watchful waiting for children with AOM to reduce antibiotic exposure and increase parent satisfaction, thus informing national antibiotic stewardship policy development. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT06034080.

A Single-Center Retrospective Evaluation of Decision-Making and Factors Motivating Hand Transplant Candidates.

INTRODUCTION: Advancements in vascularized composite allotransplantation have made hand transplants possible for persons living with upper limb loss. Hand transplantation is not a life-saving procedure, but rather a quality-of-life enhancing procedure; hence the risk of morbidity and mortality must be weighed against improvements in function and appearance. This study explored the decision-making process of patients evaluated for hand transplantation. METHODS/APPROACH: A qualitative case series study using retrospective chart data of evaluations was conducted between January 1, 2011 and February 28, 2020. Notes were extracted and read by three reviewers. Each case was summarized noting similarities and differences. FINDINGS: Nine patients underwent evaluation. Eight were no longer under evaluation and did not receive transplant; one was still undergoing evaluation. Patient motivations for evaluation were dissatisfaction with prostheses or self-image, chronic pain, performing activities of daily living, occupation, burden placed on caregivers, and concerns about overuse of non-affected limbs. Patients chose not to pursue transplantation due to rehabilitation time, immunosuppression, alternative treatments, and social and financial challenges. The clinical team discontinued evaluations due to unmet evaluation requirements, medical contraindications, or treatment alternatives. Different modes of shared decision-making were present depending on the party most heavily featured in the charts as driving decisions. DISCUSSION: This was an examination of shared decision-making with hand transplant candidates who did not proceed to transplant. Reasons for choosing alternative strategies for management were multifactorial. Lessons learned regarding patient motivations and shared decision-making can inform future interventions to better support patients.

Problem-based shared decision-making in diabetes care: a secondary analysis of video-recorded encounters.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the range of collaborative approaches to shared decision-making (SDM) observed in clinical encounters of patients with diabetes and their clinicians. DESIGN: A secondary analysis of videorecordings obtained in a randomised trial comparing usual diabetes primary care with or without using a within-encounter conversation SDM tool. SETTING: Using the purposeful SDM framework, we classified the forms of SDM observed in a random sample of 100 video-recorded clinical encounters of patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: We assessed the correlation between the extent to which each form of SDM was used and patient involvement (OPTION12-scale). RESULTS: We observed at least one instance of SDM in 86 of 100 encounters. In 31 (36%) of these 86 encounters, we found only one form of SDM, in 25 (29%) two forms, and in 30 (35%), we found ≥3 forms of SDM. In these encounters, 196 instances of SDM were identified, with weighing alternatives (n=64 of 196, 33%), negotiating conflicting desires (n=59, 30%) and problemsolving (n=70, 36%) being similarly prevalent and developing existential insight accounting for only 1% (n=3) of instances. Only the form of SDM focused on weighing alternatives was correlated with a higher OPTION12-score. More forms of SDM were used when medications were changed (2.4 SDM forms (SD 1.48) vs 1.8 (SD 1.46); p=0.050). CONCLUSIONS: After considering forms of SDM beyond weighing alternatives, SDM was present in most encounters. Clinicians and patients often used different forms of SDM within the same encounter. Recognising a range of SDM forms that clinicians and patients use to respond to problematic situations, as demonstrated in this study, opens new lines of research, education and practice that may advance patient-centred, evidence-based care.

Management reasoning and patient-clinician interactions: Insights from shared decision-making and simulated outpatient encounters.

PURPOSE: To expand understanding of patient-clinician interactions in management reasoning. METHODS: We reviewed 10 videos of simulated patient-clinician encounters to identify instances of problematic and successful communication, then reviewed the videos again through the lens of two models of shared decision-making (SDM): an 'involvement-focused' model and a 'problem-focused' model. Using constant comparative qualitative analysis we explored the connections between these patient-clinician interactions and management reasoning. RESULTS: Problems in patient-clinician interactions included failures to: encourage patient autonomy; invite the patient's involvement in decision-making; convey the health impact of the problem; explore and address concerns and questions; explore the context of decision-making (including patient preferences); meet the patient where they are; integrate situational preferences and priorities; offer >1 viable option; work with the patient to solve a problem of mutual concern; explicitly agree to a final care plan; and build the patient-clinician relationship. Clinicians' 'management scripts' varied along a continuum of prioritizing clinician vs patient needs. Patients also have their own cognitive scripts that guide their interactions with clinicians. The involvement-focused and problem-focused SDM models illuminated distinct, complementary issues. CONCLUSIONS: Management reasoning is a deliberative interaction occurring in the space between individuals. Juxtaposing management reasoning alongside SDM generated numerous insights.

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.

The design and development of an encounter tool to support shared decision making about preventing cardiovascular events.

Patients at high risk for cardiovascular disease (CVD) tend to receive less intensive preventive care. Clinical practice guidelines recommend shared decision making (SDM) to improve the quality of primary CVD prevention. There are tools for use during the clinical encounter that promote SDM, but, to our knowledge, there are no SDM encounter tools that support conversations about available lifestyle and pharmacological options that can lead to preventive care that is congruent with patient goals and CVD risk. Using the best available evidence and human-centered design (iterative design in the context of ultimate use with users), our team developed a SDM encounter tool, CV Prevention Choice. Each subsequent version during the iterative development process was evaluated in terms of content, usefulness, and usability by testing it in real preventive encounters. The final version of the tool includes a calculator that estimates the patient's risk of a major atherosclerotic CVD event in the next 10 years. Lifestyle and medication options are presented, alongside their pros, cons, costs, and other burdens. The risk reduction achieved by the selected prevention program is then displayed to support collaborative deliberation and decision making. A U.S. multicenter trial is estimating the effectiveness of CV Prevention Choice in achieving risk-concordant CV prevention while identifying the best strategies for increasing the adoption of the SDM encounter tool and its routine use in practice.

Using team science in vascularized composite allotransplantation to improve team and patient outcomes.

Reconstructive allografts using Vascularized Composite Allotransplantation (VCA) are providing individuals living with upper limb loss and facial disfigurement with new opportunities for a sensate, esthetically acceptable, and functional alternative to current treatment strategies. Important research attention is being paid to how best to assess and screen candidates for VCA, measure optimal patient outcomes, and support patient adherence to lifelong behaviors and medical regimens. Far less attention, however, has been dedicated to the team science required for these complex VCA teams to form, prepare, and provide the highest quality clinical and psychosocial care to those receiving VCA. VCA teams are unique in that they require specialized team members whose scope of practice may not otherwise overlap. The team also needs to constantly negotiate balancing patient safety with multiple risks throughout the transplant process. This study aimed to elucidate the team science needed for this highly innovative and complex area of medicine. Using in-depth qualitative interviews with 14 VCA team members and observations at team meetings, we found that careful consideration of team composition, team structure, and organizational commitment (e.g., local culture and team values; investment of resources) influences team performance and patient outcomes, but that to be efficient and truly effective, teams need to commit to developing processes that foster collaboration. These processes are action-oriented (e.g., communication, leadership), strategic (e.g., planning, training) and interpersonal (e.g., conflict management, trust building). Dedication and commitment to team science allows teams to manage conflict under stress and exercise ways to leverage strengths to provide optimal performance or patient psychosocial and clinical outcomes. This study can provide insight into quality improvement efforts for VCA teams and guidance for other transplant programs that wish to consider expansion into VCA.

Effect of Shared Decision-Making for Stroke Prevention on Treatment Adherence and Safety Outcomes in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Background Guidelines promote shared decision-making (SDM) for anticoagulation in patients with atrial fibrillation. We recently showed that adding a within-encounter SDM tool to usual care (UC) increases patient involvement in decision-making and clinician satisfaction, without affecting encounter length. We aimed to estimate the extent to which use of an SDM tool changed adherence to the decided care plan and clinical safety end points. Methods and Results We conducted a multicenter, encounter-level, randomized trial assessing the efficacy of UC with versus without an SDM conversation tool for use during the clinical encounter (Anticoagulation Choice) in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation considering starting or reviewing anticoagulation treatment. We conducted a chart and pharmacy review, blinded to randomization status, at 10 months after enrollment to assess primary adherence (proportion of patients who were prescribed an anticoagulant who filled their first prescription) and secondary adherence (estimated using the proportion of days for which treatment was supplied and filled for direct oral anticoagulant, and as time in therapeutic range for warfarin). We also noted any strokes, transient ischemic attacks, major bleeding, or deaths as safety end points. We enrolled 922 evaluable patient encounters (Anticoagulation Choice=463, and UC=459), of which 814 (88%) had pharmacy and clinical follow-up. We found no differences between arms in either primary adherence (78% of patients in the SDM arm filled their first prescription versus 81% in UC arm) or secondary adherence to anticoagulation (percentage days covered of the direct oral anticoagulant was 74.1% in SDM versus 71.6% in UC; time in therapeutic range for warfarin was 66.6% in SDM versus 64.4% in UC). Safety outcomes, mostly bleeds, occurred in 13% of participants in the SDM arm and 14% in the UC arm. Conclusions In this large, randomized trial comparing UC with a tool to promote SDM against UC alone, we found no significant differences between arms in primary or secondary adherence to anticoagulation or in clinical safety outcomes. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT02905032.

Co-creating sensible care plans using shared decision making: Patients' reflections and observations of encounters.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how the use of a within-encounter SDM tool (compared to usual care in a randomized trial) contributes to care plans that make sense to patients with atrial fibrillation considering anticoagulation. METHODS: In a planned subgroup of the trial, 123 patients rated post-encounter how much sense their decided-upon care plan made to them and explained why. We explored how sense ratings related to observed patient involvement (OPTION12), patient's decisional conflict, and adherence to their plan based on pharmacy records. We analyzed patient motives using Burke's pentad. RESULTS: Plan sensibility was similarly high in both arms (Usual care n = 62: mean 9.4/10 (SD 1.0) vs SDM tool n = 61: 9.2/10 (SD 1.5); p = .8), significantly and weakly correlated to decisional conflict (rho=-0.28, p = .002), but not to OPTION12 or adherence. Plans made sense to most patients given their known efficacy, safety and what is involved in implementing them. CONCLUSION: Adding an effective intervention to promote SDM did not affect how much, or why, care plans made sense to patients receiving usual care, nor patient adherence to them. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Evaluating the extent to which care plans make sense can improve SDM assessments, particularly when SDM extends beyond selecting from a menu of options.

Remote shared decision making through telemedicine: A systematic review of the literature.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the extent to which shared decision making (SDM) can take place in telemedicine (remote SDM). METHODS: We searched Medline, Cochrane, and Scopus from 2010 until August 7th, 2020 for articles on remote SDM in the care of any patient using any technology. We also conducted a search for telemedicine articles citing key reports on SDM outcome measures. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, reviewed full text eligible studies, and synthesized their content using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Of the 12 eligible articles, most were European with patients with chronic disease or mental and behavioral health. 8 articles used synchronous remote SDM and 1 used asynchronous remote SDM. Themes related to interactional workability of both telemedicine technologies and SDM emerged, namely access to broadband, digital literacy, and satisfaction with the convenience of remote visits. CONCLUSIONS: Telemedicine technologies may foster virtual interactions that support remote SDM, which, in turn, may promote productive patient-clinician interactions and patient-centered care. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Digitally-mediated consultations surged amidst the COVID-19 pandemic. The extent to which SDM frameworks developed for in-person use need any adaptation for remote SDM remains unclear. Investment in innovation, design, implementation, and effectiveness research to advance remote SDM are needed.

Shared decision making process measures and patient problems.

OBJECTIVES: Purposeful SDM posits four modes of shared decision making (SDM). The use of each mode depends on the type of problem of care that is being addressed. We sought to identify how current observer-based SDM measures apply to each mode of Purposeful SDM. METHODS: Four coders, working independently, evaluated 192 items pertaining to 12 observer-based SDM process measures. They classified the items into 6 themes that vary across Purposeful SDM modes and then into one of the four modes (weighing, negotiating, problem-solving, developing insight). Disagreements were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: The items were classified as pertaining to the following themes: problem (28), roles/participation (84), options (62), preferences (21), decision (15), and evaluation (6). They were then classified as pertaining particularly to the SDM modes of weighing (54), negotiating (5), problem-solving (0), and developing insight (0) modes, with 191 items applying broadly to all modes of Purposeful SDM. CONCLUSIONS: Observer-based SDM measures describe behaviors pertinent to all modes but lack items sensitive to behaviors particular to some modes of SDM. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: New or revised observer-based measures of the SDM process could help estimate the extent to which the appropriate SDM mode is being used to address the patient's problem.

Shared Decision Making in Cardiac Electrophysiology Procedures and Arrhythmia Management.

Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated to improve patient care, patient decision acceptance, patient-provider communication, patient motivation, adherence, and patient reported outcomes. Documentation of SDM is endorsed in several society guidelines and is a condition of reimbursement for selected cardiovascular and cardiac arrhythmia procedures. However, many clinicians argue that SDM already occurs with clinical encounter discussions or the process of obtaining informed consent and note the additional imposed workload of using and documenting decision aids without validated tools or evidence that they improve clinical outcomes. In reality, SDM is a process and can be done without decision tools, although the process may be variable. Also, SDM advocates counter that the low-risk process of SDM need not be held to the high bar of demonstrating clinical benefit and that increasing the quality of decision making should be sufficient. Our review leverages a multidisciplinary group of experts in cardiology, cardiac electrophysiology, epidemiology, and SDM, as well as a patient advocate. Our goal is to examine and assess SDM methodology, tools, and available evidence on outcomes in patients with heart rhythm disorders to help determine the value of SDM, assess its possible impact on electrophysiological procedures and cardiac arrhythmia management, better inform regulatory requirements, and identify gaps in knowledge and future needs.

Paths of Emergency Department Care: Development of a Decision Aid to Facilitate Shared Decision Making in Goals of Care Discussions in the Acute Setting.

BACKGROUND: Goals of care (GOC) conversations in the emergency department (ED) are often a brief discussion of code status rather than a patient-oriented dialogue. We aimed to develop a guide to facilitate conversations between ED clinicians and patients to elicit patient values and establish goals for end-of-life care, while maintaining ED efficiency. Paths of ED Care, a conversation guide, is the product of this work. DESIGN: A multidisciplinary/multispecialty group used recommended practices to adapt a GOC conversation guide for ED patients. ED clinicians used the guide and provided feedback on content, design, and usability. Patient-clinician interactions were recorded for discussion analysis, and both were surveyed to inform iterative refinement. A series of discussions with patient representatives, multidisciplinary clinicians, bioethicists, and health care designers yielded feedback. We used a process similar to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards and provide comparison to these. RESULTS: A conversation guide, eight pages with each page 6 by 6 inches in dimension, uses patient-oriented prompts and includes seven sections: 1) evaluation of patient/family understanding of disease, 2) explanation of possible trajectories, 3) introduction to different pathways of care, 4) explanation of pathways, 5) assessment of understanding and concerns, 6) code status, and 7) personalized summary. LIMITATIONS: Recruitment of sufficient number of patients/providers to the project was the primary limitation. Methods are limited to qualitative analysis of guide creation and feasibility without quantitative analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Paths of ED Care is a guide to facilitate patient-centered shared decision making for ED patients, families, and clinicians regarding GOC. This may ensure care concordant with patients' values and preferences. Use of the guide was well-received and facilitated meaningful conversations between patients and providers.

Cost Conversations About Anticoagulation Between Patients With Atrial Fibrillation and Their Clinicians: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: How patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and their clinicians consider cost in forming care plans remains unknown. Objective: To identify factors that inform conversations regarding costs of anticoagulants for treatment of AF between patients and clinicians and outcomes associated with these conversations. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study of recorded encounters and participant surveys at 5 US medical centers (including academic, community, and safety-net centers) from the SDM4AFib randomized trial compared standard AF care with and without use of a shared decision-making (SDM) tool. Included patients were considering anticoagulation treatment and were recruited by their clinicians between January 30, 2017, and June 27, 2019. Data were analyzed between August and November 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: The incidence of and factors associated with cost conversations, and the association of cost conversations with patients' consideration of treatment cost burden and their choice of anticoagulation. Results: A total of 830 encounters (out of 922 enrolled participants) were recorded. Patients' mean (SD) age was 71.0 (10.4) years; 511 patients (61.6%) were men, 704 (86.0%) were White, 303 (40.9%) earned between $40 000 and $99 999 in annual income, and 657 (79.2%) were receiving anticoagulants. Clinicians' mean (SD) age was 44.8 (13.2) years; 75 clinicians (53.2%) were men, and 111 (76%) practiced as physicians, with approximately half (69 [48.9%]) specializing in either internal medicine or cardiology. Cost conversations occurred in 639 encounters (77.0%) and were more likely in the SDM arm (378 [90%] vs 261 [64%]; OR, 9.69; 95% CI, 5.77-16.29). In multivariable analysis, cost conversations were more likely to occur with female clinicians (66 [47%]; OR, 2.85; 95% CI, 1.21-6.71); consultants vs in-training clinicians (113 [75%]; OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.4-11.1); clinicians practicing family medicine (24 [16%]; OR, 12.12; 95% CI, 2.75-53.38]), internal medicine (35 [23%]; OR, 3.82; 95% CI, 1.25-11.70), or other clinicians (21 [14%]; OR, 4.90; 95% CI, 1.32-18.16) when compared with cardiologists; and for patients with an annual household income between $40 000 and $99 999 (249 [82.2%]; OR, 1.86; 95% CI, 1.05-3.29) compared with income below $40 000 or above $99 999. More patients who had cost conversations reported cost as a factor in their decision (244 [89.1%] vs 327 [69.0%]; OR 3.66; 95% CI, 2.43-5.50), but cost conversations were not associated with the choice of anticoagulation agent. Conclusions and Relevance: Cost conversations were common, particularly for middle-income patients and with female and consultant-level primary care clinicians, as well as in encounters using an SDM tool; they were associated with patients' consideration of treatment cost burden but not final treatment choice. With increasing costs of care passed on to patients, these findings can inform efforts to promote cost conversations in practice. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02905032.

Development of a Shared Decision-Making Tool for Adolescents With Scoliosis to Decide Between Observation Versus Fusion Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Adolescent patients with moderate to severe idiopathic scoliosis who have completed their skeletal growth face a significant choice in their treatment path: watchful waiting or spinal fusion. Shared decision making (SDM) assists patients and clinicians to find treatments that make intellectual, practical and emotional sense. Our objective was to develop a tool that supports SDM for patients with scoliosis and their families. METHODS: We used a user-centered design approach that included collaboration between patients, surgeons and SDM experts, observation of clinician encounters, and literature review. We focused on adolescent idiopathic scoliosis patients 13 or more years of age with less than 1 year of growth remaining (Risser stage 3 or greater) and curves between 40 and 65 degrees. RESULTS: We included 22 patients, and collected 22 video recordings. From these videos, we identified salient patient priorities for decision making including treatment benefits, surgical complications, pain, scheduling and recovery, and cost. For each theme, we conducted a focused review to obtain the best estimate of effect. Then, an expert SDM designer developed an electronic prototype called Scoliosis Choice. CONCLUSIONS: The initial prototype of the scoliosis SDM was finalized and is currently being field tested in clinic. Scoliosis Choice may help patients and surgeons better understand the potential risks and benefits of spinal fusion vs. observation for scoliosis treatment and improve validated measures of quality in patient-parent-surgeon communication.

Development of an electronic conversation aid to support shared decision making for children with acute otitis media.

OBJECTIVE: The overuse of antibiotics for acute otitis media (AOM) in children is a healthcare quality issue in part arising from conflicting parent and physician understanding of the risks and benefits of antibiotics for AOM. Our objective was to develop a conversation aid that supports shared decision making (SDM) with parents of children who are diagnosed with non-severe AOM in the acute care setting. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed a web-based encounter tool following a human-centered design approach that includes active collaboration with parents, clinicians, and designers using literature review, observations of clinical encounters, parental and clinician surveys, and interviews. Insights from these processes informed the iterative creation of prototypes that were reviewed and field-tested in patient encounters. RESULTS: The ear pain conversation aid includes five sections: (1) A home page that opens the discussion on the etiologies of AOM; (2) the various options available for AOM management; (3) a pictograph of the impact of antibiotic therapy on pain control; (4) a pictograph of complication rates with and without antibiotics; and (5) a summary page on management choices. This open-access, web-based tool is located at www.earpaindecisionaid.org. CONCLUSIONS: We collaboratively developed an evidence-based conversation aid to facilitate SDM for AOM. This decision aid has the potential to improve parental medical knowledge of AOM, physician/parent communication, and possibly decrease the overuse of antibiotics for this condition.

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.

Increasing risk-concordant cardiovascular care in diverse health systems: a mixed methods pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomized implementation trial of shared decision making (SDM4IP).

BACKGROUND: The primary prevention of cardiovascular (CV) events is often less intense in persons at higher CV risk and vice versa. Clinical practice guidelines recommend that clinicians and patients use shared decision making (SDM) to arrive at an effective and feasible prevention plan that is congruent with each person's CV risk and informed preferences. However, SDM does not routinely happen in practice. This study aims to integrate into routine care an SDM decision tool (CV PREVENTION CHOICE) at three diverse healthcare systems in the USA and study strategies that foster its adoption and routine use. METHODS: This is a mixed method, hybrid type III stepped wedge cluster randomized study to estimate (a) the effectiveness of implementation strategies on SDM uptake and utilization and (b) the extent to which SDM results in prevention plans that are risk-congruent. Formative evaluation methods, including clinician and stakeholder interviews and surveys, will identify factors likely to impact feasibility, acceptability, and adoption of CV PREVENTION CHOICE as well as normalization of CV PREVENTION CHOICE in routine care. Implementation facilitation will be used to tailor implementation strategies to local needs, and implementation strategies will be systematically adjusted and tracked for assessment and refinement. Electronic health record data will be used to assess implementation and effectiveness outcomes, including CV PREVENTION CHOICE reach, adoption, implementation, maintenance, and effectiveness (measured as risk-concordant care plans). A sample of video-recorded clinical encounters and patient surveys will be used to assess fidelity. The study employs three theoretical approaches: a determinant framework that calls attention to categories of factors that may foster or inhibit implementation outcomes (the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research), an implementation theory that guides explanation or understanding of causal influences on implementation outcomes (Normalization Process Theory), and an evaluation framework (RE-AIM). DISCUSSION: By the project's end, we expect to have (a) identified the most effective implementation strategies to embed SDM in routine practice and (b) estimated the effectiveness of SDM to achieve feasible and risk-concordant CV prevention in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04450914 . Posted June 30, 2020 TRIAL STATUS: This study received ethics approval on April 17, 2020. The current trial protocol is version 2 (approved February 17, 2021). The first subject had not yet been enrolled at the time of submission.