Direct-Observation Cohort Study of Shared Decision Making in a Primary Care Clinic.

Background. Observational studies suggest that shared medical decision making (SMDM) is suboptimal. Our objective was to assess patient preferences, ratings, and objective measurements of decision making and their impact on patient outcomes. Methods. Hypertensive adults presenting for routine care with their primary care physician completed previsit surveys assessing SMDM preferences. Postvisit surveys assessed the degree of SMDM during the encounter, patient satisfaction, and trust. Encounters were audiotaped and transcripts were coded for type of decisions made as well as SMDM quality using OPTION-5. Adherence and blood pressure were measured at baseline and at 4 weeks. Results. Among 105 encounters, there were 7.4 decisions per visit; most were basic, such as refills and routine testing. Objective measures of decision making indicated that the degree of SMDM was lower than reported by patients or physicians, although physician ratings were more accurate. Previsit, 54% of patients expressed a desire for equally shared medical decision making, 24% preferred physician dominated decision making, and 18% preferred that they make the decisions. Postvisit, patients reported experiencing SMDM in 57% of encounters, with high concordance between desired and perceived decision making. Discordance between the patient's desired and experienced SMDM reduced trust and satisfaction. The quality of shared decisions had no impact on adherence or blood pressure at 4 weeks. Limitations. Single site, small sample. Conclusions. Decisions are common during internal medicine primary care visits, and most are basic. Most patients preferred SMDM, and their perceptions of the visit decision-making style were concordant with their preferences although higher than objective measures suggested. Physician ratings of the quality of SMDM were more accurate than patient ratings. Discordance between patients' expected and experienced SMDM lowered satisfaction and trust.

Beta-blockers for the prevention of headache in adults, a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Headaches are a common source of pain and suffering. The study's purpose was to assess beta-blockers efficacy in preventing migraine and tension-type headache. METHODS: Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; EMBASE; ISI Web of Science, clinical trial registries, CNKI, Wanfang and CQVIP were searched through 21 August 2018, for randomized trials in which at least one comparison was a beta-blocker for the prevention of migraine or tension-type headache in adults. The primary outcome, headache frequency per month, was extracted in duplicate and pooled using random effects models. DATA SYNTHESIS: This study included 108 randomized controlled trials, 50 placebo-controlled and 58 comparative effectiveness trials. Compared to placebo, propranolol reduced episodic migraine headaches by 1.5 headaches/month at 8 weeks (95% CI: -2.3 to -0.65) and was more likely to reduce headaches by 50% (RR: 1.4, 95% CI: 1.1-1.7). Trial Sequential Analysis (TSA) found that these outcomes were unlikely to be due to a Type I error. A network analysis suggested that beta-blocker's benefit for episodic migraines may be a class effect. Trials comparing beta-blockers to other interventions were largely single, underpowered trials. Propranolol was comparable to other medications known to be effective including flunarizine, topiramate and valproate. For chronic migraine, propranolol was more likely to reduce headaches by at least 50% (RR: 2.0, 95% CI: 1.0-4.3). There was only one trial of beta-blockers for tension-type headache. CONCLUSIONS: There is high quality evidence that propranolol is better than placebo for episodic migraine headache. Other comparisons were underpowered, rated as low-quality based on only including single trials, making definitive conclusions about comparative effectiveness impossible. There were few trials examining beta-blocker effectiveness for chronic migraine or tension-type headache though there was limited evidence of benefit. REGISTRATION: Prospero (ID: CRD42017050335).

The Quality of Written Feedback by Attendings of Internal Medicine Residents.

BACKGROUND: Attending evaluations are commonly used to evaluate residents. OBJECTIVES: Evaluate the quality of written feedback of internal medicine residents. DESIGN: Retrospective. PARTICIPANTS: Internal medicine residents and faculty at the Medical College of Wisconsin from 2004 to 2012. MAIN MEASURES: From monthly evaluations of residents by attendings, a randomly selected sample of 500 written comments by attendings were qualitatively coded and rated as high-, moderate-, or low-quality feedback by two independent coders with good inter-rater reliability (kappa: 0.94). Small group exercises with residents and attendings also coded the utterances as high, moderate, or low quality and developed criteria for this categorization. In-service examination scores were correlated with written feedback. KEY RESULTS: There were 228 internal medicine residents who had 6,603 evaluations by 334 attendings. Among 500 randomly selected written comments, there were 2,056 unique utterances: 29% were coded as nonspecific statements, 20% were comments about resident personality, 16% about patient care, 14% interpersonal communication, 7% medical knowledge, 6% professionalism, and 4% each on practice-based learning and systems-based practice. Based on criteria developed by group exercises, the majority of written comments were rated as moderate quality (65%); 22% were rated as high quality and 13% as low quality. Attendings who provided high-quality feedback rated residents significantly lower in all six of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) competencies (p <0.0005 for all), and had a greater range of scores. Negative comments on medical knowledge were associated with lower in-service examination scores. CONCLUSIONS: Most attending written evaluation was of moderate or low quality. Attendings who provided high-quality feedback appeared to be more discriminating, providing significantly lower ratings of residents in all six ACGME core competencies, and across a greater range. Attendings' negative written comments on medical knowledge correlated with lower in-service training scores.