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.

Qualitative Analysis of Patient-Physician Discussions Regarding Anticoagulation for Atrial Fibrillation.

Importance: For patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), the decision to initiate anticoagulation involves the choice between warfarin or a direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC). How physicians engage patients in this decision is unknown. Objective: To describe the content of discussions between patients with AF and physicians regarding choice of anticoagulation. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative content analysis included clinical encounters between physicians and anticoagulation-naive patients discussing anticoagulation initiation between 2014 and 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Themes identified through content analysis. Results: Of 37 encounters, almost all (34 [92%]) resulted in a prescription for a DOAC. Most (25 [68%]) patients were White; 15 (41%) were female and 22 (59%) were male; and 24 (65%) were aged 65 to 84 years. Twenty-one physicians conducted the included encounters, the majority of whom were cardiologists (14 [67%]) and male (19 [90%]). The analysis revealed 4 major categories and associated subcategories of themes associated with physician discussion of anticoagulation with anticoagulation-naive patients: (1) benefit vs risk of taking anticoagulation-in many cases, this involved an imbalance in completeness of discussion of stroke vs bleeding risk, and physicians often used emotional language; (2) tradeoffs between warfarin and DOACs-physicians typically discussed pros and cons, used persuasive language, and provided mixed signals, telling patients that warfarin and DOACs were basically equivalent, while simultaneously saying warfarin is rat poison; (3) medication costs-physicians often attempted to address patients' questions about out-of-pocket costs but were unable to provide concrete answers, and they often provided free samples or coupons; and (4) DOACs in television commercials-physicians used direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising about DOACs to orient patients to the issue of anticoagulation as well as the advantages of DOACs over warfarin. Patients and physicians also discussed class action lawsuits for DOACs that patients had seen on television. Conclusions and Relevance: This qualitative analysis of anticoagulation discussions between physicians and patients during clinical encounters found that physicians engaged in persuasive communication to convince patients to accept anticoagulation with a DOAC, yet they were unable to address questions regarding medication costs. For patients who are ultimately unable to afford DOACs, this may lead to unnecessary financial burden or abandoning prescriptions at the pharmacy, placing them at continued risk of stroke.

Patient Experience in Virtual Visits Hinges on Technology and the Patient-Clinician Relationship: A Large Survey Study With Open-ended Questions.

BACKGROUND: Patient satisfaction with in-person medical visits includes patient-clinician engagement. However, communication, empathy, and other relationship-centered care measures in virtual visits have not been adequately investigated. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to comprehensively consider patient experience, including relationship-centered care measures, to assess patient satisfaction during virtual visits. METHODS: We conducted a large survey study with open-ended questions to comprehensively assess patients' experiences with virtual visits in a diverse patient population. Adults with a virtual visit between June 21, 2017, and July 12, 2017, were invited to complete a survey of 21 Likert-scale items and textboxes for comments following their visit. Factor analysis of the survey items revealed three factors: experience with technology, patient-clinician engagement, and overall satisfaction. Multivariable logistic regression was used to test the associations among the three factors and patient demographics, clinician type, and prior relationship with the clinician. Using qualitative framework analysis, we identified recurrent themes in survey comments, quantitatively coded comments, and computed descriptive statistics of the coded comments. RESULTS: A total of 65.7% (426/648) of the patients completed the survey; 64.1% (273/426) of the respondents were women, and the average age was 46 (range 18-86) years. The sample was geographically diverse: 70.2% (299/426) from Ohio, 6.8% (29/426) from Florida, 4.2% (18/426) from Pennsylvania, and 18.7% (80/426) from other states. With regard to insurance coverage, 57.5% (245/426) were undetermined, 23.7% (101/426) had the hospital's employee health insurance, and 18.7% (80/426) had other private insurance. Types of virtual visits and clinicians varied. Overall, 58.4% (249/426) of patients had an on-demand visit, whereas 41.5% (177/426) had a scheduled visit. A total of 41.8% (178/426) of patients had a virtual visit with a family physician, 20.9% (89/426) with an advanced practice provider, and the rest had a visit with a specialist. Most patients (393/423, 92.9%) agreed that their virtual visit clinician was interested in them as a person, and their virtual visit made it easy to get the care they needed (383/421, 90.9%). A total of 81.9% (344/420) of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that their virtual visit was as good as an in-person visit by a clinician. Having a prior relationship with their virtual visit clinician was associated with less comfort and ease with virtual technology among patients (odds ratio 0.58, 95% CI 0.35-0.98). In terms of technology, patients found the interface easy to use (392/423, 92.7%) and felt comfortable using it (401/423, 94.8%). Technical difficulties were associated with lower odds of overall satisfaction (odds ratio 0.46, 95% CI 0.28-0.76). CONCLUSIONS: Patient-clinician engagement in virtual visits was comparable with in-person visits. This study supports the value and acceptance of virtual visits. Evaluations of virtual visits should include assessments of technology and patient-clinician engagement, as both are likely to influence patient satisfaction.

Incorporating Stakeholder Perspectives on Scarce Resource Allocation: Lessons Learned from Policymaking in a Time of Crisis.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) crisis provoked an organizational ethics dilemma: how to develop ethical pandemic policy while upholding our organizational mission to deliver relationship- and patient-centered care. Tasked with producing a recommendation about whether healthcare workers and essential personnel should receive priority access to limited medical resources during the pandemic, the bioethics department and survey and interview methodologists at our institution implemented a deliberative approach that included the perspectives of healthcare professionals and patient stakeholders in the policy development process. Involving the community more, not less, during a crisis required balancing the need to act quickly to garner stakeholder perspectives, uncertainty about the extent and duration of the pandemic, and disagreement among ethicists about the most ethically supportable way to allocate scarce resources. This article explains the process undertaken to garner stakeholder input as it relates to organizational ethics, recounts the stakeholder perspectives shared and how they informed the triage policy developed, and offers suggestions for how other organizations may integrate stakeholder involvement in ethical decision-making as well as directions for future research and public health work.