"Once I take that one bite": the consideration of harm reduction as a strategy to support dietary change for patients with diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Despite well-established guidelines to treat diabetes, many people with diabetes struggle to manage their disease. For many, this struggle is related to challenges achieving nutrition-related lifestyle changes. We examined how people with diabetes describe barriers to maintaining a healthy diet and considered the benefits of using a harm reduction approach to assist patients to achieve nutrition-related goals. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of 89 interviews conducted with adults who had type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Interviews were analyzed using a content analysis approach. Themes regarding food or diet were initially captured in a "food" node. Data in the food node were then sub-coded for this analysis, again using a content analysis approach. RESULTS: Participants frequently used addiction language to talk about their relationship with food, at times referring to themselves as "an addict" and describing food as "their drug." Participants perceived their unhealthy food choices either as a sign of weakness or as "cheating." They also identified food's ability to comfort them and an unwillingness to change as particular challenges to sustaining a healthier diet. CONCLUSION: Participants often described their relationship with food through an addiction lens. A harm reduction approach has been associated with positive outcomes among those with substance abuse disorder. Patient-centered communication incorporating the harm reduction model may improve the patient-clinician relationship and thus improve patient outcomes and quality-of-life while reducing health-related stigma in diabetes care. Future work should explore the effectiveness of this approach in patients with diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02792777. Registration information submitted 02/06/2016, with the registration first posted on the ClinicalTrials.gov website 08/06/2016. Data collection began on 29/04/2016.

Communicating Diagnostic Uncertainty at Emergency Department Discharge: A Simulation-Based Mastery Learning Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: There are no standardized approaches for communicating with patients discharged from the emergency department with diagnostic uncertainty. This trial tested efficacy of the Uncertainty Communication Education Module, a simulation-based mastery learning curriculum designed to establish competency in communicating diagnostic uncertainty. METHOD: Resident physicians at 2 sites participated in a 2-arm waitlist randomized controlled trial from September 2019 to June 2020. After baseline (T1) assessment of all participants via a standardized patient encounter using the Uncertainty Communication Checklist (UCC), immediate access physicians received training in the Uncertainty Communication Education Module, which included immediate feedback, online educational modules, a smartphone-based application, and telehealth deliberate practice with standardized patients. All physicians were retested 16-19 weeks later (T2) via in-person standardized patient encounters; delayed access physicians then received the intervention. A final test of all physicians occurred 11-15 weeks after T2 (T3). The primary outcome measured the percentage of physicians in the immediate versus delayed access groups meeting or exceeding the UCC minimum passing standard at T2. RESULTS: Overall, 109 physicians were randomized, with mean age 29 years (range 25-46). The majority were male (n = 69, 63%), non-Hispanic/Latino (n = 99, 91%), and White (n = 78, 72%). At T2, when only immediate access participants had received the curriculum, immediate access physicians demonstrated increased mastery (n = 29, 52.7%) compared with delayed access physicians (n = 2, 3.7%, P < .001; estimated adjusted odds ratio of mastery for the immediate access participants, 31.1 [95% CI, 6.8-143.1]). There were no significant differences when adjusting for training site or stage of training. CONCLUSIONS: The Uncertainty Communication Education Module significantly increased mastery in communicating diagnostic uncertainty at the first postintervention test among emergency physicians in standardized patient encounters. Further work should assess the impact of clinical implementation of these communication skills.

Emergency Medicine Clinician Experiences Addressing Uncertainty in First-Trimester Bleeding.

The purpose of this work is to understand Emergency Department (ED) clinicians' experiences in communicating uncertainty about first-trimester bleeding (FTB) and their need for training on this topic. This cross-sectional study surveyed a national sample of attending physicians and advanced practice providers (APPs). The survey included quantitative and qualitative questions about communicating with patients presenting with FTB. These questions assessed clinicians' frequency encountering challenges, comfort, training, prior experience, and interest in training on the topic. Of 402 respondents, 54% reported that they encountered challenges at least sometimes when discussing FTB with patients where the pregnancy outcome is uncertain. While the majority (84%) were at least somewhat prepared for these conversations from their training, which commonly addressed the diagnostic approach to this scenario, 39% strongly or moderately agreed that they could benefit from training on the topic. Because the majority of ED clinicians identified at least sometimes encountering challenges communicating with pregnant patients about FTB, our study indicates a need exists for more training in this skill.

"Unfortunately, I don't have an answer for you": How resident physicians communicate diagnostic uncertainty to patients during emergency department discharge.

OBJECTIVE: To describe how emergency medicine resident physicians discuss diagnostic uncertainty during a simulated ED discharge discussion. METHODS: A secondary content analysis of simulated clinical encounter audiotapes completed by emergency medicine residents across two sites. RESULTS: When discussing lack of diagnosis, residents explained the evaluation revealed no cause for symptoms, noted concerning diagnoses that were excluded, and acknowledged both symptoms and patients' feelings. Residents used explicit and implicit language to discuss diagnostic uncertainty with similar frequency. Almost half of the residents discussed the ED role as focused on emergent illness to give patients context for their uncertain diagnoses. However, 28% of residents in this study did not discuss diagnostic uncertainty in any form. All residents provided reassurance. CONCLUSION: Residents use a range of approaches to discuss diagnostic uncertainty with patients at the time of a simulated ED discharge, with some residents omitting discussion of uncertainty entirely. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: These findings represent the current state of communication, which needs improvement. These findings do not immediately transfer to clinical practice recommendations, but rather support a need for both further study and development of formal communication training on this topic.

I Don't Have a Diagnosis for You: Preparing Medical Students to Communicate Diagnostic Uncertainty in the Emergency Department.

INTRODUCTION: Diagnostic uncertainty abounds in medicine, and communication of that uncertainty is critical to the delivery of high-quality patient care. While there has been training in communicating diagnostic uncertainty directed towards residents, a gap remains in preparing medical students to understand and communicate diagnostic uncertainty. We developed a session to introduce medical students to diagnostic uncertainty and to practice communicating uncertainty using a checklist during role-play patient conversations. METHODS: This virtual session was conducted for third-year medical students at the conclusion of their core clerkships. It consisted of prework, didactic lecture, peer role-play, and debriefing. The prework included reflection prompts and an interactive online module. The role-play featured a patient complaining of abdominal pain being discharged from the emergency department without a confirmed diagnosis. Students participated in the role of patient, provider, or observer. RESULTS: Data from an anonymous postsession survey (76% response rate; 202 of 265 students) indicated that most students (82%; 152 of 185) felt more comfortable communicating diagnostic uncertainty after the session. A majority (83%; 166 of 201) indicated the session was useful, and most (81%; 149 of 184) indicated it should be included in the curriculum. DISCUSSION: This virtual session requires few facilitators; has peer role-play, eliminating the need for standardized patients; and is adaptable for in-person teaching. As its goal was to introduce an approach to communicating diagnostic uncertainty, not achieve mastery, students were not individually assessed for proficiency using the Uncertainty Communication Checklist. Students felt the session intervention was valuable.

There's an app for that: Teaching residents to communicate diagnostic uncertainty through a mobile gaming application.

BACKGROUND: Clear communication is integral to good clinical care; however, communication training is cost and time intensive. Mobile applications (apps) may provide a useful adjunct to traditional simulation skills training. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate (1) use of an app for teaching communication skills about diagnostic uncertainty, (2) feedback on app use, and (3) the association between use and skill mastery. PATIENT INVOLVEMENT: The app under study is designed to improve doctor-patient communication. METHODS: The study was a planned sub-analysis of a randomized controlled waitlist trial with emergency medicine resident physicians randomized to receive immediate or delayed access to an educational curriculum focused on diagnostic uncertainty. The curriculum included a web-based interactive module and the app. Metrics describing participants' use of the app, feedback on use, and association of use and achieving mastery in communicating diagnostic uncertainty are reported. Differences between groups utilizing the app were analyzed using Chi-squared test; logistic regression assessed the association between app use and achieving mastery of the communication skill. RESULTS: Among 109 participants completing the trial, only 34 (31.2%) used the app. Most participants engaged with the app on one occasion for a median of 50 min (IQR 31, 87). Senior residents were more likely to use the app than junior residents (41.3% vs 23.8%, p=0.05). Overall reviews were positive; 76% reported the app helped them learn. There was no significant association between app use and achieving mastery of the communication skill in the trial [OR 2.1, 95% CI (0.91-4.84)]. DISCUSSION: Despite positive reviews of app use, overall use was low and there was no association with achieving mastery. PRACTICAL VALUE: Offering an app as an auxiliary training opportunity may be beneficial to some residents, but shouldn't be planned for use as a primary didactic modality unless there is evidence for effectiveness and use is mandated. AVAILABILITY OF DATA AND MATERIALS: The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are not publicly available since some data may be identifiable but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Patient Markers of Successful Diabetes Management.

PURPOSE: For individuals with diabetes, diabetes health status may not align with A1C targets. Patients may use nonclinical targets when assessing their diabetes management success. Identifying these targets is important in developing patient-centered management plans. The purpose of this study was to identify patient markers of successful diabetes management among patients in an urban academic health system. METHODS: A secondary analysis of semistructured interviews was completed with 89 adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Participants had a recent diabetes-related emergency department (ED) visits or hospitalization or were primary care patients with an A1C >7.5%. Interviews were conducted to saturation. Demographic data were collected via self-report and electronic medical records. Interviews were analyzed using conventional content analysis. This analysis focused on patient perceptions of successful management coded to "measuring management success." RESULTS: Although most participants cited A1C or blood glucose as a marker of successful diabetes management, they had varied understanding of these metrics. Most used a combination of targets from the following categories: 1) A1C, blood glucose, and numbers; 2) engagement in medical care; 3) taking medication and medication types; 4) symptoms; 5) diet, exercise, and weight; and 6) stress management and social support. CONCLUSION: Individuals not meeting glycemic goals and/or with recent diabetes-related ED visits or hospitalizations had varied understanding of A1C and blood glucose targets. They use multiple additional markers of successful management and had a desire for management discussions that incorporate these markers. These measures should be incorporated into their care plans along with clinical targets.

Developing standardized patient-based cases for communication training: lessons learned from training residents to communicate diagnostic uncertainty.

Health professions education has benefitted from standardized patient (SP) programs to develop and refine communication and interpersonal skills in trainees. Effective case design is essential to ensure an SP encounter successfully meets learning objectives that are focused on communication skills. Creative, well-designed case scenarios offer learners the opportunity to engage in complex patient encounters, while challenging them to address the personal and emotional contexts in which their patients are situated. Therefore, prior to considering the practical execution of the patient encounter, educators will first need a clear and structured strategy for writing, organizing, and developing cases. The authors reflect on lessons learned in developing standardized patient-based cases to train learners to communicate to patients during times of diagnostic uncertainty, and provide suggestions to develop a set of simulation cases that are both standardized and diverse. Key steps and workflow processes that can assist educators with case design are introduced. The authors review the need to increase awareness of and mitigate existing norms and implicit biases, while maximizing variation in patient diversity. Opportunities to leverage the breadth of emotional dispositions of the SP and the affective domain of a clinical encounter are also discussed as a means to guide future case development and maximize the value of a case for its respective learning outcomes.

Patient-important outcomes to inform shared decision making and goal setting for diabetes treatment.

OBJECTIVE: Despite well-established treatment guidelines, diabetes is difficult to manage for many individuals. The importance of using shared decision making to optimize diabetes treatment is recognized, yet what matters most to individuals with diabetes is not well established. Our goal was to identify patients' goals and priorities for diabetes management. METHODS: We engaged 141 participants through interviews and group concept mapping to identify patient-important outcomes (PIOs) for diabetes care. We generated a master list of PIOs by aggregating interview data coded to "goals" and ideas brainstormed during concept mapping, and then a patient advisory board sorted the PIOs into higher-level domains. RESULTS: We identified 41 PIOs sorted into 7 broad domains: optimize daily self-care, optimize long term health, learn about diabetes, achieve measurable goals, manage medications, manage diet and best utilize medical / professional services. CONCLUSIONS: Most (4/7) of PIO domains focused on personal and life goals, not medically-oriented goals. Use of these PIOs and domains may facilitate more effective SDM discussions for patients with diabetes. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Use of PIOs from this work can enable the empowerment of patients to voice their priorities during SDM conversations, thus facilitating development of truly individualized diabetes treatment plans.

"I had no other choice but to catch it too": the roles of family history and experiences with diabetes in illness representations.

BACKGROUND: A family history of diabetes and family members' experiences with diabetes may influence individuals' beliefs and expectations about their own diabetes. No qualitative studies have explored the relationship between family history and experiences and individuals' diabetes illness representations. METHODS: Secondary data analysis of 89 exploratory, semi-structured interviews with adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes seeking care in an urban health system. Participants had a recent diabetes-related ED visit/hospitalization or hemoglobin A1c > 7.5%. Interviews were conducted until thematic saturation was achieved. Demographic data were collected via self-report and electronic medical record review. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded using a conventional content analysis approach. References to family history and family members' experiences with diabetes were analyzed using selected domains of Leventhal's Common Sense Model of Self-Regulation. RESULTS: Participants cited both genetic and behavioral family history as a major cause of their diabetes. Stories of relatives' diabetes complications and death figured prominently in their discussion of consequences; however, participants felt controllability over diabetes through diet, physical activity, and other self-care behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: Findings supported an important role of family diabetes history and experience in development of diabetes illness representations. Further research is needed to expand our understanding of the relationships between these perceptions, self-management behaviors, and outcomes. Family practice providers, diabetes educators and other team members should consider expanding assessment of current family structure and support to also include an exploration of family history with diabetes, including which family members had diabetes, their self-care behaviors, and their outcomes, and how this history fits into the patient's illness representations.

Development of the Uncertainty Communication Checklist: A Patient-Centered Approach to Patient Discharge From the Emergency Department.

Clear communication with patients upon emergency department (ED) discharge is important for patient safety during the transition to outpatient care. Over one-third of patients are discharged from the ED with diagnostic uncertainty, yet there is no established approach for effective discharge communication in this scenario. From 2017 to 2019, the authors developed the Uncertainty Communication Checklist for use in simulation-based training and assessment of emergency physician communication skills when discharging patients with diagnostic uncertainty. This development process followed the established 12-step Checklist Development Checklist framework and integrated patient feedback into 6 of the 12 steps. Patient input was included as it has potential to improve patient-centeredness of checklists related to assessment of clinical performance. Focus group patient participants from 2 clinical sites were included: Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PA, and Northwestern University Hospital, Chicago, Illinois.The authors developed a preliminary instrument based on existing checklists, clinical experience, literature review, and input from an expert panel comprising health care professionals and patient advocates. They then refined the instrument based on feedback from 2 waves of patient focus groups, resulting in a final 21-item checklist. The checklist items assess if uncertainty was addressed in each step of the discharge communication, including the following major categories: introduction, test results/ED summary, no/uncertain diagnosis, next steps/follow-up, home care, reasons to return, and general communication skills. Patient input influenced both what items were included and the wording of items in the final checklist. This patient-centered, systematic approach to checklist development is built upon the rigor of the Checklist Development Checklist and provides an illustration of how to integrate patient feedback into the design of assessment tools when appropriate.

Simulation-based mastery learning compared to standard education for discussing diagnostic uncertainty with patients in the emergency department: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic uncertainty occurs frequently in emergency medical care, with more than one-third of patients leaving the emergency department (ED) without a clear diagnosis. Despite this frequency, ED providers are not adequately trained on how to discuss diagnostic uncertainty with these patients, who often leave the ED confused and concerned. To address this training need, we developed the Uncertainty Communication Education Module (UCEM) to teach physicians how to discuss diagnostic uncertainty. The purpose of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the UCEM in improving physician communications. METHODS: The trial is a multicenter, two-arm randomized controlled trial designed to teach communication skills using simulation-based mastery learning (SBML). Resident emergency physicians from two training programs will be randomly assigned to immediate or delayed receipt of the two-part UCEM intervention after completing a baseline standardized patient encounter. The two UCEM components are: 1) a web-based interactive module, and 2) a smart-phone-based game. Both formats teach and reinforce communication skills for patient cases involving diagnostic uncertainty. Following baseline testing, participants in the immediate intervention arm will complete a remote deliberate practice session via a video platform and subsequently return for a second study visit to assess if they have achieved mastery. Participants in the delayed intervention arm will receive access to UCEM and remote deliberate practice after the second study visit. The primary outcome of interest is the proportion of residents in the immediate intervention arm who achieve mastery at the second study visit. DISCUSSION: Patients' understanding of the care they received has implications for care quality, safety, and patient satisfaction, especially when they are discharged without a definitive diagnosis. Developing a patient-centered diagnostic uncertainty communication strategy will improve safety of acute care discharges. Although use of SBML is a resource intensive educational approach, this trial has been deliberately designed to have a low-resource, scalable intervention that would allow for widespread dissemination and uptake. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04021771). Registration date: July 16, 2019.

Setting a Minimum Passing Standard for the Uncertainty Communication Checklist Through Patient and Physician Engagement.

BACKGROUND: Historically, medically trained experts have served as judges to establish a minimum passing standard (MPS) for mastery learning. As mastery learning expands from procedure-based skills to patient-centered domains, such as communication, there is an opportunity to incorporate patients as judges in setting the MPS. OBJECTIVE: We described our process of incorporating patients as judges to set the MPS and compared the MPS set by patients and emergency medicine residency program directors (PDs). METHODS: Patient and physician panels were convened to determine an MPS for a 21-item Uncertainty Communication Checklist. The MPS for both panels were independently calculated using the Mastery Angoff method. Mean scores on individual checklist items with corresponding 95% confidence intervals were also calculated for both panels and differences analyzed using a t test. RESULTS: Of 240 eligible patients and 42 eligible PDs, 25 patients and 13 PDs (26% and 65% cooperation rates, respectively) completed MPS-setting procedures. The patient-generated MPS was 84.0% (range 45.2-96.2, SD 10.2) and the physician-generated MPS was 88.2% (range 79.7-98.1, SD 5.5). The overall MPS, calculated as an average of these 2 results, was 86.1% (range 45.2-98.1, SD 9.0), or 19 of 21 checklist items. CONCLUSIONS: Patients are able to serve as judges to establish an MPS using the Mastery Angoff method for a task performed by resident physicians. The patient-established MPS was nearly identical to that generated by a panel of residency PDs, indicating similar expectations of proficiency for residents to achieve skill "mastery."

Development and preliminary validation of a scale to measure patient uncertainty: The "Uncertainty Scale".

Research suggests that patient uncertainty related to experiencing symptoms may drive decisions to seek care. The only validated measure of patient uncertainty assesses uncertainty related to defined illness. In prior work, we engaged patients to describe uncertainty related to symptoms and used findings to develop the 'U-Scale' scale. In this work, we present results from preliminary scale reliability and validity testing. Psychometric testing demonstrated content validity, high internal consistency, and evidence for concurrent validity. Next steps include administration in diverse populations for continued refinement and validation, and exploration of the potential contribution of uncertainty to healthcare utilization.

Identifying Emergency Department Symptom-Based Diagnoses with the Unified Medical Language System.

INTRODUCTION: Many patients who are discharged from the emergency department (ED) with a symptom-based discharge diagnosis (SBD) have post-discharge challenges related to lack of a definitive discharge diagnosis and follow-up plan. There is no well-defined method for identifying patients with a SBD without individual chart review. We describe a method for automated identification of SBDs from ICD-10 codes using the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) Metathesaurus. METHODS: We mapped discharge diagnosis, with use of ICD-10 codes from a one-month period of ED discharges at an urban, academic ED to UMLS concepts and semantic types. Two physician reviewers independently manually identified all discharge diagnoses consistent with SBDs. We calculated inter-rater reliability for manual review and the sensitivity and specificity for our automated process for identifying SBDs against this "gold standard." RESULTS: We identified 3642 ED discharges with 1382 unique discharge diagnoses that corresponded to 875 unique ICD-10 codes and 10 UMLS semantic types. Over one third (37.5%, n = 1367) of ED discharges were assigned codes that mapped to the "Sign or Symptom" semantic type. Inter-rater reliability for manual review of SBDs was very good (0.87). Sensitivity and specificity of our automated process for identifying encounters with SBDs were 84.7% and 96.3%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Use of our automated process to identify ICD-10 codes that classify into the UMLS "Sign or Symptom" semantic type identified the majority of patients with a SBD. While this method needs refinement to increase sensitivity of capture, it has potential to automate an otherwise highly time-consuming process. This novel use of informatics methods can facilitate future research specific to patients with SBDs.

Patient experience and challenges in group concept mapping for clinical research.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Group concept mapping (GCM) is a research method that engages stakeholders in generating, structuring and representing ideas around a specific topic or question. GCM has been used with patients to answer questions related to health and disease but little is known about the patient experience as a participant in the process. This paper explores the patient experience participating in GCM as assessed with direct observation and surveys of participants. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis performed within a larger study in which 3 GCM iterations were performed to engage patients in identifying patient-important outcomes for diabetes care. Researchers tracked the frequency and type of assistance required by each participant to complete the sorting and rating steps of GCM. In addition, a 17-question patient experience survey was administered over the telephone to the participants after they had completed the GCM process. Survey questions asked about the personal impact of participating in GCM and the ease of various steps of the GCM process. RESULTS: Researchers helped patients 92 times during the 3 GCM iterations, most commonly to address software and computer literacy issues, but also with the sorting phase itself. Of the 52 GCM participants, 40 completed the post-GCM survey. Respondents averaged 56 years of age, were 50% female and had an average hemoglobin A1c of 9.1%. Ninety-two percent (n = 37) of respondents felt that they had contributed something important to this research project and 90% (n = 36) agreed or strongly agreed that their efforts would help others with diabetes. Respondents reported that the brainstorming session was less difficult when compared with sorting and rating of statements. DISCUSSION: Our results suggest that patients find value in participating in GCM. Patients reported less comfort with the sorting step of GCM when compared with brainstorming, an observation that correlates with our observations from the GCM sessions. Researchers should consider using paper sorting methods and objective measures of sorting quality when using GCM in patient-engaged research to improve the patient experience and concept map quality.

Eliciting patient-important outcomes through group brainstorming: when is saturation reached?

PURPOSE: Group brainstorming is a technique for the elicitation of patient input that has many potential uses, however no data demonstrate concept saturation. In this study we explore concept saturation in group brainstorming performed in a single session as compared to two or three sessions. METHODS: Fifty-two predominately African American adults patients with moderately to poorly controlled Diabetes Mellitus participated in three separate group brainstorming sessions as part of a PCORI-funded group concept mapping study examining comparing methods for the elicitation of patient important outcomes (PIOs). Brainstorming was unstructured, in response to a prompt designed to elicit PIOs in diabetes care. We combined similar brainstormed responses from all three sessions into a 'master list' of unique PIOs, and then compared the proportion obtained at each individual session, as well as those obtained in combinations of 2 sessions, to the master list. RESULTS: Twenty-four participants generated 85 responses in session A, 14 participants generated 63 in session B, and 14 participants generated 47 in session C. Compared to the master list, the individual sessions contributed 87%, 76%, and 63% of PIOs. Session B added 3 unique PIOs not present in session A, and session C added 2 PIOs not present in either A or B. No single session achieved >90% saturation of the master list, but all 3 combinations of 2 sessions achieved > 90%. CONCLUSIONS: Single sessions elicited only 63-87% of the patient-important outcomes obtained across all three sessions, however all combinations of two sessions elicited over 90% of the master list, suggesting that 2 sessions are sufficient for concept saturation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02792777 . Registered 2 June 2016.

The power of the group: comparison of interviews and group concept mapping for identifying patient-important outcomes of care.

BACKGROUND: Data are limited regarding how to effectively and efficiently identify patient priorities for research or clinical care. Our goal was to compare the comprehensiveness and efficiency of group concept mapping (GCM), a group participatory method, to interviews for identifying patient goals when seeking care. METHODS: We engaged patients with moderately- to poorly-controlled diabetes mellitus in either GCM or an individual interview. The primary outcome was the comprehensiveness of GCM brainstorming (the first stage of GCM) as compared to interviews for eliciting patient-important outcomes (PIOs) related to seeking care. Secondary outcomes included 1) comprehensiveness of GCM brainstorming and interviews compared to a master list of PIOs and 2) efficiency of GCM brainstorming, the entire GCM process and interviews. RESULTS: We engaged 89 interview participants and 52 GCM participants (across 3 iterations of GCM) to identify outcomes most important to patients when making decisions related to diabetes management. We identified 26 PIOs in interviews, 33 PIOs in the first GCM brainstorming session, and 38 PIOs across all three GCM brainstorming sessions. The initial GCM brainstorming session identified 77% (20/26) of interview PIOs, and all 3 GCM brainstorming sessions combined identified 88% (23/26). When comparing GCM brainstorming and interviews to the master list of PIOs, the initial GCM brainstorming sessions identified 80% (33/41), all 3 GCM brainstorming sessions identified 93% (38/41) and interviews identified 63% (26/41) of all PIOs. Compared to interviews, GCM brainstorming required less research team time, more patient time, and had a lowest cost. The entire GCM process still required less research team time than interviews, though required more patient time and had a higher cost than interviews. CONCLUSIONS: GCM brainstorming is a powerful tool for effectively and efficiently identifying PIOs in certain scenarios, though it does not provide the breadth and depth of individual interviews or the higher level conceptual organization of the complete process of GCM. Selection of the optimal method for patient engagement should include consideration of multiple factors including depth of patient input desired, research team expertise, resources, and the population to be engaged. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02792777. Registration information submitted 6/2/2016, with the registration first posted on the ClinicalTrials.gov website 6/8/2016. Data collection began on 4/29/2016.

Patient Uncertainty as a Predictor of 30-day Return Emergency Department Visits: An Observational Study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to examine the relationship between patient uncertainty at the time of emergency department (ED) discharge as measured by the "Uncertainty Scale" (U-Scale) and 30-day return ED visits. We hypothesized that a higher score on the U-Scale predicts a higher likelihood of a 30-day return ED visit. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional single-site pilot study performed with adult patients discharged from an urban academic ED to assess the relationship of U-Scale total and subscale scores with 30-day return ED visits. We collected demographic and U-Scale scores at the time of ED discharge and subsequent 30-day ED utilization data by follow-up telephone call. RESULTS: No association was found between the total U-Scale score and subsequent ED utilization. Patients with higher uncertainty on the Treatment Quality subscale of the U-Scale had higher odds of a 30-day return ED visit (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 1.16), while patients with lower uncertainty on the Decision to Seek Care subscale had higher odds of a 30-day return ED visit (AOR = 0.68). CONCLUSION: Patient uncertainty as measured by the U-Scale total score was not predictive of subsequent ED utilization. However, uncertainty related to treatment quality and the decision to seek care as measured by the U-Scale subscales may be important in predicting repeat ED utilization. Unlike individual patient factors such as age and race that have been associated with frequent ED visits in prior studies, these domains of uncertainty are potentially modifiable. Providers and health systems may successfully prevent recurrent acute care encounters through implementation of interventions designed to address patient uncertainty. Further work is needed to refine the U-Scale and test its predictive utility among a larger patient cohort.

Use of Group Concept Mapping to Identify Patient Domains of Uncertainty That Contribute to Emergency Department Use.

INTRODUCTION: Prior research suggests that uncertainty related to symptoms is a driver of emergency department (ED) use, and that patients often leave the ED with uncertainty not being addressed. Our objective was to engage patients to identify domains that contribute to feelings of uncertainty and decisions to use the ED. METHODS: We used Group Concept Mapping, a quasi-qualitative/quasi-quantitative method, to elicit patients' views on how uncertainty related to experiencing symptoms contributes to decisions to access the ED. Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants who either sought treatment at the ED twice within a 30-day period, or visited both the ED and a primary care provider at least once within the past year. RESULTS: Thirty-four participants engaged in two rounds of Group Concept Mapping during which participants participated in structured brainstorming of ideas, followed by ranking and clustering of ideas into domains. The first round generated 47 idea statements reflecting uncertainty about consequences, severity, emergency room services, primary care options, finances, and psychologic concerns. The second round generated 52 idea statements reflecting uncertainty about self-management, causation, diagnosis and treatment plan, trust in the provider and institution, accessibility, and alternative care options. DISCUSSION: Factors that contribute to uncertainty and decision-making about ED use are both intrinsic (ie, cause, symptom severity) and extrinsic (ie, finances, accessibility). These domains can inform approaches to measure the uncertainty that patients experience, and to design and test interventions for nurses and other providers to help manage patient uncertainty during acute illness.