Integrating Option Grid Patient Decision Aids in the Epic Electronic Health Record: Case Study at 5 Health Systems.

BACKGROUND: Some researchers argue that the successful implementation of patient decision aids (PDAs) into clinical workflows depends on their integration into electronic health records (EHRs). Anecdotally, we know that EHR integration is a complex and time-consuming task; yet, the process has not been examined in detail. As part of an implementation project, we examined the work involved in integrating an encounter PDA for symptomatic uterine fibroids into Epic EHR systems. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify the steps and time required to integrate a PDA into the Epic EHR system and examine facilitators and barriers to the integration effort. METHODS: We conducted a case study at 5 academic medical centers in the United States. A clinical champion at each institution liaised with their Epic EHR team to initiate the integration of the uterine fibroid Option Grid PDAs into clinician-facing menus. We scheduled regular meetings with the Epic software analysts and an expert Epic technologist to discuss how best to integrate the tools into Epic for use by clinicians with patients. The meetings were then recorded and transcribed. Two researchers independently coded the transcripts and field notes before categorizing the codes and conducting a thematic analysis to identify the facilitators and barriers to EHR integration. The steps were reviewed and edited by an Epic technologist to ensure their accuracy. RESULTS: Integrating the uterine fibroid Option Grid PDA into clinician-facing menus required an 18-month timeline and a 6-step process, as follows: task priority negotiation with Epic software teams, security risk assessment, technical review, Epic configuration; troubleshooting, and launch. The key facilitators of the process were the clinical champions who advocated for integration at the institutional level and the presence of an experienced technologist who guided Epic software analysts during the build. Another facilitator was the use of an emerging industry standard app platform (Health Level 7 Substitutable Medical Applications and Reusable Technologies on Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources) as a means of integrating the Option Grid into existing systems. This standard platform enabled clinicians to access the tools by using single sign-on credentials and prevented protected health information from leaving the EHR. Key barriers were the lack of control over the Option Grid product developed by EBSCO (Elton B Stephens Company) Health; the periodic Epic upgrades that can result in a pause on new software configurations; and the unforeseen software problems with Option Grid (ie, inability to print the PDA), which delayed the launch of the PDA. CONCLUSIONS: The integration of PDAs into the Epic EHR system requires a 6-step process and an 18-month timeline. The process required support and prioritization from a clinical champion, guidance from an experienced technologist, and a willing EHR software developer team.

Conceptualising patient empowerment: a mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, interventions and health policy programmes have been established to promote patient empowerment, with a particular focus on patients affected by long-term conditions. However, a clear definition of patient empowerment is lacking, making it difficult to assess effectiveness of interventions designed to promote it. The aim in this study was to develop a conceptual map of patient empowerment, including components of patient empowerment and relationships with other constructs such as health literacy, self-management and shared decision-making. METHODS: A mixed methods study was conducted comprising (i) a scoping literature review to identify and map the components underpinning published definitions of patient empowerment (ii) qualitative interviews with key stakeholders (patients, patient representatives, health managers and health service researchers) to further develop the conceptual map. Data were analysed using qualitative methods. A combination of thematic and framework analysis was used to integrate and map themes underpinning published definitions of patient empowerment with the views of key UK stakeholders. RESULTS: The scoping literature review identified 67 articles that included a definition of patient empowerment. A range of diverse definitions of patient empowerment was extracted. Thematic analysis identified key underpinning themes, and these themes were used to develop an initial coding framework for analysis of interview data. 19 semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders. Transcripts were analysed using the initial coding framework, and findings were used to further develop the conceptual map. The resulting conceptual map describes that patient empowerment can be conceived as a state ranging across a spectrum from low to high levels of patient empowerment, with the level of patient empowerment potentially measurable using a set of indicators. Five key components of the conceptual map were identified: underpinning ethos, moderators, interventions, indicators and outcomes. Relationships with other constructs such as health literacy, self-management and shared decision-making are illustrated in the conceptual map. CONCLUSION: A novel conceptual map of patient empowerment grounded in published definitions of patient empowerment and qualitative interviews with UK stakeholders is described, that may be useful to healthcare providers and researchers designing, implementing and evaluating interventions to promote patient empowerment.

The psychometric properties of CollaboRATE: a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of the shared decision-making process.

BACKGROUND: Patient-centered health care is a central component of current health policy agendas. Shared decision making (SDM) is considered to be the pinnacle of patient engagement and methods to promote this are becoming commonplace. However, the measurement of SDM continues to prove challenging. Reviews have highlighted the need for a patient-reported measure of SDM that is practical, valid, and reliable to assist implementation efforts. In consultation with patients, we developed CollaboRATE, a 3-item measure of the SDM process. OBJECTIVE: There is a need for scalable patient-reported measure of the SDM process. In the current project, we assessed the psychometric properties of CollaboRATE. METHODS: A representative sample of the US population were recruited online and were randomly allocated to view 1 of 6 simulated doctor-patient encounters in January 2013. Three dimensions of SDM were manipulated in the encounters: (1) explanation of the health issue, (2) elicitation of patient preferences, and (3) integration of patient preferences. Participants then completed CollaboRATE (possible scores 0-100) in addition to 2 other patient-reported measures of SDM: the 9-item Shared Decision Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and the Doctor Facilitation subscale of the Patient's Perceived Involvement in Care Scale (PICS). A subsample of participants was resurveyed between 7 and 14 days after the initial survey. We assessed CollaboRATE's discriminative, concurrent, and divergent validity, intrarater reliability, and sensitivity to change. RESULTS: The final sample consisted of 1341 participants. CollaboRATE demonstrated discriminative validity, with a significant increase in CollaboRATE score as the number of core dimensions of SDM increased from zero (mean score: 46.0, 95% CI 42.4-49.6) to 3 (mean score 85.8, 95% CI 83.2-88.4). CollaboRATE also demonstrated concurrent validity with other measures of SDM, excellent intrarater reliability, and sensitivity to change; however, divergent validity was not demonstrated. CONCLUSIONS: The fast and frugal nature of CollaboRATE lends itself to routine clinical use. Further assessment of CollaboRATE in real-world settings is required.

Patients recording clinical encounters: a path to empowerment? Assessment by mixed methods.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the motivations of patients recording clinical encounters, covertly or otherwise, and why some do not wish to record encounters. DESIGN: Mixed-methods analysis of survey data and nested semistructured interviews. SETTING: Survey to UK audience, using social media and radio broadcast. PARTICIPANTS: 168 survey respondents, of whom 161 were 18 years of age or older (130 completions). Of the 56 participants who agreed to be contacted, we included data from 17 interviews. RESULTS: 19 (15%) respondents indicated having secretly recorded a clinical encounter and 14 (11%) were aware of someone who had secretly recorded a clinical encounter. 45 (35%) said they would consider recording secretly and 44 (34%) said they would record after asking permission. Totally, 69% of respondents indicated their desire to record clinical encounters, split equally between wanting to do so covertly or with permission. Thematic analysis of the interviews showed that most patients are motivated by the wish to replay, relisten and share the recording with others. Some are also motivated by the idea of owning a personal record, and its potential use as verification of a poor healthcare experience. The rationale for permission seeking was based on the wish to prioritise a trusting relationship with a health professional. Those who preferred to record covertly described a pre-existing lack of trust, a fear that recording would be denied, and a concern that an affronted clinician would deny them access to future care. There was a general wish that recording should be facilitated. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' prime motivation for recording is to enhance their experience of care, and to share it with others. Patients know that recording challenges the 'ceremonial order of the clinic', and so some decide to act covertly. Patients wanted clearer, more permissive policies to be developed.

Undetermined impact of patient decision support interventions on healthcare costs and savings: systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of studies that assessed the potential of patient decision support interventions (decision aids) to generate savings. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: After registration with PROSPERO, we searched 12 databases, from inception to 15 March 2013, using relevant MeSH terms and text words. Included studies were assessed with Cochrane's risk of bias method and Drummond's quality checklist for economic studies. Per patient costs and projected savings associated with introducing patient decision support interventions were calculated, as well as absolute changes in treatment rates after implementation. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were included if they contained quantitative economic data, including savings, spending, costs, cost effectiveness analysis, cost benefit analysis, or resource utilization. We excluded studies that lacked quantitative data on savings, costs, monetary value, and/or resource utilization. RESULTS: After reviewing 1508 citations, we included seven studies with eight analyses. Of these seven studies, four analyses predicted system-wide savings, with two analyses from the same study. The predicted savings range from $8 (£5, €6) to $3068 (£1868, €2243) per patient. Larger savings accompanied reductions in treatment utilization rates. The impact on utilization rates was mixed. Authors used heterogeneous methods to allocate costs and calculate savings. Quality scores were low to moderate (median 4.5, range 0-8 out of 10), and risk of bias across the studies was moderate to high (3.5, range 3-6 out of 6), with studies predicting the most savings having the highest risk of bias. The range of issues identified in the studies included the relative absence of sensitivity analyses, the absence of incremental cost effectiveness ratios, and short time periods. CONCLUSION: Although there is evidence to show that patients choose more conservative approaches when they become better informed, there is insufficient evidence, as yet, to be confident that the implementation of patient decision support interventions leads to system-wide savings. Further work-with sensitivity analyses, longer time horizons, and more contexts-is required to avoid premature or unrealistic expectations that could jeopardize implementation and lead to the loss of already proved benefits. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration CRD42012003421.

Developing CollaboRATE: a fast and frugal patient-reported measure of shared decision making in clinical encounters.

OBJECTIVE: Measuring the process of shared decision making is a challenge, which constitutes a barrier to research and implementation. The aim of the study was to report the development of CollaboRATE, brief patient-reported measure of shared decision making. METHODS: We used the following stages: (1) item formulation; (2) cognitive interviews; (3) item refinement; and (4) pilot testing of final items. Participants were over 18 years old, recruited from the public areas of the Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center. RESULTS: The key finding of this study is that developing a brief patient-reported measure of shared decision making requires a move away from terms such as 'decisions', 'options' and 'preferences'. Although technically correct, these terms act as barriers. They are often unfamiliar, and they also implicitly assume that patients are willing to take active roles in decision making; whereas patients are often unaware that decisions are required, or have taken place, never mind feel that they could or should have participated in them. CONCLUSION: These methods have allowed us to develop a brief, patient-reported measure of shared decision making that is highly accessible to intended users. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The potential strength of the CollaboRATE will be the ability for completion in less than 30s, and across a range of routine settings.

Reporting address changes by migrants: the accuracy and timeliness of reports via health card registers.

Up-to-date and accurate recordings of patient address are important in health services delivery, particularly for screening, immunisation and needs assessment of areas. Patients who change address are at greater risk of having an out-dated address registered with a health professional, which in turn can have a negative impact on their access to services and on the purported health needs of the areas they move to and from. The current study investigated the accuracy and timeliness of updated address information in the Health Card Registration System compared to self-reported addresses in the 2001 Census for members of the Northern Ireland Longitudinal Study (c508,000) who changed address during the years 2001-2007. Males, healthy people and owner-occupiers (level-one) and urban and more socially deprived neighbourhoods (level-two) were associated with an increased risk of late updating or non-reporting of address changes in a multi-level analysis. This may be explained by lack of engagement with the health service. Accurate address information could be considered as an indicator for the Quality and Outcomes Framework in the future in an attempt to maintain accurate records.

Drivers of transfusion decision making and quality of the evidence in orthopedic surgery: a systematic review of the literature.

Reasons for variation in transfusion practice in orthopedic surgery are not well understood. This systematic review identified and appraised the quality of the literature in this area to assess the impact of factors associated with the use of allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) transfusion in orthopedic procedures. MEDLINE and EMBASE databases were searched for relevant English language publications. Articles containing a range of MeSH and text terms regarding "blood transfusion," "predictors," and "multiple logistic regression" were retrieved. Articles that focused on patients undergoing orthopedic procedures and that met prespecified inclusion criteria were appraised in terms of potential bias and the appropriateness of statistical approach. A total of 3641 citations were retrieved, and 29 met the inclusion criteria for the review. Articles reported on a range of orthopedic procedures including total hip arthroplasty; total knee arthroplasty, total shoulder arthroplasty, and spinal surgery. Most studies were conducted in the United States (n = 12) or Canada (n = 5). Study quality was moderate; 50% or more of the quality criteria were assessed in 15 articles. Particular areas of concern were the lack of prospective studies, lack of clarity in defining the time interval between risk factor assessment and transfusion outcome, and lack of model validation. A narrative synthesis found that 2 factors consistently influenced the use of RBC transfusion-decreased hemoglobin (n = 25) and increased patient age (n = 18). Increased surgical complexity (n = 12), low body weight (n = 9), presence of additional comorbidities (n = 9), and female sex (n = 7) were also important factors. The general quality of the studies in the field is weak. However, low hemoglobin and increasing age were consistently identified as independent risk factors for RBC transfusion in orthopedic practice. Additional or alternative analytical approaches are required to obtain a more comprehensive, holistic understanding of the decision to transfuse RBCs to patients undergoing orthopedic surgery.