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

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 238146832110580
Author(s):  
Laura E. Walker ◽  
M. Fernanda Bellolio ◽  
Claudia C. Dobler ◽  
Ian G. Hargraves ◽  
Robert J. Pignolo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Iterative Refinement ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Emergency Department Care ◽  
Goals Of Care ◽  
Code Status ◽  
Number Of Patients

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.

Use of an Atrial Fibrillation Medication Decision Aid Improves Knowledge and Process for Decision Making (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Molly Beinfeld ◽  
Suzanne Brodney ◽  
Michael Barry ◽  
Erika Poole ◽  
Adam Kunin
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Anticoagulant Therapy ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Baseline Group

BACKGROUND A rural community-based Cardiology practice implemented shared decision making supported by an evidence-based decision aid booklet to improve the quality of anticoagulant therapy decisions in patients with atrial fibrillation. OBJECTIVE To develop a practical workflow for implementation of an anticoagulant therapy decision aid and to assess the impact on patients’ knowledge and process for anticoagulant medication decision making. METHODS The organization surveyed all patients with atrial fibrillation being seen at Copley Hospital to establish a baseline level of knowledge, certainty about the decision and process for decision making. The intervention surveys included the same knowledge, certainty, process and demographic questions as the baseline surveys, but also included questions asking for feedback on the decision aid booklet. Stroke risk scores (CHA2DS2-VASc score) were calculated by Copley staff for both groups using EMR data. RESULTS We received 46 completed surveys in the baseline group (64% response rate) and 50 surveys in the intervention group (72% response rate). The intervention group had higher knowledge score than the baseline group (3.6 out of 4 correct answers vs 3.1, p=0.036) and Decision Process Score (2.89 out of 4 vs 2.09, p=0.0023) but similar scores on the SURE scale (3.12 out of 4 vs 3.17, p=0.79). Knowledge and Process score differences were sustained even after adjusting for co-variates in stepwise linear regression analyses. Patients with high school or lower education appeared to benefit the most from shared decision making, as demonstrated by their knowledge scores. CONCLUSIONS It is feasible and practical to implement shared decision making supported by decision aids in a community-based Cardiology practice. Shared decision making can improve knowledge and process for decision making for patients with atrial fibrillation. CLINICALTRIAL None

InformedTogether: A decision aid to support shared decision making about mechanical ventilation in severe COPD patients

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meliss Basile ◽  
Johanna Andrews ◽  
Sonia Jacome ◽  
Meng Zhang ◽  
Andrzej Kozikowski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Copd Patients ◽  
Severe Copd

scholarly journals “TIMEOUT” Before PEG Placement: A Policy Approach to Align Shared Decision-Making and Goals of Care Through Palliative Intervention (F425C)

2021 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 653-654
Author(s):  
Brigit C. Palathra ◽  
Hoda Abdelaziz ◽  
Elizabeth Lee ◽  
Cynthia X. Pan ◽  
Calvin Hwang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Goals Of Care

scholarly journals Patient decision aid based on multi-criteria decision analysis for disease-modifying drugs for multiple sclerosis: prototype development

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
I. E. H. Kremer ◽  
P. J. Jongen ◽  
S. M. A. A. Evers ◽  
E. L. J. Hoogervorst ◽  
W. I. M. Verhagen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Decision Aid ◽  
Disease Modifying Drugs ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Further Development

Abstract Background Since decision making about treatment with disease-modifying drugs (DMDs) for multiple sclerosis (MS) is preference sensitive, shared decision making between patient and healthcare professional should take place. Patient decision aids could support this shared decision making process by providing information about the disease and the treatment options, to elicit the patient’s preference and to support patients and healthcare professionals in discussing these preferences and matching them with a treatment. Therefore, a prototype of a patient decision aid for MS patients in the Netherlands—based on the principles of multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) —was developed, following the recommendations of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. MCDA was chosen as it might reduce cognitive burden of considering treatment options and matching patient preferences with the treatment options. Results After determining the scope to include DMDs labelled for relapsing-remitting MS and clinically isolated syndrome, users’ informational needs were assessed using focus groups (N = 19 patients) and best-worst scaling surveys with patients (N = 185), neurologists and nurses (N = 60) to determine which information about DMDs should be included in the patient decision aid. Next, an online format and computer-based delivery of the patient decision aid was chosen to enable embedding of MCDA. A literature review was conducting to collect evidence on the effectiveness and burden of use of the DMDs. A prototype was developed next, and alpha testing to evaluate its comprehensibility and usability with in total thirteen patients and four healthcare professionals identified several issues regarding content and framing, methods for weighting importance of criteria in the MCDA structure, and the presentation of the conclusions of the patient decision aid ranking the treatment options according to the patient’s preferences. Adaptations were made accordingly, but verification of the rankings provided, validation of the patient decision aid, evaluation of the feasibility of implementation and assessing its value for supporting shared decision making should be addressed in further development of the patient decision aid. Conclusion This paper aimed to provide more transparency regarding the developmental process of an MCDA-based patient decision aid for treatment decisions for MS and the challenges faced during this process. Issues identified in the prototype were resolved as much as possible, though some issues remain. Further development is needed to overcome these issues before beta pilot testing with patients and healthcare professionals at the point of clinical decision-making can take place to ultimately enable making conclusions about the value of the MCDA-based patient decision aid for MS patients, healthcare professionals and the quality of care.

scholarly journals Perceived Appropriateness of Shared Decision-making in the Emergency Department: A Survey Study

2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 375-381 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc A. Probst ◽  
Hemal K. Kanzaria ◽  
Dominick L. Frosch ◽  
Erik P. Hess ◽  
Gary Winkel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Survey Study ◽  
Shared Decision

Abstract 27: Patients' Perspectives on a Decision Aid to Facilitate Cost-sensitive Decisions for Sacubitril-Valsartan

2020 ◽  
Vol 13 (Suppl_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea R Mitchell ◽  
Grace Venechuk ◽  
Larry A Allen ◽  
Dan D Matlock ◽  
Miranda Moore ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Shared Decision Making ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Patient Specific ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Cost Information ◽  
Reduced Ejection Fraction ◽  
The Impact

Background: Decision aids frequently focus on decisions that are preference-sensitive due to an absence of superior medical option or qualitative differences in treatments. Out of pocket cost can also make decisions preference-sensitive. However, cost is infrequently discussed with patients, and cost has not typically been considered in developing approaches to shared decision-making or decision aids. Determining a therapy’s value to a patient requires an individualized assessment of both benefits and cost. A decision aid addressing cost for sacubitril-valsartan in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) was developed because this medication has clear medical benefits but can entail appreciable out-of-pocket cost. Objective: To explore patients’ perspectives on a decision aid for sacubitril-valsartan in HFrEF. Methods: Twenty adults, ages 32-73, with HFrEF who met general eligibility for sacubitril-valsartan were recruited from outpatient HF clinics and inpatient services at 2 geographically-distinct academic health systems. In-depth interviews were conducted by trained interviewers using a semi-structured guide after patients reviewed the decision aid. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed; qualitative descriptive analysis was conducted using a template analytic method. Results: Participants confirmed that cost was relevant to this decision and that cost discussions with clinicians are infrequent but welcomed. Participants cited multiple ways that this decision aid could be helpful beyond informing a choice; these included serving as a conversation starter, helping inform questions, and serving as a reference later. The decision aid seemed balanced; several participants felt that it was promotional, while others wanted a more “positive” presentation. Participants valued the display of benefits of sacubitril-valsartan but had variable views about how to apply data to themselves and heterogenous interpretations of a 3% absolute reduction in mortality over 2 years. None felt this benefit was overwhelming; about half felt it was very small. The decision aid incorporated a novel “gist statement” to contextualize benefits and counter tendencies to dismiss this mortality reduction as trivial. Several participants liked this statement; few had strong impressions. Conclusion: Out of pocket cost should be part of shared decision-making. These data suggest patients are receptive to inclusion of cost in decision aids and that a “middle ground” between being promotional and negative may exist. The data, however, raise concerns regarding potential dismissal of clinically meaningful benefits and illustrate challenges identifying appropriate contextualizing language. The impact of various framings warrants further study, as does integration of decision aids with patient-specific out-of-pocket cost information during clinical encounters.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document