Emergency physician perceptions of shared decision-making

Can we nudge to reduce the perioperative low value care? Decision making factors influencing safe practice implementation

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Highlight sources of low-value care (LVC) during the perioperative period help understanding the decision making behind its persistence, the barriers for change, and the potential implementation strategies to reduce it.

RECENT FINDINGS

The behavioural economics science spread of use through aligned strategies or nudge units offer an opportunity to improve success in the LVC reduction.

SUMMARY

LVC, such as unneeded surgeries, or preanaesthesia tests for low-risk surgeries in low-risk patients, is a relevant source of waste and preventable harm, most especially in the perioperative period. Despite the international focus on it, initial efforts to reduce it in the last decade have not clearly shown a sustainable improvement. Understanding the shared decision-making process and the barriers to be expected when tackling LVC is the first step to build the change. Applying a structured strategy based on the behavioural science principles may be the path to increasing high value care in an effective an efficient way. It is time to foster nudge units at different healthcare system levels.

Perspectives of healthcare professionals and older patients on shared decision-making for treatment escalation planning in the acute hospital setting: a systematic review and qualitative thematic synthesis

Background

Shared Decision-Making (SDM) between patients and clinicians is increasingly considered important. Treament Escalation Plans (TEP) are individualised documents outlining life-saving interventions to be considered in the event of clinical deterioration. SDM can inform subjective goals of care in TEP but it remains unclear how much it is considered beneficial by patients and clinicians. We aimed to synthesise the existing knowledge of clinician and older patient (generally aged ≥65 years) perspectives on patient involvement in TEP in the acute setting.

Methods

Systematic database search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo and CINAHL databases as well as grey literature from database inception to June 8, 2023, using the Sample (older patients, clinicians, acute setting; studies relating to patients whose main diagnosis was cancer or single organ failure were excluded as these conditions may have specific TEP considerations), Phenomenon of Interest (Treatment Escalation Planning), Design (any including interview, observational, survey), Evaluation (Shared Decision-Making), Research type (qualitative, quantitative, mixed methods) tool. Primary data (published participant quotations, field notes, survey results) and descriptive author comments were extracted and qualitative thematic synthesis was performed to generate analytic themes. Quality assessment was made using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme and Mixed Methods Appraisal Tools. The GRADE-CERQual (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach was used to assess overall confidence in each thematic finding according to methodology, coherence, adequacy and relevance of the contributing studies. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO, CRD42022361593.

Findings

Following duplicate exclusion there were 1916 studies screened and ultimately 13 studies were included, all from European and North American settings. Clinician-orientated themes were: treatment escalation is a medical decision (high confidence); clinicians want the best for their patients amidst uncertainty (high confidence); involving patients and families in decisions is not always meaningful and can involve conflict (high confidence); treatment escalation planning exists within the clinical environment, organisation and society (moderate confidence). Patient-orientated themes were: patients' relationships with Treatment Escalation Planning are complex (low confidence); interactions with doctors are important but communication is not always easy (moderate confidence); patients are highly aware of their families when considering TEP (moderate confidence).

Interpretation

Based on current evidence, TEP decisions appear dominated by clinicians' perspectives, motivated by achieving the best for patients and challenged by complex decisions, communication and environmental factors; older patients' perspectives have seldom been explored, but their input on decisions may be modest. Presenting the context and challenge of SDM during professional education may allow reflection and a more nuanced approach. Future research should seek to understand what approach to TEP decision-making patients and clinicians consider to be optimum in the acute setting so that a mutually acceptable standard can be defined in policy.

Funding

HCA International and the NIHR Imperial Biomedical Research Centre.

What are the needs of frail older patients in the emergency department? A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

There is an increase in the number of frail elderly patients presenting to the emergency department. Diagnosis and treatment for this patient group is challenging due to multimorbidity, a-typical presentation and polypharmacy and requires specialised knowledge and competencies from healthcare professionals. We aim to explore the needs and preferences regarding emergency care in frail older patients based on their experiences with received care during Emergency Department admission.

METHOD

A qualitative study design was used, and semi-structured interviews were conducted after discharge with twelve frail older patients admitted to emergency departments in the Netherlands. Data collection and analysis were performed iteratively, and data were thematically analysed.

RESULTS

The analysis enfolded the following themes; feeling disrupted, expecting to be cared for, suppressing their needs and wanting to be seen. These themes indicated a need for situational awareness by healthcare professionals when taking care of the participants and were influenced by the participants' life experiences.

CONCLUSION

Frail older patients feel disrupted when admitted to the emergency department. Because of this, they expect to be cared for, lessen their own needs and want to be seen as human beings. The impact of the admission is influenced by the extent to which healthcare professionals show situational awareness.

Key elements and checklist of shared decision-making conversation on life-sustaining treatment in emergency: a multispecialty study from China

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) has broad application in emergencies. Most published studies have focused on SDM for a certain disease or expert opinions on future research gaps without revealing the full picture or detailed guidance for clinical practice. This study is to investigate the optimal application of SDM to guide life-sustaining treatment (LST) in emergencies.

METHODS

This study was a prospective two-round Delphi consensus-seeking survey among multiple stakeholders at the China Consortium of Elite Teaching Hospitals for Residency Education. Participants were identified based on their expertise in medicine, law, administration, medical education, or patient advocacy. All individual items and questions in the questionnaire were scored using a 5-point Likert scale, with responses ranging from "very unimportant" (a score of 1) to "extremely important" (a score of 5). The percentages of the responses that had scores of 4-5 on the 5-point Likert scale were calculated. A Kendall's W coefficient was calculated to evaluate the consensus of experts.

RESULTS

A two-level framework consisting of 4 domains and 22 items as well as a ready-to-use checklist for the informed consent process for LST was established. An acceptable Kendall's W coefficient was achieved.

CONCLUSION

A consensus-based framework supporting SDM during LST in an emergency department can inform the implementation of guidelines for clinical interventions, research studies, medical education, and policy initiatives.

A Systematic Review of Interventions to Reduce Computed Tomography Usage in the Emergency Department

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Unnecessary computed tomography (CT) scans burden the health care system, leading to increased emergency department (ED) wait times and lengths of stay, costing almost a billion dollars annually. This study aimed to describe ED-based interventions that are most effective at reducing CT imaging while maintaining diagnostic accuracy and patient safety.

METHODS

Adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Google Scholar were searched until December 31, 2020. Randomized and nonrandomized studies that assessed the effect of an ED-based intervention on CT scan usage were included. Abstract screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted in duplicate. The Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework, with the Risk of Bias 2 and Risk of Bias in Nonrandomized Studies - of Interventions tools, was used to determine the certainty of evidence. Significant clinical and statistical heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis; hence, a narrative synthesis was conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 149 studies were included of 5,667 screened abstracts, with substantial interrater reliability among reviewers (Cohen's κ>0.60). The CT reduction strategies were categorized into 15 single and 11 multimodal interventions by consensus review. Interventions that consistently reduced CT usage included diagnostic pathways, alternative test availability, specialist involvement, and provider feedback. Family/patient education, clinical decision support tools, or passive guideline dissemination did not consistently reduce usage. Only 44% of studies reported unintended consequences of reduction strategies; however, these showed no increase in missed diagnoses or patient harm. The interventions that engaged multiple specialties during planning/implementation had a greater reduction effect than ED only. The certainty of evidence for the primary outcome was very low.

CONCLUSION

Multidisciplinary-led interventions that provided an alternative to CT imaging were the most effective at reducing usage and did so without compromising patient safety.

Exploring motivations and resistances for implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: A systematic review based on a structure-process-outcome model

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision-making (SDM) as a multicollaborative approach is vital for facilitating patient-centred care. Considering the limited clinical practice, we attempted to synthesize the motivations and resistances, and investigate their mutual relationships for advancing the implementation of SDM.

METHODS

A comprehensive systematic review using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines was performed. 'Shared decision making' was searched as the mesh term through PubMed, Web of Science and EBSCO from 2000 to 2021, and the quality of literature was appraised using the QualSyst Tool. Motivations and resistances were categorized based on content analysis and the 'structure-process-outcome' model.

RESULTS

From 8319 potential citations, 105 were included, comprising 53 qualitative studies (the average quality score is 0.92) and 52 quantitative studies (the average quality score is 0.95). A total of 42 categories of factors were identified into 11 themes and further grouped into three dimensions: structure, process and outcome. The structure dimension comprised six themes (71.43%), the process dimension contained four themes (11.01%) and the outcome dimension covered only one theme. Across all categories, decision-making time and patients' decision preparedness in the process dimension were the most reported, followed by physicians' communication skills and health care environment in the structure dimension. Analysis of implementation of SDM among various types of diseases showed that more influencing factors were extracted from chronic diseases and unspecified disease decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

The major determinants for the implementation of SDM are focused on the structural dimension, which challenges the health systems of both developed and low- and middle-income countries. Furthermore, we consider it important to understand more about the interactions among the factors to take integrated measures to address the problems and to ensure the effectiveness of implementing SDM.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients, healthcare professionals and other stakeholders articulated their perspectives on the implementation of SDM actively, and these were adopted and analysed in this study. However, the above-mentioned individuals were not directly involved in the process of this study. Protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021259309).

Experiences with information provision and preferences for decision making of patients with acute stroke

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to gain insight into experiences of patients with acute stroke regarding information provision and their preferred involvement in decision-making processes during the initial period of hospitalisation.

METHODS

A sequential explanatory design was used in two independent cohorts of patients with stroke, starting with a survey after discharge from hospital (cohort 1) followed by observations and structured interviews during hospitalisation (cohort 2). Quantitative data were analysed descriptively.

RESULTS

In total, 72 patients participated in this study (52 in cohort 1 and 20 in cohort 2). During hospitalisation, the majority of the patients were educated about acute stroke and their treatment. Approximately half of the patients preferred to have an active role in the decision-making process, whereas only 21% reported to be actively involved. In cohort 2, 60% of the patients considered themselves capable to carefully consider treatment options.

CONCLUSIONS

Active involvement in the acute decision-making process is preferred by approximately half of the patients with acute stroke and most of them consider themselves capable of doing so. However, they experience a limited degree of actual involvement.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Physicians can facilitate patient engagement by explicitly emphasising when a decision has to be made in which the patient's opinion is important.

Clinicians' perspectives on the implementation of patient decision aids in the emergency department: A qualitative interview study

OBJECTIVE

Decision aids (DAs) are tools to facilitate and standardize shared decision making (SDM). Although most emergency clinicians (ECs) perceive SDM appropriate for emergency care, there is limited uptake of DAs in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to explore barriers and facilitators identified by ECs regarding the implementation of DAs in the emergency department (ED).

METHODS

We conducted a qualitative interview study guided by implementation science frameworks. ECs participated in interviews focused on the implementation of DAs for the disposition of patients with low-risk chest pain and unexplained syncope in the ED. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We then iteratively developed a codebook with directed qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

We approached 25 ECs working in urban New York, of whom 20 agreed to be interviewed (mean age, 41 years; 25% women). The following 6 main barriers were identified: (1) poor DA accessibility, (2) concern for increased medicolegal risk, (3) lack of perceived need for a DA, (4) patient factors including lack of capacity and limited health literacy, (5) skepticism about validity of DAs, and (6) lack of time to use DAs. The 6 main facilitators identified were (1) positive attitudes toward SDM, (2) patient access to follow-up care, (3) potential for improved patient satisfaction, (4) potential for improved risk communication, (5) strategic integration of DAs into the clinical workflow, and (6) institutional support of DAs.

CONCLUSIONS

ECs identified multiple barriers and facilitators to the implementation of DAs into clinical practice. These findings could guide implementation efforts targeting the uptake of DA use in the ED.

The mediating and moderating effects of shared decision making and medical autonomy on improving medical service satisfaction in emergency observation units

OBJECTIVE

Distinct from other medical settings, the emergency setting is unique and requires flexible and adaptive decision making to provide quality medical services. This study was designed to investigate the mediating and moderating effects of shared decision making (SDM) and patient attitude toward medical autonomy (AMA) on improving medical service satisfaction (MSS) in emergency observation units.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we collected data via a verified structured questionnaire. A total of 165 participants met the inclusion criteria, and 100% of the questionnaires recovered were valid.

RESULTS

The results show that SDM had a partial mediating effect (p < 0.01) and that it significantly improved MSS. AMA had a moderating effect on some domains (p < 0.01). Meeting patient needs and increasing their participation in decision making can effectively improve MSS. However, excessive patient participation might not be productive, which is an important finding of this study.

CONCLUSION

In emergency observation units, SDM-based doctor-patient interactions and cooperation, effective patient-centered communication, and respect for patients' medical autonomy improve the doctor-patient relationship and patients' health literacy. Patients can thus participate in selecting the best treatment plan to achieve expected health outcomes, and ultimately improve MSS.

Awareness of Doctors' Shared Decision-Making in Life-Sustaining Care Decisions

Purpose

At the end of life, communication is a key factor for good care. However, in clinical practice, it is difficult to adequately discuss end-of-life care. In order to understand and analyze how decision-making related to life-sustaining treatment (LST) is performed, the shared decision-making (SDM) behaviors of physicians were investigated.

Methods

A questionnaire was designed after reviewing the literature on attitudes toward SDM or decision-making related to LST. A final item was added after consulting experts. The survey was completed by internal medicine residents and hematologists/medical oncologists who treat terminal cancer patients.

Results

In total, 202 respondents completed the questionnaire, and 88.6% said that the decision to continue or end LST is usually a result of SDM since they believed that sufficient explanation is provided to patients and caregivers, patients and caregivers make their own decisions according to their values, and there is sufficient time for patients and caregivers to make a decision. Expected satisfaction with the decision-making process was the highest for caregivers (57.4%), followed by physicians (49.5%) and patients (41.1%). In total, 38.1% of respondents said that SDM was adequately practiced when making decisions related to LST. The most common reason for inadequate SDM was time pressure (89.6%).

Conclusion

Although most physicians answered that they practiced SDM when making decisions regarding LST, satisfactory SDM is rarely practiced in the clinical field. A model for the proper implementation of SDM is needed, and additional studies must be conducted to develop an SDM model in collaboration with other academic organizations.

Utilization of Chest Pain Decision Aids in a Community Hospital Emergency Department: A Mixed-methods Implementation Study

INTRODUCTION

Chest pain is a common reason for emergency department (ED) visits. Evidence-based decision aids assessing risk for an adverse cardiac event are underused in community hospital emergency care. This study explored the acceptability, barriers, facilitators, and potential strategies for implementation of the HEART Score risk stratification tool, accelerated diagnostic pathway, and shared decision-making visual aid with physicians and chest pain patients ages >45 in a community hospital ED.

METHODS

Single center, mixed-methods study. (1) Physician semistructured interviews using The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research for systematic analysis. (2) Patient and physician surveys. (3) 16-week intervention of physician training and pilot testing of decision aids with ED patients.

RESULTS

Physician interviews (n = 19); key facilitators: electronic medical record decision support, ease of use, risk stratification and disposition support, and shared decision-making training. Key barriers: time constraints, patient ability, and/or willingness to participate in shared decision-making, lack of integration with medical record and change in practice workflow. Patient study participants (n = 184) with a survey response rate of 92% (n = 170). Most patients (85%) were satisfied with the shared decision-making visual aid. Physicians surveyed (n = 84) with a response rate of 50% (n = 42). Most physicians, 95% (n = 40), support use of the HEART Score, with limited acceptance of the shared decision-making visual aid of 57% (n = 24).

CONCLUSIONS

Using evidence-based chest pain decision aids in a community hospital ED is feasible and acceptable. Key barriers and facilitators for implementation were identified. Further research in community hospitals is needed to verify findings, examine generalizability, and test implementation strategies.

The development of incorpoRATE: A measure of physicians' willingness to incorporate shared decision making into practice

OBJECTIVES

To develop 'incorpoRATE', a brief and broadly applicable measure of physicians' willingness to incorporate shared decision making (SDM) into practice.

METHODS

incorpoRATE was developed across three phases: 1) A review of relevant literature to inform candidate domain and item development, 2) Cognitive interviews with US physicians to iteratively refine the measure, and 3) Pilot testing of the measure across a larger sample of US physicians to explore item and measure performance.

RESULTS

The final measure consists of seven items that assess physician perspectives on various components of SDM use that may present as barriers in practice. During pilot testing, the majority of physicians expressed positive opinions about the overall concept of SDM, yet were less comfortable acting on informed patient choices when there was known incongruence with their own recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

incorpoRATE is a novel physician-reported measure that assesses physicians' willingness to incorporate SDM in practice.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

incorpoRATE has the potential to help us further understand the limited adoption of SDM and areas of focus for improving the use of SDM in the future. We recommend that incorpoRATE be subject to further psychometric, real-world testing, in order to explore its performance across different samples of physicians and organizations.

Documentation of Shared Decisionmaking in the Emergency Department

STUDY OBJECTIVE

While patient-centered communication and shared decisionmaking are increasingly recognized as vital aspects of clinical practice, little is known about their characteristics in real-world emergency department (ED) settings. We constructed a natural language processing tool to identify patient-centered communication as documented in ED notes and to describe visit-level, site-level, and temporal patterns within a large health system.

METHODS

This was a 2-part study involving (1) the development and validation of an natural language processing tool using regular expressions to identify shared decisionmaking and (2) a retrospective analysis using mixed effects logistic regression and trend analysis of shared decisionmaking and general patient discussion using the natural language processing tool to assess ED physician and advanced practice provider notes from 2013 to 2020.

RESULTS

Compared to chart review of 600 ED notes, the accuracy rates of the natural language processing tool for identification of shared decisionmaking and general patient discussion were 96.7% (95% CI 94.9% to 97.9%) and 88.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 86.1% to 91.3%), respectively. The natural language processing tool identified shared decisionmaking in 58,246 (2.2%) and general patient discussion in 590,933 (22%) notes. From 2013 to 2020, natural language processing-detected shared decisionmaking increased 300% and general patient discussion increased 50%. We observed higher odds of shared decisionmaking documentation among physicians versus advanced practice providers (odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.23) and among female versus male patients (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.15). Black patients had lower odds of shared decisionmaking (OR 0.8, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.88) compared with White patients. Shared decisionmaking and general patient discussion were also associated with higher levels of triage and commercial insurance status.

CONCLUSION

In this study, we developed and validated an natural language processing tool using regular expressions to extract shared decisionmaking from ED notes and found multiple potential factors contributing to variation, including social, demographic, temporal, and presentation characteristics.

Minor head injury transfers: Trends and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Children with traumatic head injury are often transferred from community Emergency Departments (ED) to a Pediatric Emergency Department (PED). The primary objective of this study was to describe the outcomes of minor head injury (MHI) transfers to a PED. The secondary objective was to report Computed Tomography (CT) utilization rates for MHI.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of children aged ≤18 years transferred to our PED for MHI from 2013 to 2018. Patients with Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) < 14, coagulopathies, history of brain mass/shunt and suspected non-accidental trauma were excluded. Data collected included demographics, interventions performed, and disposition. MHI risk stratification and clinically important traumatic brain injury (ciTBI) were defined per the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN) head injury guidelines. Descriptive statistics were reported using general measures of frequency and central tendency.

RESULTS

A total of 1078 children with MHI were analyzed based on eligibility criteria. The majority of patients were male (62%) and ≥ 2 years of age (69.3%). Subspecialist consultation (57.2%) and neuroimaging (27.4%) were the most commonly performed interventions in the PED. Only 14 children (1.3%) required neurosurgical intervention. One-third of the transferred patients required no additional work-up. Two-thirds of the patients (66.6%) were directly discharged from the PED. Though the total number of MHI transfers per year declined steadily during the study period (from 271/year to 119/year), CT head utilization remained relatively similar across the study years (60.3% to 70.8%). A higher proportion of children received CT in the ED when compared to the PED for low-risk (28.9% vs 15.8%) and intermediate-risk groups (42.8% vs 29.4%).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of pediatric MHI transfers are discharged home following a subspecialty consultation and/or neuroimaging. Despite guidelines and a low incidence of ciTBI, CT utilization remains high in the intermediate and low risk MHI groups, especially in the community settings. Targeted interventions are needed to reduce the potentially avoidable transfers and low-value performance of CT in children with MHI.

Trends in the Evaluation and Management of Back Pain in Emergency Departments, United States, 2007-2016

OBJECTIVE

Back pain is one of the most common pain syndromes in the United States, but there has been limited recent description of the role of emergency departments (EDs) in caring for patients with back pain. We investigated trends in the evaluation and management of back pain in U.S. EDs from 2007 to 2016.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey, a nationally representative annual survey of ED visits, which includes data on patient-, hospital-, and visit-level characteristics. We evaluated trends among adult ED visits for back pain, including demographics, resource utilization, and disposition. Trends were assessed through the use of survey-weighted analyses.

RESULTS

Visit rates as a proportion of overall ED visits were stable from 2007 to 2016 (9.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 8.5-9.6] vs. 9.3% [95% CI: 8.6-10.0]; P = 0.44). Admission rates declined from 6.4% (95% CI: 5.1-8.0) to 5.0% (95% CI: 3.5-6.9; P < 0.001). Imaging utilization increased from 51.7% (95% CI: 49.3-54.1) to 57.6% (95% CI: 53.3-61.7; P = 0.023), with an increase of 58.3% in computed tomography. Overall opioid utilization declined from 53.5% (95% CI: 49.4-57.5) to 46.5% (95% CI: 43.2-49.8; P < 0.001). Tramadol use increased over the study period (4.1% [95% CI: 3.0-5.8] vs. 8.4% [95% CI: 6.6-10.7]; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Opioid utilization during ED visits for back pain decreased from 2007 to 2016, whereas tramadol use more than doubled. Care intensity increased significantly despite declining admission rates. Further research into optimal strategies for back pain management in the ED is needed.

Development of an App to Facilitate Communication and Shared Decision-making With Parents of Febrile Infants ≤ 60 Days Old

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to develop and test a tool to engage parents of febrile infants ≤ 60 days of age evaluated in the emergency department (ED). The tool was designed to improve communication for all parents and to support shared decision-making (SDM) about whether to perform a lumbar puncture (LP) for infants 29 to 60 days of age.

METHODS

We conducted a multiphase development and testing process: 1) individual, semistructured interviews with parents and clinicians (pediatric and general emergency medicine [EM] physicians and pediatric EM nurses) to learn their preferences for a communication and SDM tool; 2) design of a "storyboard" of the tool with design impression testing; 3) development of a software application (i.e., app) prototype, called e-Care; and 4) usability testing of e-Care, using qualitative assessment and the system usability scale (SUS).

RESULTS

We interviewed 27 parents and 23 clinicians. Interviews revealed several themes, including that a communication tool should augment but not replace verbal communication; a Web-based format was preferred; and information about infections and testing, including the rationales for specific tests, would be valuable. We then developed separate versions of e-Care for infants ≤ 28 days and 29 to 60 days of age, in both English and Spanish. The e-Care app includes four sections: 1) homepage; 2) why testing is done; 3) what tests are done; and 4) what happens after testing, including a table for parents of infants 29 to 60 days of age to compare the risks/benefits of LP in preparation for an SDM conversation. Parents and clinicians reported that e-Care was understandable and helpful. The mean SUS score was 90.3 (95% confidence interval = 84 to 96.6), representing "excellent" usability.

CONCLUSIONS

The e-Care app is a useable and understandable tool to support communication and SDM with parents of febrile infants ≤ 60 days of age in the ED.

PHYSICIAN CHARACTERISTICS THAT INFLUENCE PATIENT PARTICIPATION IN THE TREATMENT OF PRIMARY IMMUNODEFICIENCY

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision making (SDM) is recommended to improve healthcare quality. Physicians who use a rational decision-making style and patient-centric approach are more likely to incorporate SDM into clinical practice. This paper explores how certain physician characteristics such as gender, age, race, experience, and specialty explain patient participation.

METHODS

A multi-group structural equation model tested the relationship between physician decision-making styles, patient-centered care, physician characteristics, and patient participation in clinical treatment decisions. A survey was completed by 330 physicians who treat primary immunodeficiency. Sample group responses were compared between groups across specialty, age, race, experience, or gender.

RESULTS

A patient-centric approach was the main factor that encouraged SDM independent of physician decision-making style with both treatment protocols and product choices. The positive effect of patient-centrism is stronger for immunologists, more experienced physicians, or male physicians. A rational decision-making style increases participation for non-immunologists, older physicians, white physicians, less-experienced physicians and female physicians.

CONCLUSION

A patient-centric approach, rational decision-making and certain physician characteristics help explain patient participation in clinical decisions. Practice Implications Future SDM research and policy initiatives should focus on physician adoption of patient-centric approaches to chronic care diseases and the potential bias associated with physician characteristics and decision-making style.

Barriers and facilitators to reduce low-value care: a qualitative evidence synthesis

OBJECTIVE

To assess barriers and facilitators to de-implementation.

DESIGN

A qualitative evidence synthesis with a framework analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Rx for Change databases until September 2018 were searched.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included studies that primarily focused on identifying factors influencing de-implementation or the continuation of low-value care, and studies describing influencing factors related to the effect of a de-implementation strategy.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The factors were classified on five levels: individual provider, individual patient, social context, organisational context, economic/political context.

RESULTS

We identified 333 factors in 81 articles. Factors related to the individual provider (n=131; 74% barriers, 17% facilitators, 9% both barrier/facilitator) were associated with their attitude (n=72; 55%), knowledge/skills (n=43; 33%), behaviour (n=11; 8%) and provider characteristics (n=5; 4%). Individual patient factors (n=58; 72% barriers, 9% facilitators, 19% both barrier/facilitator) were mainly related to knowledge (n=33; 56%) and attitude (n=13; 22%). Factors related to the social context (n=46; 41% barriers, 48% facilitators, 11% both barrier/facilitator) included mainly professional teams (n=23; 50%) and professional development (n=12; 26%). Frequent factors in the organisational context (n=67; 67% barriers, 25% facilitators, 8% both barrier/facilitator) were available resources (n=28; 41%) and organisational structures and work routines (n=24; 36%). Under the category of economic and political context (n=31; 71% barriers, 13% facilitators, 16% both barrier/facilitator), financial incentives were most common (n=27; 87%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides in-depth insight into the factors within the different (sub)categories that are important in reducing low-value care. This can be used to identify barriers and facilitators in low-value care practices or to stimulate development of strategies that need further refinement. We conclude that multifaceted de-implementation strategies are often necessary for effective reduction of low-value care. Situation-specific knowledge of impeding or facilitating factors across all levels is important for designing tailored de-implementation strategies.

High-deductible health plans and low-value imaging in the emergency department

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effect of an employer-mandated switch to high-deductible health plans (HDHP) on emergency department (ED) low-value imaging.

DATA SOURCES

Claims data of a large national insurer between 2003 and 2014.

STUDY DESIGN

Difference-in-differences analysis with matched control groups.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

The primary outcome is low-value imaging during ED visits for syncope, headache, or low back pain. We included members aged 19-63 years whose employers offered only low-deductible (≤$500) plans for one (baseline) year and, in the next (follow-up) year, offered only HDHPs (≥$1000). Contemporaneous members whose employers offered only low-deductible plans for two consecutive years served as controls. The groups were matched by person and employer propensity for HDHP switch, employer size, baseline calendar year, and baseline year quarterly number of total and imaged ED visits for each condition. We modeled the visit-level probability of low-value imaging using multivariable logistic regression with member-clustered standard errors. We also calculated population level monthly cumulative ED visit rates and modeled their trends using generalized linear regression adjusting for serial autocorrelation.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

After matching, we included 524 998 members in the HDHP group and 5 448 803 in the control group with a mean age of approximately 42 years and 48% female in both groups. On visit-level analyses, there were no significant differential changes in the probability of low-value imaging use in the HDHP and control groups. In population-level analyses, compared with control group members, members who switched to HDHPs experienced a relative decrease of 5.9% (95% CI - 10.3, -1.6) in ED visits for the study conditions and a relative decrease of 5.1% (95%CI -9.6, -0.6) in the subset of ED visits with low-value imaging.

CONCLUSION

Though HDHP switches decreased ED utilization, they had no significant effect on low-value imaging use after patients have decided to seek ED care.

Shared Decision Making for the Emergency Provider: Engaging Patients When Seconds Count

INTRODUCTION

Physicians need to be able to communicate the myriad of management options clearly to patients and engage them in their health care decisions, even in the fast-paced environment of the emergency department. Shared decision making (SDM) is an effective communication strategy for physicians to share diagnostic uncertainty, avoid potentially harmful tests, and solicit patients' preferences for their care. Role-playing with just-in-time feedback is an effective method to learn and practice SDM before having these conversations with patients.

METHODS

This flipped classroom workshop featured precourse materials and an in-class session incorporating a short lecture outlining a framework for SDM, followed by role-playing through patient scenarios. Learners took turns playing the physician or patient role and received feedback on their communication skills while in the physician role. A faculty examiner subsequently assessed skill attainment using a simulated patient encounter and checklist of critical actions.

RESULTS

The workshop was an interactive and effective way to teach SDM to 28 PGY 1 and PGY 2 emergency medicine residents. Two months after attending the workshop, over 75% of the first-year residents were able to complete all the elements of the SDM process in a simulated patient encounter; four residents required no prompting by the examiner.

DISCUSSION

A communications workshop that incorporates role-playing with different patient encounters is an interactive way to teach SDM for the emergency setting. Residents early in their clinical training can benefit from learning and practicing SDM in a simulated setting.

Understanding the public's role in reducing low-value care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Low-value care initiatives are rapidly growing; however, it is not clear how members of the public should be involved. The objective of this scoping review was to systematically examine the literature describing public involvement in initatives to reduce low-value care.

METHODS

Evidence sources included MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases from inception to November 26, 2019, grey literature (CADTH Tool), reference lists of included articles, and expert consultation. Citations were screened in duplicate and included if they referred to the public's perception and/or involvement in reducing low-value care. Public included patients or citizens without any advanced healthcare knowledge. Low-value care included medical tests or treatments that lack efficacy, have risks that exceed benefit, or are not cost-effective. Extracted data pertained to study characteristics, low-value practice, clinical setting, and level of public involvement (i.e., patient-clinician interaction, research, or policy-making).

RESULTS

The 218 included citations were predominantly original research (n = 138, 63%), published since 2010 (n = 192, 88%), originating from North America (n = 146, 67%). Most citations focused on patient engagement within the patient-clinician interaction (n = 156, 72%), using tools that included shared decision-making (n = 66, 42%) and patient-targeted educational materials (n = 72, 46%), and reported both reductions in low-value care and improved patient perceptions regarding low-value care. Fewer citations examined public involvement in low-value care policy-making (n = 33, 15%). Among citations that examined perspectives regarding public involvement in initiatives to reduce low-value care (n = 10, 5%), there was consistent support for the utility of tools applied within the patient-clinician interaction and less consistent support for involvement in policy-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts examining public involvement in low-value care concentrate within the patient-clinician interaction, wherein patient-oriented educational materials and shared decision-making tools have been commonly studied and are associated with reductions in low-value care. This contrasts with inclusion of the public in low-value care policy decisions wherein tools to promote engagement are less well-developed and involvement not consistently viewed as valuable.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/6fsxm).

Implementation of a health-literate patient decision aid for chest pain in the emergency department

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate the implementation of a new health-literacy-tested patient decision aid for chest pain in Emergency Department (ED) patients. Outcomes included disposition, knowledge, decisional conflict and satisfaction prior to discharge. Patient health literacy was explored as a factor that may explain disparities in sub-group analysis of all outcomes.

METHODS

A health-literacy adapted tool was deployed using a pre/post intervention design. Patients enrolled during the intervention period were given the adapted chest pain decision aid that was used in conversation with their emergency medicine physician to decide on their course of action prior to being discharged.

RESULTS

A total of 169 participants were surveyed and used in the final analysis. Patients in the usual care group were 2.6 times more likely to be admitted for chest pain than patients in the intervention group. Knowledge scores were higher in the intervention group, while no significant differences were observed in decisional conflict and patient satisfaction, or by patient health literacy level.

CONCLUSION AND PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Using the adapted chest pain decision tool in emergency medicine may improve knowledge and reduce admissions, while addressing known barriers to understanding related to patient health literacy.

Does Shared Decision Making Actually Occur in the Emergency Department? Looking at It from the Patients' Perspective

OBJECTIVE

We sought to assess the frequency, content, and quality of shared decision making (SDM) in the emergency department (ED), from patients' perspectives.

METHODS

Utilizing a cross-sectional, multisite approach, we administered an instrument, consisting of two validated SDM assessment tools-the CollaboRATE and the SDM-Q-9-and one newly developed tool to a sample of ED patients. Our primary outcome was the occurrence of SDM in the clinical encounter, as defined by participants giving "top-box" scores on the CollaboRATE measure, and the ability of patients to identify the topic of their SDM conversation. Secondary outcomes included the content of the SDM conversations, as judged by patients, and whether patients were able to complete each of the two validated scales included in the instrument.

RESULTS

After exclusions, 285 participants from two sites completed the composite instrument. Just under half identified as female (47%) or as white (47%). Roughly half gave top-box scores (i.e., indicating optimal SDM) on the CollaboRATE scale (49%). Less than half of the participants were able to indicate a decision they were involved in (44%), although those who did gave high scores for such conversations (73/100 via the SDM-Q-9 tool). The most frequently identified decisions discussed were admission versus discharge (19%), medication options (17%), and options for follow-up care (15%).

CONCLUSIONS

Fewer than half of ED patients surveyed reported they were involved in SDM. The most common decision for which SDM was used was around ED disposition (admission vs. discharge). When SDM was employed, patients generally rated the discussion highly.

A Scoping Review of Physicians' Clinical Reasoning in Emergency Departments

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Clinical reasoning is considered a core competency of physicians. Yet there is a paucity of research on clinical reasoning specifically in emergency medicine, as highlighted in the literature.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review to examine the state of research on clinical reasoning in this specialty. Our team, composed of content and methodological experts, identified 3,763 articles in the literature, 95 of which were included.

RESULTS

Most studies were published after 2000. Few studies focused on the cognitive processes involved in decisionmaking (ie, clinical reasoning). Of these, many confirmed findings from the general literature on clinical reasoning; specifically, the role of both intuitive and analytic processes. We categorized factors that influence decisionmaking into contextual, patient, and physician factors. Many studies focused on decisions in regard to investigations and admission. Test ordering is influenced by physicians' experience, fear of litigation, and concerns about malpractice. Fear of litigation and malpractice also increases physicians' propensity to admit patients. Context influences reasoning but findings pertaining to specific factors, such as patient flow and workload, were inconsistent.

CONCLUSION

Many studies used designs such as descriptive or correlational methods, limiting the strength of findings. Many gray areas persist, in which studies are either scarce or yield conflicting results. The findings of this scoping review should encourage us to intensify research in the field of emergency physicians' clinical reasoning, particularly on the cognitive processes at play and the factors influencing them, using appropriate theoretical frameworks and more robust methods.

Physician-identified barriers to and facilitators of shared decision-making in the Emergency Department: an exploratory analysis

OBJECTIVES

Shared decision-making (SDM) is receiving increasing attention in emergency medicine because of its potential to increase patient engagement and decrease unnecessary healthcare utilisation. This study sought to explore physician-identified barriers to and facilitators of SDM in the ED.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews with practising emergency physicians (EP) with the aim of understanding when and why EPs engage in SDM, and when and why they feel unable to engage in SDM. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and a three-member team coded all transcripts in an iterative fashion using a directed approach to qualitative content analysis. We identified emergent themes, and organised themes based on an integrative theoretical model that combined the theory of planned behaviour and social cognitive theory.

RESULTS

Fifteen EPs practising in the New England region of the USA were interviewed. Physicians described the following barriers: time constraints, clinical uncertainty, fear of a bad outcome, certain patient characteristics, lack of follow-up and other emotional and logistical stressors. They noted that risk stratification methods, the perception that SDM decreased liability and their own improving clinical skills facilitated their use of SDM. They also noted that the culture of the institution could play a role in discouraging or promoting SDM, and that patients could encourage SDM by specifically asking about alternatives.

CONCLUSIONS

EPs face many barriers to using SDM. Some, such as lack of follow-up, are unique to the ED; others, such as the challenges of communicating uncertainty, may affect other providers. Many of the barriers to SDM are amenable to intervention, but may be of variable importance in different EDs. Further research should attempt to identify which barriers are most prevalent and most amenable to intervention, as well as capitalise on the facilitators noted.

Challenges and strategies for general practitioners diagnosing serious infections in older adults: a UK qualitative interview study

BACKGROUND

Serious infections in older people are associated with unplanned hospital admissions and high mortality. Recognising the presence of a serious infection and making an accurate diagnosis are important challenges for General Practice. This study aimed to explore the issues UK GPs face when diagnosing serious infections in older patients.

METHODS

Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. 28 GPs from 27 practices were purposively sampled from across the UK to achieve maximum variation in terms of GP role, experience and practice population. Interviews began by asking participants to describe recent or memorable cases where they had assessed older patients with suspected serious infections. Additional questions from the topic guide were used to explore the challenges further. Interview transcripts were coded and analysed using a modified framework approach.

RESULTS

Diagnosing serious infection in older adults was perceived to be challenging by participating GPs and the diagnosis was often uncertain. Contributing factors included patient complexity, atypical presentations, as well as a lack of knowledge of patients due to a loss in continuity. Diagnostic challenges were present at each stage of the patient assessment. Scoring systems were mainly used as communication tools. Investigations were sometimes used to resolve diagnostic uncertainty, but availability and speed of result limited their practical use. Clear safety-net plans shared with patients and their families helped GPs manage ongoing uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

Diagnostic challenges are present throughout the assessment of an older adult with a serious infection in primary care. Supporting GPs to provide continuity of care may improve the recognition and developing point of care testing for use in community settings may reduce diagnostic uncertainty.

Feasibility study of an EHR-integrated mobile shared decision making application

INTRODUCTION

Integrating mobile applications (apps) into users' standard electronic health record (EHR) workflows may be valuable, especially for apps that both read and write data. This report details the lessons learned during the integration of a patient decision aid - prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing for prostate cancer screening - into our users' standard EHR workflow for a small usability assessment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This feasibility study included two steps. First we enabled realtime, secure bidirectional data exchange between the mobile app and EHR for 14 data elements, and second we pilot tested the production environment app with 9 primary care patients aged 60-65 years. Our primary usability metric was a net promoter score (NPS), based on users' recommendation of the app to a friend or family member; we also assessed the proportion of users who 1) updated their prostate cancer risk factor information present in the EHR and 2) submitted more than one unique response regarding their preference to have PSA testing.

RESULTS

The seven web services necessary to read and write data required considerable configuration, but successfully delivered risk factor-specific educational content and recorded patients' values and decision preference directly within the EHR. Seven of the 9 patients (78%) would recommend this app to a friend/family member (NPS = 55.6%), one patient used the app to update risk factor information, and 4/9 (44%) changed their decision preference while using the app.

CONCLUSIONS

It is feasible to implement a decision aid directly into users' standard EHR workflow for limited usability testing. Broad scale implementation may have a positive effect on patient engagement and improve shared decision making, but several challenges exist with proprietary EHR vendor application programming interfaces (API)s.

Experiences with approaches to advance care planning with older people: a qualitative study among Dutch general practitioners

OBJECTIVES

Advance care planning (ACP) with older people needs to be approached differently than ACP with patients with a terminal illness. ACP is still used with only a minority of older patients due to a lack of knowledge regarding appropriate approaches to ACP with older people. General practitioners (GPs) may play a key role in ACP with older people. Therefore, we explored their experiences with and views on approaches to ACP with older patients in daily practice.

DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

A qualitative study among a purposive sample of 19 Dutch GPs based on semistructured interviews.

RESULTS

Approaches to ACP with older patients can be divided into two categories: systematic and ad hoc. Systematic approaches consisted of discussing a fixed combination of topics with community-dwelling older patients who are frail, cognitively impaired or are aged >75 years, and with older patients living in residential care homes during group information meetings, intakes, comprehensive geriatric assessments and periodic assessments. Meetings were aimed at making agreements in anticipation of future care, at providing information and encouraging older people to take further steps in ACP. With ad hoc approaches, respondents discussed only one or two topics related to the near future. Ad hoc ACP was mainly done with deteriorating patients or when patients or family initiated ACP. Systematic and ad hoc approaches were used simultaneously or sequentially and were both used for initiating and following up on ACP. Due to a lack of time and knowledge of other occasions and topics than the ones respondents used, respondents seemed to underuse many occasions and topics.

CONCLUSIONS

Awareness of appropriate systematic and ad hoc approaches for ACP, and the focus on providing information and encouraging older people to take further steps in ACP reported in this study can support GPs and improve older patients' access to ACP.

North American survey on the post-neuroimaging management of children with mild head injuries

OBJECTIVEThere remains uncertainty regarding the appropriate level of care and need for repeating neuroimaging among children with mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) complicated by intracranial injury (ICI). This study's objective was to investigate physician practice patterns and decision-making processes for these patients in order to identify knowledge gaps and highlight avenues for future investigation.METHODSThe authors surveyed residents, fellows, and attending physicians from the following pediatric specialties: emergency medicine; general surgery; neurosurgery; and critical care. Participants came from 10 institutions in the United States and an email list maintained by the Canadian Neurosurgical Society. The survey asked respondents to indicate management preferences for and experiences with children with mTBI complicated by ICI, focusing on an exemplar clinical vignette of a 7-year-old girl with a Glasgow Coma Scale score of 15 and a 5-mm subdural hematoma without midline shift after a fall down stairs.RESULTSThe response rate was 52% (n = 536). Overall, 326 (61%) respondents indicated they would recommend ICU admission for the child in the vignette. However, only 62 (12%) agreed/strongly agreed that this child was at high risk of neurological decline. Half of respondents (45%; n = 243) indicated they would order a planned follow-up CT (29%; n = 155) or MRI scan (19%; n = 102), though only 64 (12%) agreed/strongly agreed that repeat neuroimaging would influence their management. Common factors that increased the likelihood of ICU admission included presence of a focal neurological deficit (95%; n = 508 endorsed), midline shift (90%; n = 480) or an epidural hematoma (88%; n = 471). However, 42% (n = 225) indicated they would admit all children with mTBI and ICI to the ICU. Notably, 27% (n = 143) of respondents indicated they had seen one or more children with mTBI and intracranial hemorrhage demonstrate a rapid neurological decline when admitted to a general ward in the last year, and 13% (n = 71) had witnessed this outcome at least twice in the past year.CONCLUSIONSMany physicians endorse ICU admission and repeat neuroimaging for pediatric mTBI with ICI, despite uncertainty regarding the clinical utility of those decisions. These results, combined with evidence that existing practice may provide insufficient monitoring to some high-risk children, emphasize the need for validated decision tools to aid the management of these patients.

US-based cross-sectional survey of clinicians' knowledge and attitudes about shared decision-making across healthcare professions and specialties

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we aim to compare shared decision-making (SDM) knowledge and attitudes between US-based physician assistants (PAs), nurse practitioners (NPs) and physicians across surgical and family medicine specialties.

SETTING

We administered a cross-sectional, web-based survey between 20 September 2017 and 1 November 2017.

PARTICIPANTS

272 US-based NPs, PA and physicians completed the survey. 250 physicians were sent a generic email invitation to participate, of whom 100 completed the survey. 3300 NPs and PAs were invited, among whom 172 completed the survey. Individuals who met the following exclusion criteria were excluded from participation: (1) lack of English proficiency; (2) area of practice other than family medicine or surgery; (3) licensure other than physician, PA or NP; (4) practicing in a country other than the US.

RESULTS

We found few substantial differences in SDM knowledge and attitudes across clinician types, revealing positive attitudes across the sample paired with low to moderate knowledge. Family medicine professionals (PAs) were most knowledgeable on several items. Very few respondents (3%; 95% CI 1.5% to 6.2%) favoured a paternalistic approach to decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Recent policy-level promotion of SDM may have influenced positive clinician attitudes towards SDM. Positive attitudes despite limited knowledge warrant SDM training across occupations and specialties, while encouraging all clinicians to promote SDM. Given positive attitudes and similar knowledge across clinician types, we recommend that SDM is not confined to the patient-physician dyad but instead advocated among other health professionals.

Patient Preferences Regarding Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: Findings From a Multisite Survey

OBJECTIVES

As shared decision making (SDM) has received increased attention as a method to improve the patient-centeredness of emergency department (ED) care, we sought to determine patients' desired level of involvement in medical decisions and their perceptions of potential barriers and facilitators to SDM in the ED.

METHODS

We surveyed a cross-sectional sample of adult ED patients at three academic medical centers across the United States. The survey included 32 items regarding patient involvement in medical decisions including a modified Control Preference Scale and questions about barriers and facilitators to SDM in the ED. Items were developed and refined based on prior literature and qualitative interviews with ED patients. Research assistants administered the survey in person.

RESULTS

Of 797 patients approached, 661 (83%) agreed to participate. Participants were 52% female, 45% white, and 30% Hispanic. The majority of respondents (85%-92%, depending on decision type) expressed a desire for some degree of involvement in decision making in the ED, while 8% to 15% preferred to leave decision making to their physician alone. Ninety-eight percent wanted to be involved with decisions when "something serious is going on." The majority of patients (94%) indicated that self-efficacy was not a barrier to SDM in the ED. However, most patients (55%) reported a tendency to defer to the physician's decision making during an ED visit, with about half reporting they would wait for a physician to ask them to be involved.

CONCLUSION

We found that the majority of ED patients in our large, diverse sample wanted to be involved in medical decisions, especially in the case of a "serious" medical problem, and felt that they had the ability to do so. Nevertheless, many patients were unlikely to actively seek involvement and defaulted to allowing the physician to make decisions during the ED visit. After fully explaining the consequences of a decision, clinicians should make an effort to explicitly ascertain patients' desired level of involvement in decision making.

A Qualitative Analysis of Patients' Perceptions of Shared Decision Making in the Emergency Department: "Let Me Know I Have a Choice"

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Despite increasing attention to the use of shared decision making (SDM) in the emergency department (ED), little is known about ED patients' perspectives regarding this practice. We sought to explore the use of SDM from the perspectives of ED patients, focusing on what affects patients' desired level of involvement and what barriers and facilitators patients find most relevant to their experience.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of ED patients or their proxies at two sites. An interview guide was developed from existing literature and expert consensus and based on a framework underscoring the importance of both knowledge and power. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in an iterative process by a three-person coding team. Emergent themes were identified, discussed, and organized.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients and proxies participated. The mean age of participants was 56 years (range, 20 to 89 years), and 13 were female. Participants were diverse in regard to race/ethnicity, education, number of previous ED visits, and presence of chronic conditions. All participants wanted some degree of involvement in decision making. Participants who made statements suggesting high self-efficacy and those who expressed mistrust of the health care system or previous negative experiences wanted a greater degree of involvement. Facilitators to involvement included familiarity with the decision at hand, physicians' good communication skills, and clearly delineated options. Some participants felt that their own relative lack of knowledge, compared to that of the physicians, made their involvement inappropriate or unwanted. Many participants had no expectation for SDM and although they did want involvement when asked explicitly, they were otherwise likely to defer to physicians without discussion. Many did not recognize opportunities for SDM in their clinical care.

CONCLUSIONS

This exploration of ED patients' perceptions of SDM suggests that most patients want some degree of involvement in medical decision making but more proactive engagement of patients by clinicians is often needed. Further research should examine these issues in a larger and more representative population.

Impact of a Shared Decision Making Intervention on Health Care Utilization: A Secondary Analysis of the Chest Pain Choice Multicenter Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

Patients at low risk for acute coronary syndrome are frequently admitted for observation and cardiac testing, resulting in substantial burden and cost to the patient and the health care system.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this investigation was to measure the effect of the Chest Pain Choice (CPC) decision aid on overall health care utilization as well as utilization of specific services both during the index emergency department (ED) visit and in the subsequent 45 days.

METHODS

This was a planned secondary analysis of data from a pragmatic multicenter randomized trial of shared decision making in adults presenting to the ED with chest pain who were being considered for observation unit admission for cardiac stress testing or coronary computed tomography angiography. The trial compared an intervention group engaged in shared decision making facilitated by the CPC decision aid to a control group receiving usual care. Hospital-level billing data were used to measure utilization for the index ED visit and during the following 45 days. Patients in both groups also were asked to keep a diary recording health care utilization over the same 45-day period. Outcomes assessed included length of time in the ED and observation, ED visits, office visits, hospitalizations, testing, imaging, and procedures.

RESULTS

Of the 898 patients included in the original trial, we were able to contact 834 (92.9%) patients for 45-day health care diary review. There was no difference in patient-reported health care utilization between the study arms. Hospital-level billing data were obtained for all 898 (100%) patients. During the initial ED visit the length of stay (LOS) was similar, and there was no difference in the frequency of observation unit admission between study arms. However, the mean observation unit LOS was 95 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI] = 40.8-149.8) shorter in the CPC arm and the mean number of tests was lower in the CPC arm (decrease in 19.4 imaging studies per 100 patients, 95% CI = 15.5-23.3). When evaluating the entire encounter and follow-up period, the intervention arm underwent fewer tests (decrease in 125.6 tests per 100 patients, 95% CI = 29.3-221.6). More specifically, there were fewer advanced cardiac imaging tests completed (25.8 fewer per 100 patients, 95% CI = 3.74-47.9) in the intervention arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Shared decision making in low-risk chest pain can lead to decreased diagnostic testing without worsening outcomes measured over 45 days.

A Qualitative Analysis of Attending Physicians' Use of Shared Decision-Making: Implications for Resident Education

BACKGROUND

Physicians need to rapidly and effectively facilitate patient-centered, shared decision-making (SDM) conversations, but little is known about how residents or attending physicians acquire this skill.

OBJECTIVE

We explored emergency medicine (EM) attending physicians' use of SDM in the context of their experience as former residents and current educators and assessed the implications of these findings on learning opportunities for residents.

METHODS

We used semistructured interviews with a purposeful sample of EM physicians. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and 3 research team members performed iterative, open coding of transcripts, building a provisional codebook as work progressed. We analyzed the data with a focus on participants' acquisition and use of skills required for SDM and their use of SDM in the context of resident education.

RESULTS

Fifteen EM physicians from academic and community practices were interviewed. All reported using SDM techniques to some degree. Multiple themes noted had negative implications for resident acquisition of this skill: (1) the complex relationships among patients, residents, and attending physicians; (2) residents' skill levels; (3) the setting of busy emergency departments; and (4) individual attending factors. One theme was noted to facilitate resident education: the changing culture-with a cultural shift toward patient-centered care.

CONCLUSIONS

A constellation of factors may diminish opportunities for residents to acquire and practice SDM skills. Further research should explore residents' perspectives, address the modifiable obstacles identified, and examine whether these issues generalize to other specialties.

Addressing overuse in emergency medicine: evidence of a role for greater patient engagement

Overuse of health care refers to tests, treatments, and even health care settings when used in circumstances where they are unlikely to help. Overuse is not only wasteful, it threatens patient safety by exposing patients to a greater chance of harm than benefit. It is a widespread problem and has proved resistant to change. Overuse of diagnostic testing is a particular problem in emergency medicine. Emergency physicians cite fear of missing a diagnosis, fear of law suits, and perceived patient expectations as key contributors. However, physicians’ assumptions about what patients expect are often wrong, and overlook two of patients’ most consistently voiced priorities: communication and empathy. Evidence indicates that patients who are more fully informed and engaged in their care often opt for less aggressive approaches. Shared decision making refers to (1) providing balanced information so that patients understand their options and the trade-offs involved, (2) encouraging them to voice their preferences and values, and (3) engaging them—to the extent appropriate or desired—in decision making. By adopting this approach to discretionary decision making, physicians are better positioned to address patients’ concerns without the use of tests and treatments patients neither need nor value.

Shared Decisionmaking in the Emergency Department: A Guiding Framework for Clinicians

Shared decisionmaking has been proposed as a method to promote active engagement of patients in emergency care decisions. Despite the recent attention shared decisionmaking has received in the emergency medicine community, including being the topic of the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference, misconceptions remain in regard to the precise meaning of the term, the process, and the conditions under which it is most likely to be valuable. With the help of a patient representative and an interaction designer, we developed a simple framework to illustrate how shared decisionmaking should be approached in clinical practice. We believe it should be the preferred or default approach to decisionmaking, except in clinical situations in which 3 factors interfere. These 3 factors are lack of clinical uncertainty or equipoise, patient decisionmaking ability, and time, all of which can render shared decisionmaking infeasible. Clinical equipoise refers to scenarios in which there are 2 or more medically reasonable management options. Patient decisionmaking ability refers to a patient's capacity and willingness to participate in his or her emergency care decisions. Time refers to the acuity of the clinical situation (which may require immediate action) and the time that the clinician has to devote to the shared decisionmaking conversation. In scenarios in which there is only one medically reasonable management option, informed consent is indicated, with compassionate persuasion used as appropriate. If time or patient capacity is lacking, physician-directed decisionmaking will occur. With this framework as the foundation, we discuss the process of shared decisionmaking and how it can be used in practice. Finally, we highlight 5 common misconceptions in regard to shared decisionmaking in the ED. With an improved understanding of shared decisionmaking, this approach should be used to facilitate the provision of high-quality, patient-centered emergency care.

Shared Decision-Making as the Future of Emergency Cardiology

Shared decision-making is playing an increasingly large role in emergency cardiovascular care. Although there are many challenges to successfully performing shared decision-making in the emergency department, there are numerous clinical scenarios in which it should be used. In this article, we explore new research and emerging decision aids in the following emergency care scenarios: (1) low-risk chest pain; (2) new-onset atrial fibrillation; and (3) moderate-risk syncope. These decision aids are designed to engage patients and facilitate shared decision-making for specific treatment and disposition (admit vs discharge) decisions. We then offer a 3-step, practical approach to performing shared decision-making in the acute care setting, on the basis of broad stakeholder input and previous conceptual work. Step 1 involves simply acknowledging that a clinical decision needs to be made. Step 2 involves a shared discussion about the working diagnosis and the options for care in the context of the patient's values, preferences, and circumstances. The third and final step requires the patient and provider to agree on a plan of action regarding further medical care. The implementation of shared decision-making in emergency cardiology has the potential to shift the paradigm of clinical practice from paternalism toward mutualism and improve the quality and experience of care for our patients.

Emergency Physician Knowledge, Attitudes, and Behavior Regarding ACEP's Choosing Wisely Recommendations: A Survey Study

OBJECTIVE

In 2013, the American College of Emergency Physicians joined the Choosing Wisely campaign; however, its impact on emergency physician behavior is unknown. We assessed knowledge, attitudes, and self-reported behaviors regarding the Choosing Wisely recommendations.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional survey of emergency physicians at a national meeting. We approached 819 physicians; 765 (93.4%) completed the survey.

RESULTS

As a result of the Choosing Wisely campaign, most respondents (64.5%) felt more comfortable discussing low-value services with patients, 54.5% reported reducing utilization, and 52.5% were aware of local efforts to promote the campaign. A majority (62.97%) of respondents were able to identify at least four of five recommendations. The most prevalent low-value practices were computed tomography (CT) brain for minor head injury (29.9%) and antibiotics for acute sinusitis (26.9%). Few respondents reported performing lumbar radiograph for nontraumatic low back pain (7.8%) and Foley catheter for patients who can void (5.6%). Respondents reported patient/family expectations as the most important reason for ordering antibiotics for sinusitis (68%) and imaging for low back pain (56.8%). However, concern for serious diagnosis was the most important reason for performing CT chest for patients with normal D-dimer (49.7%) and CT abdomen for recurrent uncomplicated renal colic (42.5%). A minority (3.8% to 26.7%) of respondents identified malpractice risk as the primary reason for performing low-value services.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite familiarity with Choosing Wisely, many emergency physicians report performing low-value services. Primary reasons for low-value services differ: antibiotic prescribing was driven by patient/family expectations, while concern for serious diagnosis influenced advanced diagnostic imaging. Greater efforts are needed to promote effective dissemination and implementation; such efforts may be targeted based on differing reasons for low-value services.

Dissemination and Implementation of Shared Decision Making Into Clinical Practice: A Research Agenda

Shared decision making (SDM) is essential to advancing patient-centered care in emergency medicine. Despite many documented benefits of SDM, prior research has demonstrated persistently low levels of patient engagement by clinicians across many disciplines, including emergency medicine. An effective dissemination and implementation (D&I) framework could be used to alter the process of delivering care and to facilitate SDM in routine clinical emergency medicine practice. Here we outline a research and policy agenda to support the D&I strategy needed to integrate SDM into emergency care.

State of the Science: Tools and Measurement for Shared Decision Making

Shared decision making (SDM) has been advocated as an approach to selecting medical tests and treatments for many situations. The goal of SDM is to ensure that patients are well informed, are meaningfully involved in decisions, and receive treatments that meet their goals and preferences. There is considerable evidence about the tools used to promote SDM, called patient decision aids, and many different measures have been developed to assess the impact of SDM. However, fairly little is known about the applicability of the tools and measures in the emergency department (ED) setting. This article builds on insights from two keynote lectures presented at the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference discussing the state of the science for measurement of SDM and the design of patient decision aids to promote SDM conversations and highlights some key areas for further research to advance SDM in the ED.