When Is a Harm a Harm? Discordance between Patient and Medical Experts' Evaluation of Lung Cancer Screening Attributes

The World Federation of Chiropractic Global Patient Safety Task Force: a call to action

BACKGROUND

The Global Patient Safety Action Plan, an initiative of the World Health Organization (WHO), draws attention to patient safety as being an issue of utmost importance in healthcare. In response, the World Federation of Chiropractic (WFC) has established a Global Patient Safety Task Force to advance a patient safety culture across all facets of the chiropractic profession. This commentary aims to introduce principles and call upon the chiropractic profession to actively engage with the Global Patient Safety Action Plan beginning immediately and over the coming decade.

MAIN TEXT

This commentary addresses why the chiropractic profession should pay attention to the WHO Global Patient Safety Action Plan, and what actions the chiropractic profession should take to advance these objectives. Each strategic objective identified by WHO serves as a focal point for reflection and action. Objective 1 emphasizes the need to view each clinical interaction as a chance to improve patient safety through learning. Objective 2 urges the implementation of frameworks that dismantle systemic obstacles, minimizing human errors and strengthening patient safety procedures. Objective 3 supports the optimization of clinical process safety. Objective 4 recognizes the need for patient and family engagement. Objective 5 describes the need for integrated patient safety competencies in training programs. Objective 6 explains the need for foundational data infrastructure, ecosystem, and culture. Objective 7 emphasizes that patient safety is optimized when healthcare professionals cultivate synergy and partnerships.

CONCLUSIONS

The WFC Global Patient Safety Task Force provides a structured framework for aligning essential considerations for patient safety in chiropractic care with WHO strategic objectives. Embracing the prescribed action steps offers a roadmap for the chiropractic profession to nurture an inclusive and dedicated culture, placing patient safety at its core. This commentary advocates for a concerted effort within the chiropractic community to commit to and implement these principles for the collective advancement of patient safety.

Context Matters: Emotional Sensitivity to Probabilities and the Bias for Action in Cancer Treatment Decisions

BACKGROUND

Past studies have shown a commission bias for cancer treatment, a tendency to choose active treatment even when watchful waiting is less risky. This bias suggests motivations for action beyond mortality statistics, but recent evidence suggests that individuals differ in their emotional sensitivity to probabilities (ESP), the tendency to calibrate emotional reactions to probability. The current study aims to examine the role of ESP in the commission bias, specifically whether those higher in ESP are more likely to choose watchful waiting when risk probabilities align with that choice.

METHODS

Participants (N = 1,055) read a scenario describing a hypothetical cancer diagnosis and chose between surgery and watchful waiting, with random assignment between versions where the mortality rate was either lower for surgery or for watchful waiting. We modeled choice using the Possibility Probability Questionnaire (PPQ), a measure of ESP, and several other individual differences in a logistic regression.

RESULTS

We observed a commission bias as in past studies with most participants choosing surgery both when surgery was optimal (71%) and when watchful waiting was optimal (58%). An ESP × Condition interaction indicated that the predictive role of ESP depended on condition. Those higher in ESP were more likely to choose surgery when probabilities favored surgery, β = 0.57, P < 0.001, but when probabilities favored watchful waiting, ESP had a near-zero relationship with choice, β = 0.05, P < 0.99.

CONCLUSIONS

The role of ESP in decision making is context specific. Higher levels of ESP predict choosing action when that action is warranted but do not predict a shift away from surgery when watchful waiting offers better chances of survival. ESP does not overcome the commission bias.

HIGHLIGHTS

Past studies have identified a "commission bias," a tendency to choose active treatment over watchful waiting, even when mortality rate is lower for waiting.Evaluation of risk probabilities is related to individual differences in emotional sensitivity to probabilities (ESP) and has been shown to predict reactions to and decisions about health risk situations.ESP appears to be selectively factored into decision making. ESP was a robust predictor of choosing surgery when probability information supported surgery but did not predict decisions when probability information supported watchful waiting.Those who are most emotionally attuned to probabilities are just as susceptible to the commission bias as those who are less attuned.

A Veteran-Centric Web-Based Decision Aid for Lung Cancer Screening: Usability Analysis

BACKGROUND

Web-based tools developed to facilitate a shared decision-making (SDM) process may facilitate the implementation of lung cancer screening (LCS), an evidence-based intervention to improve cancer outcomes. Veterans have specific risk factors and shared experiences that affect the benefits and potential harms of LCS and thus may value a veteran-centric LCS decision tool (LCSDecTool).

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to conduct usability testing of an LCSDecTool designed for veterans receiving care at a Veteran Affairs medical center.

METHODS

Usability testing of the LCSDecTool was conducted in a prototype version (phase 1) and a high-fidelity version (phase 2). A total of 18 veterans and 8 clinicians participated in phase 1, and 43 veterans participated in phase 2. Quantitative outcomes from the users included the System Usability Scale (SUS) and the End User Computing Satisfaction (EUCS) in phase 1 and the SUS, EUCS, and Patient Engagement scale in phase 2. Qualitative data were obtained from observations of user sessions and brief interviews. The results of phase 1 informed the modifications of the prototype for the high-fidelity version. Phase 2 usability testing took place in the context of a pilot hybrid type 1 effectiveness-implementation trial.

RESULTS

In the phase 1 prototype usability testing, the mean SUS score (potential range: 0-100) was 81.90 (SD 9.80), corresponding to an excellent level of usability. The mean EUCS score (potential range: 1-5) was 4.30 (SD 0.71). In the phase 2 high-fidelity usability testing, the mean SUS score was 65.76 (SD 15.23), corresponding to a good level of usability. The mean EUCS score was 3.91 (SD 0.95); and the mean Patient Engagement scale score (potential range 1 [low] to 5 [high]) was 4.62 (SD 0.67). The median time to completion in minutes was 13 (IQR 10-16). A thematic analysis of user statements documented during phase 2 high-fidelity usability testing identified the following themes: a low baseline level of awareness and knowledge about LCS increased after use of the LCSDecTool; users sought more detailed descriptions about the LCS process; the LCSDecTool was generally easy to use, but specific navigation challenges remained; some users noted difficulty understanding medical terms used in the LCSDecTool; and use of the tool evoked veterans' struggles with prior attempts at smoking cessation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings support the development and use of this eHealth technology in the primary care clinical setting as a way to engage veterans, inform them about a new cancer control screening test, and prepare them to participate in an SDM discussion with their provider.

Stakeholder Research Priorities to Promote Implementation of Shared Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening: An American Thoracic Society and Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Statement

Rationale: Shared decision-making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended in guidelines and required by Medicare, yet it is seldom achieved in practice. The best approach for implementing SDM for LCS remains unknown, and the 2021 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force calls for implementation research to increase uptake of SDM for LCS. Objectives: To develop a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and recommended outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS. Methods: The American Thoracic Society and VA Health Services Research and Development Service convened a multistakeholder committee with expertise in SDM, LCS, patient-centered care, and implementation science. During a virtual State of the Art conference, we reviewed evidence and identified research questions to address barriers to implementing SDM for LCS, as well as outcome constructs, which were refined by writing group members. Our committee (n = 34) then ranked research questions and SDM effectiveness outcomes by perceived importance in an online survey. Results: We present our committee's consensus on three topics important to implementing SDM for LCS: 1) foundational principles for the best practice of SDM for LCS; 2) stakeholder rankings of 22 implementation research questions; and 3) recommended outcomes, including Proctor's implementation outcomes and stakeholder rankings of SDM effectiveness outcomes for hybrid implementation-effectiveness studies. Our committee ranked questions that apply innovative implementation approaches to relieve primary care providers of the sole responsibility of SDM for LCS as highest priority. We rated effectiveness constructs that capture the patient experience of SDM as most important. Conclusions: This statement offers a stakeholder-prioritized research agenda and outcomes to advance implementation of SDM for LCS.

Interpersonal (mis)perceptions and (mis)predictions in patient-clinician interactions

Patient-clinician interactions require an interpersonal exchange of information, preferences, expectations, values, and priorities. Given the brief interaction patients and clinicians are allowed, many barriers to effective communication exist, resulting in patients and clinicians leaving an interaction with discordant perceptions of what has occurred and what is to come. We review literature on concordance and lack thereof, between patient and clinician perceptions, reasons why discordance may occur, how to decrease discordance as well as how dischordance impacts patient care and outcomes.

Using Mixed Methods With Multiple Stakeholders to Inform Development of a Breast Cancer Screening Decision Aid for Women With Limited Health Literacy

Background. When stakeholders offer divergent input, it can be unclear how to prioritize information for decision aids (DAs) on mammography screening. Objectives. This analysis triangulates perspectives (breast cancer screening experts, primary care providers [PCPs], and patients with limited health literacy [LHL]) to understand areas of divergent and convergent input across stakeholder groups in developing a breast cancer screening DA for younger women with LHL. Design. A modified online Delphi panel of 8 experts rated 57 statements for inclusion in a breast cancer screening DA over three rounds. Individual interviews with 25 patients with LHL and 20 PCPs from a large safety net hospital explored informational needs about mammography decision making. Codes from the qualitative interviews and open-ended responses from the Delphi process were mapped across stakeholders to ascertain areas where stakeholder preferences converged or diverged. Results. Four themes regarding informational needs were identified regarding 1) the benefits and harms of screening, 2) different screening modalities, 3) the experience of mammography, and 4) communication about breast cancer risk. Patients viewed pain as the primary harm, while PCPs and experts emphasized the harm of false positives. Patients, but not PCPs or experts, felt that information about the process of getting a mammogram was important. PCPs believed that mammography was the only evidence-based screening modality, while patients believed breast self-exam was also important for screening. All stakeholders described incorporating personal risk information as important. Limitations. As participants came from one hospital, perceptions may reflect local practices. The Delphi sample size was small. Conclusions. Patients, experts, and PCPs had divergent views on the most important information needed for screening decisions. More evidence is needed to guide integration of multiple stakeholder perspectives into the content of DAs.