Dataset Information

Differences in Implementation Outcomes of a Shared Decision-Making Program for Men with Prostate Cancer between an Academic Medical Center and County Health Care System.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Shared decision making (SDM) has long been advocated as the preferred way for physicians and men with prostate cancer to make treatment decisions. However, the implementation of formal SDM programs in routine care remains limited, and implementation outcomes for disadvantaged populations are especially poorly described. We describe the implementation outcomes between academic and county health care settings.

Methods

We administered a decision aid (DA) for men with localized prostate cancer at an academic center and across a county health care system. Our implementation was guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework. We assessed the effectiveness of the DA through a postappointment patient survey.

Results

Sites differed by patient demographic/clinical characteristics. Reach (DA invitation rate) was similar and insensitive to implementation strategies at the academic center and county (66% v. 60%, P = 0.37). Fidelity (DA completion rate) was also similar at the academic center and county (77% v. 80%, P = 0.74). DA effectiveness was similar between sites, except for higher academic center ratings for net promoter for the doctor (77% v. 37%, P = 0.01) and the health care system (77% v. 35%, P = 0.006) and greater satisfaction with manner of care (medians 100 v. 87.5, P = 0.04). Implementation strategies (e.g., faxing of patients' records and meeting patients in the clinic to complete the DA) represented substantial practice changes at both sites. The completion rate increased following the onset of reminder calls at the academic center and the creation of a Spanish module at the county.

Conclusions

Successful DA implementation efforts should focus on patient engagement and access. SDM may broadly benefit patients and health care systems regardless of patient demographic/clinical characteristics.

SUBMITTER: Li KD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10262322 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Differences in Implementation Outcomes of a Shared Decision-Making Program for Men with Prostate Cancer between an Academic Medical Center and County Health Care System.

Li Kevin D KD Saigal Christopher S CS Tandel Megha D MD Kwan Lorna L Inkelas Moira M Alden Dana L DL Frencher Stanley K SK Gollapudi Kiran K Blumberg Jeremy J Nabhani Jamal J Bergman Jonathan J

Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making 20210113 2

<h4>Background</h4>Shared decision making (SDM) has long been advocated as the preferred way for physicians and men with prostate cancer to make treatment decisions. However, the implementation of formal SDM programs in routine care remains limited, and implementation outcomes for disadvantaged populations are especially poorly described. We describe the implementation outcomes between academic and county health care settings.<h4>Methods</h4>We administered a decision aid (DA) for men with local ...[more]

PMID: 33435816

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundClinical practice guidelines emphasize shared decision-making for kidney replacement treatment, yet little is known about the influence of cultural differences on that process. We undertook a retrospective chart review to explore the process and timing of dialysis decision making and initiation in Chinese American patients to provide quality kidney care for this population.DesignParticipants received outpatient care at Tufts Medical Center and dialysis at Dialysis Clinic, Inc. Boston or Somerville, MA from 2001-2021. Clinic chart review sourced demographic, clinical, and end-of-life care information from 180 participants (82 Chinese American, 98 other) from stage 4 chronic kidney disease (CKD) and dialysis initiation.ResultsChinese American participants were older (mean 70 vs. 59, p < 0.0001), less likely to speak English (12% vs. 87%, p < 0.0001), and used interpreter services more (80% vs. 11%, p < 0.0001). Chinese American participants had more visits (median 14 vs. 10, p = 0.005); were more often accompanied by family members (75% vs. 40%, p < 0.001); and had significantly lower rates of healthcare proxy documentation (35% vs. 55%, p = 0.006). There was no statistical difference in months between first CKD 4 visit and first dialysis. Both groups started dialysis at the same average eGFR and with similar rates of permanent dialysis access. Chinese American participants had significantly lower serum albumin at dialysis initiation (mean 3.3 g/dL vs 3.7 g/dL, p = 0.0003). Documentation reflected a low number of conversations about non-dialytic care, end-of-life planning, or palliative care in both groups across all visits.ConclusionThe time between CKD 4 and dialysis initiation was the same in both groups, suggesting a similar overall outcome of care. Chart documentation suggests that Chinese American participants had a significantly higher number of visits with nephrologists where discussion about dialysis was noted and were more likely to have a family member present at the visit. Fewer Chinese American participants completed healthcare proxies. Among all study participants, healthcare proxy, code status, and palliative care discussions were reported less frequently than expected. These findings highlight opportunities for collaboration between palliative care clinicians and nephrologists.

Project description:Background. Although effective interventions for shared decision making (SDM) exist, there is a lack of uptake of these tools into clinical practice. "Nudges," which draw on behavioral economics and target automatic thinking processes, are used by policy makers to influence population-level behavior change. Nudges have not been applied in the context of SDM interventions but have potential to influence clinician motivation, a primary barrier to long-term adoption of SDM tools. Objective. Describe, evaluate, and propose recommendations for the use of a behavioral economics framework (MINDSPACE) on clinician motivation and behavior during implementation of a validated decision aid (DA) for left ventricular assist device at nine hospitals. Methods. Qualitative thematic analysis of process notes from stakeholder meetings during the first 6 months of implementation to identify examples of how the MINDSPACE framework was operationalized. Quantitative implementation progress was evaluated using the RE-AIM framework. Results. MINDSPACE components were translated into concrete approaches that leveraged influential stakeholders, fostered ownership over the DA and positive emotional associations, spread desirable norms across sites, and situated the DA within established default processes. DA reach to eligible patients increased from 9.8% in the first month of implementation to 70.0% in the sixth month. Larger gains in reach were observed following meetings using MINDSPACE approaches. Limitations. The MINDSPACE framework does not capture all possible influences on behavior and responses to nudges may differ across populations. Conclusions. Behavioral economics can be applied to implementation science to foster uptake of SDM tools by increasing clinician motivation. Our recommendations can help other researchers effectively apply these approaches in real-world settings when there are often limited incentives and opportunities to change organizational- or structural-level factors.

Dataset Information

Differences in Implementation Outcomes of a Shared Decision-Making Program for Men with Prostate Cancer between an Academic Medical Center and County Health Care System.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Differences in Implementation Outcomes of a Shared Decision-Making Program for Men with Prostate Cancer between an Academic Medical Center and County Health Care System.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets