Dataset Information

Development and pilot testing of a decision aid for surrogates of patients with prolonged mechanical ventilation.

ABSTRACT: Shared decision making is inadequate in intensive care units. Decision aids can improve decision making quality, though their role in an intensive care units setting is unclear. We aimed to develop and pilot test a decision aid for shared decision makers of patients undergoing prolonged mechanical ventilation.Intensive care units at three medical centers.Fifty-three surrogate decision makers and 58 physicians.We developed the decision aid using defined methodological guidelines. After an iterative revision process, formative cognitive testing was performed among surrogate-physician dyads. Next, we compared the decision aid to usual care control in a prospective, before/after design study.Primary outcomes were physician-surrogate discordance for expected patient survival, comprehension of relevant medical information, and the quality of communication. Compared to control, the intervention group had lower surrogate-physician discordance (7 [10] vs. 43 [21]), greater comprehension (11.4 [0.7] vs. 6.1 [3.7]), and improved quality of communication (8.7 [1.3] vs. 8.4 [1.3]) (all p<.05) post-intervention. Hospital costs were lower in the intervention group ($110,609 vs. $178,618; p=.044); mortality did not differ by group (38% vs. 50%, p=.95). Ninety-four percent of the surrogates and 100% of the physicians reported that the decision aid was useful in decision making.We developed a prolonged mechanical ventilation decision aid that is feasible, acceptable, and associated with both improved decision-making quality and less resource utilization. Further evaluation using a randomized controlled trial design is required to evaluate the decision aid's effect on long-term patient and surrogate outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Cox CE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3826165 | biostudies-other | 2012 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Development and pilot testing of a decision aid for surrogates of patients with prolonged mechanical ventilation.

Cox Christopher E CE Lewis Carmen L CL Hanson Laura C LC Hough Catherine L CL Kahn Jeremy M JM White Douglas B DB Song Mi-Kyung MK Tulsky James A JA Carson Shannon S SS

Critical care medicine 20120801 8

<h4>Objective</h4>Shared decision making is inadequate in intensive care units. Decision aids can improve decision making quality, though their role in an intensive care units setting is unclear. We aimed to develop and pilot test a decision aid for shared decision makers of patients undergoing prolonged mechanical ventilation.<h4>Setting</h4>Intensive care units at three medical centers.<h4>Subjects</h4>Fifty-three surrogate decision makers and 58 physicians.<h4>Design and interventions</h4>We ...[more]

PMID: 22635048

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWeb-based decision aids are increasingly important in medical research and clinical care. However, few have been studied in an intensive care unit setting. The objectives of this study were to develop a Web-based decision aid for family members of patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation and to evaluate its usability and acceptability.MethodsUsing an iterative process involving 48 critical illness survivors, family surrogate decision makers, and intensivists, we developed a Web-based decision aid addressing goals of care preferences for surrogate decision makers of patients with prolonged mechanical ventilation that could be either administered by study staff or completed independently by family members (Development Phase). After piloting the decision aid among 13 surrogate decision makers and seven intensivists, we assessed the decision aid's usability in the Evaluation Phase among a cohort of 30 surrogate decision makers using the Systems Usability Scale (SUS). Acceptability was assessed using measures of satisfaction and preference for electronic Collaborative Decision Support (eCODES) versus the original printed decision aid.ResultsThe final decision aid, termed 'electronic Collaborative Decision Support', provides a framework for shared decision making, elicits relevant values and preferences, incorporates clinical data to personalize prognostic estimates generated from the ProVent prediction model, generates a printable document summarizing the user's interaction with the decision aid, and can digitally archive each user session. Usability was excellent (mean SUS, 80 ± 10) overall, but lower among those 56 years and older (73 ± 7) versus those who were younger (84 ± 9); p = 0.03. A total of 93% of users reported a preference for electronic versus printed versions.ConclusionsThe Web-based decision aid for ICU surrogate decision makers can facilitate highly individualized information sharing with excellent usability and acceptability. Decision aids that employ an electronic format such as eCODES represent a strategy that could enhance patient-clinician collaboration and decision making quality in intensive care.

Project description:Background:Treatment decisions commonly have to be made in intensive care units (ICUs). These decisions are difficult for surrogate decision makers and often lead to decisional conflict, psychological distress, and treatments misaligned with patient preferences. Objective:To determine whether a decision aid about prolonged mechanical ventilation improved prognostic concordance between surrogate decision makers and clinicians compared with a usual care control. Design:Multicenter, parallel, randomized, clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01751061). Setting:13 medical and surgical ICUs at 5 hospitals. Participants:Adult patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation and their surrogates, ICU physicians, and ICU nurses. Intervention:A Web-based decision aid provided personalized prognostic estimates, explained treatment options, and interactively clarified patient values to inform a family meeting. The control group received information according to usual care practices followed by a family meeting. Measurements:The primary outcome was improved concordance on 1-year survival estimates, measured with the clinician-surrogate concordance scale (range, 0 to 100 percentage points; higher scores indicate more discordance). Secondary and additional outcomes assessed the experiences of surrogates (psychological distress, decisional conflict, and quality of communication) and patients (length of stay and 6-month mortality). Outcomes assessors were blinded to group allocation. Results:The study enrolled 277 patients, 416 surrogates, and 427 clinicians. Concordance improvement did not differ between intervention and control groups (mean difference in score change from baseline, -1.7 percentage points [95% CI, -8.3 to 4.8 percentage points]; P = 0.60). Surrogates' postintervention estimates of patients' 1-year prognoses did not differ between intervention and control groups (median, 86.0% [interquartile range {IQR}, 50.0%] vs. 92.5% [IQR, 47.0%]; P = 0.23) and were substantially more optimistic than results of a validated prediction model (median, 56.0% [IQR, 43.0%]) and physician estimates (median, 50.0% [IQR, 55.5%]). Eighty-two intervention surrogates (43%) favored a treatment option that was more aggressive than their report of patient preferences. Although intervention surrogates had greater reduction in decisional conflict than control surrogates (mean difference in change from baseline, 0.4 points [CI, 0.0 to 0.7 points]; P = 0.041), other surrogate and patient outcomes did not differ. Limitation:Contamination among clinicians could have biased results toward the null hypothesis. Conclusion:A decision aid about prolonged mechanical ventilation did not improve prognostic concordance between clinicians and surrogates, reduce psychological distress among surrogates, or alter clinical outcomes. Decision support in acute care settings may require greater individualized attention for both the cognitive and affective challenges of decision making. Primary Funding Source:National Institutes of Health.

Project description:BackgroundThe predominant oncologist-led model in many countries is unsustainable to meet the needs of a growing cohort of breast cancer survivors (BCS). Despite available alternative models, adoption rates have been poor. To help BCS navigate survivorship care, we aimed to systematically develop a decision aid (DA) to guide their choice of follow-up care model and evaluate its acceptability and usability among BCS and health care providers (HCPs).MethodsWe recruited BCS aged ≥ 21 years who have completed primary treatment and understand English. BCS receiving palliative care or with cognitive impairment were excluded. HCPs who routinely discussed post-treatment care with BCS were purposively sampled based on disciplines. Each participant reviewed the DA during a semi-structured interview using the 'think aloud' approach and completed an acceptability questionnaire. Descriptive statistics and directed content analysis were used.ResultsWe conducted three rounds of alpha testing with 15 BCS and 8 HCPs. All BCS found the final DA prototype easy to navigate with sufficient interactivity. The information imbalance favouring the shared care option perceived by 60% of BCS in early rounds was rectified. The length of DA was optimized to be 'just right'. Key revisions made included (1) presenting care options side-by-side to improve perceived information balance, (2) creating dedicated sections explaining HCPs' care roles to address gaps in health system contextual knowledge, and (3) employing a multicriteria decision analysis method for preference clarification exercise to reflect the user's openness towards shared care. Most BCS (73%) found the DA useful for decision-making, and 93% were willing to discuss the DA with their HCPs. Most HCPs (88%) agreed that the DA was a reliable tool and would be easily integrated into routine care.ConclusionsOur experience highlighted the need to provide contextual information on the health care system for decisions related to care delivery. Developers should address potential variability within the care model and clarify inherent biases, such as low confidence levels in primary care. Future work could expand on the developed DA's informational structure to apply to other care models and leverage artificial intelligence to optimize information delivery.

Project description:BackgroundCystic fibrosis (CF) is a life-limiting genetic disease that causes chronic lung infections. We developed an internet-based decision aid (DA) to help patients with CF make better informed decisions regarding treatments and advance care planning. We built the DA around two major treatment decisions: whether to have a lung transplant and whether to agree to invasive mechanical ventilation (intubation).ObjectiveThis study aims to conduct usability testing of the InformedChoices CF DA among key stakeholder groups.MethodsWe performed a patient needs assessment using think-aloud usability testing with patients with CF, their surrogates, and CF clinicians. Think-aloud participants provided feedback while navigating the DA, and after viewing, they answered surveys. Transcripts from the think-aloud sessions and survey results were categorized into common, generalizable themes and optimizations for improving content, comprehension, and navigation. We assessed the ease of use of the DA (System Usability Scale) and also assessed the participants' perceptions regarding the overall tone, with an emphasis on emotional reactions to the DA content, level of detail, and usefulness of the information for making decisions about either intubation or lung transplantation, including how well they understood the information and were able to apply it to their own decision-making process. We also assessed the DA's ease of navigation, esthetics, and whether participants were able to complete a series of usability tasks (eg, locating specific information in the DA or using the interactive survival estimates calculator) to ensure that the website was easy to navigate during the clinic-based advance care planning discussions.ResultsA total of 12 participants from 3 sites were enrolled from March 9 to August 30, 2018, for the usability testing: 5 CF clinicians (mean age 48.2, SD 12.0 years), 5 adults with CF, and 2 family and surrogate caregivers of people with CF (mean age of CF adults and family and surrogate caregivers 38.8, SD 10.8 years). Among the 12 participants, the average System Usability Scale score for the DA was 88.33 (excellent). Think-aloud analysis identified 3 themes: functionality, visibility and navigation, and content and usefulness. Areas for improvement included reducing repetition, enhancing comprehension, and changing the flow. Several changes to improve the content and usefulness of the DA were recommended, including adding information about alternatives to childbearing, such as adoption and surrogacy. On the basis of survey responses, we found that the navigation of the site was easy for clinicians, patients, and surrogates who participated in usability testing.ConclusionsUsability testing revealed areas of potential improvement. Testing also yielded positive feedback, suggesting the DA's future success. Integrating changes before implementation should improve the DA's comprehension, navigation, and usefulness and lead to greater adoption.

Project description:BackgroundSevere Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients are often unprepared to make decisions about accepting intubation for respiratory failure. We developed a Web-based decision aid, InformedTogether, to facilitate severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients' preparation for decision making about whether to accept invasive mechanical ventilation for respiratory failure.ObjectiveWe describe feasibility testing of the InformedTogether decision aid.MethodsMixed methods, pre- and postintervention feasibility study in outpatient pulmonary and geriatric clinics. Clinicians used InformedTogether with severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients. Patient-participants completed pre- and postassessments about InformedTogether use. The outcomes measured were the following: feasibility/acceptability, communication (Combined Outcome Measure for Risk Communication [COMRADE], Medical Communication Competency Scale [MCCS], Observing Patient Involvement [OPTION] scales), and effectiveness of InformedTogether on changing patients' knowledge, Decisional Conflict Scale, and motivation.ResultsWe enrolled 11 clinicians and 38 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients at six sites. Feasibility/acceptability: Clinicians and patients gave positive responses to acceptability questions (mean 74.1/89 max [SD 7.24] and mean 59.63/61 [SD 4.49], respectively). Communication: 96% of clinicians stated InformedTogether improved communication (modified MCCS mean 44.54/49 [SD 2.97]; mean OPTION score 32.03/48 [SD 9.27]; mean COMRADE Satisfaction 4.31/5.0 [SD 0.58]; and COMRADE Confidence 4.18/5.0 [SD 0.56]). Preference: Eighty percent of patients discussed preferences with their surrogates by 1-month. Effectiveness: Knowledge scores increased significantly after using InformedTogether (mean difference 3.61 [SD 3. 44], P=.001) and Decisional Conflict decreased (mean difference Decisional Conflict Scale pre/post -13.76 [SD 20.39], P=.006). Motivation increased after viewing the decision aid.ConclusionsInformedTogether supports high-quality communication and shared decision making among Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients, clinicians, and surrogates. The increased knowledge and opportunity to deliberate and discuss treatment choices after using InformedTogether should lead to improved decision making at the time of critical illness.

Project description:Background and objectivesBreakdowns in clinician-family communication in neurologic intensive care units (neuroICUs) are common, particularly for goals-of-care decisions to continue or withdraw life-sustaining treatments while considering long-term prognoses. Shared decision-making interventions (decision aids [DAs]) may prevent this problem and increase patient-centered care, yet none are currently available. We assessed the feasibility, acceptability, and perceived usefulness of a DA for goals-of-care communication with surrogate decision-makers for critically ill severe acute brain injury (SABI) patients after hemispheric acute ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or traumatic brain injury.MethodsWe conducted a parallel-arm, unblinded, patient-level randomized, controlled pilot trial at two tertiary-care U.S. neuroICUs and randomized surrogate participants 1:1 to a tailored paper-based DA provided to surrogates prior to clinician-family goals-of-care meetings or usual care (no intervention prior to clinician-family meetings). The primary outcomes were feasibility of deploying the DA (recruitment, participation, retention), acceptability, and perceived usefulness of the DA among surrogates. Exploratory outcomes included outcome of surrogate goals-of-care decision, code-status changes during admission, patients' 3-month functional outcome, and surrogates' 3-month validated psychological outcomes.ResultsWe approached 83 surrogates of 58 patients and enrolled 66 surrogates of 41 patients (80% consent rate). Of 66 surrogates, 45 remained in the study at 3 months (68% retention). Of the 33 surrogates randomized to intervention, 27 were able to receive the DA, and 25 subsequently read the DA (93% participation). 82% rated the DA's acceptability as good or excellent (median Acceptability score 2 [IQR 2;3]); 96% found it useful for goals-of-care decision-making. In the DA group, there was a trend towards fewer comfort-care decisions (27% vs. 56%, p=0.1) and fewer code-status changes (no change, 73% vs. 44%, p=0.02). At 3 months, fewer patients in the DA group had died (33% vs. 69%, p=0.05; median GOS 3 vs.1, p=0.05). Regardless of intervention, 3-month psychological outcomes were significantly worse among surrogates who had chosen continuation-of-care.DiscussionA goals-of-care DA to support ICU shared decision-making for patients with SABI is feasible to deploy and well-perceived by surrogates. A larger trial is feasible to conduct, although surrogates who select continuation-of-care deserve additional psychosocial support.Clinical trials registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT03833375 CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class IV evidence that the use of a DA explaining the goals-of-care decision and the treatment options is acceptable and useful to surrogates of incapacitated critically ill patients with ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or traumatic brain injury.

Dataset Information

Development and pilot testing of a decision aid for surrogates of patients with prolonged mechanical ventilation.

Publications

Development and pilot testing of a decision aid for surrogates of patients with prolonged mechanical ventilation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets