Search

ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness of the ICAN Discussion Aid in improving patients' experience of receiving care for their chronic conditions and health professionals' experience of providing their care.MethodsWe conducted a pragmatic, mixed-methods, cluster-randomized trial of the ICAN Discussion Aid at 8 clinics in 4 independent health systems in the US from January 2017 and to August 2018. Sites were randomized 1:1 in pairs. Participants were primary care health professionals and their adult patients with ≥1 chronic condition. Quantitative outcomes were health professional assessment of chronic illness care and relational coordination and patient-reported self-efficacy to manage chronic disease, self-efficacy to communicate with clinician, treatment burden, assessment of chronic illness care, general health, and disruption from illness and treatment. Uptake of ICAN was assessed with patient qualitative interviews, clinician focus groups/interviews, visit video recordings, and chart review.Results98 clinicians and 1733 patients participated. We found no significant differences between ICAN and usual care sites in mixed effect models on main outcome measures. In adjusted difference-in-differences analyses, we found patient self-efficacy to manage chronic disease (mean difference 0.61 (SE 0.27), p = 0.023), patient self-efficacy to communicate with their clinician (mean difference 0.31 (SE 0.14), p = 0.032), and health professional assessment of chronic illness care (1.42 (SE 0.52), p = 0.007) were significantly better at ICAN sites. Chart review indicated the aid was implemented in 19% of eligible encounters. Qualitative analyses highlighted limited implementation of ICAN as intended overall due to varying clinic challenges but showed that ICAN use as intended was a valued addition to the visit.ConclusionsWhen patients and clinicians use ICAN as intended, which seldom occurred, important conversations emerge. This qualitative finding did not parlay into statistically significant effects on most outcomes of interest.Trial registrationThe trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (# NCT03017196).

Rational and objectivePrognosis provides critical knowledge for shared decision making between patients and clinicians. While several prognostic indices for mortality in dialysis patients have been developed, their performance among elderly patients initiating dialysis is unknown, despite great need for reliable prognostication in that context. To assess the performance of 6 previously validated prognostic indices to predict 3 and/or 6 months mortality in a cohort of elderly incident dialysis patients.Study designValidation study of prognostic indices using retrospective cohort data. Indices were compared using the concordance ("c")-statistic, i.e. area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC). Calibration, sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were also calculated.Setting & participantsIncident elderly (age ≥75 years; n = 349) dialysis patients at a tertiary referral center.Established predictorsVariables for six validated prognostic indices for short term (3 and 6 month) mortality prediction (Foley, NCI, REIN, updated REIN, Thamer, and Wick) were extracted from the electronic medical record. The indices were individually applied as per each index specifications to predict 3- and/or 6-month mortality.ResultsIn our cohort of 349 patients, mean age was 81.5±4.4 years, 66% were male, and median survival was 351 days. The c-statistic for the risk prediction indices ranged from 0.57 to 0.73. Wick ROC 0.73 (0.68, 0.78) and Foley 0.67 (0.61, 0.73) indices performed best. The Foley index was weakly calibrated with poor overall model fit (p LimitationsSmall sample size, use of secondary data, need for imputation, homogeneous population.ConclusionMost predictive indices for mortality performed moderately in our incident dialysis population. The Wick and Foley indices were the best performing, but had issues with under and over calibration. More accurate indices for predicting survival in older patients with kidney failure are needed.

BackgroundPeople with atrial fibrillation (AF) have lower reported quality of life and increased risk of heart attack, death, and stroke. Lifestyle modifications can improve arrhythmia-free survival/symptom severity. Shared medical appointments (SMAs) have been effective at targeting lifestyle change in other chronic diseases and may be beneficial for patients with AF.ObjectiveTo determine if perceived self-management and satisfaction with provider communication differed between patients who participated in SMAs compared to patients in standard care. Secondary objectives were to examine differences between groups for knowledge about AF, symptom severity, and healthcare utilization.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of data collected where patients were assigned to either standard care (n = 62) or a SMA (n = 59). Surveys were administered at pre-procedure, 3, and 6 months.ResultsPerceived self-management was not significantly different at baseline (p = 0.95) or 6 months (p = 0.21). Patients in SMAs reported more knowledge gain at baseline (p = 0.01), and higher goal setting at 6 months (p = 0.0045). Symptom severity for both groups followed similar trends.ConclusionPatients with AF who participated in SMAs had similar perceived self-management, patient satisfaction with provider communication, symptom severity, and healthcare utilization with their counterparts, but had a statistically significant improvement in knowledge about their disease.