Search

Purpose We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with surgeons to assess their goals for incorporating a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM)-based shared decision report into discussions around surgical and non-surgical treatment options for osteoarthritis of the knee and hip. Methods Surgeons actively enrolling patients into a study incorporating a standardized PROM-based shared decision report were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview lasting 30 min. Open-ended questions explored how the surgeon used report content, features that were helpful, confusing, or could be improved, and how use of the report fit into the surgeon’s workflow. We used a conventional content analysis approach. Results Of the 16 eligible surgeons, 11 agreed to participate with 9 completing the interview and 2 withdrawing due to work demands. We identified 8 themes related to PROM-based report use: Acceptability, Patient Characteristics, Communication Goals, Useful Content, Not Useful Content, Challenges, Training Needs, and Recommended Improvements. Additional sub-themes emerged for Communication Goals (7) and Challenges (8). All surgeons shared positive feedback about using the report as part of clinical care. Whereas surgeons described the use of the report to achieve different goals, the most common uses related to setting expectations for post-surgical outcomes (89%) and educating patients (100%). Conclusion Surgeons tailor their use of a PROM-based report with individual patients to achieve a range of aims. This study suggests multiple opportunities to further our understanding of the ways PROMs can be used in clinical practice. The way PROM information is visually displayed and multi-component reports are assembled can facilitate diverse aims.

Poor communication within healthcare teams occurs commonly, contributing to inefficiency, medical errors, conflict, and other adverse outcomes. Interprofessional bedside rounds (IBR) are a promising model that brings two or more health professions together with patients and families as part of a consistent, team-based routine to share information and collaboratively arrive at a daily plan of care. The purpose of this systematic scoping review was to investigate the breadth and quality of IBR literature to identify and describe gaps and opportunities for future research. We followed an adapted Arksey and O'Malley Framework and PRISMA scoping review guidelines. PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase were systematically searched for key IBR words and concepts through June 2020. Seventy-nine articles met inclusion criteria and underwent data abstraction. Study quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool. Publications in this field have increased since 2014, and the majority of studies reported positive impacts of IBR implementation across an array of team, patient, and care quality/delivery outcomes. Despite the preponderance of positive findings, great heterogeneity, and a reliance on quantitative non-randomized study designs remain in the extant research. A growing number of interventions to improve safety, quality, and care experiences in hospital settings focus on redesigning daily inpatient rounds. Limited information on IBR characteristics and implementation strategies coupled with widespread variation in terminology, study quality, and design create challenges in assessing the effectiveness of models of rounds and optimal implementation strategies. This scoping review highlights the need for additional studies of rounding models, implementation strategies, and outcomes that facilitate comparative research.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: People receiving maintenance dialysis must often rely on family members and other close persons to make critical treatment decisions toward the end of life. Contemporary data on family members’ understanding of the end-of-life wishes of members of this population are lacking. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Among 172 family members of people undergoing maintenance dialysis, we ascertained their level of involvement in the patient’s care and prior discussions about care preferences. We also compared patient and family member responses to questions about end-of-life care using percentage agreement and the κ-statistic. RESULTS: The mean (SD) age of the 172 enrolled family members was 55 (±17) years, 136 (79%) were women, and 43 (25%) were Black individuals. Sixty-seven (39%) family members were spouses or partners of enrolled patients. A total of 137 (80%) family members had spoken with the patient about whom they would want to make medical decisions, 108 (63%) had spoken with the patient about their treatment preferences, 47 (27%) had spoken with the patient about stopping dialysis, and 56 (33%) had spoken with the patient about hospice. Agreement between patient and family member responses was highest for the question about whether the patient would want cardiopulmonary resuscitation (percentage agreement 83%, κ=0.31), and was substantially lower for questions about a range of other aspects of end-of-life care, including preference for mechanical ventilation (62%, 0.21), values around life prolongation versus comfort (45%, 0.13), preferred place of death (58%, 0.07), preferred decisional role (54%, 0.15), and prognostic expectations (38%, 0.15). CONCLUSIONS: Most surveyed family members reported they had spoken with the patient about their end-of-life preferences but not about stopping dialysis or hospice. Although family members had a fair understanding of patients’ cardiopulmonary resuscitation preferences, most lacked a detailed understanding of their perspectives on other aspects of end-of-life care.

To compare secondary patient reported outcomes of perceptions of treatment success and function for patients treated for appendicitis with appendectomy vs. antibiotics at 30 days.The Comparison of Outcomes of antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy trial found antibiotics noninferior to appendectomy based on 30-day health status. To address questions about outcomes among participants with lower socioeconomic status, we explored the relationship of sociodemographic and clinical factors and outcomes.We focused on 4 patient reported outcomes at 30 days: high decisional regret, dissatisfaction with treatment, problems performing usual activities, and missing10 days of work. The randomized (RCT) and observational cohorts were pooled for exploration of baseline factors. The RCT cohort alone was used for comparison of treatments. Logistic regression was used to assess associations.The pooled cohort contained 2062 participants; 1552 from the RCT. Overall, regret and dissatisfaction were low whereas problems with usual activities and prolonged missed work occurred more frequently. In the RCT, those assigned to antibiotics had more regret (Odd ratios (OR) 2.97, 95% Confidence intervals (CI) 2.05-4.31) and dissatisfaction (OR 1.98, 95%CI 1.25-3.12), and reported less missed work (OR 0.39, 95%CI 0.27-0.56). Factors associated with function outcomes included sociodemographic and clinical variables for both treatment arms. Fewer factors were associated with dissatisfaction and regret.Overall, participants reported high satisfaction, low regret, and were frequently able to resume usual activities and return to work. When comparing treatments for appendicitis, no single measure defines success or failure for all people. The reported data may inform discussions regarding the most appropriate treatment for individuals.Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

In the Comparison of Outcomes of Antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial, which found antibiotics to be noninferior, approximately half of participants randomized to receive antibiotics had outpatient management with hospital discharge within 24 hours. If outpatient management is safe, it could increase convenience and decrease health care use and costs.To assess the use and safety of outpatient management of acute appendicitis.This cohort study, which is a secondary analysis of the CODA trial, included 776 adults with imaging-confirmed appendicitis who received antibiotics at 25 US hospitals from May 1, 2016, to February 28, 2020.Participants randomized to antibiotics (intravenous then oral) could be discharged from the emergency department based on clinician judgment and prespecified criteria (hemodynamically stable, afebrile, oral intake tolerated, pain controlled, and follow-up confirmed). Outpatient management and hospitalization were defined as discharge within or after 24 hours, respectively.Outcomes compared among patients receiving outpatient vs inpatient care included serious adverse events (SAEs), appendectomies, health care encounters, satisfaction, missed workdays at 7 days, and EuroQol 5-dimension (EQ-5D) score at 30 days. In addition, appendectomy incidence among outpatients and inpatients, unadjusted and adjusted for illness severity, was compared.Among 776 antibiotic-randomized participants, 42 (5.4%) underwent appendectomy within 24 hours and 8 (1.0%) did not receive their first antibiotic dose within 24 hours, leaving 726 (93.6%) comprising the study population (median age, 36 years; range, 18-86 years; 462 [63.6%] male; 437 [60.2%] White). Of these participants, 335 (46.1%; site range, 0-89.2%) were discharged within 24 hours, and 391 (53.9%) were discharged after 24 hours. Over 7 days, SAEs occurred in 0.9 (95% CI, 0.2-2.6) per 100 outpatients and 1.3 (95% CI, 0.4-2.9) per 100 inpatients; in the appendicolith subgroup, SAEs occurred in 2.3 (95% CI, 0.3-8.2) per 100 outpatients vs 2.8 (95% CI, 0.6-7.9) per 100 inpatients. During this period, appendectomy occurred in 9.9% (95% CI, 6.9%-13.7%) of outpatients and 14.1% (95% CI, 10.8%-18.0%) of inpatients; adjusted analysis demonstrated a similar difference in incidence (-4.0 percentage points; 95% CI, -8.7 to 0.6). At 30 days, appendectomies occurred in 12.6% (95% CI, 9.1%-16.7%) of outpatients and 19.0% (95% CI, 15.1%-23.4%) of inpatients. Outpatients missed fewer workdays (2.6 days; 95% CI, 2.3-2.9 days) than did inpatients (3.8 days; 95% CI, 3.4-4.3 days) and had similar frequency of return health care visits and high satisfaction and EQ-5D scores.These findings support that outpatient antibiotic management is safe for selected adults with acute appendicitis, with no greater risk of complications or appendectomy than hospital care, and should be included in shared decision-making discussions of patient preferences for outcomes associated with nonoperative and operative care.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02800785.

Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) affects multiple organ systems in the acute phase and also has long-term sequelae. Research on the long-term impacts of COVID-19 is limited. The Post COVID-19 Interdisciplinary Clinical Care Network (PC-ICCN), conceived in July 2020, is a provincially funded resource that is modelled as a Learning Health System (LHS), focused on those people with persistent symptoms post COVID-19 infection.The PC-ICCN emerged through collaboration among over 60 clinical specialists, researchers, patients, and health administrators. At the core of the network are the post COVID-19 Recovery Clinics (PCRCs), which provide direct patient care that includes standardized testing and education at regular follow-up intervals for a minimum of 12 months post enrolment. The PC-ICCN patient registry captures data on all COVID-19 patients with confirmed infection, by laboratory testing or epi-linkage, who have been referred to one of five post COVID-19 Recovery Clinics at the time of referral, with data stored in a fully encrypted Oracle-based provincial database. The PC-ICCN has centralized administrative and operational oversight, multi-stakeholder governance, purpose built data collection supported through clinical operations geographically dispersed across the province, and research operations including data analytics.To date, 5364 patients have been referred, with an increasing number and capacity of these clinics, and 2354 people have had at least one clinic visit. Since inception, the PC-ICCN has received over 30 research proposal requests. This is aligned with the goal of creating infrastructure to support a wide variety of research to improve care and outcomes for patients experiencing long-term symptoms following COVID-19 infection.The PC-ICCN is a first-in-kind initiative in British Columbia to enhance knowledge and understanding of the sequelae of COVID-19 infection over time. This provincial initiative serves as a model for other national and international endeavors to enable care as research and research as care.

Nearly 75% of clinical trials fail to enroll enough participants, and cohorts often fail to reflect the clinical and demographic diversity of at-risk populations. Effective recruitment strategies are critically important for successful clinical trials. Framing treatment risks are known to affect medical decision-making for both physicians and patients but has not been rigorously studied in surgical trials. We sought to examine the impact of a high-quality video-based consent tool and the effect of risk-benefit framing on patient willingness to participate in a surgical clinical trial.A standardized video consent was shown to all potential participants in the Comparison of Outcomes of antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) trial, a randomized controlled trial comparing antibiotics and surgery for acute appendicitis. We report (1) differences in recruitment between two versions of a video-based tool that differed in production quality and (2) the impact of risk-benefit framing on participant randomization rates. The reasons for declining randomization were also assessed.Of 4697 eligible patients approached to participate in the CODA trial, 1535 (33% [95% confidence interval (CI): 31%-34%]) agreed to randomization; this did not change from video version 1 to version 2. There was no difference in participation between positively framed videos (32% [95% CI: 30%-34%]) versus negatively framed videos (33.0% [95% CI: 30.8-35.2]). The most common reason for declining participation was treatment preference (72% for surgery and 18% for antibiotics).Neither the change from video 1 to video 2 nor the positive versus negative framing affected participant willingness to randomize. The stakeholder-informed video-based consenting tool used in CODA was an effective strategy for the recruitment of a heterogeneous patient population within the proposed study period.

Introduction New informatics tools can transform evidence-based information to individualized predictive reports to serve shared decisions in clinic. We developed a web-based system to collect patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and medical risk factors and to compare responses to national registry data. The system generates predicted outcomes for individual patients and a report for use in clinic to support decisions. We present the report development, presentation, and early experience implementing this PRO-based, shared decision report for knee and hip arthritis patients seeking orthopedic evaluation. Methods Iterative patient and clinician interviews defined report content and visual display. The web-system supports: (a) collection of PROs and risk data at home or in office, (b) automated statistical processing of responses compared to national data, (c) individualized estimates of likely pain relief and functional gain if surgery is elected, and (d) graphical reports to support shared decisions. The system was implemented at 12 sites with 26 surgeons in an ongoing cluster randomized trial. Results Clinicians and patients recommended that pain and function as well as clinical risk factors (e.g., BMI, smoking) be presented to frame the discussion. Color and graphics support patient understanding. To date, 7891 patients completed the assessment before the visit and 56% consented to study participation. Reports were generated for 98% of patients and 68% of patients recalled reviewing the report with their surgeon. Conclusions Informatics solutions can generate timely, tailored office reports including PROs and predictive analytics. Patients successfully complete the pre-visit PRO assessments and clinicians and patients value the report to support shared surgical decisions.

INTRODUCTION: Reporting sociodemographic data in research is critical to describe participants, and to identify contributing factors for patient experience, outcomes and heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE). Social determinants of health and clinical health characteristics are important drivers of outcomes, and prospective studies collecting participant-reported data offer an opportunity to report these sociodemographics and evaluate for associations with outcomes. Clinical trials have underreported these factors previously, but reporting has not been examined in surgical research. METHODS: We reviewed prospective studies collecting participant-reported sociodemographic data from four surgical journals in 2016. The proportion of studies reporting variables of interest in “Table 1” is described. Variables included information on patient identity (e.g., age, sex), clinical health (e.g., disease-specific characteristics, BMI), individual-level (e.g., education, income) and interpersonal-level (e.g., marital status, support) risk factors. RESULTS: Forty-one publications met inclusion criteria. All reported ≥1 patient identity variable, 93% reported ≥1 clinical characteristic, 63% reported ≥1 individual-level risk factor, and 7% reported an interpersonal-level risk factor. Age, sex, and disease-specific characteristics were reported most commonly (98%, 98%, 88% respectively). 40% of studies reported comorbidities, though

For patients with advanced heart failure involvement as a member of the healthcare team is critical to safe, high-quality and goal-directed care. While recognized as an important aspect of care, patient engagement is not yet a standard practice. This presents an opportunity for professional education and development in team-based care. This short report describes the development of a Community and Patient Advisory Team (CPAT) formed to support patient involvement in interprofessional collaborative practice. The CPAT, composed of patient and family advisors, researchers, care team members, and grant operations staff, served as a core team within the structure of a project to shape a new vision of care delivery. This was accomplished through participation in quarterly leadership workshops and facilitation of team training focused on patient-provider communication strategies to improve patient safety. The advisory team led the co-development of patient materials to support patient engagement during the new implementation of structured interprofessional bedside rounds. Involving community members as partners helped shape our work to more effectively and directly address gaps in current patient care.

Objectives To conceptualize new methods for integrating patient-centered measurement into team-based care. Methods A standalone portal was introduced into a rural clinic to support conceptualization of new methods for integration of patient-centered measurement in team-based care. The portal housed mental health-related online resources, three patient-reported measures and a self-action plan. Six providers and four patients used the portal for four months. Our data collection techniques included clinic discussions, one-on-one interviews, workflow diagrams and data generated through the portal. Analysis was supported through coding interview transcripts, looking across multiple sources of research data and research team discussions. Results Our research team conceptualized five team-based patient-centered measurement methods through this study. Patient-centered measurement Team Mapping offfers a technique to provide greater clarity of care-team roles and responsibilities in data collected through patient-centered measurement. Longitudinal Care Alignment can guide the care-team on incorporating patient-centered measurement into ongoing provider–patient interactions. Digital Tool Exploration can be used to evaluate a team's readiness toward digital tool adoption, and the impact of these tools. Team-based quality improvement serves as a framework for engaging teams in patient-centered quality improvement. Shared learning is a method that promotes patientprovider interactions that validate patient's perspectives of their care. Conclusion The portal illuminated new methods for the integration of patient-centered measurement in team-based care. The first three proposed patient-centered measurement methods provides ways to assess how a clinic can incorporate patient-centered measurement methods into team-based care. The latter two methods focus on the aim of patient-generated data in which patient's values and perspectives are represented and quality of patient-centered care can be evaluated. Further testing is needed to assess the utility of these patient-centered measurement methods across different clinical settings and domains.

BackgroundImaging tests are one of the most frequently used diagnostic modalities in healthcare, but the benefits of their direct impacts on clinical decision-making have been countered by concerns that they can be overused. Assessing the relative value of imaging tests has largely focused on measures of test accuracy, which overlooks more comprehensive benefits and risks of imaging tests, particularly their impact on patient-centred outcomes (PCOs). We present the findings of the Patient Reported Outcomes of Diagnostics (PROD) research study in response to a methodological gap in the area of diagnostic test comparative effectiveness research.MethodsOver a 3-year period, the PROD Study engaged with multiple stakeholders to identify existing conceptual models related to PCOs for imaging testing, conducted primary research and evidence synthesis, and developed consensus recommendations to describe and categorise PCOs related to imaging testing.ResultsThe PROD framework categorises PCOs from imaging studies within four main domains: information or knowledge yielded, physical impact, emotional outcomes and test burden. PCOs interact with each other and influence effects across domains, and can be modified by factors related to the patient, clinical situation, healthcare team and the testing environment.ConclusionsUsing PCOs to inform healthcare decision-making will require ways of collating and presenting information on PCOs in ways that can inform patient–provider decision-making, and developing methods to determine the relative importance of outcomes (including test accuracy) to one another.

BACKGROUND Patient-centered measurement (PCM) aims to improve the overall quality of care through the collection and sharing of patient values, outcomes, and perspectives. However, the use of PCM in care team decisions remains limited. Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) offers a collaborative, adaptive approach to explore best practices for incorporating PCM into primary care practices by involving knowledge users, including patients and providers, in the exploratory process. OBJECTIVE This study aims to test the feasibility of using patient-generated data in team-based care; describe the use of these data for team-based mental health care; and summarize patient and provider care experiences with PCM. METHODS We conducted a multi-method exploratory study in a rural team-based primary care clinic using IKT to co-design, implement, and evaluate the use of PCM in team-based mental health care. Care pathways, workflows, and quality improvement activities were adjusted iteratively to improve integration efforts. Patient and provider experiences were evaluated using individual interviews relating to the use of PCM and patient portals in practice. All meeting notes, interview summaries, and emails were analyzed to create a narrative evaluation. RESULTS During co-design, a care workflow was developed to incorporate electronically collected patient-generated data from the patient portal into the electronic medical record, and customized educational tools and resources were added. During implementation, care pathways and patient workflows for PCM were developed. Patients found portal use easy, educational, and validating, but data entries were not used during care visits. Providers saw the portal as extra work, and the lack of portal and electronic medical record integration was a major barrier. The IKT approach was invaluable for addressing workflow changes and understanding the ongoing barriers to PCM use and quality improvement. CONCLUSIONS Although the culture toward using PCM is changing, the use of PCM during care has not been successful. Patients felt validated and supported through portal use and could be empowered to bring these data to their visits. Training, modeling, and adaptable PCM methods are required before PCM can be integrated into routine care.

Background Patient-centered measurement (PCM) aims to improve the overall quality of care through the collection and sharing of patient values, outcomes, and perspectives. However, the use of PCM in care team decisions remains limited. Integrated knowledge translation (IKT) offers a collaborative, adaptive approach to explore best practices for incorporating PCM into primary care practices by involving knowledge users, including patients and providers, in the exploratory process. Objective This study aims to test the feasibility of using patient-generated data in team-based care; describe the use of these data for team-based mental health care; and summarize patient and provider care experiences with PCM. Methods We conducted a multi-method exploratory study in a rural team-based primary care clinic using IKT to co-design, implement, and evaluate the use of PCM in team-based mental health care. Care pathways, workflows, and quality improvement activities were adjusted iteratively to improve integration efforts. Patient and provider experiences were evaluated using individual interviews relating to the use of PCM and patient portals in practice. All meeting notes, interview summaries, and emails were analyzed to create a narrative evaluation. Results During co-design, a care workflow was developed to incorporate electronically collected patient-generated data from the patient portal into the electronic medical record, and customized educational tools and resources were added. During implementation, care pathways and patient workflows for PCM were developed. Patients found portal use easy, educational, and validating, but data entries were not used during care visits. Providers saw the portal as extra work, and the lack of portal and electronic medical record integration was a major barrier. The IKT approach was invaluable for addressing workflow changes and understanding the ongoing barriers to PCM use and quality improvement. Conclusions Although the culture toward using PCM is changing, the use of PCM during care has not been successful. Patients felt validated and supported through portal use and could be empowered to bring these data to their visits. Training, modeling, and adaptable PCM methods are required before PCM can be integrated into routine care.

Background Patient-centered approaches to research design are particularly important for diseases with complex treatment decision-making, such as recurrent, high-grade non-muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC). The objective of this article is to describe patient and public involvement (PPI) in designing a large, pragmatic observational trial and to articulate barriers, challenges, and lessons learned for future design. Methods Through multistakeholder involvement, a large, pragmatic observational trial was designed to investigate the outcomes of high-risk, recurrent NMIBC, and it was titled Comparison of Intravesical Therapy and Surgery as Treatment Options for Bladder Cancer (CISTO). CISTO's design used the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public 2 reporting checklist for PPI and built on prior engagement infrastructure in partnership with the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network. Results CISTO's PPI began with research prioritization to identify the highest priority questions facing patients with NMIBC. A pragmatic observational study design was selected and refined through stakeholder input. PPI included patients and caregivers organized into an advocate advisory board and clinicians, researchers, payers, and industry representatives organized into an external advisory board. An engagement plan was created to define the stages of PPI and the level and nature of the involvement of each group. PPI was measured quantitatively and qualitatively through evaluation surveys and iterative feedback from board members, with changes made for continuous improvement. Conclusions Through intentional PPI, CISTO aims to produce pragmatic and generalizable results that will allow patients to make informed decisions for recurrent, high-risk NMIBC based on their personal experiences. Lay summary Involving patients and other stakeholders in research ensures that it reflects the outcomes that matter most to them. This is especially important when research focuses on conditions in which patients face difficult decisions about treatment options. This article describes the key role that stakeholders played in shaping the Comparison of Intravesical Therapy and Surgery as Treatment Options for Bladder Cancer (CISTO) study. It compares treatments for recurrent noninvasive bladder cancer and describes how stakeholders were engaged to design and develop the study and the practices that supported their involvement.

Objective The growing prevalence of chronic conditions requiring changes in lifestyle and at-home self-management has increased interest in and need for supplementing clinic visits with data generated by patients outside the clinic. Patient-generated health data (PGHD) support the ability to diagnose and manage chronic conditions, to improve health outcomes, and have the potential to facilitate more “connected health” between patients and their care teams; however, health systems have been slow to adopt PGHD use in clinical care. Materials and Methods We surveyed current and potential users of PGHD to catalog how PGHD is integrated into clinical care at an academic health center. The survey included questions about data type, method of collection, and clinical uses of PGHD. Current users were asked to provide detailed case studies of PGHD use in research and care delivery. Results Thirty-one respondents completed the survey. Seventeen individuals contributed detailed case studies of PGHD use across diverse areas of care, including behavioral health, metabolic and gastrointestinal conditions, musculoskeletal/progressive functional conditions, cognitive symptoms, and pain management. Sensor devices and mobile technologies were the most commonly reported platforms for collection. Clinicians and researchers involved in PGHD use cited the potential for PGHD to enhance care delivery and outcomes, but also indicated substantial barriers to more widespread PGHD adoption across healthcare systems. Conclusion The results of our survey illustrate how PGHD is used in targeted areas of one healthcare system and provide meaningful insights that can guide health systems in supporting the widespread use of PGHD in care delivery.

Background: Patients increasingly use mobile devices to send text messages and photographic data to surgeons. There is potential to harness this patient-generated health data (PGHD) for clinical and public health surveillance of surgical site infection (SSI). Leveraging PGHD collected via remote monitoring in the post-operative period has the potential to produce important benefits for patients, surgeons, care teams, and infection surveillance and prevention. Methods: We conducted a health technology assessment (HTA), drawing heavily on stakeholder engagement to better understand current and potential uses of PGHD in post-operative care. Stakeholder engagement activities included assembling an advisory board composed of stakeholder experts, interviewing key informants, and seeking out stakeholder guidance to synthesize evidence from interviews, literature review, and technical app review in order to develop recommendations on the use of PGHD in SSI surveillance. Results: We conducted a review of the published literature, a technical/market scan of available apps for capturing post-operative PGHD, and two rounds of key informant interviews with stakeholders. In addition, we held a day-long workshop to solicit stakeholder feedback on initial findings of the project and to guide additional work. These activities culminated in an HTA report that provides guidance and recommendations on the use of PGHD in SSI surveillance, including practice, research, and public health surveillance, and identifies open issues on post-operative use of PGHD for which additional evidence and experience are needed to optimize application of those data for clinical and public health purposes. Conclusion: Stakeholders, individuals with direct experience, or interest in a given topic are critical to the HTA process. They provide insight to guide the work conducted, ensure that the topics addressed are relevant and important, and that products of the work are accessible and meaningful to the individuals who will be most impacted.

Purpose Supporting the capture and use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) at the point-of-care enriches information about important clinical and quality of life outcomes. Yet the ability to scale PROs across healthcare systems has been limited by knowledge gaps around how to manage the diversity of PRO uses and leverage health information technology. In this study, we report learnings and practice insights from UW Medicine’s practice transformation efforts to incorporate patient voice into multiple areas of care. Methods Using a participatory, action research approach, we engaged with UW Medicine clinical and administrative stakeholders experienced with PRO implementation to inventory PRO implementations across the health system, characterize common clinical uses for PROs, and develop recommendations for system-wide governance and implementation of PROs. Results We identified a wide breadth of PRO implementations (n = 14) in practice and found that nearly half (47%) of employed PRO measures captured shared clinical domains (e.g., depression). We developed three vignettes (use cases) that illustrate how users interact with PROs, characterize common ways PRO implementations support clinical care across the health system (1) Preventive care, (2) Chronic/Specialty care, and (3) Surgical/Interventional care), and elucidate opportunities to enhance efficient PRO implementations through system-level standards and governance. Conclusions Practice transformation efforts increasingly require integration of the patient voice into clinical care, often through the use of PROs. Learnings from our work highlight the importance of proactively considering how PROs will be used across the layers of healthcare organizations to optimize the design and governance of PROs.

Background: As the use of patient-owned devices, including smartphones and tablets, to manage day-to-day activities grows, so does healthcare industry's interest to better leverage technology to engage patients. For surgical care, a unique opportunity exists to capture patient-generated health data (PGHD) including photographs. As part of a broader initiative to evaluate PGHD for surgical site infection (SSI) surveillance, we sought evidence regarding patient involvement and experience with PGHD for SSI monitoring and surveillance. Methods: Through a scoping review of the literature and semi-structured stakeholder interviews we gathered evidence on what is currently known about patient perspectives of and experiences with mobile health (mHealth) interventions for post-operative recovery. We presented findings to and discussed with the ASSIST PGHD Stakeholder Advisory Group (PSAG) to generate priorities for further examination. Results: Our scoping review yielded 34 studies that addressed post-discharge use of PGHD for monitoring and surveillance of SSI. Of these, 16 studies addressed at least one outcome regarding patient experience; the most commonly measured outcome was patient satisfaction. Only three studies reported on patient involvement in the development of PGHD tools and interventions. We conducted interviews (n = 24) representing a range of stakeholder perspectives. Interviewees stressed the importance of patient involvement in tool and program design, noting patient involvement ensures the “work” that patients do in their daily lives to manage their health and healthcare is recognized. Discussion of evidence with the ASSIST PSAG resulted in formal recommendations for direct involvement of patients and caregivers for future work. Conclusions: While mHealth initiatives to advance post-operative management offer the ability to improve patient engagement, work is needed to ensure the patient voice is reflected. Active engagement with patients and caregivers in the development of new technology, the design of new workflows, and the conduct of research and evaluation ensures that the patient experiences and values are incorporated.

Despite the demonstrated value of patient-centered care, health systems have been slow to integrate the patient’s voice into care delivery through patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with electronic tools. This is due in part to the complex interplay of technology, workflow, and human factors that shape the success of electronic PROs (ePROs) use. The 2018 American Medical Informatics Association Annual Symposium served as the setting for a half-day interactive workshop with diverse stakeholders to discuss proposed best practices for the planning, design, deployment, and evaluation of ePROs. We provide this collective commentary that synthesizes participant feedback regarding critical challenges that prohibit the scale and spread of ePROs across healthcare delivery systems, including governance and leadership, workflow and human factors, informatics, and data science. In order to realize the promise of ePROs at scale, adaptable approaches are critical to balance the needs of individual users with health systems at large.

Background Diverticular disease can undermine health-related quality of life. The diverticulitis quality of life (DV-QOL) instrument was designed and validated to measure patient-reported burden of diverticular disease. However, values reflecting meaningful improvement (i.e., minimal clinically important difference [MCID]) and the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) have yet to be established. We sought to establish the MCID and PASS of the DV-QOL and describe the characteristics of those with DV-QOL above the PASS threshold. Materials and methods We performed a prospective cohort study of adults with diverticular disease from seven centers in Washington and California (2016-2018). Patients were surveyed at baseline, then quarterly up to 30 mo. To determine the MCID and PASS for DV-QOL, we applied various previously established distribution- and anchor-based approaches and compared the resulting values. Results The study included 177 patients (mean age 57 y, 43% women). A PASS threshold of 3.2/10 distinguished between those with and without health-related quality of life–impacting diverticulitis with acceptable accuracy (area under the curve 0.76). A change of 2.2 points in the DV-QOL was the most appropriate MCID: above the distribution-based MCIDs and corresponding to patient perception of importance of change (AUC 0.70). Patients with DV-QOL ≥ PASS were more often men, younger, had Medicaid, had more serious episodes of diverticulitis, and had an occupational degree or high-school education or less. Conclusions Our study is the first to define MCID and PASS for DV-QOL. These thresholds are critical for measuring the impact of diverticular disease and the evaluation of treatment effectiveness.

Background Antibiotic therapy has been proposed as an alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis. Methods We conducted a pragmatic, nonblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial comparing antibiotic therapy (10-day course) with appendectomy in patients with appendicitis at 25 U.S. centers. The primary outcome was 30-day health status, as assessed with the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating better health status; noninferiority margin, 0.05 points). Secondary outcomes included appendectomy in the antibiotics group and complications through 90 days; analyses were prespecified in subgroups defined according to the presence or absence of an appendicolith. Results In total, 1552 adults (414 with an appendicolith) underwent randomization; 776 were assigned to receive antibiotics (47% of whom were not hospitalized for the index treatment) and 776 to undergo appendectomy (96% of whom underwent a laparoscopic procedure). Antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of 30-day EQ-5D scores (mean difference, 0.01 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.001 to 0.03). In the antibiotics group, 29% had undergone appendectomy by 90 days, including 41% of those with an appendicolith and 25% of those without an appendicolith. Complications were more common in the antibiotics group than in the appendectomy group (8.1 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.30 to 3.98); the higher rate in the antibiotics group could be attributed to those with an appendicolith (20.2 vs. 3.6 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.11 to 15.38) and not to those without an appendicolith (3.7 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.45 to 2.43). The rate of serious adverse events was 4.0 per 100 participants in the antibiotics group and 3.0 per 100 participants in the appendectomy group (rate ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.50). Conclusions For the treatment of appendicitis, antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of results of a standard health-status measure. In the antibiotics group, nearly 3 in 10 participants had undergone appendectomy by 90 days. Participants with an appendicolith were at a higher risk for appendectomy and for complications than those without an appendicolith. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; CODA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02800785.).

Introduction Foundational to a learning health system (LHS) is the presence of a data infrastructure that can support continuous learning and improve patient outcomes. To advance their capacity to drive patient‐centered care, health systems are increasingly looking to expand the electronic capture of patient data, such as electronic patient‐reported outcome (ePRO) measures. Yet ePROs bring unique considerations around workflow, measurement, and technology that health systems may not be poised to navigate. We report on our effort to develop generalizable learnings that can support the integration of ePROs into clinical practice within an LHS framework. Methods Guided by action research methodology, we engaged in iterative cycles of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting around ePRO use with two primary goals: (1) mobilize an ePRO community of practice to facilitate knowledge sharing, and (2) establish guidelines for ePRO use in the context of LHS practice. Multiple, emergent data collection activities generated generalizable guidelines that document the tangible best practices for ePRO use in clinical care. We organized guidelines around thematic areas that reflect LHS structures and stakeholders. Results Three core thematic areas (and 24 guidelines) emerged. The theme of governance reflects the importance of leadership, knowledge management, and facilitating organizational learning around best practice models for ePRO use. The theme of integration considers the intersection of workflow, technology, and human factors for ePROs across areas of care delivery. Lastly, the theme of reporting reflects critical considerations for curating data and information, designing system functions and interactions, and presentation of ePRO data to support the translation of knowledge to action. Conclusions The guidelines produced from this work highlight the complex, multidisciplinary nature of implementing change within LHS contexts, and the value of action research approaches to enable rapid, iterative learning that leverages the knowledge and experience of communities of practice.

Antibiotic therapy has been proposed as an alternative to surgery for the treatment of appendicitis.We conducted a pragmatic, nonblinded, noninferiority, randomized trial comparing antibiotic therapy (10-day course) with appendectomy in patients with appendicitis at 25 U.S. centers. The primary outcome was 30-day health status, as assessed with the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating better health status; noninferiority margin, 0.05 points). Secondary outcomes included appendectomy in the antibiotics group and complications through 90 days; analyses were prespecified in subgroups defined according to the presence or absence of an appendicolith.In total, 1552 adults (414 with an appendicolith) underwent randomization; 776 were assigned to receive antibiotics (47% of whom were not hospitalized for the index treatment) and 776 to undergo appendectomy (96% of whom underwent a laparoscopic procedure). Antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of 30-day EQ-5D scores (mean difference, 0.01 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.001 to 0.03). In the antibiotics group, 29% had undergone appendectomy by 90 days, including 41% of those with an appendicolith and 25% of those without an appendicolith. Complications were more common in the antibiotics group than in the appendectomy group (8.1 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.30 to 3.98); the higher rate in the antibiotics group could be attributed to those with an appendicolith (20.2 vs. 3.6 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 5.69; 95% CI, 2.11 to 15.38) and not to those without an appendicolith (3.7 vs. 3.5 per 100 participants; rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.45 to 2.43). The rate of serious adverse events was 4.0 per 100 participants in the antibiotics group and 3.0 per 100 participants in the appendectomy group (rate ratio, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.67 to 2.50).For the treatment of appendicitis, antibiotics were noninferior to appendectomy on the basis of results of a standard health-status measure. In the antibiotics group, nearly 3 in 10 participants had undergone appendectomy by 90 days. Participants with an appendicolith were at a higher risk for appendectomy and for complications than those without an appendicolith. (Funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute; CODA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02800785.).

Key Points Question What is the impact of including benchmark prevalence data of common findings in reports of spinal imaging ordered by primary care clinicians? Findings In this randomized clinical trial that included 250 401 adults, no overall decrease in subsequent spine-related health care utilization after the intervention was observed. However, there was a significant decrease in opioid prescriptions at 1 year in the intervention group compared with the control group. Meaning The findings of this study suggest that including epidemiological benchmarks on spinal imaging reports has little impact on subsequent spine-related utilization overall but may reduce subsequent opioid prescriptions., This randomized clinical trial evaluates the impact of including benchmark prevalence data in routine spinal imaging reports on subsequent spine-related health care utilization and opioid prescriptions., Importance Lumbar spine imaging frequently reveals findings that may seem alarming but are likely unrelated to pain. Prior work has suggested that inserting data on the prevalence of imaging findings among asymptomatic individuals into spine imaging reports may reduce unnecessary subsequent interventions. Objective To evaluate the impact of including benchmark prevalence data in routine spinal imaging reports on subsequent spine-related health care utilization and opioid prescriptions. Design, Setting, and Participants This stepped-wedge, pragmatic randomized clinical trial included 250 401 adult participants receiving care from 98 primary care clinics at 4 large health systems in the United States. Participants had imaging of their backs between October 2013 and September 2016 without having had spine imaging in the prior year. Data analysis was conducted from November 2018 to October 2019. Interventions Either standard lumbar spine imaging reports (control group) or reports containing age-appropriate prevalence data for common imaging findings in individuals without back pain (intervention group). Main Outcomes and Measures Health care utilization was measured in spine-related relative value units (RVUs) within 365 days of index imaging. The number of subsequent opioid prescriptions written by a primary care clinician was a secondary outcome, and prespecified subgroup analyses examined results by imaging modality. Results We enrolled 250 401 participants (of whom 238 886 [95.4%] met eligibility for this analysis, with 137 373 [57.5%] women and 105 497 [44.2%] aged >60 years) from 3278 primary care clinicians. A total of 117 455 patients (49.2%) were randomized to the control group, and 121 431 patients (50.8%) were randomized to the intervention group. There was no significant difference in cumulative spine-related RVUs comparing intervention and control conditions through 365 days. The adjusted median (interquartile range) RVU for the control group was 3.56 (2.71-5.12) compared with 3.53 (2.68-5.08) for the intervention group (difference, −0.7%; 95% CI, −2.9% to 1.5%; P = .54). Rates of subsequent RVUs did not differ between groups by specific clinical findings in the report but did differ by type of index imaging (eg, computed tomography: difference, −29.3%; 95% CI, −42.1% to −13.5%; magnetic resonance imaging: difference, −3.4%; 95% CI, −8.3% to 1.8%). We observed a small but significant decrease in the likelihood of opioid prescribing from a study clinician within 1 year of the intervention (odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.00; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance In this study, inserting benchmark prevalence information in lumbar spine imaging reports did not decrease subsequent spine-related RVUs but did reduce subsequent opioid prescriptions. The intervention text is simple, inexpensive, and easily implemented. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02015455

BACKGROUND Poor communication is a leading cause of errors in health care. Structured interprofessional bedside rounds are a promising model to improve communication. PURPOSE The aim of the study was to test if an intervention to improve communication and coordination in an inpatient heart failure care unit would result in lasting change. METHODOLOGY/APPROACH The relational coordination (RC) survey was administered to seven workgroups (i.e., nurses, physicians) at baseline (2015) and three subsequent years following the intervention (team training, leadership development workshops, and structured interprofessional bedside round implementation). Descriptive analysis and mixed-effects models were used to assess the impact of the intervention on improving RC. RESULTS During the study period (2015-2018), 344 participants completed the survey for an overall response rate of 53.5% (n = 643). Postintervention, the RC index significantly increased from 3.79 to 4.08 (p < .001) and remained significantly higher over 2 years, with an RC index of 4.12 and 4.04, respectively (p < .001). The range of RC scores between and within workgroups narrowed over time, with nonrotating workgroups showing the most improvements. CONCLUSION Findings indicate that positive changes as a result of the intervention have been sustained, despite high rates of turnover among all workgroups. Notably, positive change in RC was found to be more pronounced for nonrotating workgroups compared to team members who rotate within the hospital (i.e., pharmacists who rotate to other units every month). PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS This intervention holds promise for teams seeking best practice models of "high-reliability" care organization and delivery. Sustained changes from this intervention represent an important area of future practice-based research.

BackgroundBy participating in priority-setting activities in research, patients and members of the public help ensure that important questions are incorporated into future research agendas. Surveys, focus groups, and online crowdsourcing are increasingly used to obtain input, yet little is known about how they compare for prioritizing research topics. To address this gap, the Study of Methods for Assessing Research Topic Elicitation and pRioritization (SMARTER) evaluated participant satisfaction with the engagement experience across three prioritization activities.MethodsRespondents from Back pain Outcomes using Longitudinal Data (BOLD), a registry of patients 65 years and older with low back pain (LBP), were randomly assigned to one of three interactive prioritization activities: online crowd-voting, in-person focus groups using nominal group technique, and two rounds of a mailed survey (Delphi). To assess quality of experience, participants completed a brief survey; a subset were subsequently interviewed. We used descriptive statistics to characterize participants, and we analyzed responses to the evaluation using a mixed-methods approach, tabulating responses to Likert-scale questions and using thematic analysis of interviews to explore participant understanding of the activity and perceptions of experience.ResultsThe crowd-voting activity had 38 participants, focus groups 39, and the Delphi survey 74. Women outnumbered men in the focus groups and Delphi survey; otherwise, demographics among groups were similar, with participants being predominantly white, non-Hispanic, and college educated. Activities generated similar lists of research priorities, including causes of LBP, improving physician-patient communication, and self-care strategies. The evaluation survey was completed by 123 participants. Of these, 31 across all activities were interviewed about motivations to participate, understanding of activity goals, logistics, clarity of instructions, and the role of patients in research. Focus group participants rated their experience highest, in both the evaluation and interviews.ConclusionCommon methods for research prioritization yielded similar priorities but differing perceptions of experience. Such comparative studies are rare but important in understanding methods to involve patients and the public in research. Preferences for different methods may vary across stakeholder groups; this warrants future study.Trial registrationNICHSR,HSRP20152274. Registered 19 February 2015.

Background & AimsDiverticular disease can undermine health-related quality of life (HRQoL). The diverticulitis quality of life (DV-QOL) instrument was designed and validated to measure the patient-reported burden of diverticular disease. However, in order for the DV-QOL to capture longitudinal outcomes, values reflecting meaningful improvement (i.e., minimal clinically important difference (MCID)) and the patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) need to be established. We sought to establish the MCID and PASS of the DV-QOL, and describe the characteristics of those with DV-QOL above the PASS threshold.MethodsWe performed a prospective cohort study of adults with diverticular disease from 7 centers in Washington and California (2016-2018). Patients were surveyed at baseline, then quarterly up to 30 months. To determine the PASS for DV-QOL, we used an anchor-based approach and performed receiver operating characteristic analyses using baseline data. A range of MCID values were calculated using distribution-based and anchor-based approaches.ResultsThe study included 177 patients (mean age 57, 43% female). A PASS threshold of 3.2/10 distinguished between those with and without HRQoL-impacting diverticulitis with acceptable accuracy (area under the curve (AUC) 0.76). A change of 2.2 points in the DV-QOL was the most appropriate MCID: above the measurement error and corresponding to patient perception of importance of change (AUC 0.70). Patients with DV-QOL≥PASS were more often male, younger, had Medicaid, less educated, and had more serious episodes of diverticulitis.ConclusionsOur study is the first to define MCID and PASS for DV-QOL. These thresholds are critical for measuring the impact of diverticular disease and the evaluation of treatment effectiveness.

STUDY DESIGN Statewide retrospective cohort study using prospectively collected data from the Spine Care and Outcomes Assessment Program, capturing ∼75% of the state's spine fusion procedures. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to estimate the variation in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) 1 year after elective lumbar fusion surgery across surgeons and hospitals; and to discuss the potential impact of guiding patient selection using a PRO prediction tool. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA Despite an increasing interest in incorporating PROs as part of the move toward value-based payment and to improve quality, limited evidence exists on how PROs vary across hospitals and surgeons, a key aspect of using these metrics for quality profiling. METHODS We examined patient-reported functional improvement (≥15-point reduction in the Oswestry Disability Index [ODI]) and minimal disability (reaching ≤22 on the ODI) 1 year after surgery in 17 hospitals and 58 surgeons between 2012 and 2017. Outcomes were risk-adjusted for patient characteristics with multiple logistic regressions and reliability-adjusted using hierarchical models. RESULTS Of the 737 patients who underwent lumbar fusion (mean [SD] age, 63 [12] years; 60% female; 84% had stenosis; 70% had spondylolisthesis), 58.7% achieved functional improvement and 42.5% reached minimal disability status at 1 year. After adjusting for patient factors, there was little variation between hospitals and surgeons (maximum interclass correlation was 3.5%), and this variation became statistically insignificant after further reliability adjustment. Avoiding operation on patients with

The purpose of this project was to build and formatively evaluate a near-real time heart failure (HF) data mart. Heart Failure (HF) is a leading cause of hospital readmissions. Increased efforts to use data meaningfully may enable healthcare organizations to better evaluate effectiveness of care pathways and quality improvements, and to prospectively identify risk among HF patients.We followed a modified version of the Systems Development Life Cycle: 1) Conceptualization, 2) Requirements Analysis, 3) Iterative Development, and 4) Application Release. This foundational work reflects the first of a two-phase project. Phase two (in process) involves the implementation and evaluation of predictive analytics for clinical decision support.We engaged stakeholders to build working definitions and established automated processes for creating an HF data mart containing actionable information for diverse audiences. As of December 2017, the data mart contains information from over 175,000 distinct patients and100 variables from each of their nearly 300,000 visits.The HF data mart will be used to enhance care, assist in clinical decision-making, and improve overall quality of care. This model holds the potential to be scaled and generalized beyond the initial focus and setting.