Search

OBJECTIVE To evaluate the perioperative decision-making process, post-operative decision regret and reflection on the peri-operative experience of patients undergoing radical cystectomy and urinary diversion through patient interviews. METHODS Patients identified as having undergone radical cystectomy for malignancy were interviewed 6-24 months from the time of surgery and stratified by diversion type. Following written consent, interviews were conducted either in person or over the phone using a semi-structured script. Patients were asked 9 open-ended questions, with additional unscripted follow-up questions based on themes raised by the patient. The interviews were reviewed for common themes, preferences, and recommendations. RESULTS A total of 13 interviews were conducted. No patient expressed decision regret about their choice of urinary diversion. Ten out of 13 interviewees specifically stated that they had adequate information about diversion options pre-operatively, none felt they did not have adequate pre-operative counseling. One area identified as improvable was postoperative counseling- specifically, for ostomy appliances, catheters, or irrigation. The most striking recurrent theme was the desire for a “buddy system” in which patients could contact and maintain discussion about their surgical experience with an experienced patient. The overall impression was that this system would be most useful in the recovery/maintenance phase rather than in the pre-operative decision-making process. CONCLUSION This data furnishes a basis to develop more accessible and effective counseling and highlights the need to concentrate on post-surgical maintenance care, including management of urostomy appliances, catheters, and reinforcing irrigation technique.

To evaluate the effects on efficiency and patient care of the addition of physician assistants (PAs) and NPs to the abdominal radiology consult service.We obtained radiologist productivity and patient care metrics for 3 months before and 3 months after the integration of PAs and NPs into our consult service.Integrating PAs and NPs into the workflow led to a significant increase in mean RVUs/shift (15.2 ± 0.9 versus 6.2 ± 1.8; P = .02), number of studies read per shift (10.1 ± 0.5 versus 4.4 ± 1.5; P = .003), revenue per shift hour ($756.20 ± $55.40 versus $335.40 ± $132.60; P = .007), protocol prescription to patient appointment lead time (39.3 ± 6.7 versus 16.3 ± 2.9 days; P = .005), and significant decreases in mean CT (19.3% ± 0.6 versus 3.3% ± 0.6; P = .001) and MRI (11.7% ± 0.6 versus 8.3% ± 0.12; P = .011) same-day protocol changes as patient appointments.PAs and NPs can be effectively integrated into abdominal radiology consult service, increasing the productivity of radiologists, and enhancing clinical care.

Objectives As part of a study to construct a shared-medical decision tool for ovarian cancer maintenance therapy (MT), we developed a knowledge survey to measure patients’ understanding of their cancer and treatment. With the recent expansion of MT indications, patients need to decide if MT is right for them. An understanding of potential risks and benefits associated with MT is paramount to making an informed decision. We explored knowledge differences between newly diagnosed and recurrent patients. Methods A 32-question survey focused on ovarian cancer (OC) and MT was developed based on interviews with patients and subject matter experts. The survey was modified iteratively using cognitive interviews with patients. Patients with OC with ≥ 3 cycles of chemotherapy and cytoreductive surgery completed the survey by email or phone. No prior background information was given to patients. Results Clinico-demographic characteristics are shown in table 1 (n=87). Sixty percent had recurrent disease. General knowledge about advanced OC was similar between groups. The majority of patients did not understand the purpose of MT or the definition of progression-free survival. The recurrent group showed a similar lack of knowledge in the same questions as the newly diagnosed group, with no statistically significant differences observed (figure 1). Conclusions Our data suggests that knowledge of OC among patients is highly variable. The overall lack of understanding regarding the goal of MT even among patients who have recurred is concerning. These gaps in knowledge suggest an important role for shared decision making to improve patients’ decision making about treatment of advanced OC.

The demand for health care in the United States is increasing because of an aging population and an increase in the number of individuals insured. This has led to requests to revamp the primary care infrastructure fundamentally.The optimal use of nurse practitioners (NPs) and physician assistants (PAs) is still a subject of debate, but recently, it was reported that for many medical conditions, NP and PA-managed care outcomes are consistent with physician-managed care outcomes.Radiologists' productivity was measured according to relative value units (RVUs)/shift and professional billing changes. Patient care metrics measured were prescribed protocol to patient appointment lead time and number of same-day prescribed imaging protocol changes.The focus was on radiologists' productivity and patient care for three months before and three months after integrating NP and PA into our abdominal radiology consult service.We observed significant increases in the mean RVUs/shift (15.2 ± 0.9 vs. 6.2 ± 1.8; p = .02), studies read per shift (10.1 ± 0.5 vs. 4.4 ± 1.5; p = .003), revenue per shift hour ($756.20 ± 55.40 vs. $335.40 ± 32.60; p = .007), and protocol prescription to patient appointment lead time (39.3 ± 6.7 days vs. 16.3 ± 2.9 days; p = .005) and saw significant decreases in the mean prescribed CT (19.3 ± 0.6 vs. 3.3 ± 0.6; p = .001) and MRI (11.7 ± 0.6 vs. 8.30 ± 0.12; p = .011) same day protocol changes in NP and PA integrated workflow.These findings suggest that NP and PA can be effectively integrated into the abdominal radiology consult service, increasing radiologists' productivity and enhancing clinical care.

PURPOSE: The uptake of shared decision making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) as required by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is suboptimal. Alternative models for delivering SDM are needed, such as decision coaching in the low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) setting. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Replicating Effective Programs framework guided our implementation of decision coaching, which included a patient-facilitated component before screening followed by in-person coaching that addressed the required elements for the SDM visit from CMS. We surveyed two LCS patient cohorts (pre-implementation and implementation of decision coaching) about their knowledge of LCS and perception of the SDM process. We conducted time-motion studies to assess the feasibility of implementing decision coaching and audio recorded clinical encounters from the implementation cohort to assess fidelity of the SDM conversation to the CMS requirements. RESULTS: Compared with the pre-implementation cohort (n = 51), the implementation cohort (n = 30) had greater knowledge of LCS ( P < .01) and reported a better SDM process ( P = .01). Coaching took 7.6 ± 4.1 minutes and did not increase visit time ( P = .72). Coaches addressed an average of 6.4 of 7 SDM elements required by CMS. CONCLUSION: Decision coaching in the LDCT setting provides an opportunity for patients to confirm their screening decision by ensuring that patients are truly informed about the potential harms and benefits of LCS. The decision coaching had excellent fidelity in addressing the required SDM elements from CMS and is feasible.

Introduction. Enhanced visual effects, like animation, have the potential to improve comprehension of probabilistic risk information, particularly for those with lower health literacy. We tested the effect of presentation format on comprehension of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening probabilities to identify optimal risk communication strategies. Methods. Participants from a community foodbank and a cancer prevention center were randomized to 1 of 3 CRC screening risk presentations. The presentations used identical content but varied in format: 1) video with animated pictographs, 2) video with static pictographs, and 3) audiobooklet with static pictographs. Participants completed pre- and postpresentation surveys. The primary outcome was knowledge of probability/risk information regarding CRC screening, calculated as total, verbatim, and gist scores. Results. In total, 187 participants completed the study and were included in this analysis. Median age was 58 years (interquartile range [IQR]: 14 years), most participants were women (63%), and almost half had a high school education or less (46%). Approximately one-quarter had inadequate health literacy (Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults marginal/inadequate: 28%; Brief Health Literacy Screener low: 18%), and about half had low numeracy (Subjective Numeracy Scale low: 54%; Graphical Literacy Measure low: 50%). We found no significant differences in total, verbatim, or gist knowledge across presentation formats (all P > 0.05). Discussion. Use of an animated pictograph to communicate risk does not appear to augment or impede knowledge of risk information. Regardless of health literacy level, difficulty understanding pictographs presenting numerical information persists. There may be a benefit to teaching or priming individuals on how to interpret numerical information presented in pictographs before communicating risk using visual methods. Trial Registry: NCT02151032

BACKGROUND Colorectal cancer screening rates for African American patients remain suboptimal. Patient decision aids designed with an entertainment-education approach have been shown to improve saliency and foster informed decision making. The purpose of this study was to assess whether an entertainment-education decision aid tailored for African American patients improved patients' decision making, attitudes, intentions, or colorectal cancer screening behavior. METHODS Eighty-nine participants were randomized to view 1) a patient decision aid video containing culturally tailored information about colorectal cancer screening options and theory-based support in decision making presented in an entertainment–education format or 2) an attention control video about hypertension that contained similarly detailed information. Participants met with their clinician and then completed follow-up questionnaires assessing their knowledge, decisional conflict, self-advocacy, attitudes, perceived social norms, and intentions. At 3 months, completion of screening was assessed by chart review. RESULTS Viewing the culturally tailored decision aid significantly increased African American patients' knowledge of colorectal cancer screening recommendations and options. It also significantly reduced their decisional conflict and improved their self-advocacy. No significant differences were observed in participants' attitudes, norms, or intentions. At three months, 23% of all patients had completed a colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS Designing targeted, engaging patient decision aids for groups that receive suboptimal screening holds promise for improving patient decision making and self-advocacy. Additional research is warranted to investigate the effectiveness of such aids in clinical practices with suboptimal screening rates and on downstream behaviors (such as repeat testing). Cancer 2017;123:1401–1408. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Background. Recent policy changes require discussing the potential benefits and harms of lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography. This study explored how current and former smokers value potential benefits and harms after watching a patient decision aid, and their screening intentions. Methods. Current or former smokers (quit within 15 years) with no history of lung cancer watched the decision aid and responded to items assessing the value of potential benefits and harms in their decision making, and their screening intentions. Results. After viewing the decision aid, participants ( n = 30; mean age 61.5 years, mean 30.4 pack-year history) were well-informed (mean 80.5% correct responses) and rated anticipated regret and finding cancer early as highly important in their decision (medians >9 out of 10), along with moderate but variable concerns about false positives, overdiagnosis, and radiation exposure (medians 7.0, 6.0, and 5.0, respectively). Most participants (90.0% to 96.7%) felt clear about how they personally valued the potential benefits and harms and prepared for decision making (mean 86.7 out of 100, SD = 21.3). After viewing the decision aid, most participants (90%) intended to discuss screening with their doctor. Limitations. The study is limited to current and former smokers enrolled in a tobacco treatment program, and it may not generalize to other patient populations. Conclusions. The majority of current and former smokers were strongly concerned about anticipated regret and finding cancer early, while concerns about radiation exposure, false positives, and overdiagnosis were variable. After viewing the decision aid, current and former smokers reported strong preparedness and intentions to talk with their doctor about lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography.

Importance Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography lowers lung cancer mortality but has potential harms. Current guidelines support patients receiving information about the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening during decision-making. Objective To examine the effect of a patient decision aid (PDA) about lung cancer screening compared with a standard educational material (EDU) on decision-making outcomes among smokers. Design, Setting, and Participants This randomized clinical trial was conducted using 13 state tobacco quitlines. Current and recent tobacco quitline clients who met age and smoking history eligibility for lung cancer screening were enrolled from March 30, 2015, to September 12, 2016, and followed up for 6 months until May 5, 2017. Data analysis was conducted between May 5, 2017, and September 30, 2018. Interventions Participants were randomized to the PDA videoLung Cancer Screening: Is It Right for Me?(n = 259) or to EDU (n = 257). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary outcomes were preparation for decision-making and decisional conflict measured at 1 week. Secondary outcomes included knowledge, intentions, and completion of screening within 6 months of receiving the intervention measured by patient report. Results Of 516 quit line clients enrolled, 370 (71.7%) were younger than 65 years, 320 (62.0%) were female, 138 (26.7%) identified as black, 47 (9.1%) did not have health insurance, and 226 (43.8%) had a high school or lower educational level. Of participants using the PDA, 153 of 227 (67.4%) were well prepared to make a screening decision compared with 108 of 224 participants (48.2%) using EDU (odds ratio [OR], 2.31; 95% CI, 1.56-3.44;P Conclusions and Relevance In this study, a PDA delivered to clients of tobacco quit lines improved informed decision-making about lung cancer screening. Many smokers eligible for lung cancer screening can be reached through tobacco quit lines. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier:NCT02286713

Our aim was to examine the responsiveness of a lung cancer screening brief knowledge measure (LCS-12). Eligible participants were aged 55–80 years, current smokers or had quit within 15 years, and English speaking. They completed a baseline pretest survey, viewed a lung cancer screening video-based patient decision aid, and then filled out a follow-up posttest survey. We performed a paired samples t-test, calculated effect size, and calculated absolute and relative percent improvement for each item. Participants (n = 30) were primarily White (63%) with less than a college degree (63%), and half were female (50%). Mean age was 61.5 years (standard deviation [SD] = 4.67) and average smoking history was 30.4 pack-years (range = 4.6–90.0). Mean score on the 12-item measure increased from 47.3% correct on the pretest to 80.3% correct on the posttest (mean pretest score = 5.67 vs. mean posttest score = 9.63; mean score difference = 3.97, SD = 2.87, 95% CI = 2.90, 5.04). Total knowledge scores improved significantly and were responsive to the decision aid intervention (paired samples t-test = 7.57, p

Background Although research suggests that patients prefer a shared decision making (SDM) experience when making healthcare decisions, clinicians do not routinely implement SDM into their practice and training programs are needed. Using a novel case-based strategy, we developed and pilot tested an online educational program to promote shared decision making (SDM) by primary care clinicians. Methods A three-phased approach was used: 1) development of a conceptual model of the SDM process; 2) development of an online teaching case utilizing the Design A Case (DAC) authoring template, a well-tested process used to create peer-reviewed web-based clinical cases across all levels of healthcare training; and 3) pilot testing of the case. Participants were clinician members affiliated with several primary care research networks across the United States who answered an invitation email. The case used prostate cancer screening as the clinical context and was delivered online. Post-intervention ratings of clinicians’ general knowledge of SDM, knowledge of specific SDM steps, confidence in and intention to perform SDM steps were also collected online. Results Seventy-nine clinicians initially volunteered to participate in the study, of which 49 completed the case and provided evaluations. Forty-three clinicians (87.8%) reported the case met all the learning objectives, and 47 (95.9%) indicated the case was relevant for other equipoise decisions. Thirty-one clinicians (63.3%) accessed supplementary information via links provided in the case. After viewing the case, knowledge of SDM was high (over 90% correctly identified the steps in a SDM process). Determining a patient’s preferred role in making the decision (62.5% very confident) and exploring a patient’s values (65.3% very confident) about the decisions were areas where clinician confidence was lowest. More than 70% of the clinicians intended to perform SDM in the future. Conclusions A comprehensive model of the SDM process was used to design a case-based approach to teaching SDM skills to primary care clinicians. The case was favorably rated in this pilot study. Clinician skills training for helping patients clarify their values and for assessing patients’ desire for involvement in decision making remain significant challenges and should be a focus of future comparative studies. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1472-6947-14-95) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

New clinical guidelines endorse the use of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for lung cancer screening among selected heavy smokers while recommending patients be counseled about the potential benefits and harms. We developed and field tested a brief, video-based patient decision aid about lung cancer screening.Smokers in a cancer center tobacco treatment program aged 45 to 75 years viewed the video online between November 2011 and September 2012. Acceptability, knowledge, and clarity of values related to the decision were assessed.Fifty-two patients completed the study (mean age=58.5 years; mean duration smoking=34.8 years). Acceptability of the aid was high. Most patients (78.8%) indicated greater interest in screening after viewing the aid. Knowledge about lung cancer screening increased significantly as a result of viewing the aid (25.5% of questions answered correctly before the aid, and 74.8% after; P.01) although understanding of screening eligibility remained poor. Patients reported being clear about which benefits and harms of screening mattered most to them (94.1% and 86.5%, respectively).Patients have high information needs related to lung cancer screening. A video-based decision aid may be helpful in promoting informed decision-making, but its impact on lung cancer screening decisions needs to be explored.

1564 Background: Results from the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) and a recent ASCO-supported systematic review concluded that screening with low-dose spiral computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer deaths among selected heavy smokers. Yet, this mortality benefit must be weighed against the potential harms of screening (e.g., high false positive rate). In anticipation of LDCT screening becoming a reimbursable preventive health service, we developed and evaluated a brief, video-based patient decision aid designed for use in clinical settings. Methods: Patients from a tobacco treatment program who were 45 to 75 years of age and had no history of lung cancer participated in the study. Measures of acceptability and ratings of the aid were included. We assessed effectiveness of the aid via knowledge about lung cancer and the benefits and risks of screening, and clarity of values using the Decisional Conflict Scale. Results: Fifty-two patients completed the study (mean age=58.5 years; mean average years smoking=34.8 years). Over 94% of patients watched the entire video, would recommend it to others, felt it held their interest, rated the content favorably, and wanted to view similar video-based aids. Acceptability was high, although 23.3% wanted more information about the NLST findings and evidence base. After viewing the aid, knowledge about lung cancer screening increased significantly (before viewing aid, 25.5% of questions answered correctly; after viewing aid, 74.8%; P