Publications

Health policies encourage implementing quality measurement with performance targets. The 2010-2015 California Medicaid waiver mandated quality measurement and reporting. In 2013, California safety net hospitals participating in the waiver set a voluntary performance target (the 90th percentile for Medicare preferred provider organization plans) for mammography screening and cholesterol control in diabetes. They did not reach the target, and the difference-in-differences analysis suggested that there was no difference for mammography ( P = .39) and low-density lipoprotein control ( P = .11) performance compared to measures for which no statewide quality improvement initiative existed. California's Medicaid waiver was associated with improved performance on a number of metrics, but this performance was not attributable to target setting on specific health conditions. Performance may have improved because of secular trends or systems improvements related to waiver funding. Relying on condition-specific targets to measure performance may underestimate improvements and disadvantage certain health systems. Achieving ambitious targets likely requires sustained fiscal, management, and workforce investments.

The objective of this study was to evaluate an educational module for Latino parents about the health effects of sweet beverages. Latino parents were randomized to receive the beverage module or a control module. Child beverage consumption was assessed at baseline, 2 weeks, 2 months, and 3 months via a beverage recall survey. At 2-week follow-up, children of intervention participants had a mean reduction in 7-day total sugar-sweetened beverage and 100% fruit juice consumption of 16 ounces while controls had a mean increase of 4 ounces ( P = .01). At 2-month and 3-month follow-up, there was a reduction in mean total sugar-sweetened beverage and 100% fruit juice consumption among both intervention and control children. An educational module on beverages for Latino parents reduced child consumption of sweet beverages at 2-week follow-up. However, study participation appears to have also reduced controls' beverage consumption suggesting that frequent intensive surveys of beverage intake may be an intervention unto itself.

INTRODUCTION

Older patients frequently undergo operations that carry high risk for postoperative complications and death. Poor preoperative communication between patients and surgeons can lead to uninformed decisions and result in unexpected outcomes, conflict between surgeons and patients, and treatment inconsistent with patient preferences. This article describes the protocol for a multisite, cluster-randomised trial that uses a stepped wedge design to test a patient-driven question prompt list (QPL) intervention aimed to improve preoperative decision making and inform postoperative expectations.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute-funded trial will be conducted at five academic medical centres in the USA. Study participants include surgeons who routinely perform vascular or oncological surgery, their patients and families. We aim to enrol 40 surgeons and 480 patients over 24 months. Patients age 65 or older who see a study-enrolled surgeon to discuss a vascular or oncological problem that could be treated with high-risk surgery will be enrolled at their clinic visit. Together with stakeholders, we developed a QPL intervention addressing preoperative communication needs of patients considering major surgery. Guided by the theories of self-determination and relational autonomy, this intervention is designed to increase patient activation. Patients will receive the QPL brochure and a letter from their surgeon encouraging its use. Using audio recordings of the outpatient surgical consultation, patient and family member questionnaires administered at three time points and retrospective chart review, we will compare the effectiveness of the QPL intervention to usual care with respect to the following primary outcomes: patient engagement in decision making, psychological well-being and post-treatment regret for patients and families, and interpersonal and intrapersonal conflict relating to treatment decisions and treatments received.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Approvals have been granted by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Wisconsin and at each participating site, and a Certificate of Confidentiality has been obtained. Results will be reported in peer-reviewed publications and presented at national meetings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02623335.

Shared decisionmaking has been proposed as a method to promote active engagement of patients in emergency care decisions. Despite the recent attention shared decisionmaking has received in the emergency medicine community, including being the topic of the 2016 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference, misconceptions remain in regard to the precise meaning of the term, the process, and the conditions under which it is most likely to be valuable. With the help of a patient representative and an interaction designer, we developed a simple framework to illustrate how shared decisionmaking should be approached in clinical practice. We believe it should be the preferred or default approach to decisionmaking, except in clinical situations in which 3 factors interfere. These 3 factors are lack of clinical uncertainty or equipoise, patient decisionmaking ability, and time, all of which can render shared decisionmaking infeasible. Clinical equipoise refers to scenarios in which there are 2 or more medically reasonable management options. Patient decisionmaking ability refers to a patient's capacity and willingness to participate in his or her emergency care decisions. Time refers to the acuity of the clinical situation (which may require immediate action) and the time that the clinician has to devote to the shared decisionmaking conversation. In scenarios in which there is only one medically reasonable management option, informed consent is indicated, with compassionate persuasion used as appropriate. If time or patient capacity is lacking, physician-directed decisionmaking will occur. With this framework as the foundation, we discuss the process of shared decisionmaking and how it can be used in practice. Finally, we highlight 5 common misconceptions in regard to shared decisionmaking in the ED. With an improved understanding of shared decisionmaking, this approach should be used to facilitate the provision of high-quality, patient-centered emergency care.