Shared Decision-Making for Patients Hospitalized with Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Randomized Trial.

Objective: Adherence to guideline-recommended medications after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is suboptimal. Patient fidelity to treatment regimens may be related to their knowledge of the risk of death following AMI, the pros and cons of medications, and to their involvement in treatment decisions. Shared decision-making may improve both patients' knowledge and involvement in treatment decisions. Methods: In a pilot trial, patients hospitalized with AMI were randomized to the use of the AMI Choice conversation tool or to usual care. AMI Choice includes a pictogram of the patient's estimated risk of mortality at 6 months with and without guideline-recommended medications, ie, aspirin, statins, beta-blockers, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. Primary outcomes were patient knowledge and conflict with the decision made assessed via post-encounter surveys. Secondary outcomes were patient involvement in the decision-making process (observer-based OPTION12 scale) and 6-month medication adherence. Results: Patient knowledge of the expected survival benefit from taking medications was significantly higher (62% vs 16%, p<0.0001) in the AMI Choice group (n = 53) compared to the usual care group (n = 53). Both groups reported similarly low levels of conflict with the decision to start the medications (13 (SD 24.2) vs 16 (SD 22) out of 100; p=0.16). The extent to which clinicians in the AMI Choice group involved their patients in the decision-making process was high (OPTION12 score 53 out of 100, SD 12). Medication adherence at 6-months was relatively high in both groups and not different between groups. Conclusion: The AMI Choice conversation tool improved patients' knowledge of their estimated risk of short-term mortality after an AMI and the pros and cons of treatments to reduce this risk. The effect on patient fidelity to recommended medications of using this SDM tool and of SDM in general should be tested in larger trials enrolling patients at high risk for nonadherence. Trial Registration Number: NCT00888537.

Minimally disruptive medicine (MDM) in clinical practice: a qualitative case study of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) clinic care model.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests the need to reframe healthcare delivery for patients with chronic conditions, with emphasis on minimizing healthcare footprint/workload on patients, caregivers, clinicians and health systems through the proposed Minimally Disruptive Medicine (MDM) care model named. HIV care models have evolved to further focus on understanding barriers and facilitators to care delivery while improving patient-centered outcomes (e.g., disease progression, adherence, access, quality of life). It is hypothesized that these models may provide an example of MDM care model in clinic practice. Therefore, this study aimed to observe and ascertain MDM-concordant and discordant elements that may exist within a tertiary-setting HIV clinic care model for patients living with HIV or AIDS (PLWHA). We also aimed to identify lessons learned from this setting to inform improving the feasibility and usefulness of MDM care model. METHODS: This qualitative case study occurred in multidisciplinary HIV comprehensive-care clinic within an urban tertiary-medical center. Participants included Adult PLWHA and informal caregivers (e.g. family/friends) attending the clinic for regular appointments were recruited. All clinic staff were eligible for recruitment. Measurements included; semi-guided interviews with patients, caregivers, or both; semi-guided interviews with varied clinicians (individually); and direct observations of clinical encounters (patient-clinicians), as well as staff daily operations in 2015-2017. The qualitative-data synthesis used iterative, mainly inductive thematic coding. RESULTS: Researcher interviews and observations data included 28 patients, 5 caregivers, and 14 care-team members. With few exceptions, the clinic care model elements aligned closely to the MDM model of care through supporting patient capacity/abilities (with some patients receiving minimal social support and limited assistance with reframing their biography) and minimizing workload/demands (with some patients challenged by the clinic hours of operation). CONCLUSIONS: The studied HIV clinic incorporated many of the MDM tenants, contributing to its validation, and informing gaps in knowledge. While these findings may support the design and implementation of care that is both minimally disruptive and maximally supportive, the impact of MDM on patient-important outcomes and different care settings require further studying.

Shared Decision Making for Antidepressants in Primary Care: A Cluster Randomized Trial.

IMPORTANCE: For antidepressants, the translation of evidence of comparative effectiveness into practice is suboptimal. This deficit directly affects outcomes and quality of care for patients with depression. To overcome this problem, we developed the Depression Medication Choice (DMC) encounter decision aid, designed to help patients and clinicians consider the available antidepressants and the extent to which they improved depression and other issues important to patients. OBJECTIVE: Estimate the effect of DMC on quality of the decision-making process and depression outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a cluster randomized trial of adults with moderate to severe depression considering treatment with an antidepressant. Primary care practices in 10 rural, suburban, and urban primary care practices across Minnesota and Wisconsin were randomly allocated to treatment of depression with or without use of the DMC decision aid. INTERVENTION: Depression Medication Choice, a series of cards, each highlighting the effect of the available options on an issue of importance to patients for use during face-to-face consultations. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Decision-making quality as judged by patient knowledge and involvement in decision making, patient and clinician decisional comfort (Decisional Conflict Scale) and satisfaction, encounter duration, medication adherence, depression symptoms, and the Patient Health Questionnaire for depression (PHQ-9). RESULTS: We enrolled 117 clinicians and 301 patients (67% women; mean [SD] age, 44 [15] years; mean [SD] PHQ-9 score, 15 [4]) into the trial. Compared with usual care (UC), use of DMC significantly improved patients' decisional comfort (DMC, 80% vs UC, 75%; P = .02), knowledge (DMC, 65% vs UC, 56%; P = .03), satisfaction (risk ratio [RR], from 1.25 [P = .81] to RR, 2.4 [P = .002] depending on satisfaction domain), and involvement (DMC, 47% vs UC, 33%; P<.001). It also improved clinicians' decisional comfort (DMC, 80% vs UC, 68%; P < .001) and satisfaction (RR, 1.64; P = .02). There were no differences in encounter duration, medication adherence, or improvement of depression control between arms. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The DMC decision aid helped primary care clinicians and patients with moderate to severe depression select antidepressants together, improving the decision-making process without extending the visit. On the other hand, DMC had no discernible effect on medication adherence or depression outcomes. By translating comparative effectiveness into patient-centered care, use of DMC improved the quality of primary care for patients with depression. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01502891.