Pilot Study Examining Feasibility and Comparing the Effectiveness of Decision Aids for Hip and Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Trial.

Background. There are many patient decision aids (DAs) available, yet there is limited evidence on comparative effectiveness of different tools. Objective. To examine feasibility of a study protocol and gather preliminary data on comparative effectiveness. Methods. Adult patients seeing a surgeon to discuss treatment for hip or knee osteoarthritis were randomized to hip and knee DAs from two vendors. Pre-visit survey included Hip/Knee Decision Quality Instrument, DA usage, health literacy, and quality of life (EQ-5D). Surgical status was ascertained 6 months post-visit. We examined response rates, eligibility, and compared the two DAs on amount of use, knowledge scores, and receipt of preferred treatment. Results. Overall response rate was 58/74 (78%) and did not differ by study arm. More patients in DA-A group reported reviewing all the DAs (64.5% DA-A v. 24.0% DA-B, P = 0.003). Knowledge scores were similar across arms (55.2% DA-A v. 48.8% DA-B, P = 0.4). For DA-B, knowledge scores were higher for those who reviewed all the DAs compared with those who did not (80% knowledge v. 39% knowledge, respectively, P = 0.004), while scores for DA-A did not vary by usage (62% knowledge v. 53% knowledge, respectively, P = 0.3). A similar percentage of each group received their preferred treatment (77% v. 73%, P = 0.8). Patients who were unsure about preferred treatment at baseline were more likely to have surgery in the DA-A arm compared with the DA-B arm (55% v. 20%, P = 0.1). Limitations. Small sample; patients were only surveyed pre-visit. Conclusion. Despite having different content and formats, the two DAs had similar overall effectiveness. Patients were more likely to review all of DA-A; however, patients who reviewed all of DA-B had the highest knowledge scores.

Protocol for a randomised trial evaluating the comparative effectiveness of strategies to promote shared decision making for hip and knee osteoarthritis (DECIDE-OA study).

INTRODUCTION: There are several different interventions available to promote shared decision making (SDM); however, little is known about the comparative effectiveness of different approaches. OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of patient-directed and physician-directed decision support strategies on the quality of treatment decisions for hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA). TRIAL DESIGN: A 2×2 factorial randomised controlled trial. SETTING: One academic medical centre, one community hospital and one orthopaedic specialty hospital. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: The enrolment targets were 8 surgeons and 1120 patients diagnosed with hip or knee OA. Patients were randomly assigned to receive one of two different decision aids (DAs) stratified by site. The DAs varied in length, content and the level of detail regarding treatment options. Both DAs were available by paper or online.Surgeons were randomly assigned to receive a report detailing patients' goals and treatment preferences at the time of the visit or not. Eligible patients received their assigned DA before their visit and completed three surveys: before the visit (timepoint (T)1), 1-week postvisit (T2) and 6 months from either the visit date or surgery date for patients who underwent surgery (T3). Study staff and participating surgeons were not blinded, but the statistician conducting the analyses was blinded to the arms. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE AND ANALYSIS: The primary study outcome was decision quality, the percentage of patients who were well informed and received their preferred treatment. Secondary outcomes included involvement in decision making, surgical rates, health outcomes, decision regret and satisfaction. A logistic regression model with the generalised estimating equations approach was used to compare rates of decision quality between the groups and account for the clustering of patients within providers. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained through the institutional review board at the main site. The findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02729831; Pre-results.

Informed, Patient-Centered Decisions Associated with Better Health Outcomes in Orthopedics: Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: A goal of shared decision making (SDM) is to ensure patients are well informed and receive preferred treatments. However, the relationship between SDM and health outcomes is not clear. OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to examine whether patients who are well informed and receive their preferred treatment have better health outcomes. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A prospective cohort study at an academic medical center surveyed new patients with knee or hip osteoarthritis, herniated disc, or spinal stenosis 1 week after seeing a specialist and again 6 months later. Main Outcomes and Measures. The survey assessed knowledge, preferred treatment, and quality of life (QoL). The percentage of patients who were well informed and received preferred treatment was calculated (informed, patient centered [IPC]). A follow-up survey assessed QoL, decision regret, and satisfaction. Regression analyses with generalized estimating equations to account for clustering tested a priori hypotheses that patients who made IPC decisions would have higher QoL. RESULTS: Response rate was 70.3% (652/926) for initial and 85% (551/648) for follow-up. The sample was 63.9 years old, 52.8% were female, 62.6% were college educated, and 49% had surgery. One-third (37.4%) made IPC decisions. Participants who made IPC decisions had significantly better overall (0.05 points (SE 0.02) for EQ-5D, P = 0.004) and disease-specific quality of life (4.22 points [SE 1.82] for knee, P = 0.02; 4.46 points [SE 1.54] for hip, P = 0.004; and 6.01 points [SE 1.51] for back, P < 0.0001), higher satisfaction and less regret. LIMITATIONS: Observational study at a single academic center with limited diversity. CONCLUSIONS: Well-informed patients who receive their preferred treatment also had better health outcomes and higher satisfaction.

Increasing the use of patient decision aids in orthopaedic care: results of a quality improvement project.

OBJECTIVE: To integrate patient decision aid (DA) delivery to promote shared decision-making and provide more patient-centred care within an orthopaedic surgery department for treatment of hip and knee osteoarthritis, lumbar herniated disc and lumbar spinal stenosis. METHODS: Different strategies were used across three distinct phases to promote DA delivery. First, we used a quality improvement bonus to generate awareness and interest in the DAs among specialists. Second, we adapted the electronic referral management system to enable DA orders at referral to a specialist. Third, we engaged clinic staff and specialists to design workflows that promoted DA delivery. We tracked the number of patients who received a DA, who ordered the DA, and collected usage data from a subset of patients. Our target was to reach 60% of patients with DAs. RESULTS: In phase 1, 28% (43/155) of spine patients and 37% (114/308) of hip/knee patients received a DA. In phase 2, 54% (64/118) of spine referrals and 58% (189/324) of hip/knee referrals included a request to send a patient a DA. In phase 3, 56% (90/162) of spine patients and 69% (213/307) of hip/knee patients received a DA, significantly more than in phase 1 (P<0.0001). In phase 3, both more DAs were ordered by clinic staff compared with specialists (56% phase 3 vs 34% phase 1, P<0.001) and sent before the visit (74% phase 3 vs 17% phase 1, P<0.001). Patients were more likely to report reviewing the DA when delivered before the visit (63% before vs 50% after, P=0.005). CONCLUSION: DA implementation into clinic workflow is possible and facilitated by engagement of the entire care team and the support of health information technology.

Patient Decision Aids Improve Decision Quality and Patient Experience and Reduce Surgical Rates in Routine Orthopaedic Care: A Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids are effective in randomized controlled trials, yet little is known about their impact in routine care. The purpose of this study was to examine whether decision aids increase shared decision-making when used in routine care. METHODS: A prospective study was designed to evaluate the impact of a quality improvement project to increase the use of decision aids for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis, lumbar disc herniation, or lumbar spinal stenosis. A usual care cohort was enrolled before the quality improvement project and an intervention cohort was enrolled after the project. Participants were surveyed 1 week after a specialist visit, and surgical status was collected at 6 months. Regression analyses adjusted for clustering of patients within clinicians and examined the impact on knowledge, patient reports of shared decision-making in the visit, and surgical rates. With 550 surveys, the study had 80% to 90% power to detect a difference in these key outcomes. RESULTS: The response rates to the 1-week survey were 70.6% (324 of 459) for the usual care cohort and 70.2% (328 of 467) for the intervention cohort. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in any patient characteristic between the 2 cohorts. More patients received decision aids in the intervention cohort at 63.6% compared with the usual care cohort at 27.3% (p = 0.007). Decision aid use was associated with higher knowledge scores, with a mean difference of 18.7 points (95% confidence interval [CI], 11.4 to 26.1 points; p < 0.001) for the usual care cohort and 15.3 points (95% CI, 7.5 to 23.0 points; p = 0.002) for the intervention cohort. Patients reported more shared decision-making (p = 0.009) in the visit with their surgeon in the intervention cohort, with a mean Shared Decision-Making Process score (and standard deviation) of 66.9 ± 27.5 points, compared with the usual care cohort at 62.5 ± 28.6 points. The majority of patients received their preferred treatment, and this did not differ by cohort or decision aid use. Surgical rates were lower in the intervention cohort for those who received the decision aids at 42.3% compared with 58.8% for those who did not receive decision aids (p = 0.023) and in the usual care cohort at 44.3% for those who received decision aids compared with 55.7% for those who did not receive them (p = 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: The quality improvement project successfully integrated patient decision aids into a busy orthopaedic clinic. When used in routine care, decision aids are associated with increased knowledge, more shared decision-making, and lower surgical rates. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: There is increasing pressure to design systems of care that inform and involve patients in decisions about elective surgery. In this study, the authors found that patient decision aids, when used as part of routine orthopaedic care, were associated with increased knowledge, more shared decision-making, higher patient experience ratings, and lower surgical rates.