Refining a brief decision aid in stable CAD: cognitive interviews.

BACKGROUND: We describe the results of cognitive interviews to refine the "Making Choices©" Decision Aid (DA) for shared decision-making (SDM) about stress testing in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD). METHODS: We conducted a systematic development process to design a DA consistent with International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) focused on Alpha testing criteria. Cognitive interviews were conducted with ten stable CAD patients using the "think aloud" interview technique to assess the clarity, usefulness, and design of each page of the DA. RESULTS: Participants identified three main messages: 1) patients have multiple options based on stress tests and they should be discussed with a physician, 2) take care of yourself, 3) the stress test is the gold standard for determining the severity of your heart disease. Revisions corrected the inaccurate assumption of item number three. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive interviews proved critical for engaging patients in the development process and highlighted the necessity of clear message development and use of design principles that make decision materials easy to read and easy to use. Cognitive interviews appear to contribute critical information from the patient perspective to the overall systematic development process for designing decision aids.

Shared Decision Making Guidance Reminders in Practice (SDM-GRIP).

OBJECTIVE: Develop a system of practice tools and procedures to prompt shared decision making in primary care. SDM-GRIP (Shared Decision Making Guidance Reminders in Practice) was developed for suspected stable coronary artery disease (CAD), prior to the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) decision. METHODS: Program evaluation of SDM-GRIP components: Grand Rounds, provider training (communication skills and clinical evidence), decision aid (DA), patient group visit, encounter decision guide (EDG), SDM provider visit. RESULTS: Participation-Physician training=73% (21/29); patient group visits=25% of patients with diagnosis of CAD contacted (43/168). SDM visits=16% (27/168). Among SDM visit pairs, 82% of responding providers reported using the EDG in SDM encounters. Patients valued the SDM-GRIP program, and wanted to discuss comparative effectiveness information with a cardiologist. SDM visits were routinely reimbursed. CONCLUSION: Program elements were well received and logistically feasible. However, recruitment to an extra educational group visit was low. Future implementation will move SDM-GRIP to the point of routine ordering of non-emergent stress tests to retain pre-decision timing of PCI and to improve coordination of care, with SDM tools available across primary care and cardiology. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Guidance prompts and provider training appear feasible. Implementation at stress testing requires further investigation.