Improving Prone Positioning for Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome during the COVID-19 Pandemic. An Implementation-Mapping Approach.

Rationale: Prone positioning reduces mortality in patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), a feature of severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Despite this, most patients with ARDS do not receive this lifesaving therapy.Objectives: To identify determinants of prone-positioning use, to develop specific implementation strategies, and to incorporate strategies into an overarching response to the COVID-19 crisis.Methods: We used an implementation-mapping approach guided by implementation-science frameworks. We conducted semistructured interviews with 30 intensive care unit (ICU) clinicians who staffed 12 ICUs within the Penn Medicine Health System and the University of Michigan Medical Center. We performed thematic analysis using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. We then conducted three focus groups with a task force of ICU leaders to develop an implementation menu, using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change framework. The implementation strategies were adapted as part of the Penn Medicine COVID-19 pandemic response.Results: We identified five broad themes of determinants of prone positioning, including knowledge, resources, alternative therapies, team culture, and patient factors, which collectively spanned all five Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research domains. The task force developed five specific implementation strategies, including educational outreach, learning collaborative, clinical protocol, prone-positioning team, and automated alerting, elements of which were rapidly implemented at Penn Medicine.Conclusions: We identified five broad themes of determinants of evidence-based use of prone positioning for severe ARDS and several specific strategies to address these themes. These strategies may be feasible for rapid implementation to increase use of prone positioning for severe ARDS with COVID-19.

Choice architecture in physician-patient communication: a mixed-methods assessments of physicians' competency.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians' use of choice architecture, or how they present options, systematically influences the choices made by patients and their surrogate decision makers. However, clinicians may incompletely understand this influence. OBJECTIVE: To assess physicians' abilities to predict how common choice frames influence people's choices. METHODS: We conducted a prospective mixed-methods study using a scenario-based competency questionnaire and semistructured interviews. Participants were senior resident physicians from a large health system. Of 160 eligible participants, 93 (58.1%) completed the scenario-based questionnaire and 15 completed the semistructured interview. The primary outcome was choice architecture competency, defined as the number of correct answers on the eight-item scenario-based choice architecture competency questionnaire. We generated the scenarios based on existing decision science literature and validated them using an online sample of lay participants. We then assessed senior resident physicians' choice architecture competency using the questionnaire. We interviewed a subset of participating physicians to explore how they approached the scenario-based questions and their views on choice architecture in clinical medicine and medical education. RESULTS: Physicians' mean correct score was 4.85 (95% CI 4.59 to 5.11) out of 8 scenario-based questions. Regression models identified no associations between choice architecture competency and measured physician characteristics. Physicians found choice architecture highly relevant to clinical practice. They viewed the intentional use of choice architecture as acceptable and ethical, but felt they lacked sufficient training in the principles to do so. CONCLUSION: Clinicians assume the role of choice architect whether they realise it or not. Our results suggest that the majority of physicians have inadequate choice architecture competency. The uninformed use of choice architecture by clinicians may influence patients and family members in ways clinicians may not anticipate nor intend.

"I Don't Have Time to Sit and Talk with Them": Hospitalists' Perspectives on Palliative Care Consultation for Patients with Dementia.

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Specialty palliative care for hospitalized patients with dementia is widely recommended and may improve outcomes, yet rates of consultation remain low. We sought to describe hospitalists' decision-making regarding palliative care consultation for patients with dementia. DESIGN: Descriptive qualitative study. SETTING: Seven hospitals within a national nonprofit health system. PARTICIPANTS: Hospitalist physicians. MEASUREMENTS: Individual semistructured interviews. We used thematic analysis to explore factors that influence hospitalists' decision to consult palliative care for patients with dementia. RESULTS: A total of 171 hospitalists were eligible to participate, and 28 (16%) were interviewed; 17 (61%) were male, 16 (57%) were white, and 18 (64%) were in practice less than 10 years. Overall, hospitalists' decisions to consult palliative care for patients with dementia were influenced by multiple factors across four themes: patient, family caregiver, hospitalist, and organization. Consultation was typically only considered for patients with advanced disease, particularly those receiving aggressive care or with family communication needs (navigating conflicts around goals of care and improving disease and prognostic understanding). Hospitalists' limited time and, for some, a lack of confidence in palliative care skills were strong drivers of consultation. Palliative care needs notwithstanding, most hospitalists would not request consultation if they perceived families would be resistant to it or had limited availability or involvement in caregiving. Additional barriers to referral at the organization level included a hospital culture that conflated palliative and end-of-life care and busy palliative care teams at some hospitals. CONCLUSION: Hospitalists described a complex consultation decision process for involving palliative care specialists in the care of patients with dementia. Systematic identification of hospitalized patients with dementia most likely to benefit from palliative care consultation and strategies to overcome modifiable family and organization barriers are needed. J Am Geriatr Soc 68:2365-2372, 2020.

Preferences for Predictive Model Characteristics among People Living with Chronic Lung Disease: A Discrete Choice Experiment.

Background. Patients may find clinical prediction models more useful if those models accounted for preferences for false-positive and false-negative predictive errors and for other model characteristics. Methods. We conducted a discrete choice experiment to compare preferences for characteristics of a hypothetical mortality prediction model among community-dwelling patients with chronic lung disease recruited from 3 clinics in Philadelphia. This design was chosen to allow us to quantify "exchange rates" between different characteristics of a prediction model. We provided previously validated educational modules to explain model attributes of sensitivity, specificity, confidence intervals (CI), and time horizons. Patients reported their interest in using prediction models themselves or having their physicians use them. Patients then chose between 2 hypothetical prediction models each containing varying levels of the 4 attributes across 12 tasks. Results. We completed interviews with 200 patients, among whom 95% correctly chose a strictly dominant model in an internal validity check. Patients' interest in predictive information was high for use by themselves (n = 169, 85%) and by their physicians (n = 184, 92%). Interest in maximizing sensitivity and specificity were similar (0.88 percentage points of specificity equivalent to 1 point of sensitivity, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.05). Patients were willing to accept a reduction of 6.10 months (95% CI 3.66 to 8.54) in the predictive time horizon for a 1% increase in specificity. Discussion. Patients with chronic lung disease can articulate their preferences for the characteristics of hypothetical mortality prediction models and are highly interested in using such models as part of their care. Just as clinical care should become more patient centered, so should the characteristics of predictive models used to guide that care.

Clinicians' Perceptions of Behavioral Economic Strategies to Increase the Use of Lung-Protective Ventilation.

Rationale: Lung-protective ventilation (LPV) improves outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and has also shown benefits in patients without ARDS. Despite this evidence, LPV use remains low.Objectives: To understand clinicians' perceptions of using behavioral economic strategies to improve rates of LPV use.Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews of clinicians across seven intensive care units within a university health system. We purposefully sampled clinicians of different professional backgrounds and experience levels. Each interview included descriptions of three of five strategies grounded in behavioral economic theory designed to facilitate clinicians' use of LPV: 1) an order set autopopulated with LPV settings ("default"), 2) an order set providing a choice between autopopulated LPV settings and open-ended order entry for alternative settings ("active choice"), 3) requirement of written justification if settings other than LPV were ordered or documented ("accountable justification"), 4) automated ARDS identification and clinician prompting ("alert"), and 5) provision of clinicians' and their peers' individual rates of LPV use ("peer comparison"). Descriptions were followed by open-ended questions to elicit perceptions about advantages, disadvantages, and acceptability. Initial interview transcripts were reviewed by two investigators to develop a thematic codebook, which was refined iteratively with the use of constant comparative methods.Results: We completed 17 interviews of physicians, nurse practitioners, and respiratory therapists. Strategies that prepopulated settings (default, active choice, and accountable justification) were perceived as providing benefit by reducing workloads and serving as cognitive prompts. The default and active choice strategies were more acceptable than accountable justification, which was perceived as potentially frustrating due to workflow impedance. The alert strategy was met with concerns about alert accuracy and alarm fatigue. The peer comparison strategy led to concerns about timing and fear of punitive measures. Participants believed that the default and active choice strategies would be highly acceptable, whereas few interviewees thought the alert would be acceptable. The active choice strategy was most consistently identified as potentially highly effective.Conclusions: Behavioral economic strategies have great potential as acceptable and potentially effective strategies to increase the use of LPV.

Willingness to participate in pragmatic dialysis trials: the importance of physician decisional autonomy and consent approach.

BACKGROUND: Pragmatic clinical trials embedded in routine delivery of clinical care can lead to improvements in quality of care, but often have design features that raise ethical concerns. METHODS: We performed a discrete choice experiment and used conjoint analysis to assess how specific attributes of pragmatic dialysis trials influenced patients' and physicians' willingness to have their dialysis facility participate in a hypothetical trial of hypertension management. Electronic survey data were collected from 200 patients enrolled from 11 outpatient hemodialysis units and from 203 nephrologists. The three attributes studied were physicians' treatment autonomy, participants' research burden, and the approach to consent. The influence of each attribute was quantified using mixed-effects logistic regression. RESULTS: Similar proportions of patients were willing to have their facilities participate in a trial with high vs. low physician autonomy (77% vs. 79%; p = 0.13) and research burden (76% vs. 80%; p = 0.06). Opt-in, opt-out, and notification-only consent approaches were acceptable to most patients (84%, 82%, and 81%, respectively), but compared to each of these consent approaches, fewer patients (66%) were willing to have their facility participate in a trial that used no notification (p < 0.001 for each 2-way comparison). Among the physicians, similar proportions were willing to participate in trials with high and low physician autonomy (61% and 61%, respectively, p = 0.96) or with low and high burden (60 and 61%, respectively, p = 0.79). However, as for the patients, the consent approach influenced trial acceptability with 77%, 69%, and 62% willing to participate using opt-in, opt-out, and notification-only, respectively, compared to no notification (36%) (p < 0.001 for each 2-way comparison). CONCLUSIONS: Curtailing physician's treatment autonomy and increasing the burden associated with participation did not influence patients' or physicians' willingness to participate in the hypothetical research, suggesting that pragmatic dialysis trials are generally acceptable to patients and physicians. Both patients and physicians preferred consent approaches that include at least some level of patient notification, but the majority of patients were still willing to participate in trials that did not notify patients of the research.