At First Glance

Effects of a Personalized Web-Based Decision Aid for Surrogate Decision Makers of Patients With Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation: A Randomized Clinical Trial: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 170, No 5

Background: Treatment decisions commonly have to be made in intensive care units (ICUs). These decisions are difficult for surrogate decision makers and often lead to decisional conflict, psychological distress, and treatments misaligned with patient preferences. Objective: To determine whether a decision aid about prolonged mechanical ventilation improved prognostic concordance between surrogate decision makers and clinicians compared with a usual care control. Design: Multicenter, parallel, randomized, clinical trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01751061) Setting: 13 medical and surgical ICUs at 5 hospitals. Participants: Adult patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation and their surrogates, ICU physicians, and ICU nurses. Intervention: A Web-based decision aid provided personalized prognostic estimates, explained treatment options, and interactively clarified patient values to inform a family meeting. The control group received information according to usual care practices followed by a family meeting. Measurements: The primary outcome was improved concordance on 1-year survival estimates, measured with the clinician–surrogate concordance scale (range, 0 to 100 percentage points; higher scores indicate more discordance). Secondary and additional outcomes assessed the experiences of surrogates (psychological distress, decisional conflict, and quality of communication) and patients (length of stay and 6-month mortality). Outcomes assessors were blinded to group allocation. Results: The study enrolled 277 patients, 416 surrogates, and 427 clinicians. Concordance improvement did not differ between intervention and control groups (mean difference in score change from baseline, −1.7 percentage points [95% CI, −8.3 to 4.8 percentage points]; P = 0.60). Surrogates' postintervention estimates of patients' 1-year prognoses did not differ between intervention and control groups (median, 86.0% [interquartile range {IQR}, 50.0%] vs. 92.5% [IQR, 47.0%]; P = 0.23) and were substantially more optimistic than results of a validated prediction model (median, 56.0% [IQR, 43.0%]) and physician estimates (median, 50.0% [IQR, 55.5%]). Eighty-two intervention surrogates (43%) favored a treatment option that was more aggressive than their report of patient preferences. Although intervention surrogates had greater reduction in decisional conflict than control surrogates (mean difference in change from baseline, 0.4 points [CI, 0.0 to 0.7 points]; P = 0.041), other surrogate and patient outcomes did not differ. Limitation: Contamination among clinicians could have biased results toward the null hypothesis. Conclusion: A decision aid about prolonged mechanical ventilation did not improve prognostic concordance between clinicians and surrogates, reduce psychological distress among surrogates, or alter clinical outcomes. Decision support in acute care settings may require greater individualized attention for both the cognitive and affective challenges of decision making. Primary Funding Source: National Institutes of Health.

Risk and Risk Factors for Chronic Opioid Use Among Opioid-Naive Patients With Newly Diagnosed Musculoskeletal Pain in the Neck, Shoulder, Knee, or Low Back

Workflow Requirements for Cost-of-Care Conversations in Outpatient Settings Providing Oncology or Primary Care: A Qualitative, Human-Centered Design Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 170, No 9_Supplement

Background: Patients prefer to discuss costs in the clinical setting, but physicians and teams may be unprepared to incorporate cost discussions into existing workflows. Objective: To understand and improve clinical workflows related to cost-of-care conversations. Design: Qualitative human-centered design study. Setting: 2 integrated health systems in the U.S. Pacific Northwest: a system-wide oncology service line and a system-wide primary care service line. Participants: Clinicians, clinical team members, operations staff, and patients. Measurements: Ethnographic observations were made at the integrated health systems, assessing barriers to and facilitators of discussing costs with patients. Three unique patient experiences of having financial concerns addressed in the clinic were designed. These experiences were refined after in-person interviews with patients (n = 20). Data were synthesized into a set of clinical workflow requirements. Results: Most patient cost concerns take 1 of 3 pathways: informing clinical care decision making, planning and budgeting concerns, and addressing immediate financial hardship. Workflow requirements include organizational recognition of the need for clinic-based cost-of-care conversations; access to cost and health plan benefit data to support each conversation pathway; clear team member roles and responsibilities for addressing cost-of-care concerns; a patient experience where cost questions are normal and each patient's preferences and privacy are respected; patients know who to go to with cost questions; patients' concerns are documented to minimize repetition to multiple team members; and patients learn their expected out-of-pocket costs before treatment begins. Limitation: Results may have limited generalizability to other health care settings, and the study did not test the effectiveness of the workflows developed. Conclusion: Clinic-based workflows for cost-of-care conversations that optimize patients' care experience require organizational commitment to addressing cost concerns, clear roles and responsibilities, appropriate and complete data access, and a team-based approach. Primary Funding Source: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Monitoring the Rapidly Changing Landscape of E-Cigarettes

Community-Designed Messaging Interventions to Improve Cost-of-Care Conversations in Settings Serving Low-Income, Latino Populations

Background: Little is known about how to promote cost-of-care conversations in health care settings. Objective: To develop and evaluate community-designed messages promoting cost-of-care conversations. Design: Focus groups and point-of-care surveys. Setting: Three pediatric clinics, a family community health clinic, and a community health worker (promotora) program serving predominately low-income, Latino populations in Adams County, Colorado. Participants: Focus groups included staff (n = 22) and patients or community members (n = 15). At baseline, 107 patients and 9 providers completed surveys, and 111 patients and 11 providers did so postintervention. Intervention: Setting-specific, community-designed messages about cost-of-care conversations delivered to patients on fliers. Measurements: Qualitative themes about the frequency and nature of cost-of-care conversations, and frequencies of patient- and provider-reported cost-of-care conversations before and after the intervention. Results: Five themes emerged from the focus groups, and the groups reported more discussion of costs after distribution of the messaging interventions than before in the clinical but not the community setting. Lack of transparent pricing tools was a barrier, and consideration of incidental costs was important. In cross-sectional, point-of-care surveys, fewer patients reported talking about costs with providers at baseline (44.4%) than after the messaging intervention (73.7%). Providers reported similar frequency of talking about costs with patients before (41.0%) and after (44.9%) the intervention. Nearly one third of patient and provider reports were discordant regarding whether costs were discussed. Limitations: The response rate was low, cost-of-care conversations were self-reported, generalizability of the findings to other settings is uncertain, and the sample was small. The survey proved infeasible in the promotora setting. Conclusion: Participants reported some favorable perceptions of cost-of-care conversations after implementation of community-designed messages, suggesting promise for this approach to promoting conversations about costs of care in settings serving low-income, uninsured Latino populations. Primary Funding Source: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Perspectives on Conversations About Costs of Cancer Care of Breast Cancer Survivors and Cancer Center Staff: A Qualitative Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 170, No 9_Supplement

Background: Despite recommendations to discuss the cost of care (CoC) with patients with cancer, little formal guidance is available on how to conduct these sensitive conversations in ways that are acceptable to both patients and providers. Objective: To explore the perspectives of patients and medical and nonmedical cancer center staff on CoC conversations. Design: In individual interviews, participants were asked to discuss the content of, timing of, and ideal person to hold CoC conversations. Interviews were transcribed verbatim. Content was analyzed to identify emerging essential elements. Setting: Division of Preventive Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham. Participants: 42 women aged 60 to 79 years with a history of breast cancer and 20 cancer center staff (6 physicians, 4 nurses, 5 patient navigators, 3 social workers, and 2 billing specialists). Results: Both patients and providers identified reassurance and action as essential elements of CoC conversations. Participants expressed the importance of reassurance that recommended medical care would not be affected by affordability challenges. Action was intended as discussions on ways to help patients cover treatment-related costs, such as discussion of payment plans or linkage to financial resources. Optimal timing for CoC conversations was felt to be after an initial consult visit but before treatment started. The person to hold these conversations should be compassionate, helpful, and knowledgeable of the patient's specific situation (for example, treatment plan, insurance coverage) and of the resources available to attain the patient's goals of care. Limitation: Interviews were limited to older breast cancer survivors and staff at 1 institution. Conclusion: Conversations about CoC extend beyond discussing costs and must be sensitive to the vulnerability experienced by patients. These findings can guide training of personnel involved in CoC conversations. Primary Funding Source: Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

When Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Treats Throat Cancer Like Pharyngitis

What Can Medicine Learn From Social Science Studies of Sexual Harassment?

External Validation of the MEESSI Acute Heart Failure Risk Score: A Cohort Study: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 170, No 4

Background: The MEESSI-AHF (Multiple Estimation of risk based on the Emergency department Spanish Score In patients with AHF) score was developed to predict 30-day mortality in patients presenting with acute heart failure (AHF) to emergency departments (EDs) in Spain. Whether it performs well in other countries is unknown. Objective: To externally validate the MEESSI-AHF score in another country. Design: Prospective cohort study. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01831115). Setting: Multicenter recruitment of dyspneic patients presenting to the ED. Participants: The external validation cohort included 1572 patients with AHF. Measurements: Calculation of the MEESSI-AHF score using an established model containing 12 independent risk factors. Results: Among 1572 patients with adjudicated AHF, 1247 had complete data that allowed calculation of the MEESSI-AHF score. Of these, 102 (8.2%) died within 30 days. The score predicted 30-day mortality with excellent discrimination (c-statistic, 0.80). Assessment of cumulative mortality showed a steep gradient in 30-day mortality over 6 predefined risk groups (0 patients in the lowest-risk group vs. 35 [28.5%] in the highest-risk group). Risk was overestimated in the high-risk groups, resulting in a Hosmer–Lemeshow P value of 0.022. However, after adjustment of the intercept, the model showed good concordance between predicted risks and observed outcomes (P = 0.23). Findings were confirmed in sensitivity analyses that used multiple imputation for missing values in the overall cohort of 1572 patients. Limitations: External validation was done using a reduced model. Findings are specific to patients with AHF who present to the ED and are clinically stable enough to provide informed consent. Performance in patients with terminal kidney failure who are receiving long-term dialysis cannot be commented on. Conclusion: External validation of the MEESSI-AHF risk score showed excellent discrimination. Recalibration may be needed when the score is introduced to new populations. Primary Funding Source: The European Union, the Swiss National Science Foundation, the Swiss Heart Foundation, the Cardiovascular Research Foundation Basel, the University of Basel, and University Hospital Basel.