enhancing physician competencies for shared decision making in primary care
Post on 21-Jan-2018
1.056 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Enhancing Physician Competencies for Shared Decision Making in Primary Care
FIMDM Investigator Initiated Grant 0143-1
Research Team
Principal Investigators
Robert J. Volk, PhDMD Anderson Cancer Center
Navkiran Shokar, MDTexas Tech Health Sciences Center
ConsultantPatricia Dolan Mullen, DrPHUniversity of Texas Health Sciences Center
at Houston
Co-investigatorsGurjeet S. Shokar, MDTexas Tech Health Sciences Center
Robert J. Bulik, PhDBarbara G. Ferrell, PhDUniversity of Texas Medical Branch
Viola Leal, BASuzanne K. Linder, PhDMD Anderson Cancer Center
Background
• Patients generally want to be involved in decision making about their health.
• SDM is occurring to a very limited extent in routine primary care practice.
• Emerging evidence supports effectiveness of training programs in SDM skills.
• Web-based cases have been shown to be effective in medical education.
Project Aims
1. Identify skills physicians need to develop, and key behaviors they should exhibit, for promoting shared decision making with their patients.
2. Develop a web-based educational curriculum using Design A Case (DAC©) software to improve physician competencies for shared decision making in routine practice.
3. Implement and evaluate the educational program in a sample of primary care physicians.
Aim 1
Identifying Competencies for SDM
Methods for identifying sources
1. Contact leaders in SDM training (Legare, O’Connor, etc).
2. Literature search for training programs, conceptual frameworks, and measurement systems.
3. Search conference presentations / abstracts (ISDM ’09, SIIPC ’08).
Selected sources for generating SDM competencies
Coding Systems• IDM-18 (Braddock)• DSAT (O’Connor)• DAS-O (Butow)• OPTION (Elwyn)
Training Programs• Peer coaching (Gattelari)• DECISION+ (Legare)• ODST (Ottawa)• Train-the-Trainer (Harter)
Frameworks• CDC IDM definition (Briss)• Competencies for IDM (Towle)• Integrative Model of SDM
(Makoul)• Shared Treatment Model
(Charles)
Sorting of competencies into key behaviors, themes, and steps
17 themes sequenced into 6 steps + 4
overarching themes
Key behaviors sorted into 21 themes
Similar statements reworded to form key
behaviors
Unique competency statements identified 199
62
21
17 4
1. Describe the Need for a Decision
Describe the health issue or
decision.
Communicate uncertainty.
Emphasize the need for a decision.
2. Review the Options
Discuss the options.
Provide a balanced
explanation of the pros and cons of
each option.
Provide probabilities
using accepted principles of risk communication.
Assess the patient’s
comprehension.
3. Explore Patient's Values
Discuss the patient’s views of
the options.
Explore the patient's values.
4. Determine Patient's
Preferred Role
Assess the patient's preferred role in making the
decision.
5. Negotiate a Course of
Action
Assess the patient’s
readiness to make a decision.
Elicit the patient's initial preferences
for the options.
If the patient prefers, provide a recommendation
about which option seems best
for the patient.
Negotiate with the patient a mutually
agreed upon course of action.
6. Make Plans for Follow-Up
Help undecided patients access
additional support and other
resources to make the decision.
Make a plan to review the decision or deferment.
Document in the medical record that a discussion about
the problem occurred, whether a patient decision aid was used, and what decision was made.
OverarchingThemes
Six Steps in the Shared Decision Making Process
Encourage patient questions.
Provide guidance in the decision
making process.Tailor information
to the patient. Establish a
partnership with the patient.
Aim 2 – Develop the Case
PSA as a case model – ugh!
Web-based Case Learning:Design A Case (DAC©)
• Interactive, web-based authoring tool– Simulates clinical setting
using standardized linear format
– Case-based learning– Critical reasoning skills and
reflective thinking
• Interactive, web-based authoring tool– Simulates clinical setting
using standardized linear format
– Case-based learning– Critical reasoning skills and
reflective thinking
• Used with clerkship students• Over 50 peer-reviewed cases
in library• Associated with improved
Board scores
• Used with clerkship students• Over 50 peer-reviewed cases
in library• Associated with improved
Board scores
Case development process
Team training
in DAC©
Case story-
boarding
• content
• sequence
• flow
• features
Peer Review by
SDM / PCS
experts*
Peer Review by
DAC© education-al expert
Pilot testing with
physicians
• content
• usability
• relevance
Major redesign
* New step for this project.
Peer review feedback and pilot testing
√ Presentation√ Bigger font size, less text, more visuals (slides, graphics)
√ Sequencing√ Place elements (steps) up front - visual
√ Content√ Add module on decision aids √ Hyperlink to key sources in IDM / SDM literature
e.g., Braddock et al, IDM-18; Barry et al, J Law Med Ethics.√ Hyperlink to key resources / tools
√ Relevance√ Would not select this case for CME – suggested it be offered as ethics
CME
Case features
Case demonstration
www.designacase.org
Case - Elements of SDM
Case – Faculty response feature
Case – Linked sources and clinical pearls features
Aim 3 - Evaluation strategy
• Email invitation from NRN to membership (snowball effect)
• Interested members received email instructions with unique password
• Case completed - online• Link to evaluation form (SurveyMonkey)• Separate link to reimbursement form
Evaluation framework
Kirkpatrick & Hawk. Evaluation framework for learning. June 2006.
Reaction / satisfaction
• Rating objectives
• Case structure /features
Learning
• Knowledge of SDM steps & DAs
• Confidence in SDM
Behavior / application
• Intention to perform SDM behaviors
Results / outcomes
Who participated (n=49)
• Specialty– Family medicine
79.6%– Internal medicine
4.1%– Nurse practitioner
2.0%– Other clinicians
14.3%
• Male (53.1%)*
• Affiliated with an academic center 55.1%
• Currently in a residency program 24.5%
• Length of time in practice– Mean, 17.2 y– Range, 4 to 35 y
* 1 participant did not indicate gender.
Ratings of the Case
Completed all modules 100% Length about right 82%
Case met objectives 98% Used links to other info 63%
Help understand SDM 96% Links helpful 90%
Not relevant to practice 4%
Well organized 98%
Recommend to others 84%
General knowledge of SDM (% correct)
SDM is a process between patient and provider in which both parties express values and participate in making a decision.
83.7
The clinician alone is best equipped to make the final decision.* 100.0
An equipoise decision is one where the scientific evidence does not favor one option over another. 95.6
* Correct response is false.
Correct identification of steps in SDM process (% correct)
Describe need for a decision. 95.2
Describe options. 100.0
Described one best option to the patient.* 93.9
Explore the patient’s values. 100.0
Determine the patient’s preferred role. 95.9
Negotiate a course of action. 91.8
Make plans for follow-up. 100.0
* Not a step in SDM process.
Overall confidence in performing SDM
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Very confident Somewhat confident Not very confident
69.4
30.6
0
%
“Very Confident” in performing SDM steps
Percent
Intention to perform SDM behaviors (for PC screening)
Percent
Conclusions
• A case-based, online, interactive educational program on SDM skills is well-received by primary care clinicians.
• Knowledge of SDM processes demonstrated.
• Clinicians appear confident in performing steps of SDM (lowest for role preferences and values).
• Some suggestion that clinicians plan to utilize SDM processes with their patients.
Remaining questions
1. Are there better case models?
2. Assessing preferred role and patients’ values remains a challenge – modeling / video?
3. Is a “single infusion” sufficient to promote SDM behaviors? Unlikely.
Might the case be part of a multicomponent training program, within a longitudinal experience?
4. Is ethics CME the way to go for broad dissemination?
Thank you
Questions
Additional findings related to patient decision aids
Knowledge of Patient Decision Aids
Decision aids… % correct
help patients understand their options. 97.9
help patients understand the harms and benefits of the options. 98.0
help people think about choices. 98.0
provide information about options. 98.0
help people to deliberate. 77.6
support people to forecast how they might feel. 61.2
help the process of constructing preferences. 85.7
Knowledge of Outcomes for Patients who Receive Decision Aids
Patients who receive decision aids … % correct
tend to be less involved with their care.* 95.9
tend to become more anxious about their choices.* 85.7
tend to be clearer about what choice is best for them. 89.8
* Correct response was false.
Before this Case, were you aware of patient decision aids?
0102030405060708090
100
yes no unsure
%
Do you currently use patient decision aids in your practice?
0102030405060708090
100
yes no unsure
%
Do you think patient decision aids are helpful in practice?
0102030405060708090
100
yes no unsure
%
top related