Background and Objectives Decisions about long-term care and financing can be difficult to comprehend, consider, and communicate. In a previous needs assessment, families in rural areas requested a patient-facing website; however, questions arose about the acceptability of an online tool for older adults. This study engaged older adults and family caregivers in (a) designing and refining an interactive, tailored decision aid website, and (b) field testing its utility, feasibility, and acceptability. Research Design and Methods Based on formative work, the research team engaged families in designing and iteratively revising paper drafts, then programmed a tailored website. The field test used the ThinkAloud approach and pre-/postquestionnaires to assess participants’ knowledge, decisional conflict, usage, and acceptability ratings. Results Forty-five older adults, family members, and stakeholders codesigned and tested the decision aid, yielding four decision-making steps: Get the Facts, What Matters Most, Consider Your Resources, and Make an Action Plan. User-based design and iterative storyboarding enhanced the content, personal decision-making activities, and user-generated resources. Field-testing participants scored 83.3% correct on knowledge items and reported moderate/low decisional conflict. All (100%) were able to use the website, spent an average of 26.3 min, and provided an average 87.5% acceptability rating. Discussion and Implications A decision aid website can educate and support older adults and their family members in beginning a long-term care plan. Codesign and in-depth interviews improved usability, and lessons learned may guide the development of other aging decision aid websites.

PURPOSE: The uptake of shared decision making (SDM) for lung cancer screening (LCS) as required by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is suboptimal. Alternative models for delivering SDM are needed, such as decision coaching in the low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) setting. METHODS AND MATERIALS: The Replicating Effective Programs framework guided our implementation of decision coaching, which included a patient-facilitated component before screening followed by in-person coaching that addressed the required elements for the SDM visit from CMS. We surveyed two LCS patient cohorts (pre-implementation and implementation of decision coaching) about their knowledge of LCS and perception of the SDM process. We conducted time-motion studies to assess the feasibility of implementing decision coaching and audio recorded clinical encounters from the implementation cohort to assess fidelity of the SDM conversation to the CMS requirements. RESULTS: Compared with the pre-implementation cohort (n = 51), the implementation cohort (n = 30) had greater knowledge of LCS ( P < .01) and reported a better SDM process ( P = .01). Coaching took 7.6 ± 4.1 minutes and did not increase visit time ( P = .72). Coaches addressed an average of 6.4 of 7 SDM elements required by CMS. CONCLUSION: Decision coaching in the LDCT setting provides an opportunity for patients to confirm their screening decision by ensuring that patients are truly informed about the potential harms and benefits of LCS. The decision coaching had excellent fidelity in addressing the required SDM elements from CMS and is feasible.

Background: Correctional systems in several U.S. states have entered into partnerships with Academic Medical Centers (AMCs) to provide healthcare for people who are incarcerated. This project was initiated to better understand medical trainee perspectives on training and providing healthcare services to prison populations at one AMC specializing in the care of incarcerated patients: The University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (UTMB). We set out to characterize the attitudes and perceptions of medical trainees from the start of their training until the final year of Internal Medicine residency. Our goal was to analyze medical trainee perspectives on caring for incarcerated patients and to determine what specialized education and training is needed, if any, for the provision of ethical and appropriate healthcare to incarcerated patients. Results: We found that medical trainees grapple with being beneficiaries of a state and institutional power structure that exploits the neglected health of incarcerated patients for the benefit of medical education and research. The benefits include the training opportunities afforded by the advanced pathologies suffered by persons who are incarcerated, an institutional culture that generally allowed students more freedom to practice their skills on incarcerated patients as compared to free-world patients, and an easy compliance of incarcerated patients likely conditioned by their neglect. Most trainees failed to recognize the extreme power differential between provider and patient that facilitates such freedom.Conclusions: Using a critical prison studies/Foucauldian theoretical framework, we identified how the provision/ withholding of healthcare to and from persons who are incarcerated plays a major role in disciplining incarcerated bodies into becoming compliant medical patients and research subjects, complacent with and even grateful for delayed care, delivered sometimes below the standard best practices. Specialized vulnerable-population training is sorely needed for both medical trainees and attending physicians in order to not further contribute to this exploitation of incarcerated patients.

Correctional systems in several U.S. states have entered into partnerships with academic medical centers (AMCs) to provide healthcare for persons who are incarcerated. One AMC specializing in the care of incarcerated patients is the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (UTMB), which hosts the only dedicated prison hospital in the U.S. and supplies 80% of the medical care for the entire Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ). Nearly all medical students and residents at UTMB take part in the care of the incarcerated. This research, through qualitative exploration using focus group discussions, sets out to characterize the correctional care learning environment medical trainees enter. Participants outlined an institutional culture of low prioritization and neglect that dominated the learning environment in the prison hospital, resulting in treatment of the incarcerated as second-class patients. Medical learners pointed to delays in care, both within the prison hospital and within the TDCJ system, where diagnostic, laboratory, and medical procedures were delivered to incarcerated patients at a lower priority compared to free-world patients. Medical learners elaborated further on ethical issues that included the moral judgment of those who are incarcerated, bias in clinical decision making, and concerns for patient autonomy. Medical learners were left to grapple with complex challenges like the problem of dual loyalties without opportunities to critically reflect upon what they experienced. This study finds that, without specific vulnerable populations training for both trainees and correctional care faculty to address these institutional dynamics, AMCs risk replicating a system of exploitation and neglect of incarcerated patients and thereby exacerbating health inequities.

Background: Women report difficulty understanding and personalizing breast reconstruction information during the complex and time-limited period of cancer treatment planning. Patient decision aids can help patients become well informed, form realistic expectations, prepare to communicate with the surgical team, and be more satisfied with their decision-making process. Methods: We engaged patients, providers, and stakeholders in a user-centered design process to develop an online patient decision aid video and interactive workbook for breast reconstruction after mastectomy. The video and workbook introduce breast reconstruction and compare the risks and benefits of 3 key decisions: reconstruction versus no reconstruction, immediate versus delayed, and tissue- versus implant based. Pilot testing using cognitive interviews and pre-/postdecision aid questionnaires assessed acceptability, knowledge, and decision-making values. Results: After viewing the decision aid, patients (n = 20) scored 97.5% correct on a knowledge test; however, the factors driving their decisions were varied. All (n = 40) patients and providers/stakeholders provided over 80% positive acceptability ratings. 97.5% said they would recommend the video and workbook to other women with breast cancer. Conclusions: The Considering Breast Reconstruction after Mastectomy patient decision aid video and workbook show potential for improving informed decision-making. Delivery before the initial plastic surgery consultation was well supported as a way to give women time to process the information and prepare to talk with the surgical team about their options. The Personal Decision Worksheet shows potential for assessing patients’ knowledge and the factors driving their personal decision-making process.