No abstract

Purpose To determine the effectiveness of a shared decision-making (SDM) tool versus guideline-informed usual care in translating evidence into primary care, and to explore how use of the tool changed patient perspectives about diabetes medication decision making. Methods In this mixed methods multicenter cluster randomized trial, we included patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and their primary care clinicians. We compared usual care with or without a within-encounter SDM conversation aid. We assessed participant-reported decisions made and quality of SDM (knowledge, satisfaction, and decisional conflict), clinical outcomes, adherence, and observer-based patient involvement in decision-making (OPTION12-scale). We used semi-structured interviews with patients to understand their perspectives. Results We enrolled 350 patients and 99 clinicians from 20 practices and interviewed 26 patients. Use of the conversation aid increased post-encounter patient knowledge (correct answers, 52% vs. 45%, p = 0.02) and clinician involvement of patients (Mean between-arm difference in OPTION12, 7.3 (95% CI 3, 12); p = 0.003). There were no between-arm differences in treatment choice, patient or clinician satisfaction, encounter length, medication adherence, or glycemic control. Qualitative analyses highlighted differences in how clinicians involved patients in decision making, with intervention patients noting how clinicians guided them through conversations using factors important to them. Conclusions Using an SDM conversation aid improved patient knowledge and involvement in SDM without impacting treatment choice, encounter length, medication adherence or improved diabetes control in patients with type 2 diabetes. Future interventions may need to focus specifically on patients with signs of poor treatment fit. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01502891.

The underlying factorial structure of PACIC, which reflects the patient perspective, is dynamic, patient-centered, and differs from the original 5-factor model that was more aligned with views of healthcare delivery stakeholders.

ObjectiveTo describe the steps taken and results obtained by a rural primary care practice to effectively implement opioid prescribing guidelines.Patients and MethodsBetween December 1, 2014, and May 30, 2017, a quality improvement project was undertaken. Elements included prescribing registries, a nurse coordinator, and an Opioid Use Review Panel. Clinic workflow was redesigned to more consistently incorporate these and other guideline recommendations into practice. The effect on opioid prescribing was measured as well as patient outcomes.ResultsThere were 462 patients meeting inclusion criteria before implementation. At the conclusion, 16 patients (3%) had died, 9 patients (2%) were no longer seeing clinicians participating in the project, and 2 patients (0.4%) had transitioned to hospice or long-term care facilities. Of the remaining 435 patients, 96 (22.1%; 95% CI, 18.4-26.2) had decreased prescribing below the threshold for inclusion or were no longer receiving opioid prescriptions. Originally, 64 patients (13.9%; 95% CI, 11.0-17.3) were using average daily doses equal to or greater than 90 morphine milligram equivalents. After implementation, 54 of 435 patients (12.4%; 95% CI, 9.6-15.8) were still using equal to or greater than 90 morphine milligram equivalents per day after accounting for death or loss to follow-up.ConclusionA change in clinic process to implement guidelines for prescribing of chronic opioid therapy was completed. It was associated with a decrease in the number of patients using chronic opioid therapy, primarily at lower doses. This was accomplished in a rural practice with very limited resources in pain medicine, psychiatry, and addiction medicine.