PURPOSE We wanted to determine the effect of promoting the effective communication of absolute cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk and shared decision making through disseminating a simple decision aid for use in family practice consultations. METHODSThe study was based on a pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial (phase III) with continuing medical education (CME) groups of family physicians as the unit of randomization. In the intervention arm, 44 physicians (7 CME groups) consecutively recruited 550 patients in whom cholesterol levels were measured. Forty-seven physicians in the control arm (7 CME groups) similarly included 582 patients. Four hundred sixty patients (83.6%) of the intervention arm and 466 patients (80.1%) of the control arm were seen at follow-up. Physicians attended 2 interactive CME sessions and received a booklet, a paper-based risk calculator, and individual summary sheets for each patient. Control physicians attended 1 CME-session on an alternative topic. Main outcome measures were patient satisfaction and participation after the index consultation, change in CVD risk status, and decisional regret at 6 months' follow-up. RESULTSIntervention patients were signifi cantly more satisfi ed with process and result (Patient Participation Scale, difference 0.80, P <.001). Decisional regret was signifi cantly lower at follow-up (difference 3.39, P = .02). CVD risk decreased in both groups without a signifi cant difference between study arms. CONCLUSION A simple transactional decision aid based on calculating absolute individual CVD risk and promoting shared decision making in CVD prevention can be disseminated through CME groups and may lead to higher patient satisfaction and involvement and less decisional regret, without negatively affecting global CVD risk.

No abstract

Liver transplantation has emerged as a highly efficient treatment for a variety of acute and chronic liver diseases. However, organ shortage is becoming an increasing problem globally, limiting the applicability of liver transplantation. In addition, potential recipients are becoming sicker, thereby increasing the risk of losing the graft during transplantation or in the initial postoperative period after liver transplantation (three months). This trend is challenging the model for end-stage liver disease allocation system, where the sickest candidates are prioritised and no delisting criteria are given. The weighting of the deontological demand for "equity", trying to save every patient, regardless of the overall utility; and "efficiency", rooted in utilitarianism, trying to save as many patients as possible and increase the overall quality of life of patients facing the same problem, has to be reconsidered. In this article we are aiming to overcome the widespread concept of futility in liver transplantation, providing a definition of potentially inappropriate liver transplantation and giving guidance on situations where it is best not to proceed with liver transplantation, to decrease the mortality rate in the first three months after transplantation. We propose "absolute" and "relative" conditions, where early post-transplant mortality is highly probable, which are not usually captured in risk scores predicting post-transplant survival. Withholding liver transplantation for listed patients in cases where liver transplant is not deemed clearly futile, but is potentially inappropriate, is a far-reaching decision. Until now, this decision had to be discussed extensively on an individual basis, applying explicit communication and conflict resolution processes, since the model for end-stage liver disease score and most international allocation systems do not include explicit delisting criteria to support a fair delisting process. More work is needed to better identify cases where transplantation is potentially inappropriate and to integrate and discuss these delisting criteria in allocation systems, following a societal debate on what we owe to all liver transplant candidates.

No abstract