Society of Teachers of Family Medicine Conference on Practice Improvement November 23, 2013 Michael J Barry, President SHARED DECISION MAKING THE PINNACLE.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Shared Decision Making Were in This Together Michael J. Barry, MD President.
Advertisements

1 Palliative Care and Shared Decision-Making HOW TO BECOME AN INFORMED HEALTHCARE DECISION MAKER.
The Chest Pain Choice Decision Aid: a Randomized Trial ISDM Conference Maastricht, June 2011.
©PPRNet 2014 Impact of Patient Engagement on Treatment Decisions and Patient-Centered Outcomes in the Implementation of New Guidelines for the Treatment.
Department of Health and Human Services Measuring Clinical Lab Ordering Quality: Theory and Practice Steven M. Asch MD MPH VA, RAND, UCLA April 29, 2005.
Journal Club Alcohol, Other Drugs, and Health: Current Evidence January–February 2011.
Implementing Patient Decision Aids in Clinical Practice October 2014 Dawn Stacey RN, PhD Research Chair in Knowledge Translation to Patients Full Professor,
Cohort Studies Hanna E. Bloomfield, MD, MPH Professor of Medicine Associate Chief of Staff, Research Minneapolis VA Medical Center.
North East of England MAGIC Team Making Good Decisions in Collaboration 3 hour V Shared Decision Making Extended Skills Training Workshop.
1 Patient Decision Support Research Initiatives Dawn Stacey RN, MScN, PhD Assistant Professor, School of Nursing ext
Implementation of Patient Decision Aids: Lessons from North America Dawn Stacey RN, PhD University Research Chair in Knowledge Translation to Patients.
Promoting Shared Decision Making Jack Fowler Informed Medical Decisions Foundation.
OHP Quality and Health Outcomes Committee 14 April 2014 L.J. Fagnan, MD Oregon Rural Practice-based Research Network Oregon Health & Science University.
Shared Decision Making An Overview of Knowledge, Policy and Quality Measurement Michael J. Barry, MD President March 2, 2011 Medical Directors Meeting.
Adrian Edwards Shared Decision Making in Cardiology: Training Workshop.
Heart Health Project University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine American Heart Association Pennsylvania State University Funded by the Robert Wood Johnson.
1 Evidence and the next stage of health care reform: Why consumer engagement is so important Steven D. Pearson, MD, MSc President, Institute for Clinical.
Shared Decision Making From Concept to Reality Richard Wexler, MD Chief Clinical Integration Officer
Do we understand our data? Evaluating comprehension and usefulness of statistical methods for continuous outcomes in meta-analyses Furqaan Sadiq 1, Reem.
Toward Shared Decision Making as the Norm: What we All Can Do Thomas Workman, Ph.D., American Institutes for Research.
My role Being part of the core MAGIC team for primary care Imbedding shared decision making into the culture of the surgery Writing patient decision aids(PDAs)
1 Extended Training Workshop Glyn Elwyn. Workshop outline Extended Training Workshop 2.
Helping patient with choices in preference-sensitive care March 3, 2011 | Matt Handley MD Shared Decision Making at Group Health.
Evidence-Based Public Health Nancy Allee, MLS, MPH University of Michigan November 6, 2004.
Health Disparities and Multicultural Practice Clarence H. Braddock III, MD, MPH, FACP Associate Professor of Medicine Associate Dean, Medical Education.
Consumer-Purchaser Disclosure Project Shared Decision-Making Discussion Forum Lyn Paget July 1, 2009.
BHCAG Summit Minneapolis, MN February 23, 2012 Shannon Brownlee, MS Instructor, The Dartmouth Institute Acting Director, New America Foundation Health.
Maria E. Suarez-Almazor, MD, PhD Houston CERTs Using Decision Aids to Enhance Shared-Decision Making.
Shared Decision Making MAGIC — Making Good decisions In Collaboration — Shared decision making the norm — Multi-centre, large scale implementation programme.
The Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery: The SYNTAX Study One Year Results of the PCI and CABG Registries.
What is shared decision making? Richard Thomson Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health Associate Dean for Patient and Public Engagement Decision Making.
UNDERSTANDING AND DEFINING QUALITY Quality Academy – Cohort 6 April 8, 2013.
Staff Training. MOQC/MCC Tobacco Cessation Patient Education Video: Why Cancer Patients Should Quit Tobacco.
Accountable Care: The Challenge of the Decade Michigan’s Premier Public Health Conference October 13, 2011 Kim Horn President and CEO Priority Health.
GERIATRIC EDUCATION SERIES Presented in partnership by Funded in part by a grant from the EJC Foundation.
Promoting Patient Involvement in Medication Decisions David H. Hickam, MD, MPH Professor, Dept. of Medicine Oregon Health & Science University Portland,
University of Texas System, Clinical Safety and Effectiveness Conference Building the Bridge: Maintaining Quality in the Face of Change September 20-21,
From EBM to SDM: Michel Labrecque MD PhD Michel Cauchon MD Department of Family and Emergency Medicine Université Laval Teaching how to apply evidence.
Patient Beliefs Regarding Benefits of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Chronic Stable Angina My Summer Research Project of 2014 Carla Lauture, of.
Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) and Patient- Centered Outcomes Research (PCOR) Presentation Developed for the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy.
Do Decision Aids Promote Shared Decision-Making for Prostate Cancer Screening? Alex Krist MD Steven Woolf MD MPH Robert Johnson PhD Department of Family.
Ten Year Outcome of Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Versus Medical Therapy in Patients with Ischemic Cardiomyopathy Results of the Surgical Treatment.
PCMH Preparedness for Medical Decision-Making: Patients and Clinicians Using Shared Decision Making Tools John G. King, MD, MPH November 6, 2009.
Disease Management Colloquium Using Registries to Manage Patient Care Art Sprenkle, MD Medical Director: McKesson Health Solutions; Washington State Medical.
PRAGMATIC Study Designs: Elderly Cancer Trials
Funded in part by a grant from the EJC Foundation Presented in partnership by GERIATRIC EDUCATION SERIES.
From EBM to SDM: Michel Labrecque MD PhD Michel Cauchon MD Department of Family and Emergency Medicine Université Laval Teaching how to apply evidence.
How Do We Individualize Guidelines in an Era of Personalized Medicine? Douglas K. Owens, MD, MS VA Palo Alto Health Care System Stanford University, Stanford.
Familial Hypercholesterolemia Foundation Patient Engagement and the Assessment of Value Cat Davis Ahmed Director of Outreach.
Patient Experience of Care Surveys
The AHRQ Safety Program for Improving Antibiotic Use
Aim: Describe how new health care professionals are deployed
As a forward-thinking employer, you want to:
T.Vasilopoulos1, C.Tatsi1, C. Lionis1
Quality of life medical decisions
Evidence-based Medicine
Kristen Williams, Jonathan J.K. Stoltman, and Mark K. Greenwald
Successful CTO PCI Associated with Lower Mortality Risk
Evidence of a Program's Effectiveness in Improving Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in Federally Qualified Health Centers Robert L. Stephens, PhD, MPH1;
Process Indicators for Patient Navigation
On the CUSP: Stop CAUTI Patient and Family Engagement in the ED
Synopsis of CCNC Initiatives
Nat. Rev. Cardiol. doi: /nrcardio
Statin Choice Decision Aid Share-Decision Making
Measuring perceptions of safety climate in primary care
The Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery: The SYNTAX Study One Year Results of the PCI and CABG Registries.
SMARTCare Shared Decision Making Webinar
The Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery: The SYNTAX Study One Year Results of the PCI and CABG Registries.
Transforming Perspectives
Evidence-Based Public Health
Presentation transcript:

Society of Teachers of Family Medicine Conference on Practice Improvement November 23, 2013 Michael J Barry, President SHARED DECISION MAKING THE PINNACLE OF PATIENT-CENTERED CARE

FOUNDATION MISSION The mission of the Foundation is to inform and amplify the patient’s voice in health care decisions 2

PRINCIPLES THAT GUIDE OUR WORK Supported and encouraged to participate in their health care decisions Fully informed with accurate, unbiased and understandable information Respected by having their goals and concerns honored 3 We believe patients should be:

The Foundation has a licensing agreement with Health Dialog Provides royalties and contract funding to develop and maintain decision support materials Strict conflict-of-interest policy Staff and Medical Editors are prohibited from financial support from the drug and device industries THE FOUNDATION AND HEALTH DIALOG

IS INFORMED CONSENT “REAL?” In a survey of consecutive patients scheduled for an elective coronary revascularization procedure at Yale New Haven Hospital in : 75% believed PCI would help prevent an MI. 71% believed PCI would help them live longer. Holmboe ES. JGIM. 2000; 15:3625

IS INFORMED CONSENT “REAL?” Subsequently, a meta- analysis in 2009 (61 studies and 25,388 patients) concluded: “Sequential innovations in catheter-based treatment for non-acute coronary artery disease showed no evidence of an effect on death or myocardial infarction when compared to medical therapy. Trikalinos TA. Lancet. 2009; 373:911. Stergiopoulos K. Arch Intern Med 2012; 172:312 Pursani S. Circ Cardiocvasc Inter 2012;5:476 Thomas S. Can J Cardiol 2013; 29:472 6

IS INFORMED CONSENT “REAL?” In a survey of consecutive patients consented for an elective coronary angiogram and possible percutaneous coronary intervention at Baystate Medical Center in : 88% believed PCI would help prevent an MI. 76% believed PCI would help them live longer. Rothberg MB. Annals Intern Med. 2010; 153:307. 7

DECISIONS STUDY Conducted by University of Michigan Nationwide random-digit dial telephone survey Probability sample of 2,575 English speaking American age 40+ Reported a discussion of 1 of 9 medical decisions with a health care provider within the past 2 years Response rate of 51% The DECISIONS Study. Medical Decision Making.2010; 30 supplement I. 8

DECISIONS SURVEY: DECISIONS ADDRESSED Surgery Back surgery Knee/hip replacement Cataract extraction Cancer screening Prostate Colorectal Breast Medications Hypertension Hyperlipidemia Depression 9

HOW MUCH DID PATIENTS KNOW? Clinical experts identified 4-5 facts a person should know, for example, common side effects of medications or surgery Respondents were asked the knowledge questions related to their decision For 8 out of 10 decisions, fewer than half of respondents could get more than one knowledge question right 10

ARE PATIENTS INFORMED AND INVOLVED? Question Percent Who Answered Correctly How many people … get pain relief from joint replacement surgery28 … experience a surgical complication (e.g. wound infection)46 … will have replacement last at least 20 years15 How long most people require to return to normal activity39 11 The Decisions Study. Medical Decision Making 2010; 30 supplement 1

TOP THREE GOALS AND CONCERNS FOR BREAST CANCER DECISIONS Condition: GoalPatProv p Keep your breast?71% Live as long as possible?96% Look natural without clothes80% Avoid using prosthesis0% KR Sepucha et al/Pt Education and Counseling 73(2008)

TOP THREE GOALS AND CONCERNS FOR BREAST CANCER DECISIONS Condition: GoalPatProv p Keep your breast?7%71% P<0.01 Live as long as possible?59%96% P=0.01 Look natural without clothes33%80% P=0.05 Avoid using prosthesis33%0% P<0.01 KR Sepucha et al/Pt Education and Counseling 73(2008)

THE SILENT MISDIAGNOSIS “Many doctors aspire to excellence in diagnosing disease. Far fewer, unfortunately, aspire to the same standards of excellence in diagnosing what patients want.” 14 Mulley A, Trimble C, Elwyn G. Patients' preferences matter: stop the silent misdiagnosis. 367 London: King's Fund; 2012

U.S. CORONARY BYPASS RATES 15

FORCES SUSTAINING UNWANTED PRACTICE VARIATION Poor Decision Quality Unwanted Practice Variation Patients: Making Decisions in the Face of Avoidable Ignorance Clinicians: Less than optimal “Diagnosis” of Patients’ Preferences 16

WHAT IS GOOD MEDICAL CARE? It is not just about doing things right It is also about doing the right thing Preference-sensitive care: For many and perhaps most medical problems, there is more than one reasonable option 17

SHARED DECISION MAKING MODEL Key characteristics: At least two participants (clinician & patient) are involved Both parties share information Both parties take steps to build a consensus about the preferred treatment An agreement is reached on the treatment to implement Charles C. Soc Sci Med. 1997; 44:68118

PATIENT DECISION AIDS CAN HELP! Tools designed to help people participate in decision-making Provide information on the options Help patients clarify and communicate the values they associate with different features of the options The International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration 19

PATIENT DECISION AIDS: TOOLS TO FACILITATE SDM 20 Describe a specific condition Present information organized around specific decisions Strive to keep information accessible (charts, graphs) and balanced Encourage patients to interpret information in context of their own goals and concerns Engage viewers with real patient stories Advise patients to make decisions with their physician © Informed Medical Decisions Foundation 2013

COCHRANE REVIEW OF DECISION AIDS In 86 trials in 6 countries of 34 different decisions, use has led to: Greater knowledge More accurate risk perceptions Lower decision conflict Greater participation in decision-making Fewer people remaining undecided Stacey et al. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2011, Issue 10. Art. No.: CD

CHOICE OF ELECTIVE SURGERY 22

A CHORUS OF VOICES CALLING FOR SDM

DEMONSTRATION SITE PROGRAM Objective: to demonstrate that the use of patient decision aids and the process of shared decision making can effectively and efficiently become part of day-to-day care

1.Invite patient to participate 2.Present options 3.Provide information on benefits and risks 4.Assist patient in evaluating options based on their goals and concerns 5.Facilitate deliberation and decision making 6.Assist with implementation SIX STEPS TO SDM 25 © Informed Medical Decisions Foundation 2013

KNOWLEDGE SCORES BY DA EXPOSURE LEVEL: AGE GROUP p =.102 p <.001* 1 p =.220 (n= 613) (n= 1954) (n= 1273) Includes all valid demonstration site surveys in Illume database distributed in a primary care setting as of 8/1/12 (unweighted) * All significance tests are independent sample t-tests; * = Difference in means is statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) 1 DA Exposure Level definition: Low = none of either OR some of both OR (some of one AND none of the other); Medium = Most of both OR (most or all of one AND (none or some of the other)); High = All of both OR (all of one AND most of the other)

KNOWLEDGE SCORES BY DA EXPOSURE LEVEL: EDUCATION LEVEL p =.71 p <.001* 1 p =.016* p =.006* Includes all valid demonstration site surveys in Illume database distributed in a primary care setting as of 8/1/12 (unweighted) * All significance tests are independent sample t-tests; * = Difference in means is statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) 1 DA Exposure Level definition: Low = none of either OR some of both OR (some of one AND none of the other); Medium = Most of both OR (most or all of one AND (none or some of the other)); High = All of both OR (all of one AND most of the other) (n= 1694) (n= 983) (n= 1099)

IMPORTANCE RATINGS BY DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP Extremely Very Somewhat Not at all n p =.32 p =.031* 625 1,966 1,203 3,794 1, ,141 2,208 1,574 p =.045* Includes all valid demonstration site surveys in Illume database distributed in a primary care setting as of 8/1/12 (unweighted) **Statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) (Chi square test)

DECISION ROLE PREFERENCES BY DEMOGRAPHIC GROUP You Both equally Your HCP n p <.001* Age Education Gender p <.001* 628 2,013 1,385 4,027 1,721 1,013 1,154 2,265 1,678 p <.001* Includes all valid demonstration site surveys in Illume database distributed in a primary care setting as of 8/1/12 (unweighted) *Statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) (Chi square test)

PATIENT LEANINGS BEFORE AND AFTER DA: SCREENING (OMNIBUS TESTS) 30 Includes all valid demonstration site surveys in Illume database distributed in a primary care setting as of 8/1/12 (unweighted) *Significant difference (p ≤.05) (McNemar test)

Conducted by Health Dialog 174,120 health plan members, subset of 60,185 with six preference-sensitive conditions indicating need for SDM Randomized to usual-support or enhanced-support groups (~3x the contact) Telephonic health coaching about SDM (pDAs), self-care, and behavior change Wennberg D, et al. NEJM 2010; 363:1245 Veroff D, et al. Health Affairs 2013; 32:285 RCT of Telephonic Health Coaching

After 12 months, for the subset: 22.8% of the enhanced-support group and 7.5% of the usual-support group received a health coach contact Total medical costs per person were 5.3% ($23.27 pmpm) lower (P<0.05) Hospitalizations were 12.5% fewer (P<.001) with 9.9% fewer surgeries Cost about $5.00 pmpm RCT of Telephonic Health Coaching Wennberg D, et al. NEJM 2010; 363:1245 Veroff D, et al. Health Affairs 2013; 32:285

Introduced pDAs for hip/knee arthroplasty candidates in 2009 Reached 28% of eligible knee (N=3510)and 41% of hip patients (N=820) Over 6 months: 38% fewer knee replacements 26% fewer hip replacements 12-21% lower costs Arterburn D, et al. Health Affairs 2012; 31(9) HIP AND KNEE DECISION AIDS AT GROUP HEALTH 33

CMMI Innovation Grant “HVHC: Engaging Patients to Meet the Triple Aim” 16 member systems (~50 million served) will deploy “patient and family activators” Coaching and pDAs for DM, heart failure, back surgery, hip/knee arthroplasty Outcomes: quality and cost THE LARGEST IMPLEMENTATION STUDY? 34

THANK YOU! 35