A Decision Aid to Support Shared Decision Making About Mechanical Ventilation in Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients (InformedTogether): Feasibility Study.

Q2 Medicine Journal of Participatory Medicine Pub Date : 2018-04-01 Epub Date: 2018-05-14 DOI:10.2196/jopm.9877
Melissa Basile, Johanna Andrews, Sonia Jacome, Meng Zhang, Andrzej Kozikowski, Negin Hajizadeh
{"title":"A Decision Aid to Support Shared Decision Making About Mechanical Ventilation in Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patients (InformedTogether): Feasibility Study.","authors":"Melissa Basile,&nbsp;Johanna Andrews,&nbsp;Sonia Jacome,&nbsp;Meng Zhang,&nbsp;Andrzej Kozikowski,&nbsp;Negin Hajizadeh","doi":"10.2196/jopm.9877","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients are often unprepared to make decisions about accepting intubation for respiratory failure. We developed a Web-based decision aid, InformedTogether, to facilitate severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients' preparation for decision making about whether to accept invasive mechanical ventilation for respiratory failure.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>We describe feasibility testing of the InformedTogether decision aid.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Mixed methods, pre- and postintervention feasibility study in outpatient pulmonary and geriatric clinics. Clinicians used InformedTogether with severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients. Patient-participants completed pre- and postassessments about InformedTogether use. The outcomes measured were the following: feasibility/acceptability, communication (Combined Outcome Measure for Risk Communication [COMRADE], Medical Communication Competency Scale [MCCS], Observing Patient Involvement [OPTION] scales), and effectiveness of InformedTogether on changing patients' knowledge, Decisional Conflict Scale, and motivation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We enrolled 11 clinicians and 38 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients at six sites. Feasibility/acceptability: Clinicians and patients gave positive responses to acceptability questions (mean 74.1/89 max [SD 7.24] and mean 59.63/61 [SD 4.49], respectively). Communication: 96% of clinicians stated InformedTogether improved communication (modified MCCS mean 44.54/49 [SD 2.97]; mean OPTION score 32.03/48 [SD 9.27]; mean COMRADE Satisfaction 4.31/5.0 [SD 0.58]; and COMRADE Confidence 4.18/5.0 [SD 0.56]). Preference: Eighty percent of patients discussed preferences with their surrogates by 1-month. Effectiveness: Knowledge scores increased significantly after using InformedTogether (mean difference 3.61 [SD 3. 44], <i>P</i>=.001) and Decisional Conflict decreased (mean difference Decisional Conflict Scale pre/post -13.76 [SD 20.39], <i>P</i>=.006). Motivation increased after viewing the decision aid.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>InformedTogether supports high-quality communication and shared decision making among Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients, clinicians, and surrogates. The increased knowledge and opportunity to deliberate and discuss treatment choices after using InformedTogether should lead to improved decision making at the time of critical illness.</p>","PeriodicalId":36208,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Participatory Medicine","volume":"10 2","pages":"e7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7251980/pdf/","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Participatory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/jopm.9877","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/5/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background: Severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients are often unprepared to make decisions about accepting intubation for respiratory failure. We developed a Web-based decision aid, InformedTogether, to facilitate severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients' preparation for decision making about whether to accept invasive mechanical ventilation for respiratory failure.

Objective: We describe feasibility testing of the InformedTogether decision aid.

Methods: Mixed methods, pre- and postintervention feasibility study in outpatient pulmonary and geriatric clinics. Clinicians used InformedTogether with severe Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients. Patient-participants completed pre- and postassessments about InformedTogether use. The outcomes measured were the following: feasibility/acceptability, communication (Combined Outcome Measure for Risk Communication [COMRADE], Medical Communication Competency Scale [MCCS], Observing Patient Involvement [OPTION] scales), and effectiveness of InformedTogether on changing patients' knowledge, Decisional Conflict Scale, and motivation.

Results: We enrolled 11 clinicians and 38 Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients at six sites. Feasibility/acceptability: Clinicians and patients gave positive responses to acceptability questions (mean 74.1/89 max [SD 7.24] and mean 59.63/61 [SD 4.49], respectively). Communication: 96% of clinicians stated InformedTogether improved communication (modified MCCS mean 44.54/49 [SD 2.97]; mean OPTION score 32.03/48 [SD 9.27]; mean COMRADE Satisfaction 4.31/5.0 [SD 0.58]; and COMRADE Confidence 4.18/5.0 [SD 0.56]). Preference: Eighty percent of patients discussed preferences with their surrogates by 1-month. Effectiveness: Knowledge scores increased significantly after using InformedTogether (mean difference 3.61 [SD 3. 44], P=.001) and Decisional Conflict decreased (mean difference Decisional Conflict Scale pre/post -13.76 [SD 20.39], P=.006). Motivation increased after viewing the decision aid.

Conclusions: InformedTogether supports high-quality communication and shared decision making among Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients, clinicians, and surrogates. The increased knowledge and opportunity to deliberate and discuss treatment choices after using InformedTogether should lead to improved decision making at the time of critical illness.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
支持重型慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者机械通气共同决策的决策辅助工具(InformedTogether):可行性研究
背景:重度慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者往往没有准备好做出接受呼吸衰竭插管的决定。我们开发了一个基于网络的决策辅助工具InformedTogether,以帮助重度慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者在决定是否接受有创机械通气治疗呼吸衰竭时做好准备。目的:描述“共同知情”决策辅助系统的可行性检验。方法:在肺科门诊和老年门诊进行混合方法干预前后可行性研究。临床医生与严重慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者一起使用InformedTogether。患者-参与者完成了关于InformedTogether使用的前后评估。测量的结果如下:可行性/可接受性、沟通(风险沟通综合结果量表[COMRADE]、医疗沟通能力量表[MCCS]、观察患者参与量表[OPTION])、InformedTogether在改变患者知识、决策冲突量表和动机方面的有效性。结果:我们在6个地点招募了11名临床医生和38名慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者。可行性/可接受性:临床医生和患者对可接受性问题给出了积极的回答(平均74.1/89 max [SD 7.24]和平均59.63/61 [SD 4.49])。沟通:96%的临床医生表示InformedTogether改善了沟通(修改后的MCCS平均值为44.54/49 [SD 2.97];平均OPTION评分32.03/48 [SD 9.27];平均同志满意度4.31/5.0 [SD 0.58];同志置信度4.18/5.0 [SD 0.56])。偏好:80%的患者在1个月内与他们的代理人讨论了偏好。效果:使用InformedTogether后,知识得分显著提高(平均差值3.61 [SD 3])。[44], P=.001),决策冲突减少(决策冲突量表前后平均差异-13.76 [SD 20.39], P=.006)。看了决策辅助后,动机增加了。结论:InformedTogether支持慢性阻塞性肺疾病患者、临床医生和代理人之间的高质量沟通和共同决策。在使用“一起知情”项目后,人们对治疗选择的认识和讨论机会的增加,应有助于改善危重疾病时的决策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Participatory Medicine
Journal of Participatory Medicine Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Value Propositions for Digital Shared Medication Plans to Boost Patient-Health Care Professional Partnerships: Co-Design Study. Assessing Physician and Patient Agreement on Whether Patient Outcomes Captured in Clinical Progress Notes Reflect Treatment Success: Cross-Sectional Study. Using Community Engagement to Create a Telecoaching Intervention to Improve Self-Management in Adolescents and Young Adults With Cystic Fibrosis: Qualitative Study. Developing a Digital Tool to Calculate Protein Quality in Plant-Based Meals of Older Adults: User Engagement Design Approach With End Users. From English to "Englishes": A Process Perspective on Enhancing the Linguistic Responsiveness of Culturally Tailored Cancer Prevention Interventions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1