Group Health's Participation In A Shared Decision-Making Demonstration Yielded Lessons, Such As Role Of Culture Change

Health Affairs (Impact Factor: 4.64). 02/2013; 32(2):294-302. DOI: 10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1067
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In 2007 Washington State became the first state to enact legislation encouraging the use of shared decision making and decision aids to address deficiencies in the informed-consent process. Group Health volunteered to fulfill a legislated mandate to study the costs and benefits of integrating these shared decision-making processes into clinical practice across a range of conditions for which multiple treatment options are available. The Group Health Demonstration Project, conducted during 2009-11, yielded five key lessons for successful implementation, including the synergy between efforts to reduce practice variation and increase shared decision making; the need to support modifications in practice with changes in physician training and culture; and the value of identifying best implementation methods through constant evaluation and iterative improvement. These lessons, and the legislated provisions that supported successful implementation, can guide other states and health care institutions moving toward informed patient choice as the standard of care for medical decision making.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: . There is increasing evidence highlighting the effectiveness of patient decision aids (PtDAs), but evidence supporting their cost-effectiveness is lacking. We consider patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), in whom a PtDA may decrease nonadherence to treatment by empowering patients to receive the option that is most congruent with their own values.
    Medical Decision Making 10/2014; DOI:10.1177/0272989X14556676 · 2.27 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Unrealistic patient expectations of the benefits and harms of interventions can influence decision making and may be contributing to increasing intervention uptake and health care costs. To systematically review all studies that have quantitatively assessed patients' expectations of the benefits and/or harms of any treatment, test, or screening test. A comprehensive search strategy was used in 4 databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO) up to June 2013, with no language or study type restriction. We also ran cited reference searches of included studies and contacted experts and study authors. Two researchers independently evaluated methodological quality and extracted participants' estimates of benefit and harms and authors' contemporaneous estimates. Of the 15 343 records screened, 36 articles (from 35 studies) involving a total of 27 323 patients were eligible. Fourteen studies focused on a screen, 15 on treatment, 3 a test, and 3 on treatment and screening. More studies assessed only benefit expectations (22 [63%]) than benefit and harm expectations (10 [29%]) or only harm (3 [8%]). Fifty-four outcomes (across 32 studies) assessed benefit expectations: of the 34 outcomes with overestimation data available, the majority of participants overestimated benefit for 22 (65%) of them. For 17 benefit expectation outcomes, we could not calculate the proportion of participants who overestimated or underestimated, although for 15 (88%) of these, study authors concluded that participants overestimated benefits. Expectations of harm were assessed by 27 outcomes (across 13 studies): underestimation data were available for 15 outcomes and the majority of participants underestimated harm for 10 (67%) of these. A correct estimation by at least 50% of participants only occurred for 2 outcomes about benefit expectations and 2 outcomes about harm expectations. The majority of participants overestimated intervention benefit and underestimated harm. Clinicians should discuss accurate and balanced information about intervention benefits and harms with patients, providing the opportunity to develop realistic expectations and make informed decisions.
    JAMA Internal Medicine 12/2014; DOI:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.6016 · 13.25 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) relies on a team approach to patient care. For organizations engaged in transitioning to a PCMH model, identifying and providing the resources needed to promote team functioning is essential. To describe team-level resources required to support PCMH team functioning within the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), and provide insight into how the presence or absence of these resources facilitates or impedes within-team delegation. Semi-structured interviews with members of pilot teams engaged in PCMH implementation in 77 primary care clinics serving over 300,000 patients across two VHA regions covering the Mid-Atlantic and Midwest United States. A purposive sample of 101 core members of pilot teams, including 32 primary care providers, 42 registered nurse care managers, 15 clinical associates, and 12 clerical associates. Investigators from two evaluation sites interviewed frontline primary care staff separately, and then collaborated on joint analysis of parallel data to develop a broad, comprehensive understanding of global themes impacting team functioning and within-team delegation. We describe four themes key to understanding how resources at the team level supported ability of primary care staff to work as effective, engaged teams. Team-based task delegation was facilitated by demarcated boundaries and collective identity; shared goals and sense of purpose; mature and open communication characterized by psychological safety; and ongoing, intentional role negotiation. Our findings provide a framework for organizations to identify assets already in place to support team functioning, as well as areas in need of improvement. For teams struggling to make practice changes, our results indicate key areas where they may benefit from future support. In addition, this research sheds light on how variation in medical home implementation and outcomes may be associated with variation in team-based task delegation.
    Journal of General Internal Medicine 04/2014; 29(S2). DOI:10.1007/s11606-013-2666-z · 3.42 Impact Factor