Expanding the reach of decision and communication aids in a breast care center: a quality improvement study.
ABSTRACT One academically based breast cancer clinic implements decision and communication aids as part of routine clinical care. This quality improvement study aimed to expand reach of these supportive materials and services with budget-neutral program changes.
We used program theory and continuous quality improvement to design changes to our program. We calculated reach as the number of new patient visits for which we administered decision and communication aids. We compared reach before and after the program changes.
Program changes included: reassigning program outreach tasks from over-committed to under-utilized personnel; deploying personnel in floating rather than fixed schedules; and creating a waitlist so service delivery was dynamically reallocated from overbooked to underbooked personnel. Before these changes, we reached 208 visitors with decision aids, and 142 visitors with communication aids. Changes were associated with expanded reach, culminating in program year 2008 with the delivery of 936 decision aids and 285 communication aids.
We observed over a fourfold increase in decision aid reach and a twofold increase in communication aid reach. We attribute increases to recent program changes.
This study illustrates how program theory and quality improvement methods can contribute to expanded reach of decision and communication aids.
SourceAvailable from: PubMed Central[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Despite evidence that decision and communication aids are effective for enhancing the quality of preference-sensitive decisions, their adoption in the field of orthopaedic surgery has been limited. The purpose of this mixed-methods study was to evaluate the perceived value of decision and communication aids among different healthcare stakeholders.BMC Health Services Research 08/2014; 14(1):366. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-14-366 · 1.66 Impact Factor
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The majority of patients diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer are in a position to choose between having a mastectomy or lumpectomy with radiation therapy (breast-conserving therapy). Since the long-term survival rates for mastectomy and for lumpectomy with radiation therapy are comparable, patients' informed preferences are important for decision-making. Although most clinicians believe that they do include patients in the decision-making process, the information that women with breast cancer receive regarding the surgical options is often rather subjective, and does not invite patients to express their preferences. Shared decision-making (SDM) is meant to help patients clarify their preferences, resulting in greater satisfaction with their final choice. Patient decision aids can be very supportive in SDM. We present the protocol of a study to β test a patient decision aid and optimise strategies for the implementation of SDM regarding the treatment of early-stage breast cancer in the actual clinical setting. This paper concerns a pre-implementation and post-implementation study, lasting from October 2014 to June 2015. The intervention consists of implementing SDM using a patient decision aid. The intervention will be evaluated using qualitative and quantitative measures, acquired prior to, during and after the implementation of SDM. Outcome measures are knowledge about treatment, perceived SDM and decisional conflict. We will also conduct face-to-face interviews with a sample of these patients and their care providers, to assess their experiences with the implementation of SDM and the patient decision aid. This protocol was approved by the Maastricht University Medical Centre (MUMC) ethics committee. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal articles and presentations at national conferences. Findings will be used to finalise a multi-faceted implementation strategy to test the implementation of SDM and a patient decision aid in terms of cost-effectiveness, in a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT). NTR4879. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.BMJ Open 01/2015; 5(3):e007698. DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-007698 · 2.06 Impact Factor
Circulation Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes 07/2014; 7(5). DOI:10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.113.000351 · 5.66 Impact Factor