OBJECTIVE: Develop a system of practice tools and procedures to prompt shared decision making in primary care. SDM-GRIP (Shared Decision Making Guidance Reminders in Practice) was developed for suspected stable coronary artery disease (CAD), prior to the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) decision. METHODS: Program evaluation of SDM-GRIP components: Grand Rounds, provider training (communication skills and clinical evidence), decision aid (DA), patient group visit, encounter decision guide (EDG), SDM provider visit. RESULTS: Participation-Physician training=73% (21/29); patient group visits=25% of patients with diagnosis of CAD contacted (43/168). SDM visits=16% (27/168). Among SDM visit pairs, 82% of responding providers reported using the EDG in SDM encounters. Patients valued the SDM-GRIP program, and wanted to discuss comparative effectiveness information with a cardiologist. SDM visits were routinely reimbursed. CONCLUSION: Program elements were well received and logistically feasible. However, recruitment to an extra educational group visit was low. Future implementation will move SDM-GRIP to the point of routine ordering of non-emergent stress tests to retain pre-decision timing of PCI and to improve coordination of care, with SDM tools available across primary care and cardiology. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Guidance prompts and provider training appear feasible. Implementation at stress testing requires further investigation.
OBJECTIVE: Develop a system of practice tools and procedures to prompt shared decision making in primary care. SDM-GRIP (Shared Decision Making Guidance Reminders in Practice) was developed for suspected stable coronary artery disease (CAD), prior to the percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) decision. METHODS: Program evaluation of SDM-GRIP components: Grand Rounds, provider training (communication skills and clinical evidence), decision aid (DA), patient group visit, encounter decision guide (EDG), SDM provider visit. RESULTS: Participation-Physician training=73% (21/29); patient group visits=25% of patients with diagnosis of CAD contacted (43/168). SDM visits=16% (27/168). Among SDM visit pairs, 82% of responding providers reported using the EDG in SDM encounters. Patients valued the SDM-GRIP program, and wanted to discuss comparative effectiveness information with a cardiologist. SDM visits were routinely reimbursed. CONCLUSION: Program elements were well received and logistically feasible. However, recruitment to an extra educational group visit was low. Future implementation will move SDM-GRIP to the point of routine ordering of non-emergent stress tests to retain pre-decision timing of PCI and to improve coordination of care, with SDM tools available across primary care and cardiology. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Guidance prompts and provider training appear feasible. Implementation at stress testing requires further investigation.
Authors: Kristin M Kostick; Meredith Trejo; Arvind Bhimaraj; Andrew Civitello; Jonathan Grinstein; Douglas Horstmanshof; Ulrich P Jorde; Matthias Loebe; Mandeep R Mehra; Nasir Z Sulemanjee; Vinay Thohan; Barry H Trachtenberg; Nir Uriel; Robert J Volk; Jerry D Estep; J S Blumenthal-Barby Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2021-03-20 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Karen Kelly-Blake; Stacie Clark; Katherine Dontje; Adesuwa Olomu; Rebecca C Henry; David R Rovner; Marilyn L Rothert; Margaret Holmes-Rovner Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2014-02-13 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Glyn Elwyn; Isabelle Scholl; Caroline Tietbohl; Mala Mann; Adrian G K Edwards; Catharine Clay; France Légaré; Trudy van der Weijden; Carmen L Lewis; Richard M Wexler; Dominick L Frosch Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2013-11-29 Impact factor: 2.796