Mahima Mangla 1 , Thomas D Cha 2,3 , Janet M Dorrwachter 2 , Andrew A Freiberg 2,3 , Lauren J Leavitt 1 , Harry E Rubash 2,3 , Leigh H Simmons 1,3 , Emily L Wendell 1 , Karen R Sepucha 1,3 . Show Affiliations »
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To integrate patient decision aid (DA) delivery to promote shared decision-making and provide more patient-centred care within an orthopaedic surgery department for treatment of hip and knee osteoarthritis, lumbar herniated disc and lumbar spinal stenosis. METHODS: Different strategies were used across three distinct phases to promote DA delivery. First, we used a quality improvement bonus to generate awareness and interest in the DAs among specialists. Second, we adapted the electronic referral management system to enable DA orders at referral to a specialist. Third, we engaged clinic staff and specialists to design workflows that promoted DA delivery. We tracked the number of patients who received a DA, who ordered the DA, and collected usage data from a subset of patients. Our target was to reach 60% of patients with DAs. RESULTS: In phase 1, 28% (43/155) of spine patients and 37% (114/308) of hip/knee patients received a DA. In phase 2, 54% (64/118) of spine referrals and 58% (189/324) of hip/knee referrals included a request to send a patient a DA. In phase 3, 56% (90/162) of spine patients and 69% (213/307) of hip/knee patients received a DA, significantly more than in phase 1 (P<0.0001). In phase 3, both more DAs were ordered by clinic staff compared with specialists (56% phase 3 vs 34% phase 1, P<0.001) and sent before the visit (74% phase 3 vs 17% phase 1, P<0.001). Patients were more likely to report reviewing the DA when delivered before the visit (63% before vs 50% after, P=0.005). CONCLUSION: DA implementation into clinic workflow is possible and facilitated by engagement of the entire care team and the support of health information technology. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.
OBJECTIVE: To integrate patient decision aid (DA) delivery to promote shared decision-making and provide more patient -centred care within an orthopaedic surgery department for treatment of hip and knee osteoarthritis , lumbar herniated disc and lumbar spinal stenosis . METHODS: Different strategies were used across three distinct phases to promote DA delivery. First, we used a quality improvement bonus to generate awareness and interest in the DAs among specialists. Second, we adapted the electronic referral management system to enable DA orders at referral to a specialist. Third, we engaged clinic staff and specialists to design workflows that promoted DA delivery. We tracked the number of patients who received a DA, who ordered the DA, and collected usage data from a subset of patients . Our target was to reach 60% of patients with DAs. RESULTS: In phase 1, 28% (43/155) of spine patients and 37% (114/308) of hip/knee patients received a DA. In phase 2, 54% (64/118) of spine referrals and 58% (189/324) of hip/knee referrals included a request to send a patient a DA. In phase 3, 56% (90/162) of spine patients and 69% (213/307) of hip/knee patients received a DA, significantly more than in phase 1 (P<0.0001). In phase 3, both more DAs were ordered by clinic staff compared with specialists (56% phase 3 vs 34% phase 1, P<0.001) and sent before the visit (74% phase 3 vs 17% phase 1, P<0.001). Patients were more likely to report reviewing the DA when delivered before the visit (63% before vs 50% after, P=0.005). CONCLUSION: DA implementation into clinic workflow is possible and facilitated by engagement of the entire care team and the support of health information technology. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.
Entities: Disease
Species
Keywords:
implementation science; patient-centred care; quality improvement; shared decision-making; surgery
Mesh: See more »
Year: 2017
PMID: 29175855 DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007019
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Qual Saf ISSN: 2044-5415 Impact factor: 7.035