Christopher A Warlick1, Jerica M Berge2, Yen-Yi Ho3, Mark Yeazel2. 1. University of Minnesota Department of Urology, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 2. University of Minnesota Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, Minneapolis, MN, USA. 3. Department of Statistics, College of Arts and Science, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Decision aids (DAs) around prostate cancer screening can increase knowledge and shared decision making (SDM), but remain underutilized due to cost and time constraints that disrupt clinic flow. We examined the impact of a simple prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening DA distribution strategy on clinic flow as well as SDM in a diverse urban primary care clinic. METHODS: Men ages 50-75 viewed the DA while waiting for physicians. Participants and physicians completed questionnaires evaluating the SDM process. Focus groups were conducted with clinic staff and physicians to evaluate the impact on clinic operations. RESULTS: Fifty percent of men discussed PSA screening and 85% reported the DA made decision making easier. Participants reported an average of 12.9 min reading the DA. Participants reported high decision satisfaction and low decisional conflict. Physicians reported an average of 5.2 minutes discussing PSA screening. Clinic staff reported increased enthusiasm for the process after adjustments were made in response to concerns including time, and lack of both knowledge about the DA subject matter and involvement in the process. Physician-reported barriers included ambivalence about PSA screening. CONCLUSIONS: A PSA DA, requiring few resources, can be implemented with broad involvement of clinic staff and minimal disruption to clinic flow in an urban primary care clinic, and may facilitate SDM.
INTRODUCTION: Decision aids (DAs) around prostate cancer screening can increase knowledge and shared decision making (SDM), but remain underutilized due to cost and time constraints that disrupt clinic flow. We examined the impact of a simple prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening DA distribution strategy on clinic flow as well as SDM in a diverse urban primary care clinic. METHODS:Men ages 50-75 viewed the DA while waiting for physicians. Participants and physicians completed questionnaires evaluating the SDM process. Focus groups were conducted with clinic staff and physicians to evaluate the impact on clinic operations. RESULTS: Fifty percent of men discussed PSA screening and 85% reported the DA made decision making easier. Participants reported an average of 12.9 min reading the DA. Participants reported high decision satisfaction and low decisional conflict. Physicians reported an average of 5.2 minutes discussing PSA screening. Clinic staff reported increased enthusiasm for the process after adjustments were made in response to concerns including time, and lack of both knowledge about the DA subject matter and involvement in the process. Physician-reported barriers included ambivalence about PSA screening. CONCLUSIONS: A PSA DA, requiring few resources, can be implemented with broad involvement of clinic staff and minimal disruption to clinic flow in an urban primary care clinic, and may facilitate SDM.
Entities:
Keywords:
clinical decision support; prostate cancer; prostate specific antigen
Authors: Mary E Costanza; Roger S Luckmann; Milagros Rosal; Mary Jo White; Nancy LaPelle; Melissa Partin; Caroline Cranos; Katherine G Leung; Christine Foley Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2010-06-15
Authors: Fritz H Schröder; Jonas Hugosson; Monique J Roobol; Teuvo L J Tammela; Stefano Ciatto; Vera Nelen; Maciej Kwiatkowski; Marcos Lujan; Hans Lilja; Marco Zappa; Louis J Denis; Franz Recker; Antonio Berenguer; Liisa Määttänen; Chris H Bangma; Gunnar Aus; Arnauld Villers; Xavier Rebillard; Theodorus van der Kwast; Bert G Blijenberg; Sue M Moss; Harry J de Koning; Anssi Auvinen Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-03-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gerald L Andriole; E David Crawford; Robert L Grubb; Saundra S Buys; David Chia; Timothy R Church; Mona N Fouad; Edward P Gelmann; Paul A Kvale; Douglas J Reding; Joel L Weissfeld; Lance A Yokochi; Barbara O'Brien; Jonathan D Clapp; Joshua M Rathmell; Thomas L Riley; Richard B Hayes; Barnett S Kramer; Grant Izmirlian; Anthony B Miller; Paul F Pinsky; Philip C Prorok; John K Gohagan; Christine D Berg Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2009-03-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Melissa R Partin; David Nelson; David Radosevich; Sean Nugent; Ann B Flood; Nancy Dillon; Jeremy Holtzman; Michele Haas; Timothy J Wilt Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Natalie Joseph-Williams; Rhodri Evans; Adrian Edwards; Robert G Newcombe; Patricia Wright; Richard Grol; Glyn Elwyn Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2010-05-26 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: David M Radosevich; Melissa R Partin; Sean Nugent; David Nelson; Ann Barry Flood; Jeremy Holtzman; Nancy Dillon; Michele Haas; Timothy J Wilt Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2004-08
Authors: Annette M O'Connor; Carol L Bennett; Dawn Stacey; Michael Barry; Nananda F Col; Karen B Eden; Vikki A Entwistle; Valerie Fiset; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Sara Khangura; Hilary Llewellyn-Thomas; David Rovner Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2009-07-08