Haiyan Qu1, Xuejun Hu1, Jasvinder A Singh2. 1. Department of Health Services Administration, School of Health Professions, University of Alabama at Birmingham, SHPB 580D, 1716 9th Avenue, South Birmingham, AL, 35294-1212, USA. 2. Division of Clinical Immunology and Rheumatology, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 510 20th Street, South Faculty Office Tower 805B, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA. jasvinder.md@gmail.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that might facilitate or impede the implementation of a shared decision-making in lupus electronic tool (SMILE) in clinics by assessing perspectives of clinicians, clinic champions, and patient advocacy organization leaders. METHODS: We conducted a series of semi-structured telephone interviews (25-45 minutes) about facilitators and barriers of implementing the SMILE decision-aid tool with 23 lupus care providers (18 physicians, 5 champions), and leaders of two patient advocacy organizations. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed. RESULTS: Physicians and clinic champions were from 18 geographically diverse US clinics. The patient advocacy leaders were from the Lupus Foundation of America and the Arthritis Foundation. Most of the clinics were rheumatology specialty (94%), at university-based academic centers (72%), located in urban areas (72%), had a specialized lupus clinic (72%), were very interested (72%) in the SMILE tool and were ready to implement it (89%). Several specific factors, composed as four themes, were identified that could either facilitate or impede the implementation of the SMILE tool: (1) patient-related theme: patient recruitment and education, and the clinic visit time; (2) clinic-related theme: staff work-load and time, and physical space to view and use the SMILE tool; (3) technology-related theme: Wi-Fi connection and iPad navigation; and (4) management-related theme: influence on the clinics' daily workflow, the need of a study champion and coordination, and leadership support. CONCLUSION: Physicians, staff, and patient advocacy leaders perceived the SMILE as a promising tool to facilitate patient-provider communication and quality improvement in lupus. Identification of the patient-, clinic-, technology-, and management-related barriers to the SMILE implementation will allow its integration into busy clinical practice workflow. Key Points • Physicians, staff and patient advocacy leaders perceived computerized lupus decision aid to be a promising tool to facilitate shared decision-making for lupus treatment. • Stakeholder identified patient-related, clinic-resource-related, technology-related and clinic-management related themes as barriers or facilitators to viewing computerized lupus decision aid during regular clinic visits.
OBJECTIVE: To identify factors that might facilitate or impede the implementation of a shared decision-making in lupus electronic tool (SMILE) in clinics by assessing perspectives of clinicians, clinic champions, and patient advocacy organization leaders. METHODS: We conducted a series of semi-structured telephone interviews (25-45 minutes) about facilitators and barriers of implementing the SMILE decision-aid tool with 23 lupus care providers (18 physicians, 5 champions), and leaders of two patient advocacy organizations. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed. RESULTS: Physicians and clinic champions were from 18 geographically diverse US clinics. The patient advocacy leaders were from the Lupus Foundation of America and the Arthritis Foundation. Most of the clinics were rheumatology specialty (94%), at university-based academic centers (72%), located in urban areas (72%), had a specialized lupus clinic (72%), were very interested (72%) in the SMILE tool and were ready to implement it (89%). Several specific factors, composed as four themes, were identified that could either facilitate or impede the implementation of the SMILE tool: (1) patient-related theme: patient recruitment and education, and the clinic visit time; (2) clinic-related theme: staff work-load and time, and physical space to view and use the SMILE tool; (3) technology-related theme: Wi-Fi connection and iPad navigation; and (4) management-related theme: influence on the clinics' daily workflow, the need of a study champion and coordination, and leadership support. CONCLUSION: Physicians, staff, and patient advocacy leaders perceived the SMILE as a promising tool to facilitate patient-provider communication and quality improvement in lupus. Identification of the patient-, clinic-, technology-, and management-related barriers to the SMILE implementation will allow its integration into busy clinical practice workflow. Key Points • Physicians, staff and patient advocacy leaders perceived computerized lupus decision aid to be a promising tool to facilitate shared decision-making for lupus treatment. • Stakeholder identified patient-related, clinic-resource-related, technology-related and clinic-management related themes as barriers or facilitators to viewing computerized lupus decision aid during regular clinic visits.
Authors: Pavandeep Mehat; Mohammad Atiquzzaman; John M Esdaile; Antonio AviÑa-Zubieta; Mary A De Vera Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2017-09-21 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Haiyan Qu; Richard M Shewchuk; Graciela Alarcón; Liana Fraenkel; Amye Leong; Maria Dall'Era; Jinoos Yazdany; Jasvinder A Singh Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: S Sam Lim; A Rana Bayakly; Charles G Helmick; Caroline Gordon; Kirk A Easley; Cristina Drenkard Journal: Arthritis Rheumatol Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 10.995
Authors: Jin-Shei Lai; Jennifer L Beaumont; Sally E Jensen; Karen Kaiser; David L Van Brunt; Amy H Kao; Shih-Yin Chen Journal: Clin Rheumatol Date: 2016-11-15 Impact factor: 2.980
Authors: Jeff Y Zong; Jenny Leese; Alexandria Klemm; Eric C Sayre; Jasmina Memetovic; John M Esdaile; Linda C Li Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: José A Gómez-Puerta; Medha Barbhaiya; Hongshu Guan; Candace H Feldman; Graciela S Alarcón; Karen H Costenbader Journal: Arthritis Rheumatol Date: 2015-03 Impact factor: 10.995