Roshan Paudel1, Stephanie Ferrante2, Jessica Woodford3, Conrad Maitland4, Eric Stockall5, Thomas Maatman6, Giulia I Lane7, Donna L Berry8, Anne E Sales9, James E Montie2. 1. Department of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. rpaudel@umich.edu. 2. Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 3. University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 4. Sherwood Medical Center, Detroit, MI, USA. 5. Capital Urological Associates, Okemos, MI, USA. 6. Michigan Urological Clinic, Grand Rapids, MI, USA. 7. Department of Urology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA. 8. Department of Biobehavioral Nursing and Health Informatics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA. 9. Department of Learning Health Sciences, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The American Urological Association White Paper on Implementation of Shared Decision Making (SDM) into Urological Practice suggested SDM represents the state of the art in counseling for patients who are faced with difficult or uncertain medical decisions. The Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) implemented a decision aid, Personal Patient Profile-Prostate (P3P), in 2018 to help newly diagnosed prostate cancer patients make shared decisions with their clinicians. We conducted a qualitative study to assess statewide implementation of P3P throughout MUSIC. METHODS: We recruited urologists and staff from 17 MUSIC practices (8 implementation and 9 comparator practices) to understand how practices engaged patients on treatment discussions and to assess facilitators and barriers to implementing P3P. Interview guides were developed based on the Tailored Interventions for Chronic Disease (TICD) Framework. Interviews were transcribed for analysis and coded independently by two investigators in NVivo, PRO 12. Additionally, quantitative program data were integrated into thematic analyses. RESULTS: We interviewed 15 urologists and 11 staff from 16 practices. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts indicated three key themes including the following: (i) P3P is compatible as a SDM tool as over 80% of implementation urologists asked patients to complete the P3P questionnaire routinely and used P3P reports during treatment discussions; (ii) patient receptivity was demonstrated by 370 (50%) of newly diagnosed patients (n = 737) from 8 practices enrolled in P3P with 78% completion rate, which accounts for 39% of all newly diagnosed patients in these practices; and (iii) urologists' attitudes towards SDM varied. Over a third of urologists stated they did not rely on a decision aid. Comparator practices indicated habit, inertia, or concerns about clinic flow as reasons for not adopting P3P and some were unconvinced a decision aid is needed in their practice. CONCLUSION: Urologists and staff affiliated with MUSIC implementation sites indicated that P3P focuses the treatment discussion on items that are important to patients. Experiences of implementation practices indicate that once initiated, there were no negative effects on clinic flow and urologists indicated P3P saves time during patient counseling, as patients were better prepared for focused discussions. Lack of awareness, personal habits, and inertia are reasons for not implementing P3P among the comparator practices.
BACKGROUND: The American Urological Association White Paper on Implementation of Shared Decision Making (SDM) into Urological Practice suggested SDM represents the state of the art in counseling for patients who are faced with difficult or uncertain medical decisions. The Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC) implemented a decision aid, Personal Patient Profile-Prostate (P3P), in 2018 to help newly diagnosed prostate cancerpatients make shared decisions with their clinicians. We conducted a qualitative study to assess statewide implementation of P3P throughout MUSIC. METHODS: We recruited urologists and staff from 17 MUSIC practices (8 implementation and 9 comparator practices) to understand how practices engaged patients on treatment discussions and to assess facilitators and barriers to implementing P3P. Interview guides were developed based on the Tailored Interventions for Chronic Disease (TICD) Framework. Interviews were transcribed for analysis and coded independently by two investigators in NVivo, PRO 12. Additionally, quantitative program data were integrated into thematic analyses. RESULTS: We interviewed 15 urologists and 11 staff from 16 practices. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts indicated three key themes including the following: (i) P3P is compatible as a SDM tool as over 80% of implementation urologists asked patients to complete the P3P questionnaire routinely and used P3P reports during treatment discussions; (ii) patient receptivity was demonstrated by 370 (50%) of newly diagnosed patients (n = 737) from 8 practices enrolled in P3P with 78% completion rate, which accounts for 39% of all newly diagnosed patients in these practices; and (iii) urologists' attitudes towards SDM varied. Over a third of urologists stated they did not rely on a decision aid. Comparator practices indicated habit, inertia, or concerns about clinic flow as reasons for not adopting P3P and some were unconvinced a decision aid is needed in their practice. CONCLUSION: Urologists and staff affiliated with MUSIC implementation sites indicated that P3P focuses the treatment discussion on items that are important to patients. Experiences of implementation practices indicate that once initiated, there were no negative effects on clinic flow and urologists indicated P3P saves time during patient counseling, as patients were better prepared for focused discussions. Lack of awareness, personal habits, and inertia are reasons for not implementing P3P among the comparator practices.
Entities:
Keywords:
Decision aid; Prostate cancer treatment; Shared decision-making
Authors: Karen E Hoffman; Jiangong Niu; Yu Shen; Jing Jiang; John W Davis; Jeri Kim; Deborah A Kuban; George H Perkins; Jay B Shah; Grace L Smith; Robert J Volk; Thomas A Buchholz; Sharon H Giordano; Benjamin D Smith Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-09 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Kenneth L Kehl; Mary Beth Landrum; Neeraj K Arora; Patricia A Ganz; Michelle van Ryn; Jennifer W Mack; Nancy L Keating Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2015-04 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Donna L Berry; William J Ellis; Kenneth J Russell; John C Blasko; Nigel Bush; Brent Blumenstein; Paul H Lange Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2006-12 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: Donna L Berry; William J Ellis; Nancy Fugate Woods; Christina Schwien; Kristin H Mullen; Claire Yang Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2003 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 3.498
Authors: Martin G Sanda; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Erin Kirkby; Ronald C Chen; Tony Crispino; Joann Fontanarosa; Stephen J Freedland; Kirsten Greene; Laurence H Klotz; Danil V Makarov; Joel B Nelson; George Rodrigues; Howard M Sandler; Mary Ellen Taplin; Jonathan R Treadwell Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-12-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Giulia I Lane; Ajith Dupati; Ji Qi; Stephanie Ferrante; Rodney L Dunn; Roshan Paudel; Daniela Wittmann; Lauren Wallner; Donna L Berry; Chad Ellimoottil; James Montie; J Quentin Clemens Journal: Urol Pract Date: 2022-01-01
Authors: Giulia I Lane; Ji Qi; Ajith Dupati; Stephanie Ferrante; Rodney L Dunn; Roshan Paudel; Daniela Wittmann; Lauren P Wallner; Donna L Berry; Chad Ellimoottil; James E Montie; J Quentin Clemens Journal: Urology Date: 2022-02-24 Impact factor: 2.633
Authors: Roshan Paudel; Stephanie Ferrante; Ji Qi; Rodney L Dunn; Donna L Berry; Alice Semerjian; Christopher M Brede; Arvin K George; Brian R Lane; Kevin B Ginsburg; James E Montie; Giulia I Lane Journal: Urology Date: 2021-04-29 Impact factor: 2.633