Birju R Rao1, Faisal M Merchant2, Eli R Abernethy2, Christine Bethencourt2, Dan Matlock3, Neal W Dickert4. 1. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: Birju.R.Rao@emory.edu. 2. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia. 3. Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado. 4. Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia; Department of Epidemiology, Emory University Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, Georgia; and the.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making using a decision aid is required for patients undergoing implantation of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD). It is unknown how much this process has impacted patients' experiences or choices. Effective shared decision-making requires an understanding of how patients make ICD decisions. A qualitative key informant study was chosen to capture the breadth of patients' experiences making ICD decisions in the context of required shared decision-making. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted in-depth interviews with 20 patients referred to electrophysiology clinics for the consideration of primary prevention ICD implantation. Purposeful sampling from a prior survey study evaluating mandated shared decision-making was based on patient characteristics and responses to the initial survey questions. Qualitative descriptive analysis of the interviews was performed using a multilevel coding strategy. Patients' paths to an ICD decision often involved multiple visits with multiple clinicians. However, the decision aid was almost exclusively provided to the patient during electrophysiology clinic visits. Some patients used the numeric data in the decision aid to make an ICD decision based on the risk-benefit profile; others made decisions based on other data or based on trust in clinicians' recommendations. Patients highlighted information related to living with the device as particularly important in helping them to make their ICD decisions. Some patients struggled with the emotional aspects of making an ICD decision. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' ICD decision-making paths poses a challenge to episodic shared decision-making and may make tools such as decision aids perfunctory if used solely during the electrophysiology visit. Understanding patients' ICD decision-making paths, especially in the context of encounters with primary cardiologists, can inform the implementation strategies of shared decision-making help to enhance its impact. Components of decision aids focusing on the experience of living with an ICD rather than probabilistic data may also be more impactful, although the nature of their impact will differ.
BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making using a decision aid is required for patients undergoing implantation of primary prevention implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICD). It is unknown how much this process has impacted patients' experiences or choices. Effective shared decision-making requires an understanding of how patients make ICD decisions. A qualitative key informant study was chosen to capture the breadth of patients' experiences making ICD decisions in the context of required shared decision-making. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted in-depth interviews with 20 patients referred to electrophysiology clinics for the consideration of primary prevention ICD implantation. Purposeful sampling from a prior survey study evaluating mandated shared decision-making was based on patient characteristics and responses to the initial survey questions. Qualitative descriptive analysis of the interviews was performed using a multilevel coding strategy. Patients' paths to an ICD decision often involved multiple visits with multiple clinicians. However, the decision aid was almost exclusively provided to the patient during electrophysiology clinic visits. Some patients used the numeric data in the decision aid to make an ICD decision based on the risk-benefit profile; others made decisions based on other data or based on trust in clinicians' recommendations. Patients highlighted information related to living with the device as particularly important in helping them to make their ICD decisions. Some patients struggled with the emotional aspects of making an ICD decision. CONCLUSIONS: Patients' ICD decision-making paths poses a challenge to episodic shared decision-making and may make tools such as decision aids perfunctory if used solely during the electrophysiology visit. Understanding patients' ICD decision-making paths, especially in the context of encounters with primary cardiologists, can inform the implementation strategies of shared decision-making help to enhance its impact. Components of decision aids focusing on the experience of living with an ICD rather than probabilistic data may also be more impactful, although the nature of their impact will differ.
Authors: Andrea M Russo; Raymond F Stainback; Steven R Bailey; Andrew E Epstein; Paul A Heidenreich; Mariell Jessup; Suraj Kapa; Mark S Kremers; Bruce D Lindsay; Lynne Warner Stevenson Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2013-03-07 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: John Groarke; Avril Beirne; Una Buckley; Elisabeth O'Dwyer; Declan Sugrue; Ted Keelan; James O'Neill; Joe Galvin; Niall Mahon Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2012-06-26 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Madhav Narayan; Jacqueline Jones; Laura B Portalupi; Colleen K McIlvennan; Daniel D Matlock; Larry A Allen Journal: J Card Fail Date: 2016-12-21 Impact factor: 5.712
Authors: Birju R Rao; Faisal M Merchant; Eli R Abernethy; David H Howard; Daniel D Matlock; Neal W Dickert Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2022-01-13 Impact factor: 1.976
Authors: Daniel B Kramer; Kevin F Kennedy; Peter A Noseworthy; Alfred E Buxton; Mark E Josephson; Sharon-Lise Normand; John A Spertus; Peter J Zimetbaum; Matthew R Reynolds; Susan L Mitchell Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2013-06-11
Authors: Bryan C Wallace; Jacqueline Jones; Frederick A Masoudi; Carolyn T Nowels; Paul Varosy; Richard Thomson; Glyn Elwyn; Angela G Brega; Travis Vermilye; Christopher E Knoepke; Amneet Sandhu; Larry A Allen; Daniel D Matlock Journal: Pacing Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2021-10-09 Impact factor: 1.912
Authors: Marleen Kunneman; Megan E Branda; Ian G Hargraves; Angela L Sivly; Alexander T Lee; Haeshik Gorr; Bruce Burnett; Takeki Suzuki; Elizabeth A Jackson; Erik Hess; Mark Linzer; Sarah R Brand-McCarthy; Juan P Brito; Peter A Noseworthy; Victor M Montori Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2020-09-01 Impact factor: 21.873