Ian Hargraves's research while affiliated with Mayo Clinic - Rochester and other places

Purpose To compare three methods for identifying patient preferences (MIPPs) at the point of decision-making: analysis of video-recorded patient-clinician encounters, post-encounter interviews, and post-encounter surveys. Patients and Methods For the decision of whether to use a spinal cord stimulator device (SCS), a video coding scheme, interview guide, and patient survey were iteratively developed with 30 SCS decision-making encounters in a tertiary academic medical center pain clinic. Burke’s grammar of motives was used to classify the attributed source or justification for a potential preference for each preference block. To compare the MIPPs, 13 patients’ encounters with their clinician were video recorded and subsequently analyzed by 4 coders using the final video coding scheme. Six of these patients were interviewed, and 7 surveyed, immediately following their encounters. Results For videos, an average of 66 (range 33–106) sets of utterances potentially indicating a patient preference (a preference block), surveys 33 (range 32–34), and interviews 25 (range 18–30) were identified. Thirty-eight unique themes (75 subthemes), each a preference topic, were identified from videos, surveys 19 themes (12 subthemes), and interviews 39 themes (54 subthemes). The proportion of preference blocks that were judged as expressing a preference that was clearly important to the patient or affected their decision was highest for interviews (72.8%), surveys (68.0%), and videos (27.0%). Videos mostly attributed preferences to the patient’s situation (scene) (65%); interviews, the act of receiving or living with SCS (43%); surveys, the purpose of SCS (40%). Conclusion MIPPs vary in the type of preferences identified and the clarity of expressed preferences in their data sets. The choice of which MIPP to use depends on projects’ goals and resources, recognizing that the choice of MIPP may affect which preferences are found.

Background Watchful waiting management for acute otitis media (AOM), where an antibiotic is used only if the child’s symptoms worsen or do not improve over the subsequent 2–3 days, is an effective approach to reduce antibiotic exposure for children with AOM. However, studies to compare the effectiveness of interventions to promote watchful waiting are lacking. The objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness and implementation outcomes of two pragmatic, patient-centered interventions designed to facilitate use of watchful waiting in clinical practice. Methods This will be a cluster-randomized trial utilizing a hybrid implementation-effectiveness design. Thirty-three primary care or urgent care clinics will be randomized to one of two interventions: a health systems-level intervention alone or a health systems-level intervention combined with use of a shared decision-making aid. The health systems-level intervention will include engagement of a clinician champion at each clinic, changes to electronic health record antibiotic orders to facilitate delayed antibiotic prescriptions as part of a watchful waiting strategy, quarterly feedback reports detailing clinicians’ use of watchful waiting individually and compared with peers, and virtual learning sessions for clinicians. The hybrid intervention will include the health systems-level intervention plus a shared decision-making aid designed to inform decision-making between parents and clinicians with best available evidence. The primary outcomes will be whether an antibiotic was ultimately taken by the child and parent satisfaction with their child’s care. We will explore the differences in implementation effectiveness by patient population served, clinic type, clinical setting, and organization. The fidelity, acceptability, and perceived appropriateness of the interventions among different clinician types, patient populations, and clinical settings will be compared. We will also conduct formative qualitative interviews and surveys with clinicians and administrators, focus groups and surveys of parents of patients with AOM, and engagement of two stakeholder advisory councils to further inform the interventions. Discussion This study will compare the effectiveness of two pragmatic interventions to promote use of watchful waiting for children with AOM to reduce antibiotic exposure and increase parent satisfaction, thus informing national antibiotic stewardship policy development. Clinical trial registration NCT06034080.

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnancy is a major cause of maternal morbidity and mortality, and the use of preventive low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) can be challenging. Clinical guidelines recommend eliciting pregnant individuals’ preferences towards the use of daily injections of LMWH and discussing the best option through a shared decision-making (SDM) approach. Our aim was to identify individuals’ preferences concerning each of the main clinical outcomes, and categorize attributes influencing the use of LMWH during pregnancy. Methods: Design: Convergent mixed-methods. Participants: Pregnant women or those planning a pregnancy with VTE recurrence risk. Intervention: A SDM intervention about thromboprophylaxis with LMWH in pregnancy. Analysis: Quantitatively, we report preference scores assigned to each of the health states. Qualitatively, we categorized preference attributes using Burke’s pentad of motives framework: scene, agent, agency, act, and purpose. We use mixed-method convergent analysis to report findings using side-by-side comparison of concordance/discordance. Results: The least valued health state was to experience a pulmonary embolism (PE), followed by major obstetrical bleeding (MOB), deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and using daily injections of LMWH (valued as closest to a ‘healthy pregnancy’). Women's previous experiences, access to care (scene) and shared decision-making (agent) affected preferences. LMWH's benefits were noted, but substantial drawbacks described (agency). The main goal was avoiding the risk of VTE (purpose). Side-by-side comparisons revealed concordance between motives and DVT and PE health states. Discordance appeared between using daily injections of LMWH and agent- and agency motives and between MOB and the agency motive. Conclusions: Mixed-methods provide a nuanced understanding of women's LMWH preferences, by quantifying health states preferences and exploring attributes qualitatively. Incorporating both methods may improve patient-centered care around preference-sensitive decisions in thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy.

Background We pilot-tested an encounter conversation aid to support shared decision making (SDM) between patients with thyroid nodules and their clinicians. Objective Characterize the clinician feedback after providing care to patients with thyroid nodules using a tool to promote SDM conversations during the clinical encounter, and evaluate how clinicians used the tool during the visit. Methods Mixed method study in two academic centers in the U.S., including adult patients presenting for evaluation of thyroid nodules and their clinicians. We thematically analyzed interviews with clinicians after they used the SDM tool in at least three visits to characterize their feedback. Additionally, investigators evaluated visits recordings to determine the extent to which clinicians engaged patients in the decision-making process (OPTION score, scale 0 to 100, higher levels indicating higher involvement), the tool’s components used (fidelity), and encounter duration. Using a post-visit survey, we evaluated the extent to which clinicians felt the tool was easy to use, helpful, and supportive of the patient-clinician collaboration. Results Thirteen clinicians participated in the study and used the SDM tool in the care of 53 patients. Clinicians thought the tool was well-organized and beneficial to patients and clinicians. Clinicians noticed a change in their routine with the use of the conversation aid and suggested it needed to be more flexible to better support varying conversations. The median OPTION score was 34, the fidelity of use 75%, and the median visit duration 17 min. In most encounters, clinicians agreed or strongly agreed the tool was easy to use (86%), helpful (65%), and supported collaboration (62%). Conclusion Clinicians were able to use a SDM tool in the care of patients with thyroid nodules. Although they wished it were more flexible, they found on the whole that its use in the clinical encounter was beneficial to patients and clinicians.

Introduction: Advancements in vascularized composite allotransplantation have made hand transplants possible for persons living with upper limb loss. Hand transplantation is not a life-saving procedure, but rather a quality-of-life enhancing procedure; hence the risk of morbidity and mortality must be weighed against improvements in function and appearance. This study explored the decision-making process of patients evaluated for hand transplantation. Methods/approach: A qualitative case series study using retrospective chart data of evaluations was conducted between January 1, 2011 and February 28, 2020. Notes were extracted and read by three reviewers. Each case was summarized noting similarities and differences. Findings: Nine patients underwent evaluation. Eight were no longer under evaluation and did not receive transplant; one was still undergoing evaluation. Patient motivations for evaluation were dissatisfaction with prostheses or self-image, chronic pain, performing activities of daily living, occupation, burden placed on caregivers, and concerns about overuse of non-affected limbs. Patients chose not to pursue transplantation due to rehabilitation time, immunosuppression, alternative treatments, and social and financial challenges. The clinical team discontinued evaluations due to unmet evaluation requirements, medical contraindications, or treatment alternatives. Different modes of shared decision-making were present depending on the party most heavily featured in the charts as driving decisions. Discussion: This was an examination of shared decision-making with hand transplant candidates who did not proceed to transplant. Reasons for choosing alternative strategies for management were multifactorial. Lessons learned regarding patient motivations and shared decision-making can inform future interventions to better support patients.

Objective: To identify the components of the collaborative diagnostic conversations between clinicians, patients, and their families and how deficiencies in these conversations can lead to diagnostic errors. Patients and methods: We purposively selected 60 video recordings of clinical encounters that included diagnosis conversations. These videos were obtained from the internal medicine, and family medicine services at Mayo Clinic's campus in Rochester, Minnesota. These clinical encounters were recorded between November 2017, and December 2021, during the conduct of studies aiming at developing or testing shared decision-making interventions. We followed a critically reflective approach model for data analysis. Results: We identified 3 components of diagnostic conversations as follows: (1) recognizing diagnostic situations, (2) setting priorities, and (3) creating and reconciling a diagnostic plan. Deficiencies in diagnostic conversations could lead to framing issues in a way that sets diagnostic activities off in an incorrect or undesirable direction, incorrect prioritization of diagnostic concerns, and diagnostic plans of care that are not feasible, desirable, or productive. Conclusion: We identified 3 clinician-and-patient diagnostic conversation components and mapped them to potential diagnostic errors. This information may inform additional research to identify areas of intervention to decrease the frequency and harm associated with diagnostic errors in clinical practice.

Introduction Decision aids (DAs) are helpful instruments used to support shared decision making (SDM). Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) face complex decisions regarding stroke prevention strategies. While a few DAs have been made for AF stroke prevention, an encounter DA (EDA) and patient DA (PDA) have not been created to be used in conjunction with each other before. Design Using iterative user-centered design, we developed 2 DAs for anticoagulation choice and stroke prevention in AF. Prototypes were created, and we elicited feedback from patients and experts via observations of encounters, usability testing, and semistructured interviews. Results User testing was done with 33 experts (in AF and SDM) and 51 patients from 6 institutions. The EDA and PDA underwent 1 and 4 major iterations, respectively. Major differences between the DAs included AF pathophysiology and a preparation to meet with the clinician in the PDA as well as different language throughout. Content areas included personalized stroke risk, differences between anticoagulants, and risks of bleeding. Based on user feedback, developers 1) addressed feelings of isolation with AF, 2) improved navigation options, 3) modified content and flow for users new to AF and those experienced with AF, 4) updated stroke risk pictographs, and 5) added structure to the preparation for decision making in the PDA. Limitations These DAs focus only on anticoagulation for stroke prevention and are online, which may limit participation for those less comfortable with technology. Conclusions Designing complementary DAs for use in tandem or separately is a new method to support SDM between patients and clinicians. Extensive user testing is essential to creating high-quality tools that best meet the needs of those using them. Highlights First-time complementary encounter and patient decision aids have been designed to work together or separately. User feedback led to greater structure and different experiences for patients naïve or experienced with anticoagulants in patient decision aids. Online tools allow for easier dissemination, use in telehealth visits, and updating as new evidence comes out.