Evaluation of Implementation Outcomes After Initiation of a Shared Decision-making Program for Men With Prostate Cancer

Urology. 2019 Oct:132:94-100. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2019.06.032. Epub 2019 Jul 9.

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate barriers to implementation of patient decision aids (PDAs) issued in an electronic medical record (EMR). We undertook an implementation outcomes analysis focused on what proportion of men eligible for the PDA received it (penetration), and of the men who received it, how many used it as intended (fidelity). We also evaluated various patient-centered outcomes related to decision-making.

Materials and methods: Men with incident localized prostate cancer were recruited from at UCLA from 2013 to 2017. PDA eligibility was determined via weekly EMR review. We also performed a retrospective chart review of all patients seen in clinic for one sample week to identify patients that were missed by the initial eligibility algorithm, and investigated the cause for miscategorization. We analyzed differences in patient-centered outcomes between those who did and did not receive the PDA.

Results: About 314/374 men with incident prostate cancer completed the PDA conferring 84% fidelity. PDA penetration under initial identification prospective algorithm was assessed at 100% (n = 2/n = 2). However, penetration assessed by manual retrospective chart review was 20% (n = 2/n = 10). Improvements to the identification algorithm, including new EMR visit types, were identified. PDA completion was associated with less decisional conflict and higher perceived Shared decision-making (all P<.03).

Conclusion: No previous studies have investigated the challenges of implementing a PDA facilitated by the EMR. We identified modifiable system and EMR-related factors that limited program penetration. Our PDA showed decisional quality benefits.

Publication types

  • Evaluation Study

MeSH terms

  • Decision Making*
  • Decision Support Techniques*
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Outcome Assessment, Health Care
  • Patient Participation / methods*
  • Program Evaluation
  • Prostatic Neoplasms / therapy*
  • Retrospective Studies