BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2016
Shared decision making in patients with low risk chest pain: prospective randomized pragmatic trial.
СтатьяPragmatic Clinical TrialРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hess Erik P, Hollander Judd E, Schaffer Jason T, Kline Jeffrey A, Torres Carlos A, Diercks Deborah B, Jones Russell, Owen Kelly P, Meisel Zachary F, Demers Michel, Leblanc Annie, Shah Nilay D, Inselman Jonathan, Herrin Jeph, Castaneda-Guarderas Ana, Montori Victor M
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of shared decision making with usual care in choice of admission for observation and further cardiac testing or for referral for outpatient evaluation in patients with possible acute coronary syndrome.
DESIGN: Multicenter pragmatic parallel randomized controlled trial.
SETTING: Six emergency departments in the United States.
PARTICIPANTS: 898 adults (aged >17 years) with a primary complaint of chest pain who were being considered for admission to an observation unit for cardiac testing (451 were allocated to the decision aid and 447 to usual care), and 361 emergency clinicians (emergency physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) caring for patients with chest pain.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an electronic, web based system to shared decision making facilitated by a decision aid or to usual care. The primary outcome, selected by patient and caregiver advisers, was patient knowledge of their risk for acute coronary syndrome and options for care; secondary outcomes were involvement in the decision to be admitted, proportion of patients admitted for cardiac testing, and the 30 day rate of major adverse cardiac events.
RESULTS: Compared with the usual care arm, patients in the decision aid arm had greater knowledge of their risk for acute coronary syndrome and options for care (questions correct: decision aid, 4.2 v usual care, 3.6; mean difference 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.86), were more involved in the decision (observing patient involvement scores: decision aid, 18.3 v usual care, 7.9; 10.3, 9.1 to 11.5), and less frequently decided with their clinician to be admitted for cardiac testing (decision aid, 37% v usual care, 52%; absolute difference 15%; P<0.001). There were no major adverse cardiac events due to the intervention.
CONCLUSIONS: Use of a decision aid in patients at low risk for acute coronary syndrome increased patient knowledge about their risk, increased engagement, and safely decreased the rate of admission to an observation unit for cardiac testing.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01969240.
DESIGN: Multicenter pragmatic parallel randomized controlled trial.
SETTING: Six emergency departments in the United States.
PARTICIPANTS: 898 adults (aged >17 years) with a primary complaint of chest pain who were being considered for admission to an observation unit for cardiac testing (451 were allocated to the decision aid and 447 to usual care), and 361 emergency clinicians (emergency physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) caring for patients with chest pain.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by an electronic, web based system to shared decision making facilitated by a decision aid or to usual care. The primary outcome, selected by patient and caregiver advisers, was patient knowledge of their risk for acute coronary syndrome and options for care; secondary outcomes were involvement in the decision to be admitted, proportion of patients admitted for cardiac testing, and the 30 day rate of major adverse cardiac events.
RESULTS: Compared with the usual care arm, patients in the decision aid arm had greater knowledge of their risk for acute coronary syndrome and options for care (questions correct: decision aid, 4.2 v usual care, 3.6; mean difference 0.66, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 0.86), were more involved in the decision (observing patient involvement scores: decision aid, 18.3 v usual care, 7.9; 10.3, 9.1 to 11.5), and less frequently decided with their clinician to be admitted for cardiac testing (decision aid, 37% v usual care, 52%; absolute difference 15%; P<0.001). There were no major adverse cardiac events due to the intervention.
CONCLUSIONS: Use of a decision aid in patients at low risk for acute coronary syndrome increased patient knowledge about their risk, increased engagement, and safely decreased the rate of admission to an observation unit for cardiac testing.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01969240.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Acute Coronary SyndromeAdultAftercareAmbulatory CareAttitude of Health PersonnelChest PainChoice BehaviorConflict, PsychologicalDecision MakingDecision Support TechniquesEmergency Service, HospitalFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHospital UnitsHospitalizationHumansMaleMiddle AgedMyocardial InfarctionObservationPatient Acceptance of Health CarePatient ParticipationPatient SatisfactionRisk AssessmentTrust