MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1136/bmj.i6165

Медицинская библиотека · BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2016

Shared decision making in patients with low risk chest pain: prospective randomized pragmatic trial.

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

СтатьяPragmatic Clinical TrialРандомизированное исследованиеПеревод в очереди

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.

Для цитирования: 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. Shared decision making in patients with low risk chest pain: prospective randomized pragmatic trial.. BMJ (Clinical research ed.). 2016. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i6165.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.