TY - JOUR
T1 - Clinicians' perspectives on the implementation of patient decision aids in the emergency department
T2 - A qualitative interview study
AU - Billah, Tausif
AU - Gordon, Lauren
AU - Schoenfeld, Elizabeth M.
AU - Chang, Bernard P.
AU - Hess, Erik P.
AU - Probst, Marc A.
N1 - Funding Information:
We thank the clinicians who kindly agreed to be interviewed for this study. This study was supported by a Career Development Award from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the National Institutes of Health (K23HL132052) awarded to Dr. Probst. Dr. Probst is currently supported by an R01 grant from the NHLBI (R01HL149680). Dr. Schoenfeld is supported by a Career Development Award from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (K08HS025701). Dr. Chang is supported by 2 R01 grants from NHLBI (R01HL146911 and R01HL141811). Dr. Hess is supported by grant from Patient‐Centered Outcomes Research Institute (DI‐2017C1‐6344). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, or the Patient‐Centered Outcomes Research Institute. The sponsoring organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; and preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Authors. JACEP Open published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Emergency Physicians.
PY - 2022/2
Y1 - 2022/2
N2 - Objective: Decision aids (DAs) are tools to facilitate and standardize shared decision making (SDM). Although most emergency clinicians (ECs) perceive SDM appropriate for emergency care, there is limited uptake of DAs in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to explore barriers and facilitators identified by ECs regarding the implementation of DAs in the emergency department (ED). Methods: We conducted a qualitative interview study guided by implementation science frameworks. ECs participated in interviews focused on the implementation of DAs for the disposition of patients with low-risk chest pain and unexplained syncope in the ED. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We then iteratively developed a codebook with directed qualitative content analysis. Results: We approached 25 ECs working in urban New York, of whom 20 agreed to be interviewed (mean age, 41 years; 25% women). The following 6 main barriers were identified: (1) poor DA accessibility, (2) concern for increased medicolegal risk, (3) lack of perceived need for a DA, (4) patient factors including lack of capacity and limited health literacy, (5) skepticism about validity of DAs, and (6) lack of time to use DAs. The 6 main facilitators identified were (1) positive attitudes toward SDM, (2) patient access to follow-up care, (3) potential for improved patient satisfaction, (4) potential for improved risk communication, (5) strategic integration of DAs into the clinical workflow, and (6) institutional support of DAs. Conclusions: ECs identified multiple barriers and facilitators to the implementation of DAs into clinical practice. These findings could guide implementation efforts targeting the uptake of DA use in the ED.
AB - Objective: Decision aids (DAs) are tools to facilitate and standardize shared decision making (SDM). Although most emergency clinicians (ECs) perceive SDM appropriate for emergency care, there is limited uptake of DAs in clinical practice. The objective of this study was to explore barriers and facilitators identified by ECs regarding the implementation of DAs in the emergency department (ED). Methods: We conducted a qualitative interview study guided by implementation science frameworks. ECs participated in interviews focused on the implementation of DAs for the disposition of patients with low-risk chest pain and unexplained syncope in the ED. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We then iteratively developed a codebook with directed qualitative content analysis. Results: We approached 25 ECs working in urban New York, of whom 20 agreed to be interviewed (mean age, 41 years; 25% women). The following 6 main barriers were identified: (1) poor DA accessibility, (2) concern for increased medicolegal risk, (3) lack of perceived need for a DA, (4) patient factors including lack of capacity and limited health literacy, (5) skepticism about validity of DAs, and (6) lack of time to use DAs. The 6 main facilitators identified were (1) positive attitudes toward SDM, (2) patient access to follow-up care, (3) potential for improved patient satisfaction, (4) potential for improved risk communication, (5) strategic integration of DAs into the clinical workflow, and (6) institutional support of DAs. Conclusions: ECs identified multiple barriers and facilitators to the implementation of DAs into clinical practice. These findings could guide implementation efforts targeting the uptake of DA use in the ED.
KW - chest pain
KW - decision aid
KW - implementation science
KW - qualitative analysis
KW - shared-decision making
KW - syncope
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85137873714&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/emp2.12629
DO - 10.1002/emp2.12629
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85137873714
SN - 2688-1152
VL - 3
JO - Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open
JF - Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians Open
IS - 1
M1 - e12629
ER -