Reasons of general practitioners for not prescribing lipid-lowering medication to patients with diabetes: a qualitative study

Background: Lipid-lowering medication remains underused, even in high-risk populations. The objective of this study was to determine factors underlying general practitioners' decisions not to prescribe such drugs to patients with type 2 diabetes. Methods: A qualitative study with semi-structured interviews using real cases was conducted to explore reasons for not prescribing lipid-lowering medication after a guideline was distributed that recommended the use of statins in most patients with type 2 diabetes. Seven interviews were conducted with general practitioners (GPs) in The Netherlands, and analysed using an analytic inductive approach. Results: Reasons for not-prescribing could be divided into patient and physician-attributed factors. According to the GPs, some patients do not follow-up on agreed medication and others object to taking lipid-lowering medication, partly for legitimate reasons such as expected or perceived side effects. Furthermore, the GPs themselves perceived reservations for prescribing lipid-lowering medication in patients with short life expectancy, expected compliance problems or near goal lipid levels. GPs sometimes postponed the start of treatment because of other priorities. Finally, barriers were seen in the GPs' practice organisation, and at the primary-secondary care interface. Conclusion: Some of the barriers mentioned by GPs seem to be valid reasons, showing that guideline non-adherence can be quite rational. On the other hand, treatment quality could improve by addressing issues, such as lack of knowledge or motivation of both the patient and the GP. More structured management in general practice may also lead to better treatment

The impact of decision aids to enhance shared decision making for diabetes (the DAD study): protocol of a cluster randomized trial

Background. Shared decision making contributes to high quality healthcare by promoting a patientcentered approach. Patient involvement in selecting the components of a diabetes medication program that best match the patient's values and preferences may also enhance medication adherence and improve outcomes. Decision aids are tools designed to involve patients in shared decision making, but their adoption in practice has been limited. In this study, we propose to obtain a preliminary estimate of the impact of patient decision aids vs. usual care on measures of patient involvement in decision making, diabetes care processes, medication adherence, glycemic and cardiovascular risk factor control, and resource utilization. In addition, we propose to identify, describe, and explain factors that promote or inhibit the routine embedding of decision aids in practice. Methods. We will be conducting a mixed-methods study comprised of a cluster-randomized, practical, multicentered trial enrolling clinicians and their patients (n = 240) with type 2 diabetes from rural and suburban primary care practices (n = 8), with an embedded qualitative study to examine factors that influence the incorporation of decision aids into routine practice. The intervention will consist of the use of a decision aid (Statin Choice and Aspirin Choice, or Diabetes Medication Choice) during the clinical encounter. The qualitative study will include analysis of video recordings of clinical encounters and in-depth, semi-structured interviews with participating patients, clinicians, and clinic support staff, in both trial arms. Discussion. Upon completion of this trial, we will have new knowledge about the effectiveness of diabetes decision aids in these practices. We will also better understand the factors that promote or inhibit the successful implementation and normalization of medication choice decision aids in the care of chronic patients in primary care practices

The Chest Pain Choice trial: a pilot randomized trial of a decision aid for patients with chest pain in the emergency department

Background: Chest pain is a common presenting complaint in the emergency department (ED). Despite the frequency with which clinicians evaluate patients with chest pain, accurately determining the risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and sharing risk information with patients is challenging. The aims of this study are (1) to develop a decision aid (CHEST PAIN CHOICE) that communicates the short-term risk of ACS and (2) to evaluate the impact of the decision aid on patient participation in decision-making and resource use. Methods/Design: This is a protocol for a parallel, 2-arm randomized trial to compare an intervention group receiving CHEST PAIN CHOICE to a control group receiving usual ED care. Adults presenting to the Saint Mary's Hospital ED in Rochester, MN USA with a primary complaint of chest pain who are being considered for admission for prolonged ED observation in a specialized unit and urgent cardiac stress testing will be eligible for enrollment. We will measure the effect of CHEST PAIN CHOICE on six outcomes: (1) patient knowledge regarding their short-term risk for ACS and the risks of radiation exposure; (2) quality of the decision making process; (3) patient and clinician acceptability and satisfaction with the decision aid; (4) the proportion of patients who decided to undergo observation unit admission and urgent cardiac stress testing; (5) economic costs and healthcare utilization; and (6) the rate of delayed or missed ACS. To capture these outcomes, we will administer patient and clinician surveys after each visit, obtain video recordings of the clinical encounters, and conduct 30-day phone follow-up. Discussion: This pilot randomized trial will develop and evaluate a decision aid for use in ED chest pain patients at low risk for ACS and provide a preliminary estimate of its effect on patient participation in decision-making and resource use