Supporting Treatment decision making to Optimise the Prevention of STROKE in Atrial Fibrillation: The STOP STROKE in AF study. Protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

Background: Suboptimal uptake of anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation has persisted for over 20 years, despite high-level evidence demonstrating its effectiveness in reducing the risk of fatal and disabling stroke.Methods: The STOP STROKE in AF study is a national, cluster randomised controlled trial designed to improve the uptake of anticoagulation in primary care. General practitioners from around Australia enrolling in this \u27distance education\u27 program are mailed written educational materials, followed by an academic detailing session delivered via telephone by a medical peer, during which participants discuss patient de-identified cases. General practitioners are then randomised to receive written specialist feedback about the patient de-identified cases either before or after completing a three-month posttest audit. Specialist feedback is designed to provide participants with support and confidence to prescribe anticoagulation. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients with atrial fibrillation receiving oral anticoagulation at the time of the posttest audit.Discussion: The STOP STROKE in AF study aims to evaluate a feasible intervention via distance education to prevent avoidable stroke due to atrial fibrillation. It provides a systematic test of augmenting academic detailing with expert feedback about patient management.Trial registration: Australian Clinical Trials Registry Registration Number: ACTRN12611000076976. 2012 Gattellari et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Study protocol: The DESPATCH study: Delivering stroke prevention for patients with atrial fibrillation - a cluster randomised controlled trial in primary healthcare

Background: Compelling evidence shows that appropriate use of anticoagulation in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation reduces the risk of ischaemic stroke by 67% and all-cause mortality by 26%. Despite this evidence, anticoagulation is substantially underused, resulting in avoidable fatal and disabling strokes.Methods: DESPATCH is a cluster randomised controlled trial with concealed allocation and blinded outcome assessment designed to evaluate a multifaceted and tailored implementation strategy for improving the uptake of anticoagulation in primary care. We have recruited general practices in South Western Sydney, Australia, and randomly allocated practices to receive the DESPATCH intervention or evidence-based guidelines (control). The intervention comprises specialist decisional support via written feedback about patient-specific cases, three academic detailing sessions (delivered via telephone), practice resources, and evidence-based information. Data for outcome assessment will be obtained from a blinded, independent medical record audit. Our primary endpoint is the proportion of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients, over 65 years of age, receiving oral anticoagulation at any time during the 12-month posttest period.Discussion: Successful translation of evidence into clinical practice can reduce avoidable stroke, death, and disability due to nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. If successful, DESPATCH will inform public policy, providing quality evidence for an effective implementation strategy to improve management of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, to close an important evidence-practice gap.Trial registration: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR): ACTRN12608000074392. 2011 Gattellari et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

The management of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) in Australian general practice: bridging the evidence-practice gap. A national, representative postal survey

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>General practitioners (GPs) are ideally placed to bridge the widely noted evidence-practice gap between current management of NVAF and the need to increase anticoagulant use to reduce the risk of fatal and disabling stroke in NVAF. We aimed to identify gaps in current care, and asked GPs to identify potentially useful strategies to overcome barriers to best practice.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We obtained contact details for a random sample of 1000 GPs from a national commercial data-base. Randomly selected GPs were mailed a questionnaire after an advance letter. Standardised reminders were administered to enhance response rates. As part of a larger survey assessing GP management of NVAF, we included questions to explore GPs' risk assessment, estimates of stroke risk and GPs' perceptions of the risks and benefits of anticoagulation with warfarin. In addition, we explored GPs' perceived barriers to the wider uptake of anticoagulation, quality control of anticoagulation and their assessment of strategies to assist in managing NVAF.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>596 out of 924 eligible GPs responded (64.4% response rate). The majority of GPs recognised that the benefits of warfarin outweighed the risks for three case scenarios in which warfarin is recommended according to Australian guidelines. In response to a hypothetical case scenario describing a patient with a supratherapeutic INR level of 5, 41.4% of the 596 GPs (n = 247) and 22.0% (n = 131) would be "highly likely" or "likely", respectively, to cease warfarin therapy and resume at a lower dose when INR levels are within therapeutic range. Only 27.9% (n = 166/596) would reassess the patient's INR levels within one day of recording the supratherapeutic INR. Patient contraindications to warfarin was reported to "usually" or "always" apply to the patients of 40.6% (n = 242/596) of GPs when considering whether or not to prescribe warfarin. Patient refusal to take warfarin "usually" or "always" applied to the patients of 22.3% (n = 133/596) of GPs. When asked to indicate the usefulness of strategies to assist in managing NVAF, the majority of GPs (89.1%, n = 531/596) reported that they would find patient educational resources outlining the benefits and risks of available treatments "quite useful" or "very useful". Just under two-thirds (65.2%; n = 389/596) reported that they would find point of care INR testing "quite" or "very" useful. An outreach specialist service and training to enable GPs to practice stroke medicine as a special interest were also considered to be "quite" or "very useful" by 61.9% (n = 369/596) GPs.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This survey identified gaps, based on GP self-report, in the current care of NVAF. GPs themselves have provided guidance on the selection of implementation strategies to bridge these gaps. These results may inform future initiatives designed to reduce the risk of fatal and disabling stroke in NVAF.</p

Enhancing treatment decision-making: pilot study of a treatment decision aid in stage IV non-small cell lung cancer

We developed a decision aid (DA) for patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), to better inform patients of their prognosis and treatment options, and facilitate involvement in decision-making. In a pilot study, 20 patients with metastatic NSCLC attending outpatient clinics at a major cancer centre, who had already made a treatment decision, reviewed acceptability of the DA. The median age of the patients was 61 years (range 37–77 years), 35% were male, 20% had a university education, and most (75%) had English as a first language. Most had received chemotherapy, with 65% currently on treatment. Patients were not anxious at baseline and had clear understanding of the goals and toxicity of chemotherapy in advanced NSCLC. After reviewing the DA, patients' anxiety decreased slightly (P=0.04) and knowledge scores improved by 25% (P<0.001). Most improvements in understanding were of prognosis with and without chemotherapy, although patients still believed advanced NSCLC to be curable. Patients rated the DA highly with respect to information clarity, usefulness and were positive about its use in practice, although 40% found the prognostic information slightly upsetting. The DA for advanced NSCLC is feasible, acceptable to patients and improves understanding of advanced NSCLC without increasing patient anxiety

Disarming the guarded prognosis: predicting survival in newly referred patients with incurable cancer

People affected by cancer want information about their prognosis but clinicians have trouble estimating and talking about it. We sought to determine the nature and accuracy of medical oncologists' estimates of life expectancy in newly referred patients with incurable cancer. With reference to each patient, medical oncologists estimated how long they thought 90, 50, and 10% of similar patients would live. These proportions were chosen to reflect worst case, predicted, and best case scenarios suitable for discussions. After a median follow-up of 35 months, 86 of the 102 patients had died with an observed median survival of 12 months. Oncologists' estimates of each patient's worst case, predicted and best case scenarios were well-calibrated: 10% of patients lived for fewer months than estimated for the worst 10% of similar patients; 50% lived for at least as long as estimated for 50% of similar patients (predicted survival), and 17% lived for more months than estimated for the best 10% of similar patients. Oncologists' estimates of each patient's predicted survival were imprecise: 29% were within 0.67–1.33 times the patient's actual survival, 35% were too optimistic (>1.33 times the actual survival), and 39% were too pessimistic (<0.67 times the actual survival). The proportions of patients with actual survival times bounded by simple multiples of their predicted survival were as follows: 61% between half to double their predicted, 6% at least three to four times their predicted, and 4% no more than 1/6 of their predicted; similar to the proportions in an exponential distribution (about 50%, 10% and 10% respectively). Ranges based on simple multiples of the predicted survival time appropriately convey prognosis and its uncertainty in newly referred people with incurable cancer

The context influences doctors' support of shared decision-making in cancer care

Most cancer patients in westernised countries now want all information about their situation, good or bad, and many wish to be involved in decision-making. The attitudes to and use of shared decision-making (SDM) by cancer doctors is not well known. Australian cancer clinicians treating breast, colorectal, gynaecological, haematological, or urological cancer were surveyed to identify their usual approach to decision-making and their comfort with different decision-making styles when discussing treatment with patients. A response rate of 59% resulted in 624 complete surveys, which explored usual practice in discussing participation in decision-making, providing information, and perception of the role patients want to play. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify predictors of use of SDM. Most cancer doctors (62.4%) reported using SDM and being most comfortable with this approach. Differences were apparent between reported high comfort with SDM and less frequent usual practice. Multivariate analysis showed that specialisation in breast or urological cancers compared to other cancers (AOR 3.02), high caseload of new patients per month (AOR 2.81) and female gender (AOR 1.87) were each independently associated with increased likelihood of use of SDM. Barriers exist to the application of SDM by doctors according to clinical situation and clinician characteristics

Understanding Palliative Cancer Chemotherapy: About Shared Decisions and Shared Trajectories

Most models of patient-physician communication take decision-making as a central concept. However, we found that often the treatment course of metastatic cancer patients is not easy to describe in straightforward terms used in decision-making models but is instead frequently more erratic. Our aim was to analyse these processes as trajectories. We used a longitudinal case study of 13 patients with metastatic colorectal and pancreatic cancer for whom palliative chemotherapy was a treatment option, and analysed 65 semi-structured interviews. We analysed three characteristics of the treatment course that contributed to the ‘erraticness’ of the course: (1) The treatment (with or without chemotherapy) contained many options; (2) these options were not stable entities to be decided upon, but changed identity over the course of treatment, and (3) contrary to the closure (option X means no option Y, Z, etc.) a decision implies, the treatment course was a continuous process in which options instead remained open. When the treatment course is characterised by these many and changeable options that do not result in closure, the shared decision-making model should take these into account. More attention needs to be paid to the erratic character of the process in which the doctor has to provide continuous information that is related to the changing situation of the patient; also, flexibility in dealing with protocols is warranted, as is vigilance about the overall direction of the process