How can epidemiological studies help us to prevent stroke? The example of atrial fibrillation.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
Aged↗
Biomedical subjects
Richard Thomson
Publications and source records attributed to Richard Thomson.
Development and description of a decision analysis based decision support tool for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.
BACKGROUND: There is an increasing move towards clinical decision making that engages the patient, which has led to the development and use of decision aids to support better decisions. The treatment of patients in atrial fibrillation (AF) with warfarin to prevent stroke is a decision that is sensitive to patient preferences as shown by a previous decision analysis. AIM: To develop a computerised decision support tool, building upon a previous decision analysis, which would engage individual patient preferences in reaching a shared decision on whether to take warfarin to prevent stroke. METHODS: The development process had two main phases: (1) the development phase which employed focus groups and repeated interviews with GPs/practice nurses and patients alongside an iterative development of a computerised tool; (2) the training and testing phase in which GPs and practice nurses underwent training in the use of the tool, including the use of simulated patients. The tool was then used in a feasibility study in a small number of patients with AF to inform the design of a subsequent randomised controlled trial. RESULTS: The prototype tool had three components: (1) derivation of an individual patient's values for relevant health states using a standard gamble; (2) presentation/discussion of a patient's risks of stroke using the Framingham equation and the benefits/risks of warfarin from a systematic literature review; and (3) decision making component incorporating the outcome of a Markov decision analysis model. Older patients could be taken through the decision analysis based computerised tool, and patients and clinicians welcomed information on risks and benefits of treatments. The tool required time and training to use. Patients' decisions in the feasibility phase did not necessarily coincide with the output of the decision analysis model, but decision conflict appeared to be reduced and both patients and GPs were satisfied with the process. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to develop a decision analysis based computer software package that is acceptable to elderly patients and clinicians, but it requires time and expertise to use. It is most likely that a tool of this type will best be used by a small number of clinicians who have developed experience of its use and can maintain their skills.
Aged↗
Health needs assessment and needs-led health service change: a survey of projects involving public health doctors.
OBJECTIVES: To describe the criteria that define an effective health needs assessment and to explore which factors are important for the delivery of effective health needs assessment in the English National Health Service (NHS). METHODS: A postal questionnaire to all public health doctors in an English health region to describe health needs assessment activity, including initiating factors, methods and outcomes. This was followed by semi-structured interviews with public health professionals and others involved in 10 purposively selected needs assessments. RESULTS: A response rate of 62% identified a total of 102 health needs assessments undertaken between 1993 and 1998. A number of themes emerged as being important in the impact of health needs assessments on policy and planning. These included careful design, methodological rigour, decisive leadership, good communication, involvement and ownership of the work from relevant stakeholders, support from senior decision-makers, appreciation of the political dynamics and engagement with local priorities, availability of resources and, finally, an element of chance. These themes can be categorised broadly into contextual factors and quality or robustness of the work. Our findings suggest that, although methodological and analytical quality are necessary characteristics of effective health needs assessment, they are not sufficient without a favourable political environment. CONCLUSION: There appear to be conditions under which needs assessment is more likely to be effective in terms of its influence on policy and planning. However, it is clear that needs assessment does not occupy a central position in health service decision-making, remaining vulnerable to a range of factors over which those responsible for its conduct have little or no control.
Attitude of Health Personnel↗
Clinical decision support systems: a discussion of quality, safety and legal liability issues.
Developers of Clinical Decision Support Systems (CDSSs) have to date been more concerned with the efficacy of systems (e.g. measurable improvements in clinical outcomes) than with safety (e.g. potential for harmful side-effects). In future CDSS developers will be required (by the courts etc.) to acknowledge a "duty of care" covering all aspects of design, development and deployment. Experience in the transport, power and other safety-critical industries has led to a range of quality and safety assurance methods whose adoption may be needed before CDSSs can safely become an integral part of routine patient care, and before the trust of healthcare professionals, patients and other stakeholders can be gained. No single method will be sufficient for safe development and deployment; a range of techniques will be needed and used selectively. This paper is a contribution to discussion of quality, safety and legal liability issues in the medical informatics community.
Decision Support Systems, Clinical↗
Preference-based antithrombotic therapy in atrial fibrillation: implications for clinical decision making.
BACKGROUND: Patient preferences and expert-generated clinical practice guidelines regarding treatment decisions may not be identical. The authors compared the thresholds for antithrombotic treatment from studies that determined or modeled the treatment preferences of patients with atrial fibrillation with recommendations from clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: Methods included MEDLINE identification, systematic review, and pooling with some reanalysis of primary data from relevant studies. RESULTS: Eight pertinent studies, including 890 patients, were identified. These studies used 3 methods (decision analysis, probability tradeoff, and decision aids) to determine or model patient preferences. All methods highlighted that the threshold above which warfarin was preferred over aspirin was highly variable. In 6 of 8 studies, patient preferences indicated that fewer patients would take warfarin compared to the recommendations of the guidelines. In general, at a stroke rate of 1% with aspirin, half of the participants would prefer warfarin, and at a rate of 2% with aspirin, two thirds would prefer warfarin. In 3 studies, warfarin must provide at least a 0.9% to 3.0% per year absolute reduction in stroke risk for patients to be willing to take it, corresponding to a stroke rate of 2% to 6% on aspirin. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with atrial fibrillation, treatment recommendations from clinical practice guidelines often differ from patient preferences, with substantial heterogeneity in their individual preferences. Since patient preferences can have a substantial impact on the clinical decision-making process, acknowledgment of their importance should be incorporated into clinical practice guidelines. Practicing physicians need to balance the patient preferences with the treatment recommendations from clinical practice guidelines.
Aged↗
Risk communication in the clinical consultation.
Modern healthcare and modern societies are facing up to the need for greater engagement of patients in treatment decisions. Shared and informed decision-making is replacing traditional paternalistic approaches to decisions; health policy both reflects and drives these changes. A critical contribution to better informed decisions by patients is the effective communication of risk in the clinical consultation. This is not straightforward, but there is a growing evidence base to improve performance in this area to the benefit of both patients and clinicians. The purpose of this review is to provide an accessible and practical guide to better communication of risk by clinicians.
Audiovisual Aids↗