Development and usability testing of Understanding Stroke, a tailored life-sustaining treatment decision support tool for stroke surrogate decision makers

Emily P Chen, Cynthia Arslanian-Engoren, William Newhouse, Diane Egleston, Savina Sahgal, Aneesha Yande, Angela Fagerlin, Darin B Zahuranec, Emily P Chen, Cynthia Arslanian-Engoren, William Newhouse, Diane Egleston, Savina Sahgal, Aneesha Yande, Angela Fagerlin, Darin B Zahuranec

Abstract

Background: Surrogate decision makers of stroke patients are often unprepared to make critical decisions on life-sustaining treatments. We describe the development process and key features for the Understanding Stroke web-based decision support tool.

Methods: We used multiple strategies to develop a patient-centered, tailored decision aid. We began by forming a Patient and Family Advisory Council to provide continuous input to our multidisciplinary team on the development of the tool. Additionally, focus groups consisting of nurses, therapists, social workers, physicians, stroke survivors, and family members reviewed key elements of the tool, including prognostic information, graphical displays, and values clarification exercise. To design the values clarification exercise, we asked focus groups to provide feedback on a list of important activities of daily living. An ordinal prognostic model was developed for ischemic stroke and intracerebral hemorrhage using data taken from the Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive Plus, and incorporated into the tool.

Results: Focus group participants recommended making numeric prognostic information optional due to possible emotional distress. Pie charts were generally favored by participants for graphical presentation of prognostic information, though a horizontal stacked bar chart was also added due to its prevalence in stroke literature. Plain language descriptions of the modified Rankin Scale were created to accompany the prognostic information. A values clarification exercise was developed consisting of a list of 13 situations that may make an individual consider comfort measures only. The final version of the web based tool (which can be viewed on tablets) included the following sections: general introduction to stroke, outcomes (prognostic information and recovery), in-hospital and life-sustaining treatments, decision making and values clarification, post-hospital care, tips for talking to the health care team, and a summary report. Preliminary usability testing received generally favorable feedback.

Conclusion: We developed Understanding Stroke, a tailored decision support tool for surrogate decision makers of stroke patients. The tool was well received and will be formally pilot tested in a group of stroke surrogate decision makers.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03427645 ).

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Content map. This shows the order in which each topic is presented in the Understanding Stroke tool. The user is encouraged to follow this sequence, but may choose to skip to any section using the navigation bar on the top of the page

References

    1. Fagerlin A, Ditto PH, Danks JH, Houts RM, Smucker WD. Projection in surrogate decisions about life-sustaining medical treatments. Health Psychol. 2001;20(3):166–175. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.20.3.166.
    1. Fagerlin A, Schneider CE. Enough. The failure of the living will. Hast Cent Rep. 2004;34(2):30–42. doi: 10.2307/3527683.
    1. Majesko A, Hong SY, Weissfeld L, White DB. Identifying family members who may struggle in the role of surrogate decision maker. Crit Care Med. 2012;40(8):2281–2286. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182533317.
    1. Anderson WG, Arnold RM, Angus DC, Bryce CL. Posttraumatic stress and complicated grief in family members of patients in the intensive care unit. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(11):1871–1876. doi: 10.1007/s11606-008-0770-2.
    1. Azoulay E, Pochard F, Kentish-Barnes N, Chevret S, Aboab J, Adrie C, et al. Risk of post-traumatic stress symptoms in family members of intensive care unit patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005;171(9):987–994. doi: 10.1164/rccm.200409-1295OC.
    1. Lautrette A, Darmon M, Megarbane B, Joly LM, Chevret S, Adrie C, et al. A communication strategy and brochure for relatives of patients dying in the ICU. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(5):469–478. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa063446.
    1. Stacey D, Legare F, Col NF, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;1:CD001431.
    1. Cai X, Robinson J, Muehlschlegel S, White DB, Holloway RG, Sheth KN, et al. Patient preferences and surrogate decision making in neuroscience intensive care units. Neurocrit Care. 2015;23(1):131–141. doi: 10.1007/s12028-015-0149-2.
    1. Cox CE, Lewis CL, Hanson LC, Hough CL, Kahn JM, White DB, et al. Development and pilot testing of a decision aid for surrogates of patients with prolonged mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med. 2012;40(8):2327–2334. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3182536a63.
    1. Hajizadeh N, Basile M, Andrews J, Kozikowski A, Jacome S, McCullagh L, et al. Informed Together, A Decision Aid To Increase Informed Shared Decision Making About Intubation In Patients With Severe COPD-Results Of Feasibility Testing. A37 THE SPECTRUM OF COPD: EPIDEMIOLOGY TO OUTCOMES. American Thoracic Society. 2017:A1399-A.
    1. Khan MW, Muehlschlegel S. Shared decision making in Neurocritical care. Neurosurg Clin N Am. 2018;29(2):315–321. doi: 10.1016/j.nec.2017.11.009.
    1. Uhler LM, Perez Figueroa RE, Dickson M, McCullagh L, Kushniruk A, Monkman H, et al. InformedTogether: usability evaluation of a web-based decision aid to facilitate shared advance care planning for severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. JMIR Hum Factors. 2015;2(1):e2. doi: 10.2196/humanfactors.3842.
    1. Cox CE, Wysham NG, Walton B, Jones D, Cass B, Tobin M, et al. Development and usability testing of a web-based decision aid for families of patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation. Ann Intensive Care. 2015;5:6. doi: 10.1186/s13613-015-0045-0.
    1. Ali M, Fulton R, Quinn T, Brady M. How well do standard stroke outcome measures reflect quality of life? A retrospective analysis of clinical trial data. Stroke. 2013;44(11):3161–3165. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.113.001126.
    1. Banks JL, Marotta CA. Outcomes validity and reliability of the modified Rankin scale: implications for stroke clinical trials: a literature review and synthesis. Stroke. 2007;38(3):1091–1096. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.0000258355.23810.c6.
    1. Bruno A, Akinwuntan AE, Lin C, Close B, Davis K, Baute V, et al. Simplified modified Rankin scale questionnaire: reproducibility over the telephone and validation with quality of life. Stroke. 2011;42(8):2276–2279. doi: 10.1161/STROKEAHA.111.613273.
    1. van Swieten JC, Koudstaal PJ, Visser MC, Schouten HJ, van Gijn J. Interobserver agreement for the assessment of handicap in stroke patients. Stroke. 1988;19(5):604–607. doi: 10.1161/01.STR.19.5.604.
    1. Fagerlin A, Pignone M, Abhyankar P, Col N, Feldman-Stewart D, Gavaruzzi T, et al. Clarifying values: an updated review. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(Suppl 2):S8. doi: 10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S8.
    1. Recovering After a Stroke . A Patient and Family Guide: US Agency for HealthCare Research and Quality; 1995 May. 1995.
    1. HOPE . The stroke recovery guide: National Stroke Association. 2010.
    1. Gregorio T, Pipa S, Cavaleiro P, Atanasio G, Albuquerque I, Chaves PC, et al. Prognostic models for intracerebral hemorrhage: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):145. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0613-8.
    1. Jampathong N, Laopaiboon M, Rattanakanokchai S, Pattanittum P. Prognostic models for complete recovery in ischemic stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Neurol. 2018;18(1):26. doi: 10.1186/s12883-018-1032-5.
    1. Wing JJ, Bath PM, Zahuranec DB. Abstract 78: Predicting Ordinal Functional Outcome at 90-Days Post Intracerebral Hemorrhage. Stroke. 2019;50(Suppl_1):A78-A. doi: 10.1161/str.50.suppl_1.78.
    1. Ali M, Bath P, Brady M, Davis S, Diener HC, Donnan G, et al. Development, expansion, and use of a stroke clinical trials resource for novel exploratory analyses. Int J Stroke. 2012;7(2):133–138. doi: 10.1111/j.1747-4949.2011.00735.x.
    1. Witteman HO, Chipenda Dansokho S, Exe N, Dupuis A, Provencher T, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. Risk communication, values clarification, and vaccination decisions. Risk Anal. 2015;35(10):1801–1819. doi: 10.1111/risa.12418.
    1. Ditto PH, Druley JA, Moore KA, Danks JH, Smucker WD. Fates worse than death: the role of valued life activities in health-state evaluations. Health Psychol. 1996;15(5):332–343. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.15.5.332.
    1. Sudore RL. PREPARE for Your Care. 2013.
    1. Bangor A, Kortum P, Miller J. Determining what individual SUS scores mean: adding an adjective rating scale. J Usability Stud. 2009;4(3):114–123.
    1. : Risk Science Center and Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine, University of Michigan [Available from: .
    1. Hawley ST, Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel P, Jancovic A, Lucas T, Fagerlin A. The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73(3):448–455. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2008.07.023.
    1. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Fagerlin A, Ubel PA. Improving understanding of adjuvant therapy options by using simpler risk graphics. Cancer. 2008;113(12):3382–3390. doi: 10.1002/cncr.23959.
    1. Volandes AE, Mitchell SL, Gillick MR, Chang Y, Paasche-Orlow MK. Using video images to improve the accuracy of surrogate decision-making: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Dir Assoc. 2009;10(8):575–580. doi: 10.1016/j.jamda.2009.05.006.
    1. Curtis JR, White DB. Practical guidance for evidence-based ICU family conferences. Chest. 2008;134(4):835–843. doi: 10.1378/chest.08-0235.
    1. Sudore RL, Boscardin J, Feuz MA, McMahan RD, Katen MT, Barnes DE. Effect of the PREPARE website vs an easy-to-read advance directive on advance care planning documentation and engagement among veterans: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(8):1102–1109. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2017.1607.
    1. Sudore RL, Knight SJ, McMahan RD, Feuz M, Farrell D, Miao Y, et al. A novel website to Prepare diverse older adults for decision making and advance care planning: a pilot study. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2014;47(4):674–686. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2013.05.023.
    1. Muehlschlegel S, Lee C, Quinn T, Moskowitz J, Shutter L, Col N, et al. Employing Shared Decision Making in the Neuro-ICU: Derivation and Feasibility Trial of a Pilot Decision Aid for Goals-of-Care Decisions in Critically-Ill Moderate-Severe Traumatic Brain Injury Patients. Montreal: Society for Medical Decision Making 40th Annual North American Meeting; October 17, 2018; 2018.
    1. Cox CE, White DB, Hough CL, Jones DM, Kahn JM, Olsen MK, et al. Effects of a personalized web-based decision aid for surrogate decision makers of patients with prolonged mechanical ventilation: a randomized clinical trial. Ann Intern Med. 2019.
    1. Witteman HO, Gavaruzzi T, Scherer LD, Pieterse AH, Fuhrel-Forbis A, Chipenda Dansokho S, et al. Effects of design features of explicit values clarification methods:a systematic review. Med Decis Mak. 2016;36(6):760–776. doi: 10.1177/0272989X16634085.
    1. Witteman HO, Scherer LD, Gavaruzzi T, Pieterse AH, Fuhrel-Forbis A, Chipenda Dansokho S, et al. Design features of explicit values clarification methods:a systematic review. Med Decis Mak. 2016;36(4):453–471. doi: 10.1177/0272989X15626397.
    1. : U.S. National Library of Medicine; [Available from: .
    1. Schenker Y, Crowley-Matoka M, Dohan D, Tiver GA, Arnold RM, White DB. I don't want to be the one saying 'we should just let him die': intrapersonal tensions experienced by surrogate decision makers in the ICU. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27(12):1657–1665. doi: 10.1007/s11606-012-2129-y.
    1. White DB. Rethinking interventions to improve surrogate decision making in intensive care units. Am J Crit Care. 2011;20(3):252–257. doi: 10.4037/ajcc2011106.
    1. Tannenbaum AM, Halpern SD. Knowing is (only) half the BattleKnowing is (only) half the Battle. Ann Intern Med. 2019;170(5):338–339. doi: 10.7326/M18-3691.
    1. Bate P, Robert G. Bate, P and Robert, G (2007) Bringing user experience to healthcare improvement: the concepts, methods and practices of experience-based design Radcliffe publishinge, Abingdon, UK ISBN 9781846191763. 2007. Bringing User Experience to Healthcare Improvement: The Concepts, Methods and Practices of Experience-Based Design.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel