The chest pain choice decision aid

A randomized trial

Erik P. Hess, Meghan A. Knoedler, Nilay D. Shah, Jeffrey Kline, Maggie Breslin, Megan E. Branda, Laurie J. Pencille, Brent R. Asplin, David M. Nestler, Annie T. Sadosty, Ian G. Stiell, Henry H. Ting, Victor M. Montori

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

156 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background-Cardiac stress testing in patients at low risk for acute coronary syndrome is associated with increased false-positive test results, unnecessary downstream procedures, and increased cost. We judged it unlikely that patient preferences were driving the decision to obtain stress testing. Methods and Results-The Chest Pain Choice trial was a prospective randomized evaluation involving 204 patients who were randomized to a decision aid or usual care and were followed for 30 days. The decision aid included a 100-person pictograph depicting the pretest probability of acute coronary syndrome and available management options (observation unit admission and stress testing or 24-72 hours outpatient follow-up). The primary outcome was patient knowledge measured by an immediate postvisit survey. Additional outcomes included patient engagement in decision making and the proportion of patients who decided to undergo observation unit admission and cardiac stress testing. Compared with usual care patients (n=103), decision aid patients (n=101) had significantly greater knowledge (3.6 versus 3.0 questions correct; mean difference, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.34-1.0), were more engaged in decision making as indicated by higher OPTION (observing patient involvement) scores (26.6 versus 7.0; mean difference, 19.6; 95% CI, 1.6-21.6), and decided less frequently to be admitted to the observation unit for stress testing (58% versus 77%; absolute difference, 19%; 95% CI, 6%-31%). There were no major adverse cardiac events after discharge in either group. Conclusions-Use of a decision aid in patients with chest pain increased knowledge and engagement in decision making and decreased the rate of observation unit admission for stress testing.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)251-259
Number of pages9
JournalCirculation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes
Volume5
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Decision Support Techniques
Chest Pain
Observation
Patient Participation
Decision Making
Acute Coronary Syndrome
Unnecessary Procedures
Patient Preference
Patient Care
Outpatients
Costs and Cost Analysis

Keywords

  • Acute coronary syndrome
  • Diagnosis
  • Emergencies
  • Myocardial infarction

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Hess, E. P., Knoedler, M. A., Shah, N. D., Kline, J., Breslin, M., Branda, M. E., ... Montori, V. M. (2012). The chest pain choice decision aid: A randomized trial. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, 5(3), 251-259. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.111.964791

The chest pain choice decision aid : A randomized trial. / Hess, Erik P.; Knoedler, Meghan A.; Shah, Nilay D.; Kline, Jeffrey; Breslin, Maggie; Branda, Megan E.; Pencille, Laurie J.; Asplin, Brent R.; Nestler, David M.; Sadosty, Annie T.; Stiell, Ian G.; Ting, Henry H.; Montori, Victor M.

In: Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, Vol. 5, No. 3, 05.2012, p. 251-259.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hess, EP, Knoedler, MA, Shah, ND, Kline, J, Breslin, M, Branda, ME, Pencille, LJ, Asplin, BR, Nestler, DM, Sadosty, AT, Stiell, IG, Ting, HH & Montori, VM 2012, 'The chest pain choice decision aid: A randomized trial', Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, vol. 5, no. 3, pp. 251-259. https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.111.964791
Hess, Erik P. ; Knoedler, Meghan A. ; Shah, Nilay D. ; Kline, Jeffrey ; Breslin, Maggie ; Branda, Megan E. ; Pencille, Laurie J. ; Asplin, Brent R. ; Nestler, David M. ; Sadosty, Annie T. ; Stiell, Ian G. ; Ting, Henry H. ; Montori, Victor M. / The chest pain choice decision aid : A randomized trial. In: Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. 2012 ; Vol. 5, No. 3. pp. 251-259.
@article{16460b93f34f437caee909921ca5e4c9,
title = "The chest pain choice decision aid: A randomized trial",
abstract = "Background-Cardiac stress testing in patients at low risk for acute coronary syndrome is associated with increased false-positive test results, unnecessary downstream procedures, and increased cost. We judged it unlikely that patient preferences were driving the decision to obtain stress testing. Methods and Results-The Chest Pain Choice trial was a prospective randomized evaluation involving 204 patients who were randomized to a decision aid or usual care and were followed for 30 days. The decision aid included a 100-person pictograph depicting the pretest probability of acute coronary syndrome and available management options (observation unit admission and stress testing or 24-72 hours outpatient follow-up). The primary outcome was patient knowledge measured by an immediate postvisit survey. Additional outcomes included patient engagement in decision making and the proportion of patients who decided to undergo observation unit admission and cardiac stress testing. Compared with usual care patients (n=103), decision aid patients (n=101) had significantly greater knowledge (3.6 versus 3.0 questions correct; mean difference, 0.67; 95{\%} CI, 0.34-1.0), were more engaged in decision making as indicated by higher OPTION (observing patient involvement) scores (26.6 versus 7.0; mean difference, 19.6; 95{\%} CI, 1.6-21.6), and decided less frequently to be admitted to the observation unit for stress testing (58{\%} versus 77{\%}; absolute difference, 19{\%}; 95{\%} CI, 6{\%}-31{\%}). There were no major adverse cardiac events after discharge in either group. Conclusions-Use of a decision aid in patients with chest pain increased knowledge and engagement in decision making and decreased the rate of observation unit admission for stress testing.",
keywords = "Acute coronary syndrome, Diagnosis, Emergencies, Myocardial infarction",
author = "Hess, {Erik P.} and Knoedler, {Meghan A.} and Shah, {Nilay D.} and Jeffrey Kline and Maggie Breslin and Branda, {Megan E.} and Pencille, {Laurie J.} and Asplin, {Brent R.} and Nestler, {David M.} and Sadosty, {Annie T.} and Stiell, {Ian G.} and Ting, {Henry H.} and Montori, {Victor M.}",
year = "2012",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.111.964791",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "5",
pages = "251--259",
journal = "Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes",
issn = "1941-7713",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The chest pain choice decision aid

T2 - A randomized trial

AU - Hess, Erik P.

AU - Knoedler, Meghan A.

AU - Shah, Nilay D.

AU - Kline, Jeffrey

AU - Breslin, Maggie

AU - Branda, Megan E.

AU - Pencille, Laurie J.

AU - Asplin, Brent R.

AU - Nestler, David M.

AU - Sadosty, Annie T.

AU - Stiell, Ian G.

AU - Ting, Henry H.

AU - Montori, Victor M.

PY - 2012/5

Y1 - 2012/5

N2 - Background-Cardiac stress testing in patients at low risk for acute coronary syndrome is associated with increased false-positive test results, unnecessary downstream procedures, and increased cost. We judged it unlikely that patient preferences were driving the decision to obtain stress testing. Methods and Results-The Chest Pain Choice trial was a prospective randomized evaluation involving 204 patients who were randomized to a decision aid or usual care and were followed for 30 days. The decision aid included a 100-person pictograph depicting the pretest probability of acute coronary syndrome and available management options (observation unit admission and stress testing or 24-72 hours outpatient follow-up). The primary outcome was patient knowledge measured by an immediate postvisit survey. Additional outcomes included patient engagement in decision making and the proportion of patients who decided to undergo observation unit admission and cardiac stress testing. Compared with usual care patients (n=103), decision aid patients (n=101) had significantly greater knowledge (3.6 versus 3.0 questions correct; mean difference, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.34-1.0), were more engaged in decision making as indicated by higher OPTION (observing patient involvement) scores (26.6 versus 7.0; mean difference, 19.6; 95% CI, 1.6-21.6), and decided less frequently to be admitted to the observation unit for stress testing (58% versus 77%; absolute difference, 19%; 95% CI, 6%-31%). There were no major adverse cardiac events after discharge in either group. Conclusions-Use of a decision aid in patients with chest pain increased knowledge and engagement in decision making and decreased the rate of observation unit admission for stress testing.

AB - Background-Cardiac stress testing in patients at low risk for acute coronary syndrome is associated with increased false-positive test results, unnecessary downstream procedures, and increased cost. We judged it unlikely that patient preferences were driving the decision to obtain stress testing. Methods and Results-The Chest Pain Choice trial was a prospective randomized evaluation involving 204 patients who were randomized to a decision aid or usual care and were followed for 30 days. The decision aid included a 100-person pictograph depicting the pretest probability of acute coronary syndrome and available management options (observation unit admission and stress testing or 24-72 hours outpatient follow-up). The primary outcome was patient knowledge measured by an immediate postvisit survey. Additional outcomes included patient engagement in decision making and the proportion of patients who decided to undergo observation unit admission and cardiac stress testing. Compared with usual care patients (n=103), decision aid patients (n=101) had significantly greater knowledge (3.6 versus 3.0 questions correct; mean difference, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.34-1.0), were more engaged in decision making as indicated by higher OPTION (observing patient involvement) scores (26.6 versus 7.0; mean difference, 19.6; 95% CI, 1.6-21.6), and decided less frequently to be admitted to the observation unit for stress testing (58% versus 77%; absolute difference, 19%; 95% CI, 6%-31%). There were no major adverse cardiac events after discharge in either group. Conclusions-Use of a decision aid in patients with chest pain increased knowledge and engagement in decision making and decreased the rate of observation unit admission for stress testing.

KW - Acute coronary syndrome

KW - Diagnosis

KW - Emergencies

KW - Myocardial infarction

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84864060541&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84864060541&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.111.964791

DO - 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.111.964791

M3 - Article

VL - 5

SP - 251

EP - 259

JO - Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes

JF - Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes

SN - 1941-7713

IS - 3

ER -