Implementation of a Web-Based Tool for Shared Decision-making in Lung Cancer Screening: Mixed Methods Quality Improvement Evaluation (Preprint)
Authors: Lowery Julie , Fagerlin Angela , Larkin Angela R , Wiener Renda S , Skurla Sarah E , Caverly Tanner J 
Published: July 2021

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer risk and life expectancy vary substantially across patients eligible for low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening (LCS), which has important consequences for optimizing LCS decisions for different patients. To account for this heterogeneity during decision-making, web-based decision support tools are needed to enable quick calculations and streamline the process of obtaining individualized information that more accurately informs patient-clinician LCS discussions. We created DecisionPrecision, a clinician-facing web-based decision support tool, to help tailor the LCS discussion to a patient’s individualized lung cancer risk and estimated net benefit.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of our study is to test two strategies for implementing DecisionPrecision in primary care at eight Veterans Affairs medical centers: a quality improvement (QI) training approach and academic detailing (AD).

METHODS

Phase 1 comprised a multisite, cluster randomized trial comparing the effectiveness of standard implementation (adding a link to DecisionPrecision in the electronic health record vs standard implementation plus the Learn, Engage, Act, and Process [LEAP] QI training program). The primary outcome measure was the use of DecisionPrecision at each site before versus after LEAP QI training. The second phase of the study examined the potential effectiveness of AD as an implementation strategy for DecisionPrecision at all 8 medical centers. Outcomes were assessed by comparing absolute tool use before and after AD visits and conducting semistructured interviews with a subset of primary care physicians (PCPs) following the AD visits.

RESULTS

Phase 1 findings showed that sites that participated in the LEAP QI training program used DecisionPrecision significantly more often than the standard implementation sites (tool used 190.3, SD 174.8 times on average over 6 months at LEAP sites vs 3.5 SD 3.7 at standard sites; <i>P</i>&lt;.001). However, this finding was confounded by the lack of screening coordinators at standard implementation sites. In phase 2, there was no difference in the 6-month tool use between before and after AD (95% CI −5.06 to 6.40; <i>P</i>=.82). Follow-up interviews with PCPs indicated that the AD strategy increased provider awareness and appreciation for the benefits of the tool. However, other priorities and limited time prevented PCPs from using them during routine clinical visits.

CONCLUSIONS

The phase 1 findings did not provide conclusive evidence of the benefit of a QI training approach for implementing a decision support tool for LCS among PCPs. In addition, phase 2 findings showed that our <i>light-touch</i>, single-visit AD strategy did not increase tool use. To enable tool use by PCPs, prediction-based tools must be fully automated and integrated into electronic health records, thereby helping providers personalize LCS discussions among their many competing demands. PCPs also need more time to engage in shared decision-making discussions with their patients.

CLINICALTRIAL

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02765412; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02765412