Michelle D Dannenberg

Bio: Michelle D Dannenberg is an academic researcher from The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice. The author has contributed to research in topics: Decision aids & Medicine. The author has an hindex of 6, co-authored 17 publications receiving 173 citations. Previous affiliations of Michelle D Dannenberg include Dartmouth College.

Effectiveness of rapid response teams on rates of in‐hospital cardiopulmonary arrest and mortality: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Abstract: BACKGROUND In 2004, the Institute for Healthcare Improvement's 100,000 Lives Campaign recommended that hospitals implement rapid response teams (RRTs) charged with identifying non–intensive care unit (ICU) patients at risk for rapid deterioration. Although RRTs are now in widespread use, there have been conflicting results regarding the impact of RRTs on hospital mortality and cardiopulmonary arrest. PURPOSE To assess the effectiveness of RRTs on reducing hospital mortality and non-ICU cardiopulmonary arrest rates. DATA SOURCES We conducted a systematic review using MEDLINE (1966–2014), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (1898–2014), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (1994–2014), and ClinicalTrials.gov (1997–2014) during October 2014. There were no constraints on language or publication status. DATA EXTRACTION We included before-after studies, cohort studies, and cluster randomized trials that reported hospital mortality and/or non-ICU cardiopulmonary arrest for adults hospitalized in a non-ICU setting after the implementation of RRTs and/or medical emergency teams (METs). Data were extracted by 2 sets of 2 independent reviewers using a standardized data-collection form. Disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. Authors were contacted to obtain any missing data. DATA SYNTHESIS Our search identified 691 studies, of which 30 met criteria for inclusion in the analysis. Implementation of an RRT/MET was associated with a significant decrease in hospital mortality (relative risk [RR] = 0.88, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83-0.93, I2 = 86%, 3,478,952 admissions) and a significant decrease in the number of non-ICU cardiac arrests (RR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.55-0.69, I2 = 71%, 3,045,273 admissions). CONCLUSIONS Implementation of an RRT/MET is associated with a reduction in both hospital mortality and non-ICU cardiopulmonary arrests. Journal of Hospital Medicine 2016;11:438–445. © 2016 Society of Hospital Medicine

Self-management interventions for epilepsy in people with intellectual disabilities: A scoping review

Abstract: Purpose People with intellectual disabilities (ID) experience higher incidences of chronic health conditions, poorer health outcomes, and increased risk of premature death. Epilepsy is 20 times more common in people with ID than in the general population. It tends to be more difficult to diagnose, more severe, and more difficult to treat. Improving epilepsy self-management in this group is advocated in guidelines for best practice. However, few self-management interventions exist, and a robust examination of their effectiveness is missing. Our aim was to identify existing self-management interventions for epilepsy in people with ID and to analyze their impact. Methods A scoping review using Arksey and O⿿Malley's framework was conducted. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, OpenSIGLE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science were searched from inception until June 2015. Using a piloted charting tool, selected articles were thematically analyzed. Results An initial search identified 570 articles, of which five met the inclusion criteria. Pilot and randomized controlled feasibility study findings suggest that self-management interventions targeted at people with ID are acceptable to this population, improve epilepsy-related knowledge, improve seizure frequency, and show potential to improve quality of life. A randomised controlled trial of a self-management intervention is currently underway. Conclusion Studies evaluating self-management interventions for people with epilepsy and ID are sparse. Our findings demonstrate the potential for self-management interventions to improve outcomes in this population. Controlled studies with comparable measures and longer follow-ups are needed to rigorously assess the impact of self-management interventions on this patient population.

Audio-/Videorecording Clinic Visits for Patient's Personal Use in the United States: Cross-Sectional Survey.

Abstract: Background: Few clinics in the United States routinely offer patients audio or video recordings of their clinic visits. While interest in this practice has increased, to date, there are no data on the prevalence of recording clinic visits in the United States. Objective: Our objectives were to (1) determine the prevalence of audiorecording clinic visits for patients’ personal use in the United States, (2) assess the attitudes of clinicians and public toward recording, and (3) identify whether policies exist to guide recording practices in 49 of the largest health systems in the United States. Methods: We administered 2 parallel cross-sectional surveys in July 2017 to the internet panels of US-based clinicians (SERMO Panel) and the US public (Qualtrics Panel). To ensure a diverse range of perspectives, we set quotas to capture clinicians from 8 specialties. Quotas were also applied to the public survey based on US census data (gender, race, ethnicity, and language other than English spoken at home) to approximate the US adult population. We contacted 49 of the largest health systems (by clinician number) in the United States by email and telephone to determine the existence, or absence, of policies to guide audiorecordings of clinic visits for patients’ personal use. Multiple logistic regression models were used to determine factors associated with recording. Results: In total, 456 clinicians and 524 public respondents completed the surveys. More than one-quarter of clinicians (129/456, 28.3%) reported that they had recorded a clinic visit for patients’ personal use, while 18.7% (98/524) of the public reported doing so, including 2.7% (14/524) who recorded visits without the clinician’s permission. Amongst clinicians who had not recorded a clinic visit, 49.5% (162/327) would be willing to do so in the future, while 66.0% (346/524) of the public would be willing to record in the future. Clinician specialty was associated with prior recording: specifically oncology (odds ratio [OR] 5.1, 95% CI 1.9-14.9; P=.002) and physical rehabilitation (OR 3.9, 95% CI 1.4-11.6; P=.01). Public respondents who were male (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.26-3.61; P=.005), younger (OR 0.73 for a 10-year increase in age, 95% CI 0.60-0.89; P=.002), or spoke a language other than English at home (OR 1.99; 95% CI 1.09-3.59; P=.02) were more likely to have recorded a clinic visit. None of the large health systems we contacted reported a dedicated policy; however, 2 of the 49 health systems did report an existing policy that would cover the recording of clinic visits for patient use. The perceived benefits of recording included improved patient understanding and recall. Privacy and medicolegal concerns were raised. Conclusions: Policy guidance from health systems and further examination of the impact of recordings—positive or negative—on care delivery, clinician-related outcomes, and patients’ behavioral and health-related outcomes is urgently required.

Sharing Annotated Audio Recordings of Clinic Visits With Patients-Development of the Open Recording Automated Logging System (ORALS): Study Protocol.

Abstract: Background: Providing patients with recordings of their clinic visits enhances patient and family engagement, yet few organizations routinely offer recordings. Challenges exist for organizations and patients, including data safety and navigating lengthy recordings. A secure system that allows patients to easily navigate recordings may be a solution. Objective: The aim of this project is to develop and test an interoperable system to facilitate routine recording, the Open Recording Automated Logging System (ORALS), with the aim of increasing patient and family engagement. ORALS will consist of (1) technically proficient software using automated machine learning technology to enable accurate and automatic tagging of in-clinic audio recordings (tagging involves identifying elements of the clinic visit most important to patients [eg, treatment plan] on the recording) and (2) a secure, easy-to-use Web interface enabling the upload and accurate linkage of recordings to patients, which can be accessed at home. Methods: We will use a mixed methods approach to develop and formatively test ORALS in 4 iterative stages: case study of pioneer clinics where recordings are currently offered to patients, ORALS design and user experience testing, ORALS software and user interface development, and rapid cycle testing of ORALS in a primary care clinic, assessing impact on patient and family engagement. Dartmouth’s Informatics Collaboratory for Design, Development and Dissemination team, patients, patient partners, caregivers, and clinicians will assist in developing ORALS. Results: We will implement a publication plan that includes a final project report and articles for peer-reviewed journals. In addition to this work, we will regularly report on our progress using popular relevant Tweet chats and online using our website, www.openrecordings.org. We will disseminate our work at relevant conferences (eg, Academy Health, Health Datapalooza, and the Institute for Healthcare Improvement Quality Forums). Finally, Iora Health, a US-wide network of primary care practices (www.iorahealth.com), has indicated a willingness to implement ORALS on a larger scale upon completion of this development project. Conclusions: Upon the completion of this project we will have developed a novel recording system that will be ready for large-scale testing. Our long-term goal is for ORALS to seamlessly fit into a clinic’s and patient’s daily routine, increasing levels of patient engagement and transparency of care. [JMIR Res Protoc 2017;6(7):e121]

Healthcare Options for People Experiencing Depression (HOPE∗D): The development and pilot testing of an encounter-based decision aid for use in primary care

Abstract: Objective To develop and pilot an encounter-based decision aid (eDA) for people with depression for use in primary care. Design We developed an eDA for depression through cognitive interviews and pilot tested it using a one-group pretest, post-test design in primary care. Feasibility, fidelity of eDA use and acceptability were assessed using recruitment rates and semistructured interviews with patients, medical assistants and clinicians. Treatment choice and shared decision-making (SDM) were also assessed. Setting Interviews with adult patients and the public were conducted in a mall and library in Grafton County, New Hampshire, while clinician interviews took place by phone or at the clinician’s office. Pilot testing occurred in a New Hampshire primary care practice. Participants Cognitive interviews were conducted with adults, ≥18 years, who could read English from the following stakeholder groups: history of depression, the public and clinicians. Patients with a Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score of ≥5 were recruited for piloting. Results Three stages of cognitive interviews were conducted (n=28). Changes to eDA included moving the combination therapy information and access to treatment information, adding colour, modifying pictograms and editing the talk-therapy description. Clinician concerns about patient health literacy were not reflected in patient interviews. Of 59 patients who reviewed study information, 56 were eligible and agreed to participate in pilot testing; however, only 29 could be reached for follow-up. The eDA was widely accepted, though clinicians did not always use it as intended. We found no impact of eDA use on SDM, though patients chose a wider range of treatment options. Conclusions We demonstrated the feasibility of the use of an eDA for depression in primary care that was widely accepted. Further research is needed to improve the fidelity with which the eDA is used and to assess its impact on SDM and related health outcomes.

Shared Decision-making in the Medical Encounter: What Does It Mean? (Or, It Takes at Least Two to Tango)

Abstract: Shared decision-making is increasingly advocated as an ideal model of treatment decision-making in the medical encounter. To date, the concept has been rather poorly and loosely defined. This paper attempts to provide greater conceptual clarity about shared treatment decision-making, identify some key characteristics of this model, and discuss measurement issues. The particular decision-making context that we focus on is potentially life threatening illnesses, where there are important decisions to be made at key points in the disease process, and several treatment options exist with different possible outcomes and substantial uncertainty. We suggest as key characteristics of shared decision-making (1) that at least two participants-physician and patient be involved; (2) that both parties share information; (3) that both parties take steps to build a consensus about the preferred treatment; and (4) that an agreement is reached on the treatment to implement. Some challenges to measuring shared decision-making are discussed as well as potential benefits of a shared decision-making model for both physicians and patients.

Screening for Depression in Adults: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement

Abstract: Description Update of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendation on screening for depression in adults. Methods The USPSTF reviewed the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for depression in adult populations, including older adults and pregnant and postpartum women; the accuracy of depression screening instruments; and the benefits and harms of depression treatment in these populations. Population This recommendation applies to adults 18 years and older. Recommendation The USPSTF recommends screening for depression in the general adult population, including pregnant and postpartum women. Screening should be implemented with adequate systems in place to ensure accurate diagnosis, effective treatment, and appropriate follow-up. (B recommendation)

Interventional Therapies for Acute Pulmonary Embolism: Current Status and Principles for the Development of Novel Evidence: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Abstract: Pulmonary embolism (PE) represents the third leading cause of cardiovascular mortality. The technological landscape for management of acute intermediate- and high-risk PE is rapidly evolving. Two interventional devices using pharmacomechanical means to recanalize the pulmonary arteries have recently been cleared by the US Food and Drug Administration for marketing, and several others are in various stages of development. The purpose of this document is to clarify the current state of endovascular interventional therapy for acute PE and to provide considerations for evidence development for new devices that will define which patients with PE would derive the greatest net benefit from their use in various clinical settings. First, definitions and limitations of commonly used risk stratification tools for PE are reviewed. An adjudication of risks and benefits of available interventional therapies for PE follows. Next, considerations for optimal future evidence development in this field are presented in the context of the current US regulatory framework. Finally, the document concludes with a discussion of the pros and cons of the rapidly expanding PE response team model of care delivery.

Physicians' Shared Decision-Making Behaviors in Depression Care. Commentary

Abstract: Background: Although shared decision making (SDM) has been reported to facilitate quality care, few studies have explored the extent to which SDM is implemented in primary care and factors that influence its application. This study assesses the extent to which physicians enact SDM behaviors and describes factors associated with physicians' SDM behaviors within the context of depression care. Methods: In a secondary analysis of data from a randomized experiment, we coded 287 audiorecorded interactions between physicians and standardized patients (SPs) using the Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION) system to assess physician SDM behaviors. We performed a series of generalized linear mixed model analyses to examine physician and patient characteristics associated with SDM behavior. Results: The mean (SD) OPTION score was 11.4 (3.3) of 48 possible points. Older physicians (partial correlation coefficient=-0.29; β=-0.09; P<.01) and physicians who practiced in a health maintenance organization setting (β=-1.60; P<.01) performed fewer SDM behaviors. Longer visit duration was associated with more SDM behaviors (partial correlation coefficient=0.31; β=0.08; P<.01). In addition, physicians enacted more SDM behaviors with SPs who made general (β=2.46; P <.01) and brand-specific (β=2.21; P<.01) medication requests compared with those who made no request. Conclusions: In the context of new visits for depressive symptoms, primary care physicians performed few SDM behaviors. However, physician SDM behaviors are influenced by practice setting and patient-initiated requests for medication. Additional research is needed to identify interventions that encourage SDM when indicated.

Pulmonary embolism response teams: Purpose, evidence for efficacy, and future research directions

Abstract: Pulmonary embolism (PE) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States. Although new therapeutic tools and strategies have recently been developed for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with PE, the outcomes for patients who present with massive or high-risk PE remain dismal. To address this crisis, pulmonary embolism response teams (PERTs) are being created around the world in an effort to immediately and simultaneously engage multiple specialists to determine the best course of action and coordinate the clinical care for patients with acute PE. The scope of this review is to describe the PERT model and purpose, present the structure and organization, examine the available evidence for efficacy and usefulness, and propose future directions for research that is needed to demonstrate the value of PERT and determine if this multidisciplinary approach represents a new standard of care.