Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Assuring quality of patient decision aids The IPDAS Story 2003-2013 Dawn Stacey RN, PhD Research Chair in Knowledge Translation to Patients Full Professor,

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Assuring quality of patient decision aids The IPDAS Story 2003-2013 Dawn Stacey RN, PhD Research Chair in Knowledge Translation to Patients Full Professor,"— Presentation transcript:

1 Assuring quality of patient decision aids The IPDAS Story Dawn Stacey RN, PhD Research Chair in Knowledge Translation to Patients Full Professor, School of Nursing Director of the Patient Decision Aids Research Group Scientist, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute

2 International Patient Decision Aid Standards IPDAS Steering Committee: Glyn Elwyn & Dawn Stacey ( Co-Leads), M Barry, N Col, A Coulter, K Eden, M Härter, M Holmes-Rovner, H Llewellyn-Thomas, V Montori, N Moumjid, M Pignone, R Thomson, L Trevena, R Volk, T van der Weijden To enhance the quality and effectiveness of patient decision aids by establishing a shared evidence- informed framework for improving their content, development, implementation, and evaluation.

3 IPDAS Phases Developing the Checklist (modified Delphi process) Developing the Instrument (psychometric evaluation) Agreeing Minimal Standards (modified Delphi process) Updating evidence underlying the IPDAS checklist (knowledge synthesis)

4 Objective : To e stablish internationally approved criteria to determine the quality of patient decision aids. These criteria are helpful to individuals and organizations that use and/or develop patient decision aids: –Patients –Practitioners –Developers –Researchers –Policy makers or payers To learn more, visit: ipdas.ohri.caipdas.ohri.ca Elwyn, et al., BMJ Aug 26; 333(7565):417. >100 participants from 14 countries International Patient Decision Aids Standards Collaboration (IPDAS)

5 12 Dimensions Essential Content –Information –Probabilities –Values clarification –Guidance –Patient Stories Effectiveness Criteria –Decision process –Decision quality Generic Criteria –Development process –Disclosure –Internet delivery –Balance –Plain language –Up to date evidence International Patient Decision Aids Standards Collaboration Quality Criteria Elwyn, et al., BMJ Aug 26; 333(7565):417.

6 The patient decision aid presents probabilities … No Yes 1.…using event rates… 2. …using the same denominator 3. …over the same period of time 4. …with uncertainty 5. …using visual diagrams (e.g. faces, bar charts) 6. …using the same scales 7. …with more than 1 way of viewing probabilities (e.g. words, numbers, diagrams). 8. …based on patient’s own situation (e.g. specific to their age or severity of their disease) 9. …using both positive and negative frames International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) presenting probabilities (Elwyn et al., (2006) in BMJ 333(7565):417; Trevena et al. (2006) in J Eval Clin Practice)

7 Prostate Cancer Knowing Your Options: A Decision Aid for Men With Clinically Localized Prostate Cancer Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Localised prostate cancer - low risk Option Grid Collaborative

8 IPDAS Phases Developing the Checklist Developing the Instrument Agreeing Minimal Standards Updating evidence underlying the IPDAS checklist

9 IPDASi uses a 4-point scale with items descriptors (strongly agree to strongly disagree) Elwyn, et al., PLoS One. 2009;4(3):e4705.

10 IPDAS Phases Developing the Checklist Developing the Instrument Agreeing Minimal Standards Updating evidence underlying the IPDAS checklist

11 Dimensions# of Criteria / Category QualifyingCertificationQuality Information 512 Probabilities 6 Values 11 Guidance 2 Development 6 Evidence 42 Disclosure 11 Plain Language 1 Evaluation 2 Test 45 Totals61028 IPDAS v4.0 Items across the 3 Categories Joseph-Williams, et al., MDM Aug 20. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

12 Summary of qualifying criteria 1.describes the health condition or problem 2.explicitly states the decision that needs to be considered 3.describes the options available 4.describes the positive features 5.describes the negative features 6.describes what it is like to experience the consequences Joseph-Williams, et al., MDM Aug 20. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

13 Summary of certifying criteria 1.equal detail for negative and positive features of options 2.citations to the evidence 3.production or publication date 4.update policy 5.information about uncertainty around probabilities 6.funding source used for development For screening decision aids 7.describes what the test is designed to measure 8.next steps after positive test result 9.next steps after negative test result 10.consequences of detecting a benign condition Joseph-Williams, et al., MDM Aug 20. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

14 IPDAS Phases Developing the Checklist Developing the Instrument Agreeing Minimal Standards Updating evidence underlying the IPDAS checklist

15 BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2013, 13(Suppl 2) Peer-reviewed Publications for IPDAS Collaboration’s Quality Dimensions

16 Proposed National Certification Process for patient decision aids 1.Setting criteria for certification – IPDAS 2.Assessing content 3.Certifying every decision aid or certifyign producer processes 4.Establishing new entity or new function for existing entity (e.g. in the US - National Quality Forum; National Committee for Quality Assurance) Alston et al., 2014 Shared Decision-Making Strategies for Best Care: Patient Decision Aids and Beyond. IOM Discussion Paper

17


Download ppt "Assuring quality of patient decision aids The IPDAS Story 2003-2013 Dawn Stacey RN, PhD Research Chair in Knowledge Translation to Patients Full Professor,"

Similar presentations


Ads by Google