IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v46y2026i4p448-460.html

Patient Decision Aids into Routine Orthopedic Care: Results from an Implementation Study at 12 Sites

Author

Listed:
  • Karen Sepucha

    (Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
    Health Decision Sciences Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Ha Vo

    (Health Decision Sciences Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Felisha Marques

    (Health Decision Sciences Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Kathrene D. Valentine

    (Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA
    Health Decision Sciences Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Ayesha Abdeen

    (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Hany Bedair

    (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Antonia F. Chen

    (Department of Orthopaedics, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Jesse Eisler

    (Bone and Joint Institute, Hartford Healthcare, Hartford, CT, USA)

  • David Freccero

    (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Prakash Jayakumar

    (The Musculoskeletal Institute, The University of Texas at Austin, Dell Medical School, Austin, TX, USA)

  • Emily Kropfl

    (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA)

  • Kathleen Paul

    (Kaiser Permanente Washington)

  • Benjamin Ricciardi

    (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Rochester School of Medicine, Rochester, NY, USA)

  • Daniel Vigil

    (David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Department of Family Medicine, Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Divisions of Primary Care Sports Medicine (Chief), Los Angeles, CA, USA)

  • Richard Wexler

    (Consultant, Portland ME)

  • Theresa Williamson

    (Department of Neurosurgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA)

  • Adolph Yates

    (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA)

  • Thomas Cha

    (Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA)

Abstract

Background Decision aids (DAs) are evidence-based tools to improve patient-centered care, but their use in routine care is limited. The purpose of this project was to work with orthopedic practices to deliver DAs. Methods Eligible sites needed to identify an administrative and clinical champion and have access to DAs for treatment of hip, knee, and/or spine conditions. The implementation strategies included an Orthopaedic Learning Collaborative (OLC), external facilitation, and audit and feedback. The project was conducted over 15 mo with 5 OLC sessions, individual monthly meetings, and monthly data reports. Clinicians and staff completed a baseline survey prior to the start of the project. Sites provided details on their DA workflow and number of DAs delivered. We calculated adoption (the number of specialists who used DAs) and estimated reach (percentage of eligible patients who received DAs). We calculated descriptive statistics and explored predictors of reach. Results Twelve participating sites had an average annual orthopedic surgical volume of 550, half were academic medical centers, and some (4/13, 30.7%) had prior experience with orthopedic DAs. Adoption was 76% (60/79 physicians). Sites distributed 9,626 DAs and reached 44% of eligible patients (range 7%–100%). Sites that indicated at baseline that DA delivery was a high priority for staff had higher reach (60% reach for high v. 47% for moderate v. 9% for low priority, P = 0.21). Sites with no prior experience with DAs had higher reach than those with prior experience did (60% v. 38%, P = 0.26, d = 0.71). Conclusions Participating sites were able to implement workflows that reached about half of eligible patients. Establishing DA delivery as a priority for staff at the outset appears important for reach, while prior experience does not. Highlights The 12 sites were able to reach, on average, 44% of eligible patients with decision aids in routine care demonstrating feasibility of distribution. The study and associated implementation toolkit provide concrete examples of workflows for orthopedic practices interested in incorporating decision aids into routine care. A bundle of implementation strategies, including a learning collaborative, external facilitation, and audit and feedback, helped most sites meet targets for decision aid implementation.

Suggested Citation

  • Karen Sepucha & Ha Vo & Felisha Marques & Kathrene D. Valentine & Ayesha Abdeen & Hany Bedair & Antonia F. Chen & Jesse Eisler & David Freccero & Prakash Jayakumar & Emily Kropfl & Kathleen Paul & Ben, 2026. "Patient Decision Aids into Routine Orthopedic Care: Results from an Implementation Study at 12 Sites," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 46(4), pages 448-460, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:46:y:2026:i:4:p:448-460
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X251405892
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X251405892
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X251405892?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:46:y:2026:i:4:p:448-460. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.