Developing, Implementing, and Evaluating a Multimedia Patient Decision Aid Program to Reform the Informed Consent Process of a Peripherally Inserted Central Venous Catheter Procedure: Protocol for Quality Improvement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Informed consent has considerable clinical, ethical, and legal implications for patient safety and liability. Little information is available about the use of multimedia patient decision aids (PtDA) in the consent process for therapeutic invasive procedures such as the peripherally inserted central venous catheter (PICC). In addition, none of the available studies have designed their multimedia PtDAs based on the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) comprehensive guide for informed consent. OBJECTIVE: This paper describes a patient-centered, systematic, multidisciplinary approach to develop, implement, and alpha test a multimedia PtDA to reform the informed consent process of a PICC for patients in 10 acute and intensive care units. METHODS: The development, implementation, and evaluation processes of the PtDA followed the phases in the Multimedia Production Framework: preproduction, production, and postproduction. Within this framework, we applied the criteria for judging the quality of PtDAs, the AHRQ's Health Literacy Universal Precautions Toolkit, and the AHRQ's Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool Guide. The methodology was guided by the Interprofessional Shared Decision-Making Model and the AHRQ's Making Informed Consent an Informed Choice guide. In the preproduction phase, we (1) reviewed the current consent form; (2) observed 18 consent processes; (3) surveyed the vascular access team (N=6 nurses) about their perception of the current process; (4) surveyed 30 patients for knowledge recall and retention, overall satisfaction, and attitude toward using a multimedia PtDA; and (5) wrote and reviewed the script for the multimedia program. The production phase focused on filming the PtDA in English and Spanish languages. The postproduction phase included integrating the multimedia programs into the care processes, developing a modified workflow for the consent process, and alpha testing of the English and Spanish PtDAs by (1) a group of 5 patients for clarity and understandability of the information; (2) nurses using the AHRQ's Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool Audio and Video; and (3) by the multidisciplinary change team. RESULTS: Based on the alpha testing, patients indicated that the content was easy to follow and read; nurses provided positive feedback, and their comments were mainly related to the changes in the workflow in the consent process of the PICC after using the PtDA; and the multidisciplinary change team suggested edits related to changing a few scenes. The final multimedia program consisted of 7 min and 37 s demonstrating detailed information about the PICC. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic development of PtDAs for nonurgent invasive procedures may eliminate many limitations of the conventional consent process by ensuring comprehensive, standardized, and easy-to-comprehend information and providing sufficient time for the patients to reflect on the information. To be effective, PtDAs should follow a systematic, patient-centered, evidence-based, and rigorous approach in the development, implementation, and evaluation processes. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR1-10.2196/10709.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.233 | 0.213 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".