Error message

The page you requested does not exist. For your convenience, a search was performed using the query about us interactive decision month 2017 02.

Page not found

You are here

Funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality

Funding Years: 2015-2019

The theme of the University of Michigan Patient Safety Learning Laboratory ("M-Safety Lab") is to improve the delivery of inpatient care by cross-linking investigators from diverse disciplines - including engineering, medicine, nursing, architecture and design and computer science - who share a common interest in patient safety. Our overarching goal is to implement novel methods to enhance cognition and communication among care providers in order to reduce hospital-acquired complications. The M-Safety Lab will include a robust infrastructure that will support two projects, each of which has the potential to transform the delivery of inpatient care. Both projects - Project 1 will develop a new monitoring system for hospitalized patients and Project 2 will address the common, but understudied area of diagnostic and therapeutic error - will be based on two major interrelated themes: Preventing hospital-acquired complications and improving medical decision-making through enhanced cognition and communication. We have assembled an extremely broad and productive group of investigators from a large number of synergistic disciplines. The Laboratory-Wide Aim is to establish a cohesive M-Safety Lab comprised of multidisciplinary, collaborating teams of investigators supported by a robust infrastructure including an Innovation, Development, Evaluation and Administration (IDEA) Core that will help oversee the development and successful completion of both projects from problem analysis to evaluation, and will provide methodological, technical, and administrative support for the M-Safety Lab.

PI(s): Sanjay Saint

Co-I(s): Amy Ellen Cohn, Frank Jacob Seagull, Jan Stegemann, Jennifer Meddings, Laurence McMahon, Mary Rogers, Michael Greene, Milisa Manojlovich, Rachael Schmedlen, Richard Lewis, Robert Adams, Sarah Krein, Satinder Baveja, Scott Flanders, Timothy Hofer, Vineet Chopra

2011 CBSSM Research Colloquium

Fri, May 20, 2011 (All day)

The second annual Bioethics Research Colloquium was held Friday, May 20, 2011, at the Alumni Center.  The Colloquium was jointly sponsored by the Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine and the Center for Ethics in Public Life. 

The majority of the colloquium was devoted to presentations of research in or about bioethics conducted by University of Michigan faculty, fellows and students.  Presentations focused on theoretical, empirical, and critical approaches to understanding and resolving ethical issues in health care and the life sciences.

Presenters:

  • Apurba Chakrabarti, Department of Cellular, Molecular, and Developmental Biology: A bureaucratic framework of IRBs: Understanding how cultural forces influence the contemporary IRB bureaucracy.
  • Nathaniel Adam Tobias Coleman, Department of Philosophy: Online sexual racism and the prevalence of HIV among black MSM. 
  • Susan Dorr Goold, MD, MHSA, MA, Department of Internal Medicine: Market failures, moral failures, and health reform (keynote).
  • Henry Greenspan, PhD, Residential College, LSA: Temptation and trespass in the pharmaceutical industry: Incentivizing ethical self-regulation. 
  • Lisa H. Harris, MD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology: Obstetrician-gynecologists' objections to and willingness to help patients obtain abortion in various clinical scenarios: A national survey. 
  • Aisha T. Langford, MPH, Comprehensive Cancer Center: The misdiagnosis of the minority problem in cancer clinical trials: Is our focus on medical mistrust causing harm? 
  • Naomi Laventhal, MD, Department of Pediatrics and Communicable Diseases: Innovative therapies in the newborn intensive care unit: The ethics of off-label use of therapeutic hypothermia.
  • Erika Manu, MD, Department of Internal Medicine: Resident attitudes and experience with palliative care in patients with advanced dementia.
  • Karen M. Meagher, Department of Philosophy (MSU): Considering virtue: Public health and clinical ethics.
  • Andrew Shuman, MD, Department of Otolaryngology: The right not to hear: The ethics of parental refusal of hearing rehabilitation.
  • Lauren Smith, MD, Department of Pathology: Pathology review of outside material: When does it help and when can it hurt? 

2014 CBSSM Research Colloquium and Bishop Lecture (Myra Christopher)

Thu, May 15, 2014 (All day)
Location: 
Vandenberg Meeting Hall (2nd floor), The Michigan League, 911 N. University, Ann Arbor, MI

2014 CBSSM Colloquium and Bishop Lecture featuring Myra Christopher

The Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine (CBSSM) Research Colloquium was held Thursday, May 15, 2014 at the Vandenberg Meeting Hall (2nd floor), The Michigan League, 911 N. University Ave, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.
 

The CBSSM Research Colloquium featured the Bishop Lecture in Bioethics as the keynote address.  Myra Christopher presented the Bishop Lecture with a talk entitled: "The Moral Imperative to Transform the Way Pain is Perceived, Judged and Treated." Myra Christopher holds the Kathleen M. Foley Chair in Pain and Palliative Care at the Center for Practical Bioethics.

The 2014 Research Colloquium presenters:

  • Andrew G. Shuman, MD, Assistant Professor, Department of Otolaryngology, University of Michigan: "When Not to Operate: The Dilemma of Surgical Unresectability"
  • Phoebe Danziger, MD, University of Michigan Medical School: "Beliefs, Biases, and Ethical Dilemmas in the Perinatal Counseling and Treatment of Severe Kidney Anomalies"
  • Kathryn L. Moseley, MD, MPH, Assistant Professor, Pediatrics and Communicable Diseases, University of Michigan: "Electronic Medical Records: Challenges for Clinical Ethics Consultation"
  • Helen Morgan, MD,  Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan: "Academic Integrity in the Pre-Health Undergraduate Experience"
  • Tanner Caverly, MD, MPH, Health Services Research Fellow, Ann Arbor VA Medical Center and Clinical Lecturer, University of Michigan: "How Transparent are Cancer Screening & Prevention Guidelines about the Benefits and Harms of What They Recommend?"
  • Susan D. Goold, MD, MHSA, MA , Professor of Internal Medicine and Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan: "Controlling Health Costs: Physician Responses to Patient Expectations for Medical Care"
 

 

CBSSM recently hosted the 2014 Research Colloquium held Thursday, May 15, 2014 at the Vandenberg Meeting Hall (2nd floor), The Michigan League, 911 N. University Ave, Ann Arbor, MI 48109.

The CBSSM Research Colloquium featured the Bishop Lecture in Bioethics as the keynote address.  Myra Christopher presented the Bishop Lecture with a talk entitled: "The Moral Imperative to Transform the Way Pain is Perceived, Judged and Treated." Myra Christopher holds the Kathleen M. Foley Chair in Pain and Palliative Care at the Center for Practical Bioethics. The Bishop Lecture is made possible by a generous gift from the estate of Ronald C. and Nancy V. Bishop.

The 2014 Research Colloquium presenters included:

  • Andrew G. Shuman, MD, Assistant Professor, Department of Otolaryngology, University of Michigan: "When Not to Operate: The Dilemma of Surgical Unresectability"
  • Phoebe Danziger, MD, University of Michigan Medical School: "Beliefs, Biases, and Ethical Dilemmas in the Perinatal Counseling and Treatment of Severe Kidney Anomalies"
  • Kathryn L. Moseley, MD, MPH, Assistant Professor, Pediatrics and Communicable Diseases, University of Michigan: "Electronic Medical Records: Challenges for Clinical Ethics Consultation"
  • Helen Morgan, MD,  Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Michigan: "Academic Integrity in the Pre-Health Undergraduate Experience"
  • Tanner Caverly, MD, MPH, Health Services Research Fellow, Ann Arbor VA Medical Center and Clinical Lecturer, University of Michigan: "How Transparent are Cancer Screening & Prevention Guidelines about the Benefits and Harms of What They Recommend?"
  • Susan D. Goold, MD, MHSA, MA , Professor of Internal Medicine and Health Management and Policy, School of Public Health, University of Michigan: "Controlling Health Costs: Physician Responses to Patient Expectations for Medical Care"

The Importance of First Impressions (Jun-05)

How do your risk estimate and your actual level of risk impact your anxiety? Please answer the following question to the best of your ability:

What is the chance that the average woman will develop breast cancer in her lifetime?

The average lifetime chance of developing breast cancer is actually 13%.

How does this risk of breast cancer (13% or 13 out of 100 women) strike you?
 
As an extremely low risk 1       2       3       4       5        6        7        8       9       10 As an extremely high risk
 

How do your answers compare?

Making a risk estimate can change the feel of the actual risk

CBDSM investigators Angela Fagerlin, Brian Zikmund-Fisher, and Peter Ubel designed a study to test whether people react differently to risk information after they have been asked to estimate the risks. In this study, half the sample first estimated the average woman's risk of breast cancer (just as you did previously), while the other half made no such estimate. All subjects were then shown the actual risk information and indicated how the risk made them feel and gave their impression of the size of the risk. The graph below shows what they found:

 

As shown in the graph above, subjects who first made an estimated risk reported significantly more relief than those in the no estimate group. In contrast, subjects in the no estimate group showed significantly greater anxiety. Also, women in the estimate group tended to view the risk as low, whereas those in the no estimate group tended to view the risk as high.

So what's responsible for these findings? On average, those in the estimate group guessed that 46% of women will develop breast cancer at some point in their lives, which is a fairly large overestimate of the actual risk. It appears, then, that this overestimate makes the 13% figure feel relatively low, leading to a sense of relief when subjects find the risk isn't as bad as they had previously thought.

Why this finding is important

Clinical practice implications - The current research suggests that clinicians need to be very deliberate but very cautious in how they communicate risk information to their patients. These results argue that a physician should consider whether a person is likely to over-estimate their risk and whether they have an unreasonably high fear of cancer before having them make a risk estimation. For the average patient who would overestimate their risk, making a risk estimation may be harmful, leading them to be too relieved by the actual risk figure to take appropriate actions. On the other hand, if a patient has an unreasonably high fear of cancer, having them make such an estimate may actually be instrumental in decreasing their anxiety. Physicians may want to subtly inquire whether their patient is worried about her cancer risk or if she has any family history of cancer to address the latter type of patient.

Research implications - Many studies in cancer risk communication literature have asked participants at baseline about their perceived risk of developing specific cancers. Researchers then implement an intervention to "correct" baseline risk estimates. The current results suggest that measuring risk perceptions pre-intervention will influence people's subsequent reactions, making it difficult to discern whether it was the intervention that changed their attitudes or the pre-intervention risk estimate. Researchers testing out such interventions need to proceed with caution, and may need to add research arms of people who do not receive such pre-tests.

For more details: Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. How making a risk estimate can change the feel of that risk: shifting attitudes toward breast cancer risk in a general public survey. Patient Educ Couns. 2005 Jun;57(3):294-9.

 

 

Does order matter when distributing resources? (Jun-03)

Should people with more severe health problems receive state funding for treatment before people with less severe health problems? See how your opinion compares with the opinions of others.

Imagine that you are a government official responsible for deciding how state money is spent on different medical treatments. Your budget is limited so you cannot afford to offer treatment to everyone who might benefit. Right now, you must choose to spend money on one of two treatments.

  • Treatment A treats a life threatening illness. It saves patients' lives and returns them to perfect health after treatment
  • Treatment B treats a different life threatening illness. It saves patients' lives but is not entirely effective and leaves them with paraplegia after treatment. These patients are entirely normal before their illness but after treatment will have paraplegia.

Suppose the state has enough money to offer Treatment A to 100 patients. How many patients would have to offered Treatment B so that you would have difficulty choosing which treatment to offer?

How do your answers compare?

The average person said that it would become difficult to decide which treatment to offer when 1000 people were offered Treatment B.

What if you had made another comparison before the one you just made?

In the study, some people were asked to make a comparison between saving the lives of otherwise-healthy people and saving the lives of people who already had paraplegia. After they made that comparison, they made the comparison you just completed. The average person in that group said it would take 126 people offered Treatment B to make the decision difficult. The differences are shown in the graph below

Why is this important?

The comparison you made is an example of a person tradeoff (PTO). The PTO is one method used to find out the utilities of different health conditions. These utilities are basically measures of the severities of the conditions. More severe conditions have a lower utility, and less severe conditions have a higher utility, on a scale of 0 to 1. Insurance companies, the government, and other organizations use these utilities as a way to decide which group to funnel money into for treatments.

On the surface, it seems like basing the money division on the severity of a condition is a good and fair method, since theoretically the people who are in the greatest need will be treated first. However, the PTO raises issues of fairness and equity that aren't accounted for in other utility elicitation methods like the time tradeoff (TTO) and rating scale (RS).

For example, when asked to decide how many people with paraplegia would have to be saved to equal saving 100 healthy people, many people say 100; that is, they think it is equally important to save the life of someone with paraplegia and a healthy person. Going by values obtained using the TTO or RS, an insurance company may conclude that 160 people with paraplegia (using a utility of .6) would have to be saved to make it equal to saving 100 healthy people. This would mean that less benefit would be gotten by saving someone with paraplegia, and thus they might not cover expenses for lifesaving treatments for people with paraplegia as much as they would for a healthy person. The PTO shows that many people would not agree with doing this, even though their own responses to other utility questions generated the policy in the first place.

For more information see:

Ubel PA, Richardson J, Baron J. Exploring the role of order effects in person trade-off elicitations. Health Policy, 61(2):189-199, 2002.

CBSSM investigators Holly Witteman, Andrea Fuhrel-Forbis, Angela Fagerlin, and Brian Zikmund-Fisher, along with CBSSM alumni Peter Ubel and Andrea Angott will give a plenary talk at the Society for Medical Decision Making's 32nd Annual Meeting in Toronto on Monday, October 25.  The talk is titled, "Colostomy is Better than Death, but a 4% Chance of Death Might Be Better Than a 4% Chance of Colostomy: Why People Make Choices Seemingly At Odds With Their Stated Preferences." 

Abstract:

Purpose: When asked for their preference between death and colostomy, most people say that they prefer colostomy. However, when given the choice of two hypothetical treatments that differ only in that one has four percent chance of colostomy while the other has four percent additional chance of death, approximately 25% of people who say that they prefer colostomy actually opt for the additional chance of death. This study examined whether probability-sensitive preference weighting may help to explain why people make these types of treatment choices that are inconsistent with their stated preferences.

Method: 1656 participants in a demographically diverse online survey were randomly assigned to indicate their preference by answering either, “If you had to choose, would you rather die, or would you rather have a colostomy?†or, “If you had to choose, would you rather have a 4% chance of dying, or would you rather have a 4% chance of having a colostomy?†They were then asked to imagine that they had been diagnosed with colon cancer and were faced with a choice between two treatments, one with an uncomplicated cure rate of 80% and a 20% death rate, and another with an uncomplicated cure rate of 80%, a 16% death rate, and a 4% rate of colostomy.

Result: Consistent with our prior research, most people whose preferences were elicited with the first question stated that they preferred colostomy (80% of participants) to death (20%), but many then made a choice inconsistent with that preference (59% chose the treatment with higher chance of colostomy; 41% chose the treatment with higher chance of death). Compared to the first group, participants whose preferences were elicited with the 4% question preferred death (31%) over colostomy (69%) more often (Chi-squared = 24.31, p<.001) and their treatment choices were more concordant with their stated preferences (64% chose the treatment with higher chance of colostomy; 36% chose the treatment with higher chance of death, Chi-squared for concordance = 36.92, p<.001).

Conclusion: Our experiment suggests that probability-sensitive preference weighting may help explain why people’s medical treatment choices are sometimes at odds with their stated preferences. These findings also suggest that preference elicitation methods may not necessarily assume independence of probability levels and preference weights.


Funded by Health and Human Services, Department of-National Institutes of Health

Funding Years: 2013 - 2015.

With the aging of society and restructuring of families, it is increasingly important to understand how individuals become disabled. New disability is associated with increased mortality, substantial increases in medical costs (often borne by public payers), and a heavy burden on families and caregivers. While the disablement process?as theorized by Verburgge & Jette and their successors?has traditionally been seen as chronic and gradual, there is increasing recognition that acute events play a critical role in disability. Medical illnesses are not the only potentially disabling events. NIA & NINR recently posted PA-11-265, calling for ?Social and Behavioral Research on the Elderly in Disasters? in recognition that natural disasters are common, but we know little about their impact on health and disability. The National Research Council?s Committee on Population published a report in 2009 documenting not only our ignorance in this area, but, importantly, the potential value of studying disasters to understand fundamental processes in disability and health.
Our long-term research agenda is (a) to test the hypothesis that natural disasters cause enduring morbidity for survivors that is not fully addressed by existing health and welfare programs, and (b) to discover remediable mechanisms that generate that enduring morbidity. Here we propose a nationwide test of the association of living in a disaster area with individuals? long-term disability and health care use. To perform this test, we will combine the unique longitudinal resources of over 16,000 respondents in the linked Health and Retirement Study (HRS) / Medicare files with a newly constructed mapping of all FEMA disaster declarations between 1998 and 2012. We will address key gaps in the existing literature of detailed single-disaster studies with a generalizable perspective across time and space via these Specific Aims:
AIM 1: Quantify the association between the extent of a disaster ? measured as the repair cost to public infrastructure and increases in level of disability among survivors. We will follow respondents for an average of 5 years after the disaster. AIM 2: Quantify the association between the extent of a disaster and increases in the likelihood of hospitalization among survivors. AIM 3: Test the hypothesis that increases in level of disability and likelihood of hospitalization after disasters are worse for those living in counties with higher levels of poverty.
This proposal is specifically responsive to PA-11-265. This proposal is innovative because long-term effects of disasters, particularly for vulnerable older Americans, have been systematically neglected in previous research. It is significant because it will address the public health consequences of a relatively common but understudied exposure. Further, a key contribution of this R21 will be to evaluate the feasibility of the National Research Council conjecture that natural disasters can be studied as exogenous shocks to the environment, and that we can thereby test and elaborate usually endogenous mechanisms in the development of disability.

PI(s): Theodore Iwashyna

Co-I(s): Kenneth Langa, Yun Li, Anne Sales

Leaving the Emergency Room in a Fog (Sep-09)

Consider this scenario:

Alfred made a visit to his local Emergency Room. What was his diagnosis? What did the medical team do for his problem? What was he supposed to do to continue care at home? And what symptoms was he supposed to watch for to alert him to return to the ER?

Alfred woke up at 4 am on Sunday morning with pain in his left foot. That place where his new running shoes had rubbed a raw spot earlier in the week was getting worse. By 9 am, the foot was red and swollen, with a large oozing sore, and Alfred decided to go to the Emergency Room at his local hospital.

Late on Sunday afternoon, Alfred returned home from the ER. He crutched his way into the house and collapsed on the sofa. His teenage son quizzed him.

"What did they say was wrong?"
"Oh, an infection," replied Alfred.
"Well, what did they do for it?"
"I think they cut a chunk out of my foot," said Alfred.
"Whoa! Did they give you any medicine?"
"Yeah, a shot," said Alfred.
"And what’s with the crutches?"
"I’m supposed to use them for a while," said Alfred, looking annoyed.
"How long a while?"
"It’s written down," said Alfred, digging a crumpled sheet of paper out of his pocket.
"Says here you should take some prescription and elevate your left leg for two days."
"Two days? I have to go to work tomorrow," groaned Alfred.
"And you’re supposed to go back to the ER if you have a fever or pain in your leg. Where’s the prescription?"
"Here, look through my wallet. Maybe I stuck it in there," said Alfred.
The good news is that Alfred recovered completely, with some assistance and cajoling from his son. But how common is it for people who go to the Emergency Room to be foggy about what happened and what they should do once they leave the ER?
What do you think is the percentage of ER patients who do not understand at least one of the following: their diagnosis, the emergency care they received, their discharge care, or their return instructions?
 
  • 38%
  • 48%
  • 78%
  • 88%

How do your answers compare?

A recent study in the Annals of Emergency Medicine found that 78% of emergency room patients showed deficient comprehension in at least one of these areas:
 
  • Diagnosis
  • Emergency care that was given
  • Post-ER care needs
  • Symptoms that would require a return to the ER
51% of patients showed deficient comprehension in two or more areas. Only 22% of reports from patients were in complete harmony with what their care teams reported in all four areas. The biggest area of misunderstanding was in patients' post-ER care needs, such as medications, self-care steps, follow-up from their regular doctors, or follow-up with specialists.
 
Even more alarming is that, according to the study, "most patients appear to be unaware of their lack of understanding and report inappropriate confidence in their comprehension and recall." The patients were quite sure of what they knew 80% of the time—even when what they knew was not right.
 
These results suggest that Emergency Room teams need to do a better job of making sure that patients go home with clear information and instructions—and that patients and their loved ones shouldn't leave until they fully comprehend their situation.
 
Lead author Kirsten G. Engel, MD, conducted this study, "Patient Comprehension of Emergency Department Care and Instructions," with Michele Heisler, MD, Dylan M. Smith, PhD , Claire H. Robinson, MPH, Jane H.Forman, ScD, MHS, and Peter A. Ubel, MD, most of whom are affiliated with CBDSM.
 
The researchers carried out detailed interviews with 140 English-speaking patients who visited one of two Emergency Departments in southeast Michigan and were released to go home. These interviews were compared with the patients' medical records, and the comparisons revealed serious mismatches between what the medical teams found or advised and what the patients comprehended.
 
"It is critical that emergency patients understand their diagnosis, their care, and, perhaps most important, their discharge instructions," says Kirsten Engel, a former UM Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholar who is now at Northwestern University. "It is disturbing that so many patients do not understand their post-Emergency-Department care, and that they do not even recognize where the gaps in understanding are. Patients who fail to follow discharge instructions may have a greater likelihood of complications after leaving the Emergency Department."
 
Peter A. Ubel, the study's senior author, agrees: "Doctors need to not only ask patients if they have questions, but ask them to explain, in their own words, what they think is wrong with their health and what they can do about it. And patients need to ask their doctors more questions, and even need to explain to their doctors what they think is going on."
 
Read the article:

 

Pages