Back

Quality Improvement Based Implementation and Evaluation of a Decision Aid for Patients with Nephrolithiasis

Lee, A.; Kazemi, S.; Wilson, P.; Thaker, K.; Kwan, L.; Cabri, J.; Li, K.; Dunn, M.; Yaghoubian, A.; Elkhoury, F.; Scotland, K.; Saigal, C.

2026-06-15 health systems and quality improvement
10.64898/2026.06.12.26355535 medRxiv
Show abstract

Introduction Patients with nephrolithiasis face challenges in making a high-quality, preference sensitive decision. Our prior work established feasibility and patient acceptance of a software-based decision aid (DA). The objectives for this study were to identify implementation strategies for the DA in routine care and determine whether DA implementation enhances decisional quality for patients. Methods New nephrolithiasis patients were recruited from the institution Medical Center from June 2018 to April 2024 to receive a software-based pre-visit DA that measured care preferences and used decision analysis to rank treatments. The RE-AIM framework and Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles were used to improve implementation outcomes. Patients completed survey instruments evaluating decisional conflict, shared decision-making, care satisfaction, and treatment choice following their provider visit. These metrics were compared in the DA cohort (n=81) to those in a usual care cohort (n=78) with Wilcoxon rank-sum and Chi-square (or Fishers exact) tests. Results Implementation data revealed sustained reach and progressive improvement in fidelity. The DA cohort reported higher decisional quality relative to controls (p=0.003) and reported greater support/advice to make a choice (p=0.005). The DA cohort more often discussed options with their doctor (87.5% vs 69.2%, p=0.005) and were more likely to be promoters of their provider (p<0.001) and health system (p=0.029). The DA cohort was less likely to have switched their treatment preference post-consultation (32.1% vs 71.8%, p<0.001) suggesting greater consistency in decision-making. Conclusions Software-based DAs in nephrolithiasis can mitigate decisional conflict, improve SDM, and improve patient satisfaction. Further work should explore broader implementation and long-term clinical outcomes.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 10%
18.5%
2
BMJ Open Quality
17 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.9%
3
BMC Health Services Research
51 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
7.3%
4
PLOS Digital Health
106 papers in training set
Top 1%
5.1%
5
BMC Nephrology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.0%
6
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.0%
7
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
21 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.4%
50% of probability mass above
8
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.2%
9
PLOS Global Public Health
344 papers in training set
Top 4%
3.2%
10
Journal of Personalized Medicine
28 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.7%
11
Kidney360
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.4%
12
Medical Decision Making
12 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
13
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 48%
2.1%
14
Frontiers in Digital Health
24 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.9%
15
Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology
98 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
16
BMJ Open
601 papers in training set
Top 9%
1.7%
17
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
18
Medicine
31 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.3%
19
British Journal of General Practice
23 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
20
Journal of Clinical Pathology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
21
International Journal of Medical Informatics
26 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
22
Kidney International Reports
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.0%
23
Frontiers in Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.0%
24
BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.9%
25
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
10 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.9%
26
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
10 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
27
Pilot and Feasibility Studies
14 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
28
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
15 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.8%
29
Frontiers in Pediatrics
32 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
30
Trials
29 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%