• Mark D Neuman, Glyn Elwyn, Veena Graff, Viktoria Schmitz, and Mary C Politi.
• Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, 308 Blockley Hall 423 Guardian Drive, Philadelphia, PA, 19106, USA. neumanm@pennmedicine.upenn.edu.
• BMC Anesthesiol. 2024 May 1; 24 (1): 165165.

BackgroundPatients often desire involvement in anesthesia decisions, yet clinicians rarely explain anesthesia options or elicit preferences. We developed My Anesthesia Choice-Hip Fracture, a conversation aid about anesthesia options for hip fracture surgery and tested its preliminary efficacy and acceptability.MethodsWe developed a 1-page, tabular format, plain-language conversation aid with feedback from anesthesiologists, decision scientists, and community advisors. We conducted an online survey of English-speaking adults aged 50 and older. Participants imagined choosing between spinal and general anesthesia for hip fracture surgery. Before and after viewing the aid, participants answered a series of questions regarding key outcomes, including decisional conflict, knowledge about anesthesia options, and acceptability of the aid.ResultsOf 364/409 valid respondents, mean age was 64 (SD 8.9) and 59% were female. The proportion indicating decisional conflict decreased after reviewing the aid (63-34%, P < 0.001). Median knowledge scores increased from 50% correct to 67% correct (P < 0.001). 83% agreed that the aid would help them discuss options and preferences. 76.4% would approve of doctors using it.ConclusionMy Anesthesia Choice-Hip Fracture decreased decisional conflict and increased knowledge about anesthesia choices for hip fracture surgery. Respondents assessed it as acceptable for use in clinical settings.Practice ImplicationsUse of clinical decision aids may increase shared decision-making; further testing is warranted.© 2024. The Author(s).

20 keywords...

hide…