Shared Decision Making in Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Existing Literature

Have a vital end-user been overlooked? Developing a shared decision intervention for patients with potential pancreatic cancer regarding the choice of surgery

Objective

To develop a patient decision aid facilitating shared decision making for patients with potential pancreatic cancer deciding about no treatment, surgical or medical treatment.

Methods

Based on a user-centred design by Wittemann et al., we developed a shared decision making intervention in three phases: 1) Understanding decision needs 2) Development of a patient decision aid (PtDA) based on a generic template 3) Assessment of the intervention from interviews with patients (n = 11), relatives (n = 11), nurses (n = 4) and surgeons (n = 2) analysed with thematic analysis, and measuring patients' perceptions of choice of options with the Decisional Conflict Scale.

Results

Results showed varying experiences with the use of the PtDA, with surgeons not finding PtDA useful as it was impractical and constraining with patients' conversations. There was no difference in patients' perceptions in choosing options for those being presented vs those patients not being presented for the PtDA.

Conclusion

The format and structure of the PtDA was not feasible for the surgeons as fundamental users in the present clinic.

Innovation

This study highlights the urgent need to consider clinical context before introducing a predefined tool and shows the importance of a multistakeholder approach. Research should focus on finding means to successful implement shared decision making.

Shared Decision Making in Hand Surgery

Shared decision-making (SDM) is a collaborative effort between a physician and a patient to make an informed clinical decision, as defined by each patient's preferences and values. Shared decision-making is particularly used in areas of clinical equipoise or preference-sensitive conditions, which are common in hand surgery. Although there is increased interest in SDM across health care, hand surgeons receive little formal training on SDM. In this review, we explore existing barriers to SDM in hand surgery and provide a framework for participating in SDM discussions.

Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma system wellness white paper: An evaluation of wellness from a systems perspective

ABSTRACT

Providers are charged with responsibility to maintain their own health and wellness; however, well-being is multifactorial and the construct lacks clarity. In the current state of health care, burnout is on the rise with increasing demands for clinical productivity and strained system resources. The health care industry has recognized wellness's patient safety and financial impact, recently applying research and resources to identify sustainable solutions. We reviewed the wellness literature with a focus on systems to provide a framework for consensus building for a quality acute care surgery system. Our review revealed several areas within system wellness for consideration: (1) provider wellness, (2) culture of safety, (3) learning health systems, and (4) organizational perspectives. We provide specific system recommendations for the acute care surgery practice to preserve our workforce by creating a system that works for its providers.

Treatment options for patients with pilonidal sinus disease: PITSTOP, a mixed-methods evaluation

Background

There is no consensus on optimal management of pilonidal disease. Surgical practice is varied, and existing literature is mainly single-centre cohort studies of varied disease severity, interventions and outcome assessments.

Objectives

A prospective cohort study to determine: • disease severity and intervention relationship • most valued outcomes and treatment preference by patients • recommendations for policy and future research.

Design

Observational cohort study with nested mixed-methods case study. Discrete choice experiment. Clinician survey. Three-stage Delphi survey for patients and clinicians. Inter-rater reliability of classification system.

Setting

Thirty-one National Health Service trusts.

Participants

Patients aged > 16 years referred for elective surgical treatment of pilonidal disease.

Interventions

Surgery.

Main outcome measures

Pain postoperative days 1 and 7, time to healing and return to normal activities, complications, recurrence. Outcomes compared between major and minor procedures using regression modelling, propensity score-based approaches and augmented inverse probability weighting to account for measured potential confounding features.

Results

Clinician survey: There was significant heterogeneity in surgeon practice preference. Limited training opportunities may impede efforts to improve practice. Cohort study: Over half of patients (60%; N = 667) had a major procedure. For these procedures, pain was greater on day 1 and day 7 (mean difference day 1 pain 1.58 points, 95% confidence interval 1.14 to 2.01 points, n = 536; mean difference day 7 pain 1.53 points, 95% confidence interval 1.12 to 1.95 points, n = 512). There were higher complication rates (adjusted risk difference 17.5%, 95% confidence interval 9.1 to 25.9%, n = 579), lower recurrence (adjusted risk difference -10.1%, 95% confidence interval -18.1 to -2.1%, n = 575), and longer time to healing (>34 days estimated difference) and time to return to normal activities (difference 25.9 days, 95% confidence interval 18.4 to 33.4 days). Mixed-methods analysis: Patient decision-making was influenced by prior experience of disease and anticipated recovery time. The burden involved in wound care and the gap between expected and actual time for recovery were the principal reasons given for decision regret. Discrete choice experiment: The strongest predictors of patient treatment choice were risk of infection/persistence (attribute importance 70%), and shorter recovery time (attribute importance 30%). Patients were willing to trade off these attributes. Those aged over 30 years had a higher risk tolerance (22.35-34.67%) for treatment failure if they could experience rapid recovery. There was no strong evidence that younger patients were willing to accept higher risk of treatment failure in exchange for a faster recovery. Patients were uniform in rejecting excision-and-leave-open because of the protracted nursing care it entailed. Wysocki classification analysis: There was acceptable inter-rater agreement (κ = 0.52, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.61). Consensus exercise: Five research and practice priorities were identified. The top research priority was that a comparative trial should broadly group interventions. The top practice priority was that any interventions should be less disruptive than the disease itself.

Limitations

Incomplete recruitment and follow-up data were an issue, particularly given the multiple interventions. Assumptions were made regarding risk adjustment.

Conclusions and future work

Results suggest the burden of pilonidal surgery is greater than reported previously. This can be mitigated with better selection of intervention according to disease type and patient desired goals. Results indicate a framework for future higher-quality trials that stratify disease and utilise broad groupings of common interventions with development of a patient-centred core outcome set.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN95551898.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 17/17/02) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 33. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Patients Engaged in Losing Weight Preoperatively Experience Improved Outcomes After Hiatal Hernia Repair

BACKGROUND

Adherence to preoperative weight loss recommendations may serve as a surrogate for the level of engagement in hiatal hernia (HH) patients. This study aims to evaluate the relationship between achieving preoperative weight loss goals and outcomes after HH repair.

METHODS

A retrospective review of 235 patients undergoing laparoscopic HH repair at a single institution was performed. Patients were grouped based on the percentage of weight loss goal achieved. Low achievement was defined as the bottom quartile of goal achievement (≤75%); high achievement was defined as the top quartile (≥140%). Baseline characteristics, clinical outcomes, and patient reported outcomes (PROMs) were compared between groups.

RESULTS

131/235 (55.7%) achieved their weight loss goal. No differences in baseline characteristics or clinical outcomes were observed between the low and high achievement groups. While both groups experienced improvements in PROMs postoperatively, patients in the high achievement group demonstrated significantly lower symptom burden at one-month postoperatively. Further, high-achievement patients were more likely to experience complete resolution of common HH symptoms at one-month postoperatively, including no difficulty swallowing food, no breathing difficulties or choking episodes, no choking when eating food, no choking when drinking liquid, and no regurgitation of food or liquid.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing laparoscopic HH repair, patients achieving their preoperative weight loss goals experienced less overall symptom burden and lower prevalence of common symptoms one-month postoperatively than those with low levels of goal achievement. These results demonstrate that patients can take an active role in improving their own surgical outcomes and health status.

Characterizing informational needs and information seeking behavior of patients with breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Appropriate information may facilitate adjustment to cancer diagnoses. Our study aims to characterize informational satisfaction in breast cancer patients and assess resources used by patients to gain information.

METHODS

Newly diagnosed Stage 0-III breast cancer patients seen at an academic medical center between May and September 2020 received questionnaires assessing information satisfaction. Patients indicated resources used to obtain information along with satisfaction with information received in various topics. A subset of questionnaire respondents completed semi-structured interviews.

RESULTS

Fifty-two (35 ​%) patients completed the questionnaire. Patients received information from physicians (96 ​%), the internet (81 ​%), nurses (79 ​%), and fellow breast cancer patients (54 ​%). Interview participants preferred receiving information from providers when making medical decisions but found patient forums and social media to be important adjuncts for receiving information.

CONCLUSION

Patients are satisfied with information received about diagnosis and treatment, but finances, sexual health, and fertility are less frequently discussed.

Patient's preferences: an unmet need by current urolithiasis guidelines: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Shared decision making (SDM) in surgical specialties was demonstrated to diminish decisional regret, decisional anxiety and decisional conflict. Urolithiasis guidelines do not explicit patient preference to choose treatment. The aim of this review article was to perform a systematic evaluation of published evidence regarding SDM in urinary stone treatment.

METHODS

A systematic review in accordance PRISMA checklist was conducted using the MEDLINE (PubMed) database. Inclusion criteria were studies that evaluated stone treatment preferences. Reviews, editorials, case reports and video abstracts were excluded. ROBUST checklist was used to assess quality of the studies.

RESULTS

188 articles were obtained. After applying the predefined selection criteria, seven articles were included for final analysis. Six out of seven studies were questionnaires that propose clinical scenarios and treatment alternatives. The last study was a patient preference trial. A general trend among included studies showed a patient preference towards the least invasive option (SWL over URS). The main reasons to choose one treatment over the other were stone-free rates, risk of complications and invasiveness.

DISCUSSION

This review provides an overview of the patients' preferences towards stone treatment in small- and medium-sized stones. There was a clear preference towards the least invasive management strategy. The main reason was less invasiveness. This is opposed to the global trends of performing more ureteroscopies and less SWL. Physicians played a pivotal role in counselling patients. SDM should be encouraged and improved. The main limitation of this study is the characteristics of the included studies.

Healthcare professionals' views on shared decision-making in plastic surgery in the Netherlands

BACKGROUND

In shared decision-making (SDM), patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) reach a joint clinical decision based on the best available evidence and the patient's preferences. SDM seems particularly valuable in plastic surgery, as often multiple treatment options are available. This cross-sectional online survey study aimed to assess HCPs' views and knowledge about SDM, identify facilitators and barriers of SDM, and determine specific requirements for SDM within plastic surgery.

METHODS

Participants were HCPs working in plastic surgery in the Netherlands. Participant characteristics, SDM knowledge, perceived facilitators and barriers, and requirements were assessed using a custom-made online survey. Two researchers thematically analyzed qualitative data.

RESULTS

We received 124 responses (with a response rate of 23%). Most respondents were attending plastic surgeons (79%), and 60% had more than 10 years of experience. Almost all respondents considered SDM important (91%), and most (78%) indicated that they applied SDM during consultations. However, only 15% of the HCPs showed a comprehensive understanding of the principle of SDM. Sufficient time, available sources of information (on treatment options and SDM), and decision support tools were identified as important requirements for SDM.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the positive attitudes toward SDM, there is a clear need for SDM training of HCPs, uniform sources of information and guidelines, and improved awareness and availability of decision support tools. National plastic surgery societies can play a crucial role in improving SDM-related knowledge, the availability of information and decision support tools, and the implementation of SDM in the field of plastic surgery.

The impact of a patient decision aid on treatment choices after anterior cruciate ligament injuries

PURPOSE

The present study aimed to investigate whether exposure to a patient decision aid (PDA) had an impact on the proportion of patients selecting non-surgical or surgical treatments after anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries and whether exposure to a PDA affected the proportion of patients switching from non-surgical to surgical treatment within the first year.

METHODS

In a consecutive case series, proportions of surgery and non-surgery were compared before and after patients' exposure to a PDA. Data were collected from the health records of patients with ACL injuries who presented to the Clinic of Sports Traumatology. To identify proportional differences between the two groups, t-tests and proportion tests were used.

RESULTS

In total, 1,053 patients with ACL injuries were included: 563 patients with no exposure to the PDA (January 2015 to January 2017) and 490 patients with exposure to the PDA (January 2017 to January 2019). Before implementing the PDA, 27% of the patients selected non-surgical treatment. After implementing the PDA, 30% choose non-surgical treatment (p > 0.05). Before implementing the PDA, 21% of patients who initially chose non-surgical treatment had surgery within the first year. After implementation of the PDA, this number fell to 16%, but the difference was not statistically significant (p > 0,05).

CONCLUSION

Exposure to the PDA did not significantly alter the proportion of ACL injury patients selecting non-surgical or surgical treatments or the proportion of patients switching to surgery within the first year.

High-stress surgery in severely frail patients: a case report of personalized and multidisciplinary shared decision-making

We report the case of a 65-year-old severely disabled man diagnosed with advanced renal neoplasm who was scheduled for major urologic surgery. Through a multidisciplinary approach, a shared decision-making process and mutual listening of all the health professionals involved, it was decided not to have major surgery due to the high risk of worsening the patient's health and quality of life.

Protocol paper for SMART OPS: Shared decision-making Multidisciplinary Approach - a Randomised controlled Trial in the Older adult Population considering Surgery

INTRODUCTION

The Australian population presenting with surgical pathology is becoming older, frailer and more comorbid. Shared decision-making is rapidly becoming the gold standard of care for patients considering high-risk surgery to ensure that appropriate, value-based healthcare decisions are made. Positive benefits around patient perception of decision-making in the immediacy of the decision are described in the literature. However, short-term and long-term holistic patient-centred outcomes and cost implications for the health service require further examination to better understand the full impact of shared decision-making in this population.

METHODS

We propose a novel multidisciplinary shared decision-making model of care in the perioperative period for patients considering high-risk surgery in the fields of general, vascular and head and neck surgery. We assess it in a two arm prospective randomised controlled trial. Patients are randomised to either 'standard' perioperative care, or to a multidisciplinary (surgeon, anaesthetist and end-of-life care nurse practitioner or social worker) shared decision-making consultation. The primary outcome is decisional conflict prior to any surgical procedure occurring. Secondary outcomes include the patient's treatment choice, how decisional conflict changes longitudinally over the subsequent year, patient-centred outcomes including life impact and quality of life metrics, as well as morbidity and mortality. Additionally, we will report on healthcare resource use including subsequent admissions or representations to a healthcare facility up to 1 year.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Hunter New England Human Research Ethics Committee (2019/ETH13349). Study findings will be presented at local and national conferences and within scientific research journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12619001543178.

Nurse-led coaching of shared decision-making for wound treatment of pressure injury: A pilot study of a randomized trial

Objectives

International guidelines for managing pressure injury (PI) and ulcers recommend that family members and caregivers should be involved in making decisions for appropriate wound care. However, the effect of shared decision-making (SDM) in the context of PI remains unknown. This study investigated the efficacy of nurse-led medical SDM for PI treatment.

Materials and Methods

We constructed a patient decision aid (PDA) for PI treatment on the basis of nursing evidence. Subsequently, we conducted a pilot randomized controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy of SDM compared with that of usual care (control group, [CG]) for PI treatment. Participants with stage 3, stage 4, or unstageable PI were included and randomized into two groups. In the SDM group (SDMG), 10 participants received the SDM intervention for PI before treatment. All participants were followed up for 4 weeks. Primary outcomes were measured using the nine-item SDM Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9) and Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). Secondary outcomes included wound size and cost of wound management.

Results

The expert validity (medical professors and general population) of the PDA designed for PI was measured, and the content validity index was 0.96-0.97. A total of 20 participants were enrolled (10 received SDM and 10 received usual care). The mean age of the participants was 55.7 ± 8.8 years. No significant difference in baseline characteristics (sex, age, staging, or wound area) was observed between the two groups. The SDMG had higher SDM-Q-9 (P < 0.001) and DCS (P < 0.01) scores than did the CG. For the secondary outcomes, the SDMG had a decreased change of wound size and lower wound management costs than did the CG; nevertheless, the differences were not statistically significant.

Conclusion

We constructed a PDA for PI treatment, which can be applied in clinical care. The pilot test results revealed that the participants had a lower cost related wound treatment and decreasing wound size in SDMG than CG after the intervention of SDM-PI for 4 weeks. In the future, clinical studies should conduct large-scale randomized trials based on the results of this pilot study.

Shared Decision Making in Acute Pain Management in Patients with Opioid Use Disorder: A Scoping Review

The treatment of acute pain over the years has changed with increasing alternative therapies and increased scrutiny of opioid prescriptions. Shared Decision Making (SDM) has become a vital tool in increasing patient engagement and satisfaction in treatment decisions. SDM has been successfully implemented in the management of pain in a variety of settings; however, information regarding the use of SDM for treating acute pain in patients with a history of opioid use disorder (OUD) remains scarce. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR), we conducted a review to understand how SDM is used in acute pain management in patients with OUD. We searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PsychInfo databases for relevant articles. Articles were screened and SDM outcomes of eligible articles were charted. The results were grouped by sub-theme based on a 1997 SDM model. There were three original research studies and one quality improvement study. The remaining articles were split evenly between reviews and reviews of clinical guidelines. Four themes emerged from the review: prior judgment and stigma related to OUD, trust and sharing of information, clinical tools, and interprofessional teams. This scoping review consolidated and expounded the current literature on SDM in the management of acute pain in patients with OUD. More work is needed to address prior judgments by both providers and patients and to build greater dialogue. Clinical tools may aid this process as well as the involvement of a multidisciplinary team.

Informed Consent and Shared Decision Making in the Perioperative Environment

Informed consent and shared decision making (SDM) are crucial portions of preoperative patient management. Informed consent is a standard for surgery from both a legal and ethical standpoint, involving disclosure of potential risks of a procedure and ensuring patient understanding of these risks. SDM is a process in which a clinician and patients decide between two or more treatment plans, taking into account the patient's goals and values. SDM is a particularly important aspect of patient-centered care when two or more treatment options exist or in situations where an indicated treatment may not align with the patient's long-term goals. This article details aspects of and issues surrounding informed consent and SDM.

SupportPrim-a computerized clinical decision support system for stratified care for patients with musculoskeletal pain complaints in general practice: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal disorders represented 149 million years lived with disability world-wide in 2019 and are the main cause of years lived with disability worldwide. Current treatment recommendations are based on "one-size fits all" principle, which does not take into account the large degree of biopsychosocial heterogeneity in this group of patients. To compensate for this, we developed a stratified care computerized clinical decision support system for general practice based on patient biopsychosocial phenotypes; furthermore, we added personalized treatment recommendations based on specific patient factors to the system. In this study protocol, we describe the randomized controlled trial for evaluating the effectiveness of computerized clinical decision support system for stratified care for patients with common musculoskeletal pain complaints in general practice. The aim of this study is to test the effect of a computerized clinical decision support system for stratified care in general practice on subjective patient outcome variables compared to current care.

METHODS

We will perform a cluster-randomized controlled trial with 44 general practitioners including 748 patients seeking their general practitioner due to pain in the neck, back, shoulder, hip, knee, or multisite. The intervention group will use the computerized clinical decision support system, while the control group will provide current care for their patients. The primary outcomes assessed at 3 months are global perceived effect and clinically important improvement in function measured by the Patient-Specific Function Scale (PSFS), while secondary outcomes include change in pain intensity measured by the Numeric Rating Scale (0-10), health-related quality of life (EQ-5D), general musculoskeletal health (MSK-HQ), number of treatments, use of painkillers, sick-leave grading and duration, referral to secondary care, and use of imaging.

DISCUSSION

The use of biopsychosocial profile to stratify patients and implement it in a computerized clinical decision support system for general practitioners is a novel method of providing decision support for this patient group. The study aim to recruit patients from May 2022 to March 2023, and the first results from the study will be available late 2023.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial is registered in ISRCTN 11th of May 2022: 14,067,965.

Shared decision-making in pediatric surgery: An overview of its application for the treatment of uncomplicated appendicitis

Nonoperative management (NOM) of uncomplicated appendicitis is a safe and effective treatment alternative to surgery that may be preferred by some families. Surgery and NOM differ significantly in their associated risks and benefits. Choosing a treatment for acute appendicitis requires patients and their caregivers to make timely, informed decisions that allow for incorporation of personal perspectives, values, and preferences. This article will address the concept of shared decision-making and establish its role in patient-centered care. It will demonstrate the effectiveness of shared decision-making in a high acuity surgical setting for children and highlight how the choice for management of acute appendicitis may be impacted by patients' and families' individualized circumstances and values.

Providers' shared decision-making as a predictor of healthcare outcomes for college-aged adults managing upper respiratory tract infections

OBJECTIVES

Strategies that assist patients with upper respiratory tract infections (URTIs) to endorse non-antibiotic treatments are vital to curbing antibiotic resistance. This study examines the potential of shared decision-making (SDM) for improving stewardship-relevant outcomes and investigates patient affect as a mechanism that explains the beneficial impact of perceived SDM.

METHOD

Patients (N = 433) seeking care for URTIs at a university student health center and not prescribed antibiotics completed a pre-visit questionnaire and two surveys one day and 14 days post-visit. The day-one survey assessed perceived SDM, affect, and immediate stewardship-relevant outcomes, and the day-14 survey assessed long-term stewardship-relevant outcomes.

RESULTS

Perceived SDM was negatively associated with negative affect and positively associated with positive affect, favorable perceptions of non-antibiotic treatments and providers, and self-efficacy to manage symptoms and obtain follow-up care. Patient affect and day-one outcomes were mediators between perceived SDM and retrospective self-efficacy two weeks post-visit.

CONCLUSION

The study illustrated the beneficial influence of patient perceived SDM on antibiotic stewardship in both short and long terms and elucidated the mechanisms through which the influence occurs.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

SDM can be an effective strategy for primary care providers to improve patients' outcomes with URTI visits without prescribing unwarranted antibiotics.

Quality of death after elective surgery: a questionnaire survey for the bereaved family

PURPOSE

Postoperative death is the third leading cause of death in the world, but the quality of death after surgery has been poorly documented. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of a questionnaire survey for the bereaved family regarding the postoperative quality of death and the impact of preoperative functional disability on the quality of death.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥55 years who underwent scheduled surgery under general anesthesia in a tertiary-care hospital in Japan between April 2016 and December 2018 were enrolled. Patients' functional disability was assessed using the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) before surgery and scored based on the sum of the 12 items (0-48). Postoperative deaths were detected in medical records 3 months and 1 year after surgery. When death had occurred, a questionnaire on the quality of death using the short version of the Good Death Inventory (GDI) was sent to the bereaved family, which was scored as the sum of the 10 domains (10-70).

RESULTS

Of 4020 eligible patients, 148 patients (3.6 %) died within 1 year after surgery. A hundred and twenty-nine bereaved families were sent the questionnaire, and 83 of them (64.3%) submitted valid responses suggesting the high feasibility of this questionnaire survey. There were no differences between the GDI and WHODAS 2.0 scores (median 49 [interquartile range 41-55] vs. 49 [43-54], respectively, p = 0.90). In addition, multiple regression analysis of related factors using the short version of the GDI as a continuous variable showed that age and death in a facility other than that in which the surgery was performed were associated with lower GDI scores (p = 0.004 and p = 0.04, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The completion rate was 64.3%. There was no association between the quality of death and preoperative functional disability; however, older age was associated with a higher quality of death, while death in a facility other than that in which the surgery was performed was associated with lower quality of death.

General Population and Surgeon Preferences for Pollicization Versus Toe-To-Thumb Transfer for Reconstruction of Traumatic Thumb Loss in Adults: An International, Multi-Center Survey Study

PURPOSE

Data objectively comparing outcomes following pollicization versus toe-to-thumb transfer for reconstruction after traumatic thumb amputation in adults remains sparse. Given that this decision is reliant on personal preference, it is important to understand the subjective nature of these preferences, particularly in the context of culture. The purpose of this study was to compare Eastern and Western societal and hand surgeon preferences for pollicization versus toe-to-thumb transfer for traumatic thumb reconstruction.

METHODS

Investigators from 6 international locations recruited local hand surgeons and members of the general population. Austria, Germany, the United States, and Spain were grouped as "Western" nations. China and India separately represented "Eastern" nations. Participants completed a questionnaire evaluating their personal preferences for pollicization and toe-to-thumb transfer. The questions posed to the general population and hand surgeons were identical. Demographic data were also collected.

RESULTS

When comparing the Western nations, China, and India, there was no difference in personal preferences within the general population for pollicization versus toe-to-thumb transfer. In contrast, most Indian hand surgeons favored toe-to-thumb transfer and most Western surgeons were uncertain about which procedure they would favor. Surgeons had more optimistic expectations regarding postoperative hand function, new thumb sensation, and hand appearance following pollicization than the general population. Similarly, for toe-to-thumb transfer, a greater proportion of surgeons predicted good-to-excellent function, sensation, and appearance.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no clear, observed "East" versus "West" difference in the general population's personal preferences for pollicization versus toe-to-thumb transfer among study participants. The members of the general population and hand surgeons had different outcome expectations.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Understanding how culture influences patient and hand surgeon preferences for pollicization versus toe-to-thumb transfer may help guide future decision-making for traumatic thumb reconstruction.

Implementation of Shared Decision-Making Within Internet Hospitals in China Based on Patients' Needs: Feasibility Study and Content Analysis

BACKGROUND

Internet hospitals are developing rapidly in China, and their convenient and efficient medical services are being increasingly recognized by patients. Many hospitals have set up their own internet hospitals to provide web-based medical services. Tianjin Medical University General Hospital has established a multidisciplinary and comprehensive internet hospital to provide diversified medical services according to the needs of patients. A way to further improve web-based medical services is by examining how shared decision-making (SDM) can be carried out in internet hospital diagnosis and treatment services, thereby improving patients' medical experience.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to analyze the feasibility of implementing doctor-patient SDM in internet hospital diagnosis and treatment services based on patients' needs in China.

METHODS

In this study, the medical data of 10 representative departments in the internet hospital of Tianjin Medical University General Hospital from January 1 to January 31, 2022, were extracted as a whole; 25,266 cases were selected. After excluding 2056 cases with incomplete information, 23,210 cases were finally included in this study. A chi-square test was performed to analyze the characteristics and medical service needs of internet hospital patients in order to identify the strengths of SDM in internet hospitals.

RESULTS

The internet hospital patients from 10 clinical departments were significantly different in terms of gender (χ²₉=3425.6; P<.001), age (χ²₃₆=27,375.8; P<.001), mode of payment (χ²₉=3501.1; P<.001), geographic distribution (χ²₉=347.2; P<.001), and duration of illness (χ²₃₆=2863.3; P<.001). Patient medical needs included drug prescriptions, examination prescriptions, medical record explanations, drug use instructions, prehospitalization preparations, further consultations with doctors (unspecified purpose), treatment plan consultations, initial diagnoses based on symptoms, and follow-up consultations after discharge. The medical needs of the patients in different clinical departments were significantly different (χ²₇₂=8465.5; P<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Our study provides a practical and theoretical basis for the feasibility of doctor-patient SDM in internet hospitals and offers some implementation strategies. We focus on the application of SDM in web-based diagnosis and treatment in internet hospitals rather than on a disease or a disease management software. The medical service needs of different patient groups can be effectively obtained from an internet hospital, which provides the practical conditions for the promotion of doctor-patient SDM. Our findings show that the internet hospital platform expands the scope of SDM and is a new way for the large-scale application of doctor-patient SDM.

Factors Potential Patients Deem Important for Decision-Making in High-Risk Surgical Scenarios

BACKGROUND

Surgical futility and shared decision-making to proceed with high-risk surgery are challenging for patients and surgeons alike. It is unknown which factors contribute to a patient's decision to undergo high-risk and potentially futile surgery. The clinical perspective, founded in statistical probabilities of survival, could be misaligned with a patient's determination of worthwhile surgery. This study assesses factors most important to patients in pursuing high-risk surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Via anonymous survey, lay participants recruited through Amazon's Mturk were presented high-risk scenarios necessitating emergency surgery. They rated factors (objective risk and quality-of-life domains) in surgical decision-making (0 = not at all, 4 = extremely) and made the decision to pursue surgery based on clinical scenarios. Repeated observations were accounted for via a generalized mixed-effects model and estimated effects of respondent characteristics, scenario factors, and likelihood to recommend surgery.

RESULTS

Two hundred thirty-six participants completed the survey. Chance of survival to justify surgery averaged 69.3% (SD = 21.3), ranking as the highest determining factor in electing for surgery. Other factors were also considered important in electing for surgery, including the average number of days the patient lived if surgery were and were not completed, functional and pain status after surgery, family member approval, and surgery cost. Postoperative independence was associated with proceeding with surgery (p < 0.001). Recommendations by patient age was moderated by respondent age (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Patients highly value likelihood of survival and postoperative independence in shared decision-making for high-risk surgery. It is important to improve the understanding of surgical futility from a patient's perspective.

Effect of standardised surgical assessment and shared decision-making on morbidity and patient satisfaction after breast conserving therapy: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The role of oncoplastic breast conserving therapy (OPBCT) on physical function, morbidity and patient satisfaction has yet to be defined. Additionally, technique selection should be individualised and incorporate patient preference. The study aim was to investigate differences between "standard" (sBCT) and oncoplastic breast conservation (OPBCT) in patient-reported outcomes (PROs) when patients have been assessed in a standardised manner and technique selection has been reached through shared decision-making (SDM).

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study of 215 women treated at a tertiary referral centre. Standardised surgical assessment included breast and lesion volumetry, definition of resection ratio, patient-related risk factors and patient preference. Postoperative morbidity and patient satisfaction were assessed by validated PROs tools (Diseases of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand-DASH and Breast-Q). Patient experience was assessed by semi-structured interviews.

RESULTS

There was no difference of the median values between OPBCT and sBCT in postoperative morbidity of the upper extremity (DASH 3.3 vs 5, p = 0.656) or the function of the chest wall (Breast-Q 82 vs 82, p = 0.758). Postoperative satisfaction with breasts did not differ either (Breast-Q 65 vs 61, p = 0.702). On the individual level, women that opted for OPBCT after SDM had improved satisfaction when compared to baseline (+3 vs -1, p = 0.001). Shared decision-making changed patient attitude in 69.8% of patients, leading most often to de-escalation from mastectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support that a combination of standardised surgical assessment and SDM allows for tailored treatment and de-escalation of oncoplastic surgery without negatively affecting patient satisfaction and morbidity.

Practical answers to frequently asked questions in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

Surgical counseling enables shared decision-making (SDM) by improving patients' understanding.

PURPOSE

To provide answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective review of prospectively collected data.

PATIENT SAMPLE

Patients who underwent primary tubular minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery in form of transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion (MI-TLIF), decompression alone, or microdiscectomy and had a minimum of 1-year follow-up.

OUTCOME MEASURES

(1) Surgical (radiation exposure and intraoperative complications) (2)Immediate postoperative (length of stay [LOS] and complications) (3) Clinical outcomes (Visual Analog Scale- back and leg, VAS; Oswestry Disability Index, ODI; 12-Item Short Form Survey Physical Component Score, SF-12 PCS; Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function, PROMIS PF; Global Rating Change, GRC; return to activities; complications/reoperations) METHODS: The outcome measures were analyzed to provide answers to ten FAQs that were compiled based on the authors' experience and a review of literature. Changes in VAS back, VAS leg, ODI, and SF-12 PCS from preoperative values to the early (<6 months) and late (>6 months) postoperative time points were analyzed with Wilcoxon Signed Rank Tests. % of patients achieving minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for these patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at the two time points was evaluated. Changes in PROs from preoperative values too early (<6 months) and late (≥6 months) postoperative time points were analyzed within each of the three groups. Percentage of patients achieving MCID was also evaluated.

RESULTS

Three hundred sixty-six patients (104 TLIF, 147 decompression, 115 microdiscectomy) were included. The following FAQs were answered: (1) Will my back pain improve? Most patients report improvement by >50%. About 60% of TLIF, decompression, and microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID at ≥6 months. (2) Will my leg pain improve? Most patients report improvement by >50%. 56% of TLIF, 67% of decompression, and 70% of microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID at ≥6 months. (3) Will my activity level improve? Most patients report significant improvement. Sixty-six percent of TLIF, 55% of decompression, and 75% of microdiscectomy patients achieved MCID for SF-12 PCS. (4) Is there a chance I will get worse? Six percent after TLIF, 14% after decompression, and 5% after microdiscectomy. (5) Will I receive a significant amount of radiation? The radiation exposure is likely to be acceptable and nearly insignificant in terms of radiation-related risks. (6) What is the likelihood that I will have a complication? 17.3% (15.4% minor, 1.9% major) for TLIF, 10% (9.3% minor and 0.7% major) for decompression, and 1.7% (all minor) for microdiscectomy (7) Will I need another surgery? Six percent after TLIF, 16.3% after decompression, 13% after microdiscectomy. (8) How long will I stay in the hospital? Most patients get discharged on postoperative day one after TLIF and on the same day after decompression and microdiscectomy. (9) When will I be able to return to work? >80% of patients return to work (average: 25 days after TLIF, 14 days after decompression, 11 days after microdiscectomy). (10) Will I be able to drive again? >90% of patients return to driving (average: 22 days after TLIF, 11 days after decompression, 14 days after microdiscectomy).

CONCLUSIONS

These concise answers to the FAQs in minimally invasive lumbar spine surgery can be used by physicians as a reference to enable patient education.

Shared decision making in cardiology: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to improve shared decision making (SDM) in cardiology with particular focus on patient-centred outcomes such as decisional conflict.

METHODS

We searched Embase (OVID), the Cochrane library, PubMed and Web of Science electronic databases from inception to January 2021 for randomised controlled trials that investigated the effects of interventions to increase SDM in cardiology. The primary outcomes were decisional conflict, decisional anxiety, decisional satisfaction or decisional regret; a secondary outcome was knowledge gained by the patients.

RESULTS

Eighteen studies which reported on at least one outcome measure were identified, including a total of 4419 patients. Interventions to increase SDM had a significant effect on reducing decisional conflict (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.211, 95% CI -0.316 to -0.107) and increasing patient knowledge (SMD 0.476, 95% CI 0.351 to 0.600) compared with standard care.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions to increase SDM are effective in reducing decisional conflict and increasing patient knowledge in the field of cardiology. Such interventions are helpful in supporting patient-centred healthcare and should be implemented in wider cardiology practice.

Decision aids linked to the recommendations in clinical practice guidelines: results of the acceptability of a decision aid for patients with generalized anxiety disorder

Background

Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most prevalent mental health problems. Patients with GAD have unmet needs related to the information received about their disorder, its treatments and their participation in the decision-making process. The aim of this study is to develop and assess the acceptability of a patient decision aid (PtDA) for patients with GAD.

Method

The PtDA was developed following the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. The recommendations of the Spanish clinical practice guideline (CPG) for patients with GAD were used as the basis. The first prototype was developed by an expert committee, further improvements were made with patients (n = 2), clinical experts (n = 13) and the project management group (n = 7). The acceptability of this second draft was assessed by patients non-involved in the previous phases (n = 11).

Results

The final PtDA version included a brief description of GAD and its treatments. Most participants agreed that the PtDA was easy to use, visually appealing and useful. At least half of the participants learned new things about treatments and adverse effects.

Conclusions

A PtDA was developed for patients with GAD based on recommendations from the Spanish CPG. It was improved and accepted by patients and clinical experts involved. An evaluation of its effectiveness on the shared decision-making process during the clinical encounter is planned.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12911-022-01899-2.

Surgeons' Perspective of Decision Making in Recurrent Diverticulitis: A Qualitative Analysis

Objective

This study employs qualitative methodology to assess surgeons' perspective on decision making in management of recurrent diverticulitis to improve patient-centered decision making.

Summary Background Data

The decision to pursue colectomy for patients with recurrent diverticulitis is nuanced. Strategies to enact broad acceptance of guidelines for surgery are hindered because of a knowledge gap in understanding surgeons' current attitudes and opinions.

Methods

We performed semi-structured interviews with board-certified North American general and colorectal surgeons who manage recurrent diverticulitis. We purposely sampled specialists by both surgeon and practice factors. An iterative inductive/deductive strategy was used to code and analyze the interviews and create a conceptual framework.

Results

25 surgeons were enrolled over a nine-month period. There was diversity in surgeons' gender, age, experience, training, specialty (colorectal vs general surgery) and geography. Surgeons described the difficult process to determine who receives an operation. We identified seven major themes as well as twenty subthemes of the decision-making process. These were organized into a conceptual model. Across the spectrum of interviews, it was notable that there was a move over time from decisions based on counting episodes of diverticulitis to a focus on improving quality of life. Surgeons also felt that quality of life was more dependent on psychosocial factors than the degree of physiological dysfunction. [What about what surprised you/].

Conclusions

Surgeons mostly have discarded older dogma in recommending colectomy for recurrent diverticulitis based on number and severity of episodes. Instead, decision making in recurrent diverticulitis is complex, involving multiple surgeon and patient factors and evolving over time. Surgeons struggle with this decision and education- or communication-based interventions that focus on shared decision making warrant development.

Patient-Family and Provider Partnerships in the Management of Pediatric Uncomplicated Appendicitis

In recent years, studies have demonstrated non-operative management with antibiotics alone to be a safe and effective treatment option for children with uncomplicated acute appendicitis. Shared decision-making is critical in the treatment of uncomplicated appendicitis due to the markedly different risks and benefits associated with surgery and non-operative management. In this report, we discuss the importance of shared decision-making in surgery using a case of uncomplicated appendicitis as an example. We present both the patient-family and provider perspectives on evaluating and deciding between operative and non-operative management and discuss the value of shared decision-making in the unique setting of an acute pathologic process with surgical and medical treatment options.

Patient and Spine Surgeon Perceptions on Shared Decision-Making in the Treatment of Older Adults Undergoing Corrective Surgery for Adult Spinal Deformity

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective.

OBJECTIVE

To understand patients' and spine surgeons' perspectives about decision-making around surgery for adult spinal deformity.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Surgery for correction of adult spinal deformity is often beneficial; however, in over 20% of older adults (≥ 65 yrs of age), outcomes from surgery are less desirable.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted semistructured, in-depth interviews with six patients and five spine surgeons. Two investigators independently coded the transcripts using constant comparative method, as well as an integrative, team-based approach to identify themes.

RESULTS

Patients themes: 1) patients felt surgery was their only choice because they were running out of time to undergo invasive procedures; 2) patients mentally committed to surgery prior to the initial encounter with their surgeon and contextualized the desired benefits while minimizing the potential risks; 3) patients felt that the current decision support tools were ineffective in preparing them for surgery; and 4) patients felt that pain management was the most difficult part of recovery from surgery. Surgeons themes: 1) surgeons varied substantially in their interpretations of shared decision-making; 2) surgeons did not consider patients' chronological age as a major contraindication to undergoing surgery; 3) there is a goal mismatch between patients and surgeons in the desired outcomes from surgery, where patients prioritize complete pain relief whereas surgeons prioritize concrete functional improvement; and 4) surgeons felt that patient expectations from surgery were often established prior to their initial surgery visit, and frequently required recalibration.

CONCLUSION

Older adult patients viewed the decision to have surgery as time-sensitive, whereas spine surgeons expressed the need for recalibrating patient expectations and balancing the risks and benefits when considering surgery. These findings highlight the need for improved understanding of both sides of shared decision-making which should involve the needs and priorities of older adults to help convey patient-specific risks and choice awareness.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

3.

When Do Patients Return to Driving After Outpatient Foot and Ankle Surgery?

Counseling patients regarding when to return to driving following a foot and ankle procedure can be difficult, and 6 to 9 weeks is often recommended based on brake reaction times quoted in the literature. However, patients are ultimately responsible for the decision to drive. We aimed to determine when patients actually return to driving following outpatient foot and ankle surgery, what influences their decision, and whether any adverse events were experienced. Thirty-seven patients who underwent a right-sided foot and ankle procedure by a single orthopedic surgeon in an outpatient surgery center between September 2016 and December 2017 were recruited retrospectively for this study. Seventeen patients met inclusion criteria and participated in a telephone survey that inquired about their experiences and attitudes regarding return to driving following right-sided foot or ankle surgery. Of the patients surveyed, 100% drove a motor vehicle as their primary mode of transportation. Ten patients (59%) recalled having a discussion with the surgeon regarding when to resume driving, of which only 4 (23.5%) returned to driving at the suggested time they remembered. One patient (6%) returned to driving 2 weeks sooner, and 1 patient (6%) returned to driving 4 weeks later than recommended. No patient reported experiencing a driving-related adverse event. This study suggests that despite surgeons' recommendations, patients are returning to driving sooner than traditionally recommended. The surgeon's advice regarding when to return to driving may not be as influential as a patient's own self-assessment of their readiness to operate a vehicle after outpatient foot and ankle surgery.

Patient decision-making and regret in pilonidal sinus surgery: a mixed-methods study

AIM

Little is known about optimal management strategies for pilonidal sinus disease (PSD). We conducted a mixed-methods study to understand why patients make, and sometimes regret, treatment decisions.

METHOD

We conducted longitudinal semi-structured interviews at the time of surgery and 6 months later with 20 patients from 13 UK hospitals. Framework analysis was performed, and themes were mapped to (1) the coping in deliberation framework and (2) an acceptability framework. Results were triangulated with those from structured survey instruments evaluating shared decision-making (SDM, best = 9) at baseline and decision regret (DR, most regret = 100) at 6 months.

RESULTS

Nine of 20 patients were not offered a choice of treatment, but this was not necessarily seen as negative (SDM median 4; range 2-4). Factors that influenced decision-making included previous experience and anticipated recovery time. Median (range) DR was 5 (0-50). Those with the highest DR (scores 40-50) were, paradoxically, also amongst the highest scores on SDM (scores 4). Burden of wound care and the disparity between anticipated and actual recovery time were the main reasons for decision regret.

CONCLUSION

To minimize regret about surgical decisions, people with PSD need better information about the burden of wound care and the risks of recurrence associated with different surgical approaches.