Patient-provider communication during second opinion consultations in oncology

Explorative observational study of Dutch patient-clinician interactions: operationalisation of personal perspective elicitation as part of shared decision-making in real-life audio-recorded consultations

OBJECTIVES

Patients' preferences, values and contexts are important elements of the shared decision-making (SDM) process. We captured those elements into the concept of 'personal perspective elicitation' (PPE), which reflects the need to elicit patients' preferences, values and contexts in patient-clinician conversations. We defined PPE as: 'the disclosure (either elicited by the clinician or spontaneously expressed by the patient) of information related to the patient's personal preferences, values and/or contexts potentially relevant to decision-making'. Our goal was to operationalise the concept of PPE through the evaluation of preferences, values and contexts and explore how PPE occurs in clinical encounters.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study: observational coding based on a novel coding scheme of audio-recorded outpatient clinical encounters where encounter patient decision aids were applied.

SETTING

We audio-recorded patient-clinician interactions at three Dutch outpatient clinics. PPE was analysed using a novel observational coding scheme, distinguishing preferences, contexts and four Armstrong taxonomy value types (global, decisional, external and situational). We measured SDM using the Observer OPTION5.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty patients who suffered from psoriasis or ovarian cysts; four clinicians.

RESULTS

We included 20 audio-recordings. The mean Observer OPTION5 score was 57.5 (SD:10.1). The audio-recordings gave a rich illustration of preferences, values and contexts that were discussed in the patient-clinician interactions. Examples of identified global values: appearance, beliefs, personality traits. Decisional values were related to the process of decision-making. External values related to asking advice from for example, the clinician or significant others. An identified situational value: a new job ahead. Contexts related to how the illness impacted the life (eg, sexuality, family, sports, work life) of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The operationalisation of PPE, an important aspect of SDM, explores which preferences, values and contexts were discussed during patient-clinician interactions where an ePDA was used. The coding scheme appeared feasible to apply but needs further refinement.

Cancer patients' trust as a motivator to seek a second opinion and its effects on trust

OBJECTIVE

Cancer patients may seek a second opinion (SO) driven by reduced trust in their own providers. Their trust may be diminished or reinforced through the SO. This study aimed to assess (1) what proportion of patients seek SOs motivated by lacking trust and how trust changes over time; (2) whether patients' trust differs by the outcome of the SO (i.e. similar/different opinion); and (3) how communication during the SO affects trust.

DESIGN

A longitudinal mixed methods study including self-report assessments before (T0), immediately following (T1), and two months after the SO (T2). SO consultations (N = 62) were audio recorded, and patient-oncologist communication about the referring oncologist was coded.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient-reported motives and their trust in referring oncologists.

RESULTS

Reduced trust motivated 21% of patients to seek a SO. Most patients criticised their referring oncologist. Consulting oncologists generally defended their colleagues, but such affirmation was unrelated to patients' subsequent trust. Over time, trust did not change substantially. Yet, it was restored in patients motivated by impaired trust, and remained low for patients receiving a different medical outcome.

CONCLUSION

Patients need support to more constructively discuss their treatment relationship. Oncologists need support in providing independent SOs without harming trust relations.

Decision Paralysis: Recognition and Patient-Centered Discourse

Decision paralysis (DP) can be defined as a patient's inability to commit to a physician and/or initiate appropriate treatment for their condition. An incessant search for greater physician opinions often leads to treatment delay, disease progression, and initiation of care at more advanced stages. Despite the harms associated with DP, a dearth of research on the issue remains. There are no guidelines that assist in both recognition and rectification of DP, leaving patients with chronic illnesses and diagnoses without well-characterized treatment algorithms especially vulnerable. This paper analyzes why patients are inclined toward DP and the clinical implications. Review of the literature affirms that the patient-physician relationship holds considerable influence; physicians identifying DP can improve therapeutic outcomes for their patients. Using these findings, we then propose a framework for broaching this topic with a method that supports patients while respecting their autonomy. A practical approach to both recognition and patient-centered discourse is introduced, providing a foundation for physicians to host these conversations and understand their patients' perspectives. This approach toward recognition and discourse on DP holds clinical importance, given that there is a paucity of established guidance. A future uniform approach may generate optimal patient care recommendations, which will hold far-reaching impact on both the patient-physician relationship and overall patient outcomes.