The omni-relevance of surgery: how medical specialization shapes orthopedic surgeons' treatment recommendations

How a 'good parent' decides on childhood vaccination. Demonstrating independence and deliberation during Dutch healthcare visits

Childhood vaccination consultations are considered an important phase in parents' decision-making process. To date, only a few empirical studies conducted in the United States have investigated real-life consultations. To address this gap, we recorded Dutch vaccination conversations between healthcare providers and parents during routine health consultations for their newborns. The data were analysed using Conversation Analysis and Discursive Psychology. We found that the topic of vaccination was often initiated with 'Have you already thought about vaccination?' (HYATAV), and that this formulation was consequential for parental identity work. Exploring the interactional trajectories engendered by this initiation format we show that: (1) interlocutors treat the question as consisting of two types of queries, (2) conversational trajectories differ according to which of the queries is attended to and that (3) parents work up a 'good parent' identity in response to HYATAV, by demonstrating that they think about their child's vaccination beforehand and make their decisions independently. Our findings shed new light on the interactional unfolding of parental vaccination decisions.

The Basic Science of Patient-Physician Communication: A Critical Scoping Review

PURPOSE

Strong verbal communication skills are essential for physicians. Despite a wealth of medical education research exploring communication skills training, learners struggle to become strong communicators. Integrating basic science into the curriculum provides students with conceptual knowledge that improves learning outcomes and facilitates the development of adaptive expertise, but the conceptual knowledge, or "basic science," of patient-provider communication is currently unknown. This review sought to address that gap and identify conceptual knowledge that would support improved communication skills training for medical trainees.

METHOD

Combining the search methodology of Arksey and O'Malley with a critical analytical lens, the authors conducted a critical scoping review of literature in linguistics, cognitive psychology, and communications to determine: what is known about verbal communication at the level of word choice in physician-patient interactions? Studies were independently screened by 3 researchers during 2 rounds of review. Data extraction focused on theoretical contributions associated with language use and variation. Analysis linked patterns of language use to broader theoretical constructs across disciplines.

RESULTS

The initial search returned 15,851 unique studies, and 271 studies were included in the review. The dominant conceptual groupings reflected in the results were: (1) clear and explicit language, (2) patient participation and activation, (3) negotiating epistemic knowledge, (4) affiliative language and emotional bonds, (5) role and identity, and (6) managing transactional and relational goals.

CONCLUSIONS

This in-depth exploration supports and contextualizes theory-driven research of physician-patient communication. The findings may be used to support future communications research in this field and educational innovations based on a solid theoretical foundation.

The challenge of equipoise in trials with a surgical and non-surgical comparison: a qualitative synthesis using meta-ethnography

BACKGROUND

Randomised controlled trials in surgery can be a challenge to design and conduct, especially when including a non-surgical comparison. As few as half of initiated surgical trials reach their recruitment target, and failure to recruit is cited as the most frequent reason for premature closure of surgical RCTs. The aim of this qualitative evidence synthesis was to identify and synthesise findings from qualitative studies exploring the challenges in the design and conduct of trials directly comparing surgical and non-surgical interventions.

METHODS

A qualitative evidence synthesis using meta-ethnography was conducted. Six electronic bibliographic databases (Medline, Central, Cinahl, Embase and PsycInfo) were searched up to the end of February 2018. Studies that explored patients' and health care professionals' experiences regarding participating in RCTs with a surgical and non-surgical comparison were included. The GRADE-CERQual framework was used to assess confidence in review findings.

RESULTS

In total, 3697 abstracts and 49 full texts were screened and 26 published studies reporting experiences of patients and healthcare professionals were included. The focus of the studies (24/26) was primarily related to the challenge of recruitment. Two studies explored reasons for non-compliance to treatment allocation following randomisation. Five themes related to the challenges to these types of trials were identified: (1) radical choice between treatments; (2) patients' discomfort with randomisation: I want the best treatment for me as an individual; (3) challenge of equipoise: patients' a priori preferences for treatment; (4) challenge of equipoise: clinicians' a priori preferences for treatment and (5) imbalanced presentation of interventions.

CONCLUSION

The marked dichotomy between the surgical and non-surgical interventions was highlighted in this review as making recruitment to these types of trials particularly challenging. This review identified factors that increase our understanding of why patients and clinicians may find equipoise more challenging in these types of trials compared to other trial comparisons. Trialists may wish to consider exploring the balance of potential factors influencing patient and clinician preferences towards treatments before they start recruitment, to enable issues specific to a particular trial to be identified and addressed. This may enable trial teams to make more efficient considered design choices and benefit the delivery of such trials.

Patient Involvement in Anesthesia Decision-making: A Qualitative Study of Knee Arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

Calls to better involve patients in decisions about anesthesia-e.g., through shared decision-making-are intensifying. However, several features of anesthesia consultation make it unclear how patients should participate in decisions. Evaluating the feasibility and desirability of carrying out shared decision-making in anesthesia requires better understanding of preoperative conversations. The objective of this qualitative study was to characterize how preoperative consultations for primary knee arthroplasty arrived at decisions about primary anesthesia.

METHODS

This focused ethnography was performed at a U.S. academic medical center. The authors audio-recorded consultations of 36 primary knee arthroplasty patients with eight anesthesiologists. Patients and anesthesiologists also participated in semi-structured interviews. Consultation and interview transcripts were coded in an iterative process to develop an explanation of how anesthesiologists and patients made decisions about primary anesthesia.

RESULTS

The authors found variation across accounts of anesthesiologists and patients as to whether the consultation was a collaborative decision-making scenario or simply meant to inform patients. Consultations displayed a number of decision-making patterns, from the anesthesiologist not disclosing options to the anesthesiologist strictly adhering to a position of equipoise; however, most consultations fell between these poles, with the anesthesiologist presenting options, recommending one, and persuading hesitant patients to accept it. Anesthesiologists made patients feel more comfortable with their proposed approach through extensive comparisons to more familiar experiences.

CONCLUSIONS

Anesthesia consultations are multifaceted encounters that serve several functions. In some cases, the involvement of patients in determining the anesthetic approach might not be the most important of these functions. Broad consideration should be given to both the applicability and feasibility of shared decision-making in anesthesia consultation. The potential benefits of interventions designed to enhance patient involvement in decision-making should be weighed against their potential to pull anesthesiologists' attention away from important humanistic aspects of communication such as decreasing patients' anxiety.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Communication practices that encourage and constrain shared decision making in health-care encounters: Systematic review of conversation analytic research

Background

Shared decision making (SDM) is generally treated as good practice in health‐care interactions. Conversation analytic research has yielded detailed findings about decision making in health‐care encounters.

Objective

To map decision making communication practices relevant to health‐care outcomes in face‐to‐face interactions yielded by prior conversation analyses, and to examine their function in relation to SDM.

Search strategy

We searched nine electronic databases (last search November 2016) and our own and other academics' collections.

Inclusion criteria

Published conversation analyses (no restriction on publication dates) using recordings of health‐care encounters in English where the patient (and/or companion) was present and where the data and analysis focused on health/illness‐related decision making.

Data extraction and synthesis

We extracted study characteristics, aims, findings relating to communication practices, how these functioned in relation to SDM, and internal/external validity issues. We synthesised findings aggregatively.

Results

Twenty‐eight publications met the inclusion criteria. We sorted findings into 13 types of communication practices and organized these in relation to four elements of decision‐making sequences: (i) broaching decision making; (ii) putting forward a course of action; (iii) committing or not (to the action put forward); and (iv) HCPs' responses to patients' resistance or withholding of commitment. Patients have limited opportunities to influence decision making. HCPs' practices may constrain or encourage this participation.

Conclusions

Patients, companions and HCPs together treat and undertake decision making as shared, though to varying degrees. Even for non‐negotiable treatment trajectories, the spirit of SDM can be invoked through practices that encourage participation (eg by bringing the patient towards shared understanding of the decision's rationale).

How do patients with end-stage ankle arthritis decide between two surgical treatments? A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

To examine how patients decide between ankle fusion and ankle replacement in end-stage ankle arthritis.

DESIGN

Purposive patient selection, semistructured interviews, thematic analysis.

SETTING

Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, Stanmore, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

14 patients diagnosed with end-stage ankle osteoarthritis.

RESULTS

We interviewed 6 men and 8 women with a mean age of 58 years (range 41-83). All had opted for surgery after failure of at least 6 months of conservative management, sequentially trading-off daily activities to limit the evolving pain. To decide between two offered treatments of ankle fusion and total ankle replacement (TAR), three major sources informed the patients' decision-making process: their surgeon, peers and the internet. The treating surgeon was viewed as the most reliable and influential source of information. Information gleaned from other patients was also important, but with questionable reliability, as was information from the internet, both of which invariably required validation by the surgeon and in some cases the general practitioner.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients seek knowledge from a wealth of sources including the internet, web forums and other patients. While they leverage each of these sources to guide decision-making, the most important and influential factor in governing how patients decide on any particular surgical intervention is their surgeon. A high quality doctor-patient relationship, coupled with clear, balanced and complete information is essential to enable shared decision-making to become a standard model of care.