Surgical Consultation as Social Process: Implications for Shared Decision Making

Factors influencing the decision-making process in breast reconstruction from the perspective of reconstructive surgeons: A qualitative study involving Korean plastic surgeons

BACKGROUND

Little research has been conducted on factors influencing the decision-making process for immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) options from the perspective of reconstructive surgeons, despite its significant impact on doctor-patient communication and shared decision-making. This study aims to explore the multiple factors and the mechanisms by which they interact using a qualitative methodology. We also address potential barriers to shared decision-making in IBR.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of reconstructive surgeons. Thematic analysis was used to identify key influences on IBR decision-making process from the perspective of reconstructive surgeons.

RESULTS

Four major themes were identified: 1. Patient clinical scenarios; 2. Nonclinical practice environments; 3. Reconstructive surgeon preferences; and 4. Patient consultation. Reconstructive surgeons demonstrated diverse approaches to patient clinical scenarios. High-volume centers were significantly influenced by nonclinical factors such as scheduling and operating room allocation systems. Reconstructive surgeons often had strong personal preferences for specific IBR options, shaped by their expertise, experience, and clinical environment. Based on the preliminary decision, surgeons provided information with varying degrees of neutrality. Patients varied in their knowledge and participation, resulting in variation in the final decision authority among surgeons.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the need to address nonclinical environmental constraints to improve shared decision-making process in IBR. Surgeons should recognize power imbalances in the doctor-patient relationship and be aware of their biases.

Better Conversations for Better Informed Consent: Talking with Surgical Patients

For more than sixty years, surgeons have used bioethical strategies to promote patient self-determination, many of these now collectively described as "informed consent." Yet the core framework-understanding, risks, benefits, and alternatives-fails to support patients in deliberation about treatment. We find that surgeons translate this framework into an overly complicated technical explanation of disease and treatment and an overly simplified narrative that surgery will "fix" the problem. They omit critical information about the goals and downsides of surgery and present untenable options as a matter of patient choice. We propose a novel framework called "better conversations." Herein, surgeons provide context about clinical norms, establish the goals of surgery, and comprehensively delineate the downsides of surgery to generate a deliberative space for patients to consider whether surgery is right for them. This paradigm shift meets the standards for informed consent, supports deliberation, and allows patients to anticipate and prepare for the experience of treatment.

Language in Bioethics: Beyond the Representational View

Though assumptions about language underlie all bioethical work, the field has rarely partaken of theories of language. This article encourages a more linguistically engaged bioethics. We describe the tacit conception of language that is frequently upheld in bioethics-what we call the representational view, which sees language essentially as a means of description. We examine how this view has routed the field's theories and interventions down certain paths. We present an alternative model of language-the pragmatic view-and explore how it expands and clarifies traditional bioethical concerns. To lend concreteness, we apply the pragmatic view to a pervasive concept in bioethics and adjacent fields: decision making. We suggest that problems of the decision-making approach to bioethical issues are grounded in adherence to the representational view. Drawing on empirical work in surgery and critical care, we show how the pragmatic view productively reframes bioethical questions about how medical treatments are pursued.

Clinical context and communication in shared decision-making about major surgery: Findings from a qualitative study with colorectal, orthopaedic and cardiac patients

Increasing numbers of older people undergo major surgery in the United Kingdom (UK), with many at high risk of complications due to age, co-morbidities or frailty. This article reports on a study of such patients and their clinicians engaged in shared decision-making. Shared decision-making is a collaborative approach that seeks to value and centre patients' preferences, potentially addressing asymmetries of knowledge and power between clinicians and patients by countering medical authority with greater patient empowerment. We studied shared decision-making practices in the context of major surgery by recruiting 16 patients contemplating either colorectal, cardiac or joint replacement surgery in the UK National Health Service (NHS). Over 18 months 2019-2020, we observed and video-recorded decision-making consultations, studied the organisational and clinical context for consultations, and interviewed patients and clinicians about their experiences of making decisions. Linguistic ethnography, the study of communication and interaction in context, guided us to analyse the interplay between interactions (during consultations between clinicians, patients and family members) and clinical and organisational features of the contexts for those interactions. We found that the framing of consultations as being about life-saving or life-enhancing procedures was important in producing three different genres of consultations focused variously on: resolving problems, deliberation of options and evaluation of benefits of surgery. We conclude that medical authority persists, but can be used to create more deliberative opportunities for decision-making through amending the context for consultations in addition to adopting appropriate communication practices during surgical consultations.

Innovations in Surgical Communication-Provide Your Opinion, Don't Hide It

This Viewpoint discusses why surgeons should reveal their initial impressions about surgery so that they can move forward in a space of deliberation to consider whether their inclination makes sense for the patient.

Informed consent for image-guided procedures: a nationwide survey of perceptions and current practices

AIM

To characterise the current landscape of informed consent practices for image-guided procedures, including location of consent, guideline availability, and utility of decision-aid resources.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A survey of 159 interventional radiologists was conducted from April through June 2022. The survey evaluated participant demographics (gender, practice type, and level of training) and consent practices. Fifteen questions investigated discussion of benefits, risks, and alternatives, who obtained consent, location of consent conversations, how decision-making capacity is assessed, availability of formal guidance on consent discussions, and if and how decision-aids are used.

RESULTS

Most respondents (93.7%) were "extremely" or "very" comfortable discussing the benefits and risks of image-guided procedures during informed consent. Most respondents were "very" comfortable discussing alternative treatments within radiology (86.8%) while fewer felt confident regarding alternatives outside radiology (46.5%). Most respondents indicated obtaining consent in a pre-procedure area (89.9%), while 12.7% of respondents obtained consent in the procedure room. Of the respondents, 66.7% did not have formal education or documented guidance on what providers should disclose during consent. Ninety-two respondents (57.9%) reported using decision aids. The type of decision aid varied, with most reporting using illustrations or drawings (46.6%). Decision aid utility was more prevalent in non-teaching/academic (71.4%) versus academic (61%) institutions (p=0.02).

CONCLUSION

Regardless of demographics, interventionalists are confident in discussing benefits, risks, and alternative image-guided therapies, but are less confident discussing alternative treatment options outside of radiology. Formal education on informed consent is less common, and the use of decision aids varies between teaching and non-teaching institutions.

Opportunities for shared decision-making about major surgery with high-risk patients: a multi-method qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the opportunities for shared decision-making when older high-risk patients are offered major surgery. This study examines how, when, and why clinicians and patients can share decision-making about major surgery.

METHODS

This was a multi-method qualitative study, combining video recordings of preoperative consultations, interviews, and focus groups (33 patients, 19 relatives, 36 clinicians), with observations and documentary analysis in clinics in five hospitals in the UK undertaking major orthopaedic, colorectal, and/or cardiac surgery.

RESULTS

Three opportunities for shared decision-making about major surgery were identified. Resolution-focused consultations (cardiac/colorectal) resulted in a single agreed preferred option related to a potentially life-threatening problem, with limited opportunities for shared decision-making. Evaluative and deliberative consultations offered more opportunity. The former focused on assessing the likelihood of benefits of surgery for a presenting problem that was not a threat to life for the patient (e.g., orthopaedic consultations) and the latter (largely colorectal) involved discussion of a range of options while also considering significant comorbidities and patient preferences. The extent to which opportunities for shared decision-making were available, and taken up by surgeons, was influenced by the nature of the presenting problem, clinical pathway, and patient trajectory.

CONCLUSIONS

Decisions about major surgery were not always shared between patients and doctors. The nature of the presenting problem, comorbidities, clinical pathways, and patient trajectories all informed the type of consultation and opportunities for sharing decision-making. Our findings have implications for clinicians, with shared decision-making about major surgery most feasible when the focus is on life-enhancing treatment.

Identifying Patterns in Preoperative Communication about High-Risk Surgical Intervention: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

Surgeons are entrusted with providing patients with information necessary for deliberation about surgical intervention. Ideally, surgical consultations generate a shared understanding of the treatment experience and determine whether surgery aligns with a patient's overall health goals. In-depth assessment of communication patterns might reveal opportunities to better achieve these objectives.

METHODS

We performed a secondary analysis of audio-recorded consultations between surgeons and patients considering high-risk surgery. For 43 surgeons, we randomly selected 4 transcripts each of consultations with patients aged ≥60 y with at least 1 comorbidity. We developed a coding taxonomy, based on principles of informed consent and shared decision making, to categorize surgeon speech. We grouped transcripts by treatment plan and recorded the treatment goal. We used box plots, Sankey diagrams, and flow diagrams to characterize communication patterns.

RESULTS

We included 169 transcripts, of which 136 discussed an oncologic problem and 33 considered a vascular (including cardiac and neurovascular) problem. At the median, surgeons devoted an estimated 8 min (interquartile range 5-13 min) to content specifically about intervention including surgery. In 85.5% of conversations, more than 40% of surgeon speech was consumed by technical descriptions of the disease or treatment. "Fix-it" language was used in 91.7% of conversations. In 79.9% of conversations, no overall goal of treatment was established or only a desire to cure or control cancer was expressed. Most conversations (68.6%) began with an explanation of the disease, followed by explanation of the treatment in 53.3%, and then options in 16.6%.

CONCLUSIONS

Explanation of disease and treatment dominate surgical consultations, with limited time spent on patient goals. Changing the focus of these conversations may better support patients' deliberation about the value of surgery.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02623335.

HIGHLIGHTS

In decision-making conversations about high-risk surgical intervention, surgeons emphasize description of the patient's disease and potential treatment, and the use of "fix-it" language is common.Surgeons dedicated limited time to eliciting patient preferences and goals, and 79.9% of conversations resulted in no explicit goal of treatment.Current communication practices may be inadequate to support deliberation about the value of surgery for individual patients and their families.

Incidence and trends of decision regret following elective hernia repair

BACKGROUND

One approach to evaluate decision-making is using the concept of decision regret, which measures patient remorse after a healthcare decision. This is particularly important for elective, preference-sensitive conditions with multiple treatment options, such as ventral and inguinal hernia repair. In this study, we assessed decision regret among patients who pursued surgical management of ventral and inguinal hernias.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed a statewide registry of adult patients who underwent elective ventral and inguinal hernia repair between January 2017 and March 2020 and completed a validated survey measuring decision regret. 30-day outcomes included complications, emergency department (ED) utilization, readmission, and reoperation. Multivariable logistic regression examined the association of regret with age, sex, race, insurance status, ASA, tobacco use, diabetes, admission status, surgical approach (open vs. laparoscopic vs. robotic), year, and outcomes.

RESULTS

8315 patients underwent surgery during the study period with a mean age of 60.5 (14.7) years and 1812 (22%) female patients. Among 2159 patients who underwent ventral hernia repair, 248 (11%) reported regret to undergo surgery, 64 (3%) experienced a complication, 160 (7%) visited an ED, 86 (4%) were readmitted, and 29 (1%) underwent reoperation. Outcomes associated with regret after ventral hernia repair included complications (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.26-4.29) and readmission (OR 2.67, 95% CI 1.51-4.71). Among 6,156 patients who underwent inguinal hernia repair, 533 (9%) reported regret to undergo surgery, 41 (1%) experienced a complication, 304 (5%) visited an ED, 72 (1%) were readmitted, and 63 (1%) underwent reoperation. Outcomes associated with regret after inguinal hernia repair included ED visits (OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.44-2.87) and readmission (OR 4.23, 95% CI 2.35-7.61).

CONCLUSION

Roughly 1 in 10 patients undergoing hernia repair report regret with their decision to undergo surgery. Developing a better understanding of the factors associated with decision regret after hernia repair may better inform both patients and surgeon decision-making.

“Let Me Show You How I Think About This Problem…”: Impactful Nuances of Shared Medical Decision-Making

Shared decision-making is a key component of patient-centered care. In this clinical vignette, we illustrate the value of bringing patients into the clinical thought process as part of shared decision-making.

Physicians' perspectives of prognosis and goals of care discussions after hip fracture

BACKGROUND

Hip fracture often represents a major transition in patients' health, with a 1-year mortality rate between 25% and 30% and a challenging recovery course. Caring for hip fracture patients presents opportunities for goals of care discussions that include prognostic information and guidance about functional dependence.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 23 attending physicians involved with the care of hip fracture patients, including orthopedic surgeons, anesthesiologists, internists, and geriatricians, across 13 health systems in the United States and Canada. Questions addressed knowledge and interpretation of prognosis, discussing prognosis and goals of care, and timing and prioritization of surgery. Interviews were analyzed using a constructivist grounded theory approach to identify themes and develop a coding taxonomy.

RESULTS

Physicians agreed that hip fracture had a considerable 1-year mortality, felt that it was important to discuss prognostic outcomes and the recovery process, wanted to elucidate patients' priorities, and often promoted timely surgery. Physicians perceived challenges when discussing mortality data with new patients in an acute setting. They more easily discussed outcomes related to functional dependence and quality of life. Some physicians used iterative communication as a strategy to have in-depth conversations in a busy perioperative setting.

CONCLUSION

Providing timely, compassionate care for hip fracture patients is challenging. There are opportunities to study iterative communication to encourage dialogue at key points of patient care to better discuss prognosis and recovery and bolster coordinated multidisciplinary care that focuses on patients' goals and values.

Ethical Issues in Intraoperative Neuroscience Research: Assessing Subjects' Recall of Informed Consent and Motivations for Participation

BackgroundAn increasing number of studies utilize intracranial electrophysiology in human subjects to advance basic neuroscience knowledge. However, the use of neurosurgical patients as human research subjects raises important ethical considerations, particularly regarding informed consent and undue influence, as well as subjects' motivations for participation. Yet a thorough empirical examination of these issues in a participant population has been lacking. The present study therefore aimed to empirically investigate ethical concerns regarding informed consent and voluntariness in Parkinson's disease patients undergoing deep brain stimulator (DBS) placement who participated in an intraoperative neuroscience study.MethodsTwo semi-structured 30-minute interviews were conducted preoperatively and postoperatively via telephone. Interviews assessed participants' motivations for participation in the parent intraoperative study, recall of information presented during the informed consent process, and participants' postoperative reflections on the research study.ResultsTwenty-two participants (mean age = 60.9) completed preoperative interviews at a mean of 7.8 days following informed consent and a mean of 5.2 days prior to DBS surgery. Twenty participants completed postoperative interviews at a mean of 5 weeks following surgery. All participants cited altruism or advancing medical science as "very important" or "important" in their decision to participate in the study. Only 22.7% (n = 5) correctly recalled one of the two risks of the study. Correct recall of other aspects of the informed consent was poor (36.4% for study purpose; 50.0% for study protocol; 36.4% for study benefits). All correctly understood that the study would not confer a direct therapeutic benefit to them.ConclusionEven though research coordinators were properly trained and the informed consent was administered according to protocol, participants demonstrated poor retention of study information. While intraoperative studies that aim to advance neuroscience knowledge represent a unique opportunity to gain fundamental scientific knowledge, improved standards for the informed consent process can help facilitate their ethical implementation.

Education based on publicly-available keyword data is associated with decreased stress and improved trajectory of in-training exam performance

STUDY OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the impact of data-driven didactic sessions on metrics including fund of knowledge, resident confidence in clinical topics, and stress in addition to American Board of Anesthesiology In-Training Examination (ITE) percentiles.

DESIGN

Observational mixed-methods study.

SETTING

Classroom, video-recorded e-learning.

SUBJECTS

Anesthesiology residents from two academic medical centers.

INTERVENTIONS

Residents were offered a data-driven didactic session, focused on lifelong learning regarding frequently asked/missed topics based on publicly-available data.

MEASUREMENTS

Residents were surveyed regarding their confidence on exam topics, organization of study plan, willingness to educate others, and stress levels. Residents at one institution were interviewed post-ITE. The level and trend in ITE percentiles were compared before and after the start of this initiative using segmented regression analysis.

RESULTS

Ninety-four residents participated in the survey. A comparison of pre-post responses showed an increased mean level of confidence (4.5 ± 1.6 vs. 6.2 ± 1.4; difference in means 95% CI:1.7[1.5,1.9]), sense of study organization (3.8 ± 1.6 vs. 6.7 ± 1.3;95% CI:2.8[2.5,3.1]), willingness to educate colleagues (4.0 ± 1.7 vs. 5.7 ± 1.9;95% CI:1.7[1.4,2.0]), and reduced stress levels (5.9 ± 1.9 vs. 5.2 ± 1.7;95% CI:-0.7[-1.0,-0.4]) (all p < 0.001). Thirty-one residents from one institution participated in the interviews. Interviews exhibited qualitative themes associated with increased fund of knowledge, accessibility of high-yield resources, and domains from the Kirkpatrick Classification of an educational intervention. In an assessment of 292 residents from 2012 to 2020 at one institution, there was a positive change in mean ITE percentile (adjusted intercept shift [95% CI] 11.0[3.6,18.5];p = 0.004) and trajectory over time after the introduction of data-driven didactics.

CONCLUSION

Data-driven didactics was associated with improved resident confidence, stress, and factors related to wellness. It was also associated with a change from a negative to positive trend in ITE percentiles over time. Future assessment of data-driven didactics and impact on resident outcomes are needed.

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

An Assessment of Patient, Caregiver, and Clinician Perspectives on the Post-discharge Phase of Care

OBJECTIVE

We sought to elicit patients', caregivers', and health care providers' perceptions of home recovery to inform care personalization in the learning health system.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Postsurgical care has shifted from the hospital into the home. Daily care responsibilities fall to patients and their caregivers, yet stakeholder concerns in these heterogeneous environments, especially as they relate to racial inequities, are poorly understood.

METHODS

Surgical oncology patients, caregivers, and clinicians participated in freelisting; an open-ended interviewing technique used to identify essential elements of a domain. Within 2 weeks after discharge, participants were queried on 5 domains: home independence, social support, pain control, immediate, and overall surgical impact. Salience indices, measures of the most important words of interest, were calculated using Anthropac by domain and group.

RESULTS

Forty patients [20 whites and 20 African-Americans (AAs)], 30 caregivers (17 whites and 13 AAs), and 20 providers (8 residents, 4 nurses, 4 nurse practitioners, and 4 attending surgeons) were interviewed. Patients and caregivers attended to the personal recovery experience, whereas providers described activities and individuals associated with recovery. All groups defined surgery as life-changing, with providers and caregivers discussing financial and mortality concerns. Patients shared similar thoughts about social support and self-care ability by race, whereas AA patients described heterogeneous pain management and more hopeful recovery perceptions. AA caregivers expressed more positive responses than white caregivers.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients live the day-to-day of recovery, whereas caregivers and clinicians also contemplate more expansive concerns. Incorporating relevant perceptions into traditional clinical outcomes and concepts could enhance the surgical experience for all stakeholders.

High-risk surgery among older adults: Not-quite shared decision-making

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making is critical to optimal patient-centered care. For elective operations, when there is sufficient time for deliberate discussion, little is known about how surgeons navigate decision-making and how surgeons align care with patient preferences. In this context, we sought to explore surgeons' approaches to decision-making for adults ≥65 years at high-risk of postoperative complications or death.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured in-depth interviews with 46 practicing surgeons across Michigan. Transcripts were iteratively analyzed through steps informed by inductive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Four major themes emerged characterizing how surgeons approach high-risk surgical decision-making for older adults: (1) risk assessment was defined as the process used by surgeons to identify and analyze factors that may negatively impact outcome; (2) expectations and goals described the process of surgeons engaging with patients and families to discuss potential outcomes and desired objectives; (3) external and internal motivating factors outlined extrinsic dynamics (eg, quality metrics, referrals) and intrinsic drivers (eg, surgeons' personal experiences) that influenced high-risk decision-making; and (4) decision-making approaches and challenges encompassed the roles of patients and surgeons and obstacles to engaging in a true shared decision-making process.

CONCLUSION

Although shared decision-making is strongly recommended, we found that surgeons who perform high-risk operations among older adults predominantly focused on assessing risk and setting expectations with patients and families rather than inviting them to actively participate in the decision-making process. Surgeons also reported influences on decision-making from quality metrics, referrals, and personal experiences. Patient involvement, however, was seldom discussed suggesting that surgeons may not be engaging in true shared decision-making when benefits should be weighed against a high likelihood of harm.

A Comparison of Perceptions of Reassurance in Patients with Nontraumatic Neck Pain and Whiplash-Associated Disorders in Consultations with Primary Care Practitioners-An Online Survey

OBJECTIVES

Neck pain remains highly prevalent and costly worldwide. Although reassurance has been recommended as a first line of treatment, specific advice on the best ways to provide reassurance has not been provided due to lack of evidence. Pain symptoms and experiences differ between patients with whiplash-associated disorder (WAD) and those with nontraumatic neck pain (NTNP). The aims of this study were to 1) identify and compare the concerns, fears, and worries of patients with WAD and NTNP; and 2) determine if patients believe their concerns are addressed by primary care providers.

METHODS

These questions were investigated through an online survey, with a convenience sample of 30 participants with NTNP and 20 with WAD.

RESULTS

A thematic analysis of survey responses resulted in the following seven themes related to common concerns, and two regarding how well concerns were addressed. Common concerns expressed by both groups shared four themes: 1) further structural damage, 2) psychological distress, 3) concerns about the future, and 4) hardships that eventuate. Theme 5), pain/disability is long term, was specific to WAD. Themes 6), pain is current or reoccurring, and 7), interference with daily life, were specific to NTNP. Regarding how well patient concerns were addressed, two overarching themes were common to both conditions: 1) concerns were addressed, with both groups sharing the subthemes "successful treatment," "reassurance," and "trust"; and 2) concerns were not addressed, where all subthemes were shared with the exception of two unique to NTNP.

CONCLUSIONS

This detailed comparison provides information about neck pain patients' concerns and fears, while providing health practitioners support for selecting strategies to promote reassurance appropriately for individual patient needs. Our findings from patients' perspectives enhance the understanding for providing reassurance for neck pain as proposed by our analysis.

Informed Consent for Academic Surgeons: A Curriculum-Based Update

INTRODUCTION

The principles of consent are evolving but remain an important part of the surgeon-patient relationship. The goal of this course was a concise, contemporary review of the principles of informed consent that would be favorably received by academic surgeons.

METHODS

The curriculum consisted of ethicohistorical and legal principles, current requirements, and new consent developments. An anonymous, voluntary evaluation tool was used to assess strengths and opportunities for improvement. A short postcourse quiz was developed to assess understanding.

RESULTS

Eighty-five percent of the surgery department faculty participated. Evaluations were overwhelmingly positive, all elements having weighted averages of greater than 4.5 on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Furthermore, a majority of respondents for the posttest got the answers correct for all five questions asked on the postcourse quiz.

DISCUSSION

A proper understanding of informed consent remains critically important in the practice of surgery. This short course updating surgeons on informed consent quantitatively confirms the favorable reception of this approach in terms of attendance and satisfaction, as well as understanding of the material.

A Qualitative Comparison of Reassurance Approaches Used by Physical Therapists to Address Fears and Concerns of Patients With Nonspecific Neck Pain and Whiplash-Associated Disorders: An Online Survey

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to identify and compare (1) what physical therapists perceive to be the main concerns, fears, and worries that patients with whiplash-associated disorders (WAD) and nontraumatic neck pain (NTNP) have as a result of their condition, and (2) the strategies used by physical therapists to address these fears and concerns.

METHODS

Using convenience sampling, 30 physical therapists completed 2 online open-ended surveys. The responses were analyzed using 2 descriptive analytic methods (thematic analysis and constant comparative analysis), and then themes were examined for areas of convergence and divergence.

RESULTS

Four similar themes for both neck pain groups were produced from our analysis of the survey responses: (1) interference with daily life, (2) concerns related to pain, (3) psychological distress, and (4) ``When I will recover?'' Subthemes differed between the groups. For example, the theme "psychological distress" had subthemes of anger and thoughts about no resolution for the WAD group, whereas for the NTNP group, subthemes were anxiety and uncertainty. The only divergent theme was (5) fear avoidance, present in the NTNP group only. Analysis of physical therapist strategies identified 3 consistent themes and 5 divergent themes across the 2 groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Physical therapists described a wealth of reassurance strategies for individuals with NTNP and WAD. There were several shared themes but also some discordant ones. Reassurance is multifactorial and needs to be nuanced and not prescriptive.

IMPACT

These qualitative findings may be key to inform the differentiated content of training programs for physical therapists delivering reassurance for these 2 populations.

Understanding decision making about major surgery: protocol for a qualitative study of shared decision making by high-risk patients and their clinical teams

INTRODUCTION

Surgical treatments are being offered to more patients than ever before, and increasingly to high-risk patients (typically multimorbid and over 75). Shared decision making is seen as essential practice. However, little is currently known about what 'good' shared decision making involves nor how it applies in the context of surgery for high-risk patients. This new study aims to identify how high-risk patients, their families and clinical teams negotiate decision making for major surgery.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Focusing on major joint replacement, colorectal and cardiac surgery, we use qualitative methods to explore how patients, their families and clinicians negotiate decision making (including interactional, communicative and informational aspects and the extent to which these are perceived as shared) and reflect back on the decisions they made. Phase 1 involves video recording 15 decision making encounters about major surgery between patients, their carers/families and clinicians; followed by up to 90 interviews (with the same patient, carer and clinician participants) immediately after a decision has been made and again 3-6 months later. Phase 2 involves focus groups with a wider group of (up to 90) patients and (up to 30) clinicians to test out emerging findings and inform development of shared decision making scenarios (3-5 summary descriptions of how decisions are made).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study forms the first part in a 6-year programme of research, Optimising Shared decision-makIng for high-RIsk major Surgery (OSIRIS). Ethical challenges around involving patients at a challenging time in their lives will be overseen by the programme steering committee, which includes strong patient representation and a lay chair. In addition to academic outputs, we will produce a typology of decision making scenarios for major surgery to feed back to patients, professionals and service providers and inform subsequent work in the OSIRIS programme.

Systematic review and narrative synthesis of surgeons' perception of postoperative outcomes and risk

BACKGROUND

The accuracy with which surgeons can predict outcomes following surgery has not been explored in a systematic way. The aim of this review was to determine how accurately a surgeon's 'gut feeling' or perception of risk correlates with patient outcomes and available risk scoring systems.

METHODS

A systematic review was undertaken in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A narrative synthesis was performed in accordance with the Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis In Systematic Reviews. Studies comparing surgeons' preoperative or postoperative assessment of patient outcomes were included. Studies that made comparisons with risk scoring tools were also included. Outcomes evaluated were postoperative mortality, general and operation-specific morbidity and long-term outcomes.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven studies comprising 20 898 patients undergoing general, gastrointestinal, cardiothoracic, orthopaedic, vascular, urology, endocrine and neurosurgical operations were included. Surgeons consistently overpredicted mortality rates and were outperformed by existing risk scoring tools in six of seven studies comparing area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves (AUC). Surgeons' prediction of general morbidity was good, and was equivalent to, or better than, pre-existing risk prediction models. Long-term outcomes were poorly predicted by surgeons, with AUC values ranging from 0·51 to 0·75. Four of five studies found postoperative risk estimates to be more accurate than those made before surgery.

CONCLUSION

Surgeons consistently overestimate mortality risk and are outperformed by pre-existing tools; prediction of longer-term outcomes is also poor. Surgeons should consider the use of risk prediction tools when available to inform clinical decision-making.

Surgical decision-making in infants with suspected UPJ obstruction: stakeholder perspectives

INTRODUCTION

Although there are significant demographic and clinical variations in treatment decisions for infants with high-grade hydronephrosis concerning for ureteropelvic junction obstruction (UPJO), there has been little research on the roles of parents and surgeons in the surgical decision-making (DM) process.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to understand parents' and surgeons' perceived roles in the surgical DM process for infants with high-grade hydronephrosis.

STUDY DESIGN

Semistructured interviews were conducted with pediatric urologists from three regionally diverse tertiary referral sites and parents of infants diagnosed and treated for unilateral Society for Fetal Urology grade 3 or 4 hydronephrosis at one tertiary pediatric urology practice. Purposive sampling was used to ensure adequate representation of parents based on treatment choice, patient gender, race/ethnicity, and distance from the practice. Survey domains included (1) discussions about diagnosis and treatment options, (2) factors guiding treatment choice, and (3) participants' role in the DM process. Transcribed data and field notes were analyzed using a team-based, inductive grounded theory qualitative approach.

RESULTS

Thirteen physicians and 32 parents were interviewed between November 2016 and November 2017. Parents and surgeons agreed that the surgeon was best equipped to guide treatment decisions because of their clinical knowledge and experience. Parents reported that their trust in the surgeon was the primary factor in their decisions. Surgeons reported tailoring discussions with parents to not only educate them about treatment options but also to develop an ongoing relationship with parents. Both parents and surgeons reported being satisfied with their roles in the DM process.

DISCUSSION

This study suggests that parental trust in the surgeon and surgeon recommendations drive DM. This may be due to a lack of explicit discussion of options or of parental values and preferences for care. Limited discussions may also impact parental understanding of risks and potential complications. These findings are similar to those of prior studies in adults and children considering elective surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, parents and surgeons reported that surgeon recommendations, rather than parent preferences, guide treatment choices for infants with suspected UPJO. Both parents and surgeons are satisfied with a physician-driven approach to DM, suggesting that, in situations where the perceived risk is low and parental knowledge is limited, parents may find a physician-led approach beneficial. Data gleaned from this study will be used to inform future quantitative studies evaluating factors guiding surgeon recommendations for treatment and their associations with underlying treatment variation.

Shared Decision-Making

Shared decision-making is not a new concept but has been gaining traction in recent years as a means of engaging patients in their health care choices. Decision aid development is being encouraged in order to further enhance patient discussions with clinicians. As shared decision-making engages the patient's core values and goals, clinicians are better able to guide patients with their health care choices. Shared decision-making results in less utilization of health care resources, engages more patient autonomy, and is being advocated for all patients as value-based care.

Surgical safety in radical cystectomy: the anesthetist's point of view-how to make a safe procedure safer

PURPOSE

The aim of this review is to present an anesthesiological overview on surgical safety for radical cystectomy implementing the cornerstones of today's rapidly evolving field of perioperative medicine.

METHODS

This is a narrative review of current perioperative medicine and surgical safety concepts for major surgery in general with special focus on radical cystectomy.

RESULTS

The tendency for perioperative care and surgical safety is to consider it a continuous proactive pathway rather than a single surgical intervention. It starts at indication for surgery and lasts until full functional recovery. Preoperative optimization leads to superior outcome by mobilizing and/or increasing physiological reserve. Multidisciplinary teamwork involving all the relevant parties from the beginning of the pathway is crucial for outcome rather than an isolated specialist approach. This fact has gained importance in times of an ageing frail population and rising health care cost. We also present our 2019 Cystectomy Enhanced Recovery Approach for optimization of perioperative care for open radical cystectomy in a high caseload center.

CONCLUSIONS

With the implementation of in itself simple but crucial steps in perioperative medicine such as multimodal prehabilitation, safety checks, better perioperative monitoring and enhanced recovery concepts, even complex surgical procedures such as radical cystectomy can be performed safer. Emphasis has to be laid on a more global view of the patients' path through the perioperative process than on the surgical procedure alone.