Shared decision making in surgery: a scoping review of patient and surgeon preferences

Patient Decisional Preferences: A Systematic Review of Instruments Used to Determine Patients' Preferred Role in Decision-Making

Decision control preferences (DCPs) refer to the degree of control patients' desire over their medical treatment. Several validated tools exist to evaluate a patient's DCPs, yet there is no universally used instrument and their use in clinical settings is lacking. We provide a systematic comparative summary of available DCP tools. Following a systematic database search, English language studies across medical contexts and patient populations were eligible if a validated assessment tool to evaluate patient DCPs was reported. Among the 15 tools that met inclusion criteria, the autonomy preference index (API) and the control preference scale (CPS) were the most used tools (API: 40%, CPS: 26.6%). Most studies (n = 9) sought to identify the information-seeking preferences of patients as a critical component of decision-making. Only few studies evaluated providers' perceptions of patient preferences. Considering the variety of patients' DCPs, implementation of DCP tools can optimize shared decision-making and improve patient outcomes.

Does Learner Communication Behavior Change Based on Context? Observations of Surgical Residents Across Clinical Rotations

OBJECTIVE

As surgical residency programs begin developing communication skills-specific training curricula, it is important to understand those skills required of surgeons in the many settings in which they work. It is also useful to observe the skills that residents already demonstrate, as well as those skills that need further development. This study evaluated surgical residents' communication behaviors across different services to understand how the clinical learning environment influences their approach to surgeon-patient interactions.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Our communication coaching program used standardized observation and coding to evaluate residents' communication on pediatric surgery, community general surgery, and trauma/acute care surgery services.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-four senior residents were observed interacting with patients and families on morning rounds in each of 3 settings.

RESULTS

A total of 373 patient-resident interactions were observed. Behaviors like introducing the team, showing courtesy and respect, and sharing next steps were consistent across settings. However, different patterns emerged when evaluating 15 skills: effective communication behaviors occurred at the highest rates in pediatrics, followed by community surgery, and lowest in trauma. Most communication behaviors varied significantly between settings, underscoring the need to understand effective communication in each context to support learner development accordingly.

CONCLUSIONS

Communication skills varied significantly among the same surgical residents across different settings. The findings highlight the importance of supporting learners in adapting fundamental aspects of effective communication in various clinical environments. Modern surgical training can benefit from increased focus on communication skills across learning environments, using 1:1 communication coaching that emphasizes existing strengths, and tailoring communication skills to particular settings.

Disparities in timely surgery among Asian American women with breast cancer

BACKGROUND

We investigated the likelihood of timely surgery for breast cancer patients among diverse Asian subgroups.

METHODS

We analyzed the National Cancer Database from 2010 to 2019 and included White and Asian women diagnosed with stage I-III breast cancer. Patients with multiple cancers, patients who received chemotherapy, and those diagnosed and treated at different hospitals were excluded. The primary outcome was timely surgery within 8 weeks of diagnosis. Race was the primary independent variable. Asian Americans were stratified by geography.

RESULTS

A total of 716,701 women were analyzed, with 3.5% Asians. Delayed surgery was experienced by 13.2% of women. Adjusted analysis indicated no difference in receiving timely surgery between all Asians and Whites. However, Southeast Asians were less likely to undergo timely surgery compared to Whites (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.67-0.84).

CONCLUSIONS

Variations among Asian ethnicities emphasize the need to explore treatment patterns to address disparities in breast cancer care.

Translation, adaptation, and validation of the Care Coordination Instrument for cancer patients

BACKGROUND

Cancer requires interdisciplinary intersectoral care. The Care Coordination Instrument (CCI) captures patients' perspectives on cancer care coordination. We aimed to translate, adapt, and validate the CCI for Germany (CCI German version).

METHODS

The original English version contains 29 items in three domains, measured on a 4-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree). Validation was conducted in three phases (mixed methods): (I) translation; (II) adaptation: pilot testing and revision in an iterative process using semi-structured, cognitive interviews with patients and professionals (physicians specializing in cancer), with interviews transcribed and qualitatively analyzed by inductive coding; and (III) validation: quantitative validation performed online (LimeSurvey), of at least 80 German patients, each with common cancer (breast, prostate) and rare cancer (different entities), with examination of factor structure (factor analysis) and determination of internal consistency (Cronbach's α) as well as potential influencing factors such as gender, education, or migration background (multivariable regression).

RESULTS

Six patients and six professionals tested the translated instrument for comprehensibility, readability, and acceptability. Two items were consistently problematic for interviewees. A 31-item version (29 items + 2 alternative items) was validated in 192 patients. The alternative items had a higher variance in response behavior and were better understood; therefore, they replaced the two problematic items. However, the three original domains could not be confirmed statistically. Exploratively, a two-factorial structure (with cross-loadings) emerged, which can be interpreted as "communication/information" (16 items) and "need-based navigation" (17 items). Overall, the instrument had a high internal consistency (total score α = 0.931, M = 47.16, SD = 14.25; communication/information α = 0.924, M = 30.14, SD = 8.93; need-based navigation α = 0.868, M = 23.99, SD = 8.37). Significant factors on the care coordination score are treatment location (hospital vs. private practice oncologist M = -9.83 score points, p = 0.011) and gender (women vs. men M = 8.92 score points, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

The CCI German version is a valid instrument for measuring patients' perceptions of cancer care coordination. Both domains reflect important aspects of care. The sensitivity of the CCI should be examined in future studies involving different cancer entities.

A cross-sectional analysis to characterise treatment decision making for advanced cancer at a tertiary treatment centre: Where can we improve the process?

PURPOSE

In decisions relating to cancer treatment, the risks and benefits of treatment and the patient's preferences must be considered to ensure concordance with goals of care. Shared decision making (SDM) can facilitate these discussions and is associated with reduced decision conflict. This study aimed to characterise decision making for advanced cancer patients at a UK tertiary cancer centre and identify who may be at risk of suboptimal SDM and increased decision conflict.

METHODS

Participants completed the SDM-Q-9, decision conflict and decision self-efficacy scale following a consultation where an advanced cancer treatment decision was made. Pearson's chi-square test identified patient characteristics associated with SDM-Q-9, decision self-efficacy and decision conflict score categories; odds ratios were calculated to determine which patients were at increased probability of experiencing suboptimal SDM, low decision self-efficacy or high decision conflict.

RESULTS

Participant's (n = 211) scores indicated predominantly high SDM, high decision self-efficacy and low decision conflict. Patient gender and the presence of an informal caregiver in consultation were significantly associated with SDM-Q-9 score category (p > 0.05). Female patients (OR = 2.466, 95% CI: 1.223-4.974) and those attending consultations alone (OR = 0.440, 95% CI: 0.222-0.874) had greater odds of reporting lower SDM scores.

CONCLUSION

High SDM scores indicate either effective SDM behaviours or satisfaction with care biasing responses. Greater support to engage with SDM is required for female patients and those who attend alone in advanced cancer treatment decision consultations.

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.

Decision-making preferences and regret in rectal cancer patients undergoing restorative proctectomy: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

How patients make treatment choices in rectal cancer is poorly understood and may affect long-term regret and satisfaction. The objective of this study is to characterize decision-making preferences and their effect on decisional regret in patients undergoing restorative proctectomy for rectal cancer.

METHODS

A prospective cohort study was conducted in a single academic specialist rectal cancer center from October 2018 to June 2022. Adult patients who underwent restorative proctectomy at least one year prior were recruited. Health literacy was assessed using the BRIEF instrument. Decision-making preferences regarding cancer treatment were assessed using the Control Preferences Scale. Decisional regret regarding their choice of restorative proctectomy was assessed using the Decision Regret Score. Bowel dysfunction was measured using the low anterior resection syndrome score.

RESULTS

Overall, 123 patients were included. Health literacy was categorized as adequate in 63%, marginal in 25%, and limited in 12%. Patients with adequate health literacy were more likely to prefer a collaborative decision-making role compared with those with low health literacy (86% vs 65%, P = .016). Patients with incongruence between preferred and actual decision-making roles were more likely to report high regret (56% vs 25%, P = .003). Patients with major low anterior resection syndrome were also more likely to experience high regret compared with patients with no/minor low anterior resection syndrome (44% vs 25%, P = .036).

CONCLUSION

A significant proportion of patients with rectal cancer undergoing restorative proctectomy do not have a decision-making role that is congruent with their preferences, and these patients experience a high degree of regret.

Exploring Patient Preferences Related to Shared Decision-Making in Chronic Disease Management

Background and objective Shared decision-making (SDM) in healthcare has transitioned from a paternalistic model to a collaborative approach, particularly significant in chronic disease management. This shift focuses on aligning healthcare decisions with patient preferences and values, thereby enhancing patient engagement and treatment adherence. However, patient preferences regarding involvement in SDM vary widely, influenced by demographic, disease-specific, psychological, cultural, and social factors. This study aimed to explore patient preferences related to SDM in chronic disease management in Saudi Arabia, by assessing attitudes toward SDM, the impact of decision aids, and the role of clinician communication in influencing these preferences. Methods A cross-sectional survey design was employed, involving 409 adult outpatients with chronic diseases attending four public hospitals in Saudi Arabia. Participants were selected using purposive and convenience sampling. The survey, translated into Arabic, collected demographic data and information on preferences and experiences in decision-making, communication, and information sharing. The data were analyzed using SPSS Statistics (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) to identify patterns and correlations. Results Key findings indicated a strong preference among the participants for involvement in treatment decisions (n=303, 74.2%) and clear communication using layman's terms (n=338, 82.6%). Major barriers to active participation in SDM included lack of time during appointments (n=275, 67.2%), difficulty understanding medical terminology (n=220, 53.9%), and feeling intimidated to ask questions (297, 72.6%). Comfort in SDM was highest in the age group of 41-50 years [mean=4.16, standard deviation (SD)=28.44; F=2.3287, p=0.0739]. Patient satisfaction was significantly higher in the age group of 18-30 years (mean=3.42, SD=1.09; F=3.0503, p=0.0284). Conclusions Our findings highlight the need for incorporating patient preferences into chronic disease management strategies to enhance engagement and satisfaction.

A Cross-Sectional Study on Patient Preferences for Selecting Surgeons for Joint Replacement Surgery in India

Introduction This study aims to investigate the complex decision-making process of patients in India when choosing surgeons for joint replacement surgery, with a focus on both clinical and non-clinical factors influencing their preferences. Methods This was a cross-sectional observational study conducted at the KIMS-Sunshine Hospitals, Hyderabad, a high-volume tertiary care institute in India, in which patients with end-stage osteoarthritis requiring primary total knee arthroplasty were evaluated using a self-administered questionnaire, which assessed both patient-related and surgeon-related factors in choosing their joint replacement surgeon. Results A total of 210 participants were surveyed among whom the majority were females with an average age of 60.2 years with the majority belonging to the upper-middle-class socioeconomic status (48.6%, N=102). Fifty-nine percent preferred surgeons with over 20 years of experience, and 63.8% were willing to travel out-of-state for recognized expertise. Family recommendations (33.8%) and surgeon reputation (24.3%) were primary factors in surgeon selection. A vast majority (73.3%) preferred surgeons who were skilled in robotic surgery and had foreign training (32.9%). However, the majority (67.6%) did not express any gender preference. The survey highlighted a broad range of informational sources affecting decisions, including financial consideration (63.8%), personal referrals, and online platforms (17.1%). Preferences were also shaped by hospital reputation and insurance options (10.5%), illustrating a nuanced interplay of quality, cost, and personal connections in the selection process. Conclusion The findings of this survey illuminate the intricate and diverse preferences exhibited by patients when selecting a surgeon for joint replacement surgery. A significant rise in patient expectations is evident, underscoring a demand for more personalized, contemporary, and high-quality healthcare services. Importantly, geographical proximity appears to be a diminishing concern in their decision-making process. This trend presents an opportunity for centers of excellence to extend their influence and attract patients on both a regional and national level.

A qualitative study on informed consent decision-making at two tertiary hospitals in Uganda: Experiences of patients undergoing emergency surgery and their next of kin

Background

In emergency situations, patients and their next of kin must make complex medical and ethical decisions in a quick and timely way.

Objectives

To describe the decision-making process during informed consent for emergency surgery among patients and the next of kin of patients who have undergone emergency surgery.

Methods

Consecutive sampling of 39 participants and in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted at two tertiary teaching hospitals in Uganda. There were 22 patients and 17 next of kin of patients who had undergone emergency surgery within 24-72 h. Responses about decision-making were coded into themes using the social constructivist theory and phenomenological approach.

Results

There were four emergent themes; decision-makers, people consulted, documentation of the consent and factors influencing decision-making. Most patients and next of kin made decisions on their own and documented the consent for themselves. Other family members and doctors were consulted during the decision-making process. Decision-making was influenced by reassurance of good outcomes of surgery and disclosure by the doctors.

Conclusion

Decisions were made collaboratively with the patient at the center but with input of health personnel, the next of kin and other family members. A communitarian approach combined with shared decision-making between the doctor and the patient and next of kin with adequate discussion and disclosure of information in simple language would improve decision-making for patients and their next of kin.

Application of Robotic Stereotactic Assistance (ROSA) for spontaneous intracerebral hematoma aspiration and thrombolytic catheter placement

BACKGROUND

Spontaneous intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) accounts for up to 20% of all strokes and results in 40% mortality at 30 days. Although conservative medical management is still the standard treatment for ICH patients with small hematoma, patients with residual hematoma ≤15 mL after surgery are associated with better functional outcomes and survival rates. This study reported our clinical experience with using Robotic Stereotactic Assistance (ROSA) as a safe and effective approach for stereotactic ICH aspiration and intra-clot catheter placement.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients with spontaneous ICH who underwent ROSA-guided ICH aspiration surgery. ROSA-guided ICH surgical techniques, an aspiration and intra-clot catheter placement protocol, and a specific operative workflow (pre-operative protocol, intraoperative procedure and postoperative management) were employed to aspirate ICH using the ROSA One Brain, and appropriate follow-up care was provided.

RESULTS

From September 14, 2021 to May 4, 2022, a total of 7 patients were included in the study. Based on our workflow design, ROSA-guided stereotactic ICH aspiration effectively aspirated more than 50% of hematoma volume (or more than 30 mL for massive hematomas), thereby reducing the residual hematoma to less than 15 mL. The mean operative time of entire surgical procedure was 1.3 ± 0.3 h, with very little perioperative blood loss and no perioperative complications. No patients required catheter replacement and all patients' functional status improved.

CONCLUSIONS

Within our clinical practice ROSA-guided ICH aspiration, using our established protocol and workflow, was safe and effective for reducing hematoma volume, with positive functional outcomes.

Decision-Making in Surgery

Surgeons face unique challenges in perioperative decision-making and communication with patients and families. In cardiothoracic surgery, the stakes are high, life and death decisions must be made quickly, and surgeons often lack a longstanding relationship with patients and families prior to intervention. This review considers specific challenges in the preoperative period followed by those faced postoperatively. While preoperative deliberation and informed consent focus on reaching a decision between 2 or more alternative approaches, the most vexing postoperative decisions often involve the patient's discontent with the best-case outcome or how to ensure goal-concordant care when complications arise. This review explores the preoperative ethical and legal requirement for informed consent by describing the contemporary preferred method, shared decision-making. We also present a framework to optimize surgeon communication and promote patient and family engagement in the setting of high-risk surgery for older patients with serious illness. In the postoperative period the family is often tasked with deciding what to do about major complications when the patient has lost decision-making capacity. We discuss several examples and offer strategies for surgeons to navigate these challenging situations. We also explore the concepts of clinical heroism and futility in relation to communicating with patients and families about the outcomes of surgery. Persistent ethical challenges in decision-making suggest that surgeons should improve their skills in communicating with patients to better engage with them, both before and after surgery.

What is 'physiological birth'? A scoping review of the perspectives of women and care providers

PROBLEM

Physiological birth was defined by the World Health Organization in 1997, however, clinical practices in childbirth have changed considerably since this time.

BACKGROUND

Ambiguous terms in healthcare such as 'physiological birth' may cause confusion amongst care providers and consumers.

AIM

To identify what is known about physiological birth, and how perceptions of physiological birth manifest in current literature.

METHODS

This review followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews and the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Four databases were searched using keywords relating to physiological birth. Relevant studies were identified using agreed criteria, and data were extracted and synthesised.

RESULTS

A total of 24 studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Three connected factors were identified: (1) Physiological birth in a risk-averse system, (2) Dominant voices in birth, and (3) Lack of exposure to physiological birth. No unified universal definition of physiological birth was identified in the literature.

DISCUSSION

'Physiological birth' as a term lacks consistency. A risk-averse healthcare system could be a barrier to physiological birth. Dominant voices in the birthing space can dictate the way birth occurs. Lack of exposure to physiological birth may diminish the acquisition and maintenance of important skills and knowledge among care providers. Recognising the factors important to women could lead to a positive birth experience.

CONCLUSION

Excluding a woman's subjective experience from health professionals' understanding of physiological birth increases the likelihood of risk management being the paramount objective in clinical decision-making. We propose it is timely to align clinical understanding of physiological birth with midwifery's woman-centred professional philosophy.

A qualitative study of the experiences and perceptions of older patients and relatives prior to cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making plays an important role in ensuring value-based healthcare in cardiac surgery. However, the personal situations of patients in cardiac care have not been widely explored, and thus, little is known about the decision-making experiences of patients and their relatives before surgery.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the perceptions of patients indicated for cardiac surgery and their relatives during the decision-making process, as well as their experiences of a conversation aimed at achieving shared decision-making in the treatment trajectory.

METHODS

The data were collected through semi-structured in-depth interviews with patients aged ≥70 years who were indicated for cardiac surgery and their relatives until theme saturation. Both inductive and deductive analysis were conducted based on the principles of reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Interviews with 16 patients and 10 relatives provided in-depth insights into the experiences of patients and their relatives in terms of a shared decision-making process prior to surgery. Overall, 15 subthemes were identified, and these were divided into three themes. In general, the patients' experiences and perceptions were influenced by their (1) general daily functioning. The relatives were more concerned about (2) social expectations and (3) existential uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients eligible for cardiac surgery and their families have unique experiences and perceptions during the process of shared decision-making. The subthemes emerging from this study, such as the overestimation of potential medical outcomes by patients and their relatives, who experience fear about the current health situation of their loved one, require careful attention from healthcare professionals during decision-making conversations.

Behaviour, barriers and facilitators of shared decision making in breast cancer surgical treatment: A qualitative systematic review using a 'Best Fit' framework approach

BACKGROUND

Due to the diversity and high sensitivity of the treatment, there were difficulties and uncertainties in the breast cancer surgical decision-making process. We aimed to describe the patient's decision-making behaviour and shared decision-making (SDM)-related barriers and facilitators in breast cancer surgical treatment.

METHODS

We searched eight databases for qualitative studies and mixed-method studies about breast cancer patients' surgical decision-making process from inception to March 2021. The quality of the studies was critically appraised by two researchers independently. We used a 'best fit framework approach' to analyze and synthesize the evidence.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight qualitative studies and three mixed-method studies were included in this study. Four themes and 10 subthemes were extracted: (a) struggling with various considerations, (b) actual decision-making behaviours, (c) SDM not routinely implemented and (d) multiple facilitators and barriers to SDM.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients had various considerations of breast surgery and SDM was not routinely implemented. There was a discrepancy between information exchange behaviours, value clarification, decision support utilization and SDM due to cognitive and behavioural biases. When individuals made surgical decisions, their behaviours were affected by individual-level and system-level factors. Therefore, healthcare providers and other stakeholders should constantly improve communication skills and collaboration, and emphasize the importance of decision support, so as to embed SDM into routine practice.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This systematic review was conducted as part of a wider research entitled: Breast cancer patients' actual participation roles in surgical decision making: a mixed method research. The results of this project helped us to better analyze and generalize patients' views.

Assessing performance of Geriatric Surgery Verification Program preoperative communication standards in spine surgery

BACKGROUND

To assess performance of the American College of Surgeons Geriatric Surgery Verification (GSV) Program preoperative communication standards in older patients undergoing high risk spine surgery.

METHODS

We performed an external validation of a natural language processing (NLP) method for identifying documentation meeting GSV communication standards. We then applied this method to a retrospective cohort of patients aged 65 and older who underwent spinal fusion procedures between January 2018-December 2020 in a large healthcare system in Massachusetts. Our primary outcome of interest was fulfillment of GSV communication domains: overall health goals, treatment goals, and patient-centered outcomes. Factors associated with the fulfillment of at least one domain were assessed using Poisson regression to adjust for confounding.

RESULTS

External validation of the NLP method had a sensitivity of 88.6% and specificity of 99.0%. Our study population included 1294 patients, of whom only 0.8% (n = 10) patients contained documentation of all three GSV domains, and 33.7% (n = 436) had documentation fulfilling at least one GSV domain. The GSV domain with lowest frequency of documentation was overall health goals, with only 35 (2.7%) of patients meeting this requirement. Adjusted analysis suggested that patients with a Charlson comorbidity score of one or more had higher fulfillment of GSV criteria (CCI 1-3: prevalence rate ratio (PRR) 1.8, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.5-2.1; CCI >3: PRR 1.5, 95% CI 1.2-1.9).

CONCLUSION

A paucity of geriatric patients undergoing spine surgery had preoperative documentation consistent with GSV standards. Given that spine surgery is one of the highest risk surgeries in older adults and GSV standards are relevant to all surgical specialties, wider promulgation of these standards is warranted.

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.

Gaps in Patient-Centered Decision-Making Related to Complex Surgery: A Mixed-Methods Study

INTRODUCTION

We sought to understand the perceptions of surgeons around patient preferred roles in decision-making and their approaches to patient-centered decision-making (PCDM).

METHODS

A concurrent embedded mixed-methods design was utilized among a cohort of surgeons performing complex surgical procedures. Data were collected through online surveys. Associations between perceptions and PCDM approaches were examined.

RESULTS

Among 241 participants, most respondents were male (67.2%) with an average age of 47.6 y (standard deviation = 10.3); roughly half (52.4%) had practiced medicine for 10 or more years. Surgeons most frequently agreed (94.2%) with the statement, "Patients prefer to make health decisions on their own after seriously considering their physician's opinion." Conversely, surgeons most frequently disagreed (73.0%) with the statement, "Patients prefer that their physician make health decisions for them." Nearly one-third (30.4%) of surgeon qualitative responses (n = 115) indicated that clinical/biological information would help them tailor their approach to PCDM. Only 12.2% of respondents indicated that they assess patient preferences regarding both decision-making and information needs.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons most frequently agree that patients want to make their own health decisions after seriously considering their physicians opinion. A greater focus on what information surgeons should know before treatment decision-making may help optimize patient experience and outcomes related to complex surgical procedures.

Which factors influence the approach to shared decision-making among surgeons performing complex operations?

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) aims to create a context in which patients and surgeons work together to explore treatment options and goals of care. The objective of the current study was to characterize demographic factors, behaviors, and perceptions of patient involvement among surgeons relative to SDM.

METHODS

Using a cross-sectional survey methodology, surgeon demographics, behaviors, and perceptions of patient involvement were assessed. Surgeon approaches to SDM were measured using a 100-point scale ranging from 'patient-led' (0) to 'surgeon-led' (100).

RESULTS

Among 241 respondents, most were male (n = 123, 67.2%) and White (n = 124, 69.3%); roughly one-half of surgeons had been in practice ≥10 years (n = 120, 52.4%). Surgeon approaches to SDM ranged from 0 to 81.0, with a median rating of 50.0 (IQR: 35.5, 62.0). Reported approaches to SDM were associated with years in practice, sharing information, and perceptions of patient involvement. Surgeons in practice 10 + years most frequently utilized a 'Shared, Patient-led' approach to SDM (27.5%), while individuals with less experience more often employed a 'Shared, Surgeon-led' approach (33.3%, p = 0.031). Surgeons with a 'Patient-led' approach perceived patient involvement as most important (M = 3.82, SD = 0.16), while respondents who had a 'Surgeon-led' approach considered this less important (M = 3.57, SD = 0.38; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Surgeon factors including demographics, behaviors, and perceptions of patient involvement influenced SDM approaches. SDM between patients and surgeons should strive to be more dynamic and tailored to each specific patient's needs to promote optimal patient-centered care.

Insights for Healthcare Providers on Shared Decision-Making in Multiple Sclerosis: A Narrative Review

Shared decision-making (SDM) between the patient and their healthcare provider (HCP) in developing treatment plans is increasingly recognized as central to improving treatment adherence and, ultimately, patient outcomes. In multiple sclerosis (MS), SDM is particularly crucial for optimizing treatment in a landscape that has grown more complex with the availability of newer, high-efficacy MS therapies. However, little direct evidence on the effectiveness of SDM is available to guide practice. Multiple factors, including patient age, ethnic background, perceptions, invisible MS symptoms, and psychological comorbidities can influence a patient's willingness and ability to participate in SDM. HCPs need to appreciate these factors and ask the right questions to break down obstacles to SDM. The HCP has a responsibility to help patients feel adequately informed and comfortable in having an active role in their care. This review identifies potential barriers to SDM and provides a strategy for HCPs to overcome these obstacles through patient (and caregiver) discussions to ensure optimal patient satisfaction with treatment and thus the best possible outcomes for their patients.

Patient and clinician perspectives on implant dentistry decision aid content: Results from an enhanced Delphi study

PURPOSE

To investigate patient and clinician perspectives on what is considered important to include in a decision aid for replacement of a missing tooth with an implant.

METHODS

An online modified Delphi method with pair comparisons technique was used to survey participants (66 patients, 48 prosthodontists, 46 periodontists, and 31 oral surgeons) in Ontario, Canada from November 2020 to April 2021 regarding the importance of information provided during an implant consultation. Round one included 19 items derived from the literature and informed consent protocols. The decision to retain an item was based on group consensus, defined as at least 75% of participants identifying the item as "important" or "highly important." After analysis of round one results, a second-round survey was sent to all participants to rank the relative importance of the consensus items. Statistical testing was completed using the Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance test and post hoc Mann-Whitney U tests with a significance level set at p ≤ 0.05.

RESULTS

The first and second surveys had response rates of 77.0% and 45.6%, respectively. In round one, all items except purpose of steps reached group consensus. In round two, the highest group ranked items were patient responsibilities for treatment success and follow-ups after treatment. The lowest group ranked items were cost factors and restorative steps. Significant differences between the stakeholder groups were found on several items, including diagnosis (p ≤ 0.00), non-implant options (p ≤ 0.00), and cost (p ≤ 0.01). In general, patients' opinions were significantly different than clinicians' opinions on the relative importance of items.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians and patients feel that multiple items are important to include in a decision aid for implant therapy; however, differences exist between patients and clinicians on the relative importance of items.

A scoping review into the explanations for differences in the degrees of shared decision making experienced by patients

OBJECTIVES

In order to improve the degree of shared decision making (SDM) experienced by patients, it is necessary to gain insight into the explanations for the differences in these degrees.

METHODS

A scoping review of the literature on the explanations for differences in the degree of SDM experienced by patients was conducted. We assessed 21,329 references. Ultimately, 308 studies were included. The explanations were divided into micro, meso, and macro levels.

RESULTS

The explanations are mainly related to the micro level. They include explanations related to the patient and healthcare professionals, the relationship between the patient and the physician, and the involvement of the patient's relatives. On the macro level, explanations are related to restrictions within the healthcare system such as time constraints, and adequate information about treatment options. On the meso level, explanations are related to the continuity of care and the involvement of other healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

SDM is not an isolated process between the physician and patient. Explanations are connected to the macro, meso, and micro levels.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

This scoping review suggests that there could be more focus on explanations related to the macro and meso levels, and on how explanations at different levels are interrelated.

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.

Breast cancer surgical decision-making. Experiences of Non-Caucasian women globally. A qualitative systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To perform a qualitative systematic review exploring the influencing factors within the surgical decision-making (SDM) processes following a breast cancer diagnosis in non-caucasian women globally.

STUDY DESIGN

Qualitative systemic review following PRISMA guidelines.

METHODS

A comprehensive search strategy was applied to four databases. 5243 papers were screened using a composed inclusion and exclusion criteria resulting in 10 total papers to be included. These papers underwent JBI quality assessment and ConQual assessment to ensure strength in validation, reliability, and quality.

RESULTS

Six main overarching themes relating to SDM were determined: fear, information, patient-doctor relationship, wellbeing, external influences, and culture. All ethnicities experienced fear in one way. Misinformation was widely experienced in concordance with either a lack of education (Iranian and Ghanian women) or language barriers (immigrant populations). Trust was overarching in all patient-doctor relationships, some being overshadowed by an authoritative dynamic in Ghanian and Iranian women. Well-being, both psychological and body image was noted in all but the Ghanian and Iranian women. Every ethnicity experienced external influences involving either others, time or cost. Lastly, cultural expectations and beliefs of the doctor was present in all native or immigrant Asian communities.

CONCLUSIONS

The study identified several factors which were common between ethnicities, notably multifactorial fear, well-being factors, opinions and trust of others, and timing. Conversely, information availability and the nature of patient-doctor relationships varied widely between ethnicities. The study has identified some realistic and achievable focus areas for practice improvement, but also notes the challenges of changing long-established cultural norms.

Description of the Content and Quality of Publicly Available Information on the Internet About Inhaled Volatile Anesthesia and Total Intravenous Anesthesia: Descriptive Study

BACKGROUND

More than 300 million patients undergo surgical procedures requiring anesthesia worldwide annually. There are 2 standard-of-care general anesthesia administration options: inhaled volatile anesthesia (INVA) and total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). There is limited evidence comparing these methods and their impact on patient experiences and outcomes. Patients often seek this information from sources such as the internet. However, the majority of websites on anesthesia-related topics are not comprehensive, updated, and fully accurate. The quality and availability of web-based patient information about INVA and TIVA have not been sufficiently examined.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to (1) assess information on the internet about INVA and TIVA for availability, readability, accuracy, and quality and (2) identify high-quality websites that can be recommended to patients to assist in their anesthesia information-seeking and decision-making.

METHODS

Web-based searches were conducted using Google from April 2022 to November 2022. Websites were coded using a coding instrument developed based on the International Patient Decision Aids Standards criteria and adapted to be appropriate for assessing websites describing INVA and TIVA. Readability was calculated with the Flesch-Kincaid (F-K) grade level and the simple measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) readability formula.

RESULTS

A total of 67 websites containing 201 individual web pages were included for coding and analysis. Most of the websites provided a basic definition of general anesthesia (unconsciousness, n=57, 85%; analgesia, n=47, 70%). Around half of the websites described common side effects of general anesthesia, while fewer described the rare but serious adverse events, such as intraoperative awareness (n=31, 46%), allergic reactions or anaphylaxis (n=29, 43%), and malignant hyperthermia (n=18, 27%). Of the 67 websites, the median F-K grade level was 11.3 (IQR 9.5-12.8) and the median SMOG score was 13.5 (IQR 12.2-14.4), both far above the American Medical Association (AMA) recommended reading level of sixth grade. A total of 51 (76%) websites distinguished INVA versus TIVA as general anesthesia options. A total of 12 of the 51 (24%) websites explicitly stated that there is a decision to be considered about receiving INVA versus TIVA for general anesthesia. Only 10 (20%) websites made any direct comparisons between INVA and TIVA, discussing their positive and negative features. A total of 12 (24%) websites addressed the concept of shared decision-making in planning anesthesia care, but none specifically asked patients to think about which features of INVA and TIVA matter the most to them.

CONCLUSIONS

While the majority of websites described INVA and TIVA, few provided comparisons. There is a need for high-quality patient education and decision support about the choice of INVA versus TIVA to provide accurate and more comprehensive information in a format conducive to patient understanding.

An opponent model for agent-based shared decision-making via a genetic algorithm

Introduction

Shared decision-making (SDM) has received a great deal of attention as an effective way to achieve patient-centered medical care. SDM aims to bring doctors and patients together to develop treatment plans through negotiation. However, time pressure and subjective factors such as medical illiteracy and inadequate communication skills prevent doctors and patients from accurately expressing and obtaining their opponent's preferences. This problem leads to SDM being in an incomplete information environment, which significantly reduces the efficiency of the negotiation and even leads to failure.

Methods

In this study, we integrated a negotiation strategy that predicts opponent preference using a genetic algorithm with an SDM auto-negotiation model constructed based on fuzzy constraints, thereby enhancing the effectiveness of SDM by addressing the problems posed by incomplete information environments and rapidly generating treatment plans with high mutual satisfaction.

Results

A variety of negotiation scenarios are simulated in experiments and the proposed model is compared with other excellent negotiation models. The results indicated that the proposed model better adapts to multivariate scenarios and maintains higher mutual satisfaction.

Discussion

The agent negotiation framework supports SDM participants in accessing treatment plans that fit individual preferences, thereby increasing treatment satisfaction. Adding GA opponent preference prediction to the SDM negotiation framework can effectively improve negotiation performance in incomplete information environments.

Perspective; recommendations for improved patient participation in decision-making for geriatric patients in acute surgical settings

Geriatric patients often present to the hospital in acute surgical settings. In these settings, shared decision-making as equal partners can be challenging. Surgeons should recognize that geriatric patients, and frail patients in particular, may sometimes benefit from de-escalation of care in a palliative setting rather than curative treatment. To provide more person-centred care, better strategies for improved shared decision-making need to be developed and implemented in clinical practice. A shift in thinking from a disease-oriented paradigm to a patient-goal-oriented paradigm is required to provide better person-centred care for older patients. We may greatly improve the collaboration with patients if we move parts of the decision-making process to the pre-acute phase. In the pre-acute phase appointing legal representatives, having goals of care conversations, and advance care planning can help give physicians an idea of what is important to the patient in acute settings. When making decisions as equal partners is not possible, a greater degree of physician responsibility may be appropriate. Physicians should tailor the "sharedness" of the decision-making process to the needs of the patient and their family.

[Facilitators and barriers to shared decision-making in France in 2021: National survey in cancer]

INTRODUCTION

Shared-decision making (SDM) combines clinical expertise of the healthcare professional with patient's knowledge, values and preferences. This survey explores from a patient perspective, the implementation, facilitators and barriers of SDM in oncology in France in 2021.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

From August to October 2021, the digital platform Cancer contribution conducted an online survey relayed by 11 patient associations.

RESULTS

Out of 916 responses, 727 were analyzed: 394 from patients with hematological malignancies [HM], 185 with breast cancer [BC], 93 with other solid tumors [ST] and 55 with multiple cancers [MC]. Among the participants, 47.2 % reported that they participated in a decision about their health management, with a significant variation according to the pathology (BC 43.8 %, HM 41.1 %, ST 57 %, MC 60 %, P=0.01), and regardless of age and gender. Two-thirds felt comfortable with the shared decision-making process, in relation with the time allocated and the information provided, regardless of the pathology. In addition, emotions, uncertainty and lack of information are the main reasons quoted by patients to explain their lack of ease in making a decision related to their health.

CONCLUSIONS

In this survey, less than half of the patients declared that they have been enrolled in a SDM approach, this rate varying according to the type of solid tumor or hematological malignancy. This study shows that to improve the implementation of SDM in routine clinical practice in cancer, sufficient time and use of decision aids are needed.

Patients ' perspectives on bone replacement materials in a German university hospital setting

BACKGROUND

The challenges in developing new bone replacement materials and procedures reside not solely in technological innovation and advancement, but also in a broader patient therapy acceptance. Therefore, there is a need to assess patients' perspectives on the materials and approaches in use as well as the ones being developed to better steer future progress in the field.

METHODS

A self-initiating cross-sectional questionnaire aimed at people seeking treatment at the university hospital environment of Charité Berlin was formulated. The survey contained 15 close-ended questions directed toward the participant's epidemiological profile, willingness, acceptance, and agreement to receive different bone replacement materials, as well as, worries about the post-surgical consequences that can arise post bone replacement surgery. Descriptive and categorical analysis was performed to compare the observed number of subjects, their profile and each related response (Pearson's chi-square test or Fischer's test, p < 0.05).

RESULTS

A total of 198 people engaged with the questionnaire, most of them Millennials. Overall patients trusted scientifically developed biomaterials designed for bone replacement, as demonstrated by their willingness to participate in a clinical trial, their acceptance of alloplastic materials, and the none/few worries about the presence of permanent implants. The data revealed the preferences of patients towards autologous sources of cells and blood to be used with a biomaterial. The data have also shown that both generation and education influenced willingness to participate in a clinical trial and acceptance of alloplastic materials, as well as, worries about the presence of permanent implants and agreement to receive a material with pooled blood and cells.

CONCLUSION

Patients were open to the implantation of biomaterials for bone replacement, with a preference toward autologous sources of blood and/or tissue. Moreover, patients are concerned about strategies based on permanent implants, which indicates a need for resorbable materials. The knowledge gained in this study supports the development of new bone biomaterials.

Development of a Pulmonary Rehabilitation Patient Decision Aid for Patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Mixed Methods Study

Background

Pulmonary rehabilitation is an important part of the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), but the participation rate of pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD patients is low. Patient decision aids can facilitate patient participation in pulmonary rehabilitation decisions by providing information and incorporating patient values. The aim of this study was to develop a pulmonary rehabilitation decision aid for patients with COPD.

Objective

The aim of this study was to develop a WeChat-based pulmonary rehabilitation patient decision aid to help older patients with COPD participate in pulmonary rehabilitation decision-making.

Methods

We developed the decision aid in 3 stages: (1) a literature review was performed to determine the evidence for pulmonary rehabilitation options and outcomes for patients with COPD. (2) a semi-structured interview study was conducted to develop and iterate patient decision aids. (3) usability, acceptability and language expression testing in patients and healthcare professionals.

Results

A total of 16 randomized controlled studies were included in the literature review. Thirty-six participants received semi-structured interviews. The results of interview include four themes: key points of age-friendly design, content of the tool, presentation requirements of contents and study evidence of the tool and other views and suggestions. The resultant goals-of-care decision aid achieved good usability and acceptability. The frequency of language expression increased in both patients and healthcare professionals.

Conclusion

This study uses a systematic development process to develop the first pulmonary rehabilitation decision aid for patients with COPD. It has good usability, acceptability and increased communication between patients and healthcare professionals in the pulmonary rehabilitation decision-making process.

Trial Registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR): ChiCTR1900028563; http://apps.who.int/trialsearch/default.aspx.

Getting specific: participation preference in urooncological decision-making

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making is the gold standard for good clinical practice, and thus, psychometric instruments have been established to assess patients' generic preference for participation (e.g., the Autonomy Preference Index, API). However, patients' preferences may vary depending on the specific disease and with respect to the specific decision context. With a modified preference index (API-Uro), we assessed patients' specific participation preference in preference-sensitive decisions pertaining to urological cancer treatments and compared this with their generic participation preference.

METHODS

In Study 1, we recruited (N = 469) urological outpatients (43.1% urooncological) at a large university hospital. Participation preference was assessed with generic measures (API and API case vignettes) and with the disease-specific API-Uro (urooncological case vignettes describing medical decisions of variable difficulty). A polychoric exploratory factor analysis was used to establish factorial validity and reduce items. In Study 2, we collected data from N = 204 bladder cancer patients in a multicenter study to validate the factorial structure with confirmatory factor analysis. Differences between the participation preference for different decision contexts were analyzed.

RESULTS

Study 1: Scores on the specific urooncological case vignettes (API-Uro) correlated with the generic measure (r = .44) but also provided incremental information. Among the disease-specific vignettes of the API-Uro, there were two factors with good internal consistency (α ≥ .8): treatment versus diagnostic decisions. Patients desired more participation for treatment decisions (77.8%) than for diagnostic decisions (22%), χ²(1) = 245.1, p ≤ .001. Study 2: Replicated the correlation of the API-Uro with the API (r = .39) and its factorial structure (SRMR = .08; CFI = .974). Bladder cancer patients also desired more participation for treatment decisions (57.4%) than for diagnostic decisions (13.3%), χ²(1) =84, p ≤ .001.

CONCLUSIONS

The desire to participate varies between treatment versus diagnostic decisions among urological patients. This underscores the importance of assessing participation preference for specific contexts. Overall, the new API-Uro has good psychometric properties and is well suited to assess patients' preferences. In routine care, measures of participation preference for specific decision contexts may provide incremental, allowing clinicians to better address their patients' individual needs.

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.

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.

Cast or Nail? Using a Preference-Based Tool for Shared Decision-Making in Pediatric Femoral Shaft Fracture Treatment

BACKGROUND

Femoral shaft fractures are common injuries in children 2 to 7 years of age, with treatments ranging from casting to flexible intramedullary nails (FIN). Each treatment has unique attributes and outcomes are overall similar. Given equivalent outcomes, we hypothesized that a shared decision-making process, using adaptive conjoint analysis (ACA), can be used to assess individual family situations to determine ultimate treatment choice.

METHODS

An interactive survey incorporating an ACA exercise to elicit the preferences of individuals was created. Amazon Mechanical Turk was used to recruit survey respondents simulating the at-risk population. Basic demographic information and family characteristics were collected. Sawtooth Software was utilized to generate relative importance values of five treatment attributes and determine subjects' ultimate treatment choice. Student's t-test or Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare relative importance between groups.

RESULTS

The final analysis included 186 subjects with 147 (79%) choosing casting as their ultimate treatment choice, while 39 (21%) chose FIN. Need for second surgery had the highest overall average relative importance (42.0), followed by a chance of serious complications (24.6), time away from school (12.9), effort required by caregivers (11.0), and return to activities (9.6). Most respondents (85%) indicated the generated relative importance of attributes aligned "very well or well" with their preferences. For those who chose casting instead of FIN, the need for secondary surgery (43.9 vs. 34.8, P<0.001) and the chance of serious complications (25.9 vs. 19.6, P<0.001) were the most important factors. In addition, returning to activities, the burden to caregivers, and time away from school were all significantly more important to those choosing surgery versus casting (12.6 vs. 8.7 P<0.001, 12.6 vs. 9.8 P=0.014, 16.6 vs. 11.7 P<0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Our decision-making tool accurately identified subjects' treatment preferences and appropriately aligned them with a treatment decision. Given the increased emphasis on shared decision-making in health care, this tool may have the potential to improve shared decision-making and family understanding, leading to improved satisfaction rates and overall outcomes.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level-III.

A Qualitative Study of Decision-making (DM) in Surgery and Cancer Care: an Indian Perspective

Cancer psychology is a vitally important part of cancer management. Qualitative research is a gateway to exploring this. Weighing the treatment options in terms of quality of life and survival is important. Given the globalization of healthcare seen in the last decade, the exploration of the decision-making process in a developing nation was deemed highly appropriate. The aim is to explore the thoughts of surgical colleagues and care providing clinicians about patient decision-making in cancer care in developing countries, with special reference to India. The secondary objective was to identify factors that may have a role to play in decision-making in India. A prospective qualitative study. The exercise was carried out at Kiran Mazumdhar Shah Cancer Center. The hospital is a tertiary referral center for cancer services in the city of Bangalore, India. A qualitative study by methodology, a focus group discussion was undertaken with the members of the head and neck tumor board. The results showed, in India, decision-making is predominantly led by the clinicians and the patient's family members. A number of factors play an important role in the decision-making process. These include as follows: health outcome measures (quality of life, health-related quality of life), clinician factors (knowledge, skill, expertise, judgment), patient factors (socio-economic, education, cultural), nursing factors, translational research, and resource infrastructure. Important themes and outcomes emerged from the qualitative study. As modern healthcare moves towards a patient-centered care approach, evidence-based patient choice and patient decision-making clearly have a greater role to play, and the cultural and practical issues demonstrated in this article must be considered.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13193-022-01521-x.

Geographic Variation in Operative Management of Adhesive Small Bowel Obstruction

INTRODUCTION

Variation in surgical management exists nationally. We hypothesize that geographic variation exists in adhesive small bowel obstruction (aSBO) management.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of a national commercial insurance claims database (MarketScan) sample (2017-2019) was performed in adults with hospital admission due to aSBO. Geographic variation in rates of surgical intervention for aSBO was evaluated by state and compared to a risk-adjusted national baseline using a Bayesian spatial rates Poisson regression model. For individual-level analysis, patients were identified in 2018, with 365-d look back and follow-up periods. Logistic regression was performed for individual-level predictors of operative intervention for aSBO.

RESULTS

Two thousand one hundred forty-five patients were included. State-level analysis revealed rates of operative intervention for aSBO were significantly higher in Missouri and lower in Florida. On individual-level analysis, age (P < 0.01) and male sex (P < 0.03) but not comorbidity profile or prior aSBO, were negatively associated with undergoing operative management for aSBO. Patients presenting in 2018 with a history of admission for aSBO the year prior experienced a five-fold increase in odds of representation (odds ratio: 5.4, 95% confidence interval: 3.1-9.6) in 2019. Patients who received an operation for aSBO in 2018 reduced the odds of readmission in the next year by 77% (odds ratio: 0.23, 95% confidence interval: 0.1-0.5). The volume of operations performed within a state did not influence readmission.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical management of aSBO varies across the continental USA. Operative intervention is associated with decreased rates of representation in the following year. These data highlight a critical need for standardized guidelines for emergency general surgery patients.

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.

Patient Perceptions and Preferences When Choosing a Surgeon: A Cross-Sectional Study, Qassim Region, Saudi Arabia

Background The patient-physician relationship is changing, and patients are taking more responsibility in their decision-making. Many patients use the Internet as an important source of information regarding their health. Physician-rating websites provide essential information about the quality of care from patients' perspectives. However, choosing the appropriate healthcare provider is still complicated for any patient. Many patients find choosing a surgeon stressful because they cannot change the treating surgeon once the surgery is underway. Understanding a patient's preferences in choosing the right surgeon is essential to forming a patient-surgeon relationship and shaping practice. Nevertheless, little is known about the factors influencing patients' choices for elective surgeries in the Qassim region. Objectives This study aims to explore factors and the most common manners patients use to reach their appropriate surgeon in the Qassim Region, Saudi Arabia. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted among target people over 18 years old in Qassim Region, Saudi Arabia, using a snowball sample study from October 2022 to February 2023. The data were collected online using Google Forms using a self-administered, valid Arabic questionnaire distributed to respondents via WhatsApp, Twitter, and Telegram. The questionnaire consists of two sections: participants' sociodemographic status, including age, gender, nationality, residence, occupation, and monthly income; and a section to evaluate factors influencing patient decision-making when choosing a surgeon for elective surgery. Results The factors that were significantly associated with elective surgery were: gender of the doctor (adjOR = 1.62, 99% CI: 1.29-2.04); age (adjOR = 1.31, 99% CI: 1.13-1.53); gender of the study patient (adjOR = 1.64, 99% CI: 1.28-2.10); nationality (adjOR = 0.49, 95% CI: 0.26-0.88); and employment (adjOR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.79-0.99). Conclusions The cultural background in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia plays a significant role in influencing gender in the choice of the surgeon for elective surgery. Recommendations from friends and family members play a less significant role in the choice of the surgeon for elective surgery. Patients in employment and pensioners seem to have a significant preference in the choice of surgeon for elective surgery.

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.

Preoperative Assessment of the Breast Reconstruction Patient

Through a multidisciplinary approach, as well as, a nuanced appreciation of patient goals and setting appropriate expectations, breast reconstruction can significantly improve the quality of life following mastectomy. A thorough review of the patient medical and surgical history in addition to oncologic treatments will facilitate discussion and recommendations for an individualized shared decision-making reconstructive process. Alloplastic reconstruction, although a highly popular modality, has important limitations. On the contrary, autologous reconstruction is more flexible but requires more thorough consideration.

High Satisfaction With a Virtual Assistant for Plastic Surgery Frequently Asked Questions

BACKGROUND

Most of a surgeon's office time is dedicated to patient education, preventing an appropriate patient-physician relationship. Telephone-accessed artificial intelligent virtual assistants (AIVAs) that simulate a human conversation and answer preoperative frequently asked questions (FAQs) can be effective solutions to this matter. An AIVA capable of answering preoperative plastic surgery-related FAQs has previously been described by the authors.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this paper was to determine patients' perception and satisfaction with an AIVA.

METHODS

Twenty-six adult patients from a plastic surgery service answered a 3-part survey consisting of: (1) an evaluation of the answers' correctness, (2) their agreement with the feasibility, usefulness, and future uses of the AIVA, and (3) a section on comments. The first part made it possible to measure the system's accuracy, and the second to evaluate perception and satisfaction. The data were analyzed with Microsoft Excel 2010 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA).

RESULTS

The AIVA correctly answered the patients' questions 98.5% of the time, and the topic with the lowest accuracy was "nausea." Additionally, 88% of patients agreed with the statements of the second part of the survey. Thus, the patients' perception was positive and overall satisfaction with the AIVA was high. Patients agreed the least with using the AIVA to select their surgical procedure. The comments provided improvement areas for subsequent stages of the project.

CONCLUSIONS

The results show that patients were satisfied and expressed a positive experience with using the AIVA to answer plastic surgery FAQs before surgery. The system is also highly accurate.

Surgical Informed Consent: A Scoping Review of Physician-facing Decision Support Tools

Objectives

Physician-facing decision support tools facilitate shared decision-making (SDM) during informed consent, but it is unclear whether they are comprehensive in the domains they measure. In this scoping review, we aimed to (1) identify the physician-facing tools used during SDM; (2) assess the patient-centered domains measured by these tools; (3) determine whether tools are available for older adults and for use in various settings (elective vs. emergent); and (4) characterize domains future tools should measure.

Methods

Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews, Embase, Medline, and Web of Science were queried for articles published between January 2000 and September 2022. Articles meeting inclusion criteria underwent title and abstract review. Eligible studies underwent data abstraction by two reviewers.

Results

Of 4365 articles identified, 160 were eligible. Tools to aid in surgical SDM focus on elective procedures (79%) and the outpatient setting (71%). Few tools are designed for older adults (5%) or for nonelective procedures (9%). Risk calculators were most common, followed by risk indices, prognostic nomograms, and communication tools. Of the domains measured, prognosis was more commonly measured (85%), followed by alternatives (28%), patient goals (36%), and expectations (46%). Most tools represented only one domain (prognosis, 33.1%) and only 6.7% represented all four domains.

Conclusions and Implications

Tools to aid in the surgical SDM process measure short-term prognosis more often than patient-centered domains such as long-term prognosis, patient goals, and expectations. Further research should focus on communication tools, the needs of older patients, and use in diverse settings.

Patients' and healthcare professionals' perceived facilitators and barriers for shared decision-making for frail and elderly patients in perioperative care: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making (SDM) in perioperative care, is an organizational approach to instituting sharing of information and decision-making around surgery. It aims at enabling patient autonomy and patient-centered care. Frail and elderly patients suffering from multiple health conditions and increased surgical vulnerability might particularly benefit from SDM. However, little is known about the facilitators and barriers to implementing SDM in perioperative care for the specific needs of frail and elderly patients. Our objective is twofold: First, we aim at collecting, analyzing, categorizing, and communicating facilitators and barriers. Second, we aim at collecting and mapping conceptual approaches and methods employed in determining and analyzing these facilitators and barriers.

METHODS

The search strategy focused on peer-reviewed studies. We employed a taxonomy which is based on the SPIDER framework and added the items general article information, stakeholder, barriers/facilitators, category, subcategory, and setting/contextual information. This taxonomy is based on preceding reviews. The scoping review is reported under the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. Based on the databases MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science, we screened 984 articles, identified, and reviewed 13 original studies.

RESULTS

Within this review, two primary facilitators concerning patients' willingness to participate in SDM emerged: Patients want to be informed on their medical condition and procedures. Patients prefer sharing decisions with healthcare professionals, compared to decision-making solely by patients or decision-making solely by healthcare professionals. Communication issues and asymmetric power relationships between patients and clinical healthcare professionals are barriers to SDM. Regarding the methodological approaches, the evaluation of the conceptual approaches demonstrates that the selected articles lack employing a distinct theoretical framework. Second, the selected studies mainly used surveys and interviews, observational studies, like ethnographic or video-based studies are absent.

CONCLUSION

Diverging findings perceived by patients or clinical healthcare professionals were identified. These imply that SDM research related to elderly and frail patients should become more encompassing by employing research that incorporates theory-based qualitative analysis, and observational studies of SDM consultations for understanding practices by patients and clinical healthcare professionals. Observational studies are particularly relevant as these were not conducted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

https://osf.io/8fjnb/.

Morbidity and Mortality of Non-pancreatectomy operations for pancreatic cancer: An ACS-NSQIP analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients with pancreas cancer may undergo palliative gastrointestinal or biliary bypass. Recent comparisons of post-operative outcomes following such procedures are lacking.

METHODS

We analyzed patients undergoing exploration, gastrojejunostomy, biliary bypass or double bypass for pancreatic cancer using data from the 2005-2019 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. We compared 30-day mortality and complications across procedures and over time periods (2005-10, 2011-14, 2015-19) using multivariable regression models. Factors associated with postoperative mortality were identified.

RESULTS

Of 43,525 patients undergoing surgery with a postoperative diagnosis of pancreatic cancer, 5572 met inclusion criteria. Palliative operations included 1037 gastrojejunostomies, 792 biliary bypasses, 650 double bypasses, and 3093 explorations. The proportion of biliary and double bypass procedures decreased from 2005-10 to 2015-19. Gastrojejunostomy had higher 30-day mortality rate (11.5%) than other operations (p < 0.001). Adjusted 30-day mortality rates remained stable over time (7.8% vs 6.3%, p = 0.095), while rates of serious complications decreased over time (23.2% vs 17.1%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Palliative bypass for pancreatic cancer has not become safer over time, and 30-day mortality and complications remain high.

A Qualitative Study of Perspectives of Black Women on Autonomy and Motivational Interviewing

Purpose

Motivational interviewing (MI) is an evidence-based strategy to modify health behaviors, including some risk factors for adverse birth outcomes. Black women, who have disproportionately high rates of adverse birth outcomes, have reported mixed preferences on MI. This study explored the acceptability of MI among Black women who are at high risk for adverse birth outcomes.

Methods

We conducted qualitative interviews with women with a history of preterm birth. Participants were English-language proficient and had Medicaid-insured infants. We purposively oversampled women whose infants had medical complexity. Interviews explored experiences with health care and health behaviors after birth. The interview guide was iteratively developed to obtain specific reactions to MI by including videos demonstrating MI-consistent and MI-inconsistent counseling. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and coded following an integrated approach in which we applied a priori codes related to MI and allowed themes to emerge from the data.

Results

We interviewed 30 non-Hispanic Black women from October 2018 to July 2021. Eleven viewed the videos. Participants emphasized the importance of autonomy in decision-making and health behavior. Participants expressed a preference for MI-consistent clinical approaches, including autonomy support and building rapport, considering them respectful, nonjudgmental, and likely to support change.

Conclusions

In this sample of Black women with a history of preterm birth, participants valued an MI-consistent clinical approach. Incorporating MI into clinical care may improve the experience of health care among Black women, thus serving as one strategy to promote equity in birth outcomes.

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.