Second opinions for spinal surgery: a scoping review

Spine surgeons facing second opinions: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND CONTEXT

The social and technological mutation of our contemporary period disrupts the traditional dyad that prevails in the relationship between physicians and patients.

PURPOSE

The solicitation of a second opinion by the patient may potentially alter this dyad and degrade the mutual trust between the stakeholders concerned. The doctor-patient relationship has often been studied from the patient's perspective, but data are scarce from the spine surgeon's point of view.

STUDY DESIGN/SETTING

This qualitative study used the grounded theory approach, an inductive methodology emphasizing field data and rejecting predetermined assumptions.

PATIENT SAMPLE

We interviewed spine surgeons of different ages, experiences, and practice locations. We initially contacted 30 practitioners, but the final number (24 interviews; 11 orthopedists and 13 neurosurgeons) was determined by data saturation (the point at which no new topics appeared).

OUTCOME MEASURES

Themes and subthemes were analyzed using semistructured interviews until saturation was reached.

METHODS

Data were collected through individual interviews, independently analyzed thematically using specialized software, and triangulated by three researchers (an anthropologist, psychiatrist, and neurosurgeon).

RESULTS

Index surgeons were defined when their patients went for a second opinion and recourse surgeons were defined as surgeons who were asked for a second opinion. Data analysis identified five overarching themes based on recurring elements in the interviews: (1) analysis of the patient's motivations for seeking a second opinion; (2) impaired trust and disloyalty; (3) ego, authority, and surgeon image; (4) management of a consultation recourse (measurement and ethics); and (5) the second opinion as an avoidance strategy. Despite the inherent asymmetry in the doctor-patient relationship, surgeons and patients share two symmetrical continua according to their perspective (professional or consumerist), involving power and control on the one hand and loyalty and autonomy on the other. These shared elements can be found in index consultations (seeking high-level care/respecting trust/closing the loyalty gap/managing disengagement) and referral consultations (objective and independent advice/trusting of the index advice/avoiding negative and anxiety-provoking situations).

CONCLUSIONS

The second opinion often has a negative connotation with spine surgeons, who see it as a breach of loyalty and trust, without neglecting ego injury in their relationship with the patient. A paradigm shift would allow the second opinion to be perceived as a valuable resource that broadens the physician-patient relationship and optimizes the shared surgical decision-making process.

Cost-effectiveness of a second opinion program on spine surgeries: an economic analysis

BACKGROUND

In this study we proposed a new strategy to measure cost-effectiveness of second opinion program on spine surgery, using as measure of effectiveness the minimal important change (MIC) in the quality of life reported by patients, including the satisfaction questionnaire regarding the treatment and direct medical costs.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of patients with prior indication for spine surgery included in a second opinion program during May 2011 to May 2019. Treatment costs and outcomes were compared considering each patients' recommended treatment before and after the second opinion. Costs were measured under the perspective of the hospital, including hospital stay, surgical room, physician and staff fees and other costs related to hospitalization when surgery was performed and physiotherapy or injection costs when a conservative treatment was recommended. Reoperation costs were also included. For comparison analysis, we used data based on our clinical practice, using data from patients who underwent the same type of surgical procedure as recommended by the first referral. The measure of effectiveness was the percentage of patients who achieved the MIC in quality of life measured by the EQ-5D-3 L 2 years after starting treatment. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was calculated.

RESULTS

Based upon the assessment of 1,088 patients that completed the entire second opinion process, conservative management was recommended for 662 (60.8%) patients; 49 (4.5%) were recommended to injection and 377 (34.7%) to surgery. Complex spine surgery, as arthrodesis, was recommended by second opinion in only 3.7% of cases. The program resulted in financial savings of -$6,705 per patient associated with appropriate treatment indication, with an incremental effectiveness of 0.077 patients achieving MIC when compared to the first referral, resulting in an ICER of $-87,066 per additional patient achieving the MIC, ranging between $-273,016 and $-41,832.

CONCLUSION

After 2 years of treatment, the second opinion program demonstrated the potential for cost-offsets associated with improved quality of life.