Systematic review of shared decision-making in surgery

Feasibility and effectiveness of tools that support communication and decision making in life-prolonging treatments for patients in hospital: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Patients with advanced diseases and frail older adults often face decisions regarding life-prolonging treatment. Our aim was to provide an overview of the feasibility and effectiveness of tools that support communication between healthcare professionals and patients regarding decisions on life-prolonging treatments in hospital settings.

DESIGN

Systematic review: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Embase, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar (2009-2019) to identify studies that reported feasibility or effectiveness of tools that support communication about life-prolonging treatments in adult patients with advanced diseases or frail older adults in hospital settings. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used for quality appraisal of the included studies.

RESULTS

Seven studies were included, all involving patients with advanced cancer. The overall methodological quality of the included studies was moderate to high. Five studies described question prompt lists (QPLs), either as a stand-alone tool or as part of a multifaceted programme; two studies described decision aids (DAs). All QPLs and one DA were considered feasible by both patients with advanced cancer and healthcare professionals. Two studies reported on the effectiveness of QPL use, revealing a decrease in patient anxiety and an increase in cues for discussing end-of-life care with physicians. The effectiveness of one DA was reported; it led to more understanding of the treatment in patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of QPLs or DAs, as a single intervention or part of a programme, may help in communicating about treatment options with patients, which is an important precondition for making informed decisions.

Development of a core outcome set for informed consent for therapy: An international key stakeholder consensus study

Background

300 million operations and procedures are performed annually across the world, all of which require a patient’s informed consent. No standardised measure of the consent process exists in current clinical practice. We aimed to define a core outcome set for informed consent for therapy.

Methods

The core outcome set was developed in accordance with a predefined research protocol and the Core OutcoMes in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) methodology comprising systematic review, qualitative semi structured interviews, a modified Delphi process and consensus webinars to ratify outcomes for inclusion in the final core outcome set. (Registration—https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1024). Participants from all key stakeholder groups took part in the process, including patients and the public, healthcare practitioners and consent researchers.

Results

36 outcome domains were synthesised through systematic review and organised into a consent taxonomy. 41 semi-structured interviews were performed with all consent stakeholders groups. 164 participants from all stakeholder groups across 8 countries completed Delphi Round 1 and 125 completed Round 2. 11 outcomes met the ‘consensus in’ criteria. 6 met ‘consensus in’ all stakeholder groups and were included directly in the final core outcome set. 5 remaining outcomes meeting ‘consensus in’ were ratified over two consensus webinars. 9 core outcomes were included in the final core outcome set: Satisfaction with the quality and amount of information, Patient feeling that there was a choice, Patient feeling that the decision to consent was their own, Confidence in the decision made, Satisfaction with communication, Trust in the clinician, Patient satisfaction with the consent process, Patient rated adequacy of time and opportunity to ask questions.

Conclusion

This international mixed-methods qualitative study is the first of its kind to define a core outcome set for informed consent for intervention. It defines what outcomes are of importance to key stakeholders in the consent process and is a forward step towards standardising future consent research.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-022-00820-w.

Shared decision-making for the treatment of proximal femoral fractures in frail institutionalised older patients: healthcare providers' perceived barriers and facilitators

INTRODUCTION

Proximal femoral fractures are common in frail institutionalised older patients. No convincing evidence exists regarding the optimal treatment strategy for those with a limited pre-fracture life expectancy, underpinning the importance of shared decision-making (SDM). This study investigated healthcare providers' barriers to and facilitators of the implementation of SDM.

METHODS

Dutch healthcare providers completed an adapted version of the Measurement Instrument for Determinants of Innovations questionnaire to identify barriers and facilitators. If ≥20% of participants responded with 'totally disagree/disagree', items were considered barriers and, if ≥80% responded with 'agree/totally agree', items were considered facilitators.

RESULTS

A total of 271 healthcare providers participated. Five barriers and 23 facilitators were identified. Barriers included the time required to both prepare for and hold SDM conversations, in addition to the reflective period required to allow patients/relatives to make their final decision, and the number of parties required to ensure optimal SDM. Facilitators were related to patients' values, wishes and satisfaction, the importance of SDM for patients/relatives and the fact that SDM is not considered complex by healthcare providers, is considered to be part of routine care and is believed to be associated with positive patient outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Awareness of identified facilitators and barriers is an important step in expanding the use of SDM. Implementation strategies should be aimed at managing time constraints. High-quality evidence on outcomes of non-operative and operative management can enhance implementation of SDM to address current concerns around the outcomes.

Characterizing the patient experience during neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma: A qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Neoadjuvant therapy (NT) has increasingly been utilized for patients with localized pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC). It is the recommended approach for borderline resectable (BR) and locally advanced (LA) cancers and an increasingly utilized option for potentially resectable (PR) disease. Despite its increased use, little research has focused on patient-centered metrics among patients undergoing NT, including patient experiences, preferences, and recommendations. A better understanding of all aspects of the patient experience during NT may identify opportunities to design interventions aimed at improving quality of life; it may also facilitate the completion of NT and receipt of surgery, ultimately optimizing long-term outcomes.

AIM

To understand the experience of patients initiating and receiving NT to identify opportunities to improve neoadjuvant cancer care delivery.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews of patients with localized PDAC during NT were conducted to explore their experience initiating and receiving NT. Interviews took place between August 2020 and October 2021. Due to the descriptive nature of the research, questions were open ended. Interviews were conducted over the phone, audio recorded and then transcribed. All interviews were coded by two independent researchers using NVivo 12, iteratively identifying themes until thematic saturation was achieved. An integrative approach to qualitative analysis was used, utilizing both inductive and deductive methods.

RESULTS

A total of 12 patients with localized PDAC were interviewed. Patients with BR (n = 7), PR (n = 2), and LA (n = 3) cancers participated in the study. All patients indicated that choosing NT was the doctor's recommendation, while most reported not being familiar with the concept of NT (n = 11) and that NT was presented as the only option (n = 8). Five themes describing the patient experience emerged: physical symptoms, emotional symptoms, coping mechanisms, access to care, and life factors. The most commonly cited recommendation for improving the experience of NT was improved education before and during NT (n = 7). Patients highlighted the need for more information on the rationale behind choosing NT prior to surgery, the anticipated surgery and its likelihood of surgery occurring after NT, as well as general information prior to starting NT treatment. The need for seeing different members of the healthcare team, including ancillary services was also frequently cited as a recommendation for improving the experience of NT (n = 5).

CONCLUSION

This study provides a framework to allow for a better understanding of the PDAC patient experience during NT and highlights opportunities to improve quality and quantity of life outcomes.

Randomized control trial evaluating the use of a shared decision-making aid for older ventral hernia patients in the Geriatric Assessment and Medical Preoperative Screening (GrAMPS) Program

PURPOSE

Shared decision making (SDM) is ideally suited to abdominal wall surgery in older adults given the breadth of decision making required by the hernia surgeon and the impact on quality of life (QOL) by various treatment options. Given the paucity of literature surrounding SDM in hernia patients, the feasibility of a novel, formalized SDM aid/tool was evaluated in a pilot randomized trial.

METHODS

Patients 60 years or older with a diagnosed ventral hernia were prospectively randomized at an academic hernia center. In the experimental arm, a novel SDM tool, based on the SHARE Approach, guided the consultation. Previously validated SDM assessments and patient's hernia knowledge retention was measured.

RESULTS

Eighteen (18) patients were randomized (9 control and 9 experimental). Cohorts were well matched in age (p = 0.51), comorbidities (Charlson Comorbidity Score: p = 0.43) and frailty (mFI-11: p = 0.19; Risk Analysis Index: p = 0.33). Consultation time was 11 min longer in the experimental cohort (p < 0.01). There was a trend towards better Decisional Conflict Scores in the experimental group (p = 0.25) and the experimental cohort had improved post-visit retained hernia knowledge (p < 0.01). All patients in the experimental arm (100%) enjoyed working through the SDM aid/tool and felt it was a worthwhile exercise.

CONCLUSION

Incorporating a formalized SDM tool into a busy hernia surgical practice is feasible and well received by patients. In addition, early results suggest it improves retention of basic hernia knowledge and may reduce patient's decisional conflict. Next steps include condensing the SDM tool to enhance efficiency within the clinic and beginning a large, randomized control trial.

Framing Concerns about Body Image during Pre- and Post-Surgical Consultations for Head and Neck Cancer: A Qualitative Study of Patient–Physician Interactions

Patients with head and neck cancer report high unmet psychosocial needs as they undergo lifesaving treatments that can significantly alter their appearance and cause functional impairments. This qualitative analysis of recordings of 88 pre- and post-surgical consultations involving 20 patients respond to the need for empirical studies of patient–provider conversations about body image concerns. It indicates that the emphasis on concerns about survival, cure, and physical recovery during clinical consultations may leave concerns about the impacts of surgery on appearance and function unexplored and even silenced. The interviews with patients and medical team members that complement the analysis of the recordings suggest that an emphasis on survival, cure, and physical recovery can respond to the need for reassurance in the context of serious illness. However, it can also be problematic as it contributes to the silencing of patients’ concerns and to a potential lack of preparedness for the consequences of surgery. The results of this study can contribute to raising surgeons’ awareness of the interactional dynamics during clinical consultations. Moreover, the results highlight the unique role that surgeons can play in validating patients’ psychosocial concerns to support patients’ rehabilitation in both physical and psychosocial domains.

Closing Time: One Last Call for Patient Preference

Background

Wound closure method in total hip and knee arthroplasty is a controversial topic with no differences in clinical outcomes between surgical staples (SS) and subcutaneous sutures with Dermabond (SCD). When clinically appropriate, providers should focus more on what the patient may prefer. This study aimed to collect data on patient preference between SS and SCD and analyze differences in preference based on gender and previous surgical histories.

Methods

Patients were surveyed on their wound closure preferences prior to surgery. The handout given collected preference and patient demographics. Risk ratios and risk difference with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated along with Firth-corrected logistic regressions.

Results

A total of 163 participants were analyzed (53% female) (average age = 63.8 years), in which 12 participants selected SS as their preferred method. Males demonstrated no difference in relative risk (risk ratio: 2.3 [95% CI: 0.7, 7.3], P = .150) or absolute risk (risk difference: 5.9 [-2.2, 14.1], P = .156) in choosing SS over SCD. Patients that previously sustained SS for other surgeries demonstrated no difference in adjusted odds (adjusted: 0.9 [95% CI: 0.2, 3.2], P = .839) in choosing SS over SCD.

Conclusion

More patients favored SCD over SS. There was no difference in preferences based on gender or previous surgical history. Current literature shows that successful wound closure is achieved with minimized risks for infection and other complications using both methods. Providers should adopt a patient-centric approach and perform the closure method that most patients prefer when medically warranted.

PrEdiction of Risk and Communication of outcomE followIng major lower limb amputation: a collaboratiVE study (PERCEIVE)-protocol for the PERCEIVE qualitative study

INTRODUCTION

Deciding whether to proceed with a major lower limb amputation is life-changing and complex, and it is crucial that the right decision is made at the right time. However, medical specialists are known to poorly predict risk when assessing patients for major surgery, and there is little guidance and research regarding decisions about amputation. The process of shared decision-making between doctors and patients during surgical consultations is also little understood. Therefore, the aim of this study is to analyse in depth the communication, consent, risk prediction and decision-making process in relation to major lower limb amputation.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Consultations between patients and surgeons at which major lower limb amputation is discussed will be audio-recorded for 10-15 patients. Semi-structured follow-up interviews with patients (and relatives/carers) will then be conducted at two time points: as soon as possible/appropriate after a decision has been reached regarding surgery, and approximately 6 months later. Semi-structured interviews will also be conducted with 10-15 healthcare professionals working in the UK National Health Service (NHS) involved in amputation decision-making. This will include surgeons, anaesthetists and specialist physiotherapists at 2-4 NHS Health Boards/Trusts in Wales and England. Discourse analysis will be used to analyse the recorded consultations; interviews will be analysed thematically. Finally, workshops will be held with patients and healthcare professionals to help synthesise and interpret findings.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by Wales REC 7 (20/WA/0351). Study findings will be published in international peer-reviewed journal(s) and presented at national and international scientific meetings. Findings will also be disseminated to a wide NHS and lay audience via presentations at meetings and written summaries for key stakeholder groups.

A multidisciplinary perioperative medicine clinic to improve high-risk patient outcomes: A service evaluation audit

Various perioperative interventions have been demonstrated to improve outcomes for high-risk patients undergoing surgery. This audit assessed the impact of introducing a multidisciplinary perioperative medicine clinic on postoperative outcomes and resource usage amongst high-risk patients.

Between January 2019 and March 2020, our institution piloted a Comprehensive High-Risk Surgical Patient Clinic. Surgical patients were eligible for referral when exhibiting criteria known to increase perioperative risk. The patient's decision whether to proceed with surgery was recorded; for those proceeding with surgery, perioperative outcomes and bed occupancy were recorded and compared against a similar surgical population identified as high-risk at our institution in 2017.

Of 23 Comprehensive High-Risk Surgical Patient Clinic referrals, 11 did not proceed with the original planned surgery. Comprehensive High-Risk Surgical patients undergoing original planned surgery, as compared to high-risk patients from 2017, experienced reduced unplanned intensive care unit admission (8% versus 19%, respectively), 30-day mortality (0% versus 13%) and 30-day re-admission to hospital (0% versus 20%); had shorter postoperative lengths of stay (median (range) 8 (7-14) days versus 10.5 (5-28)) and spent more days alive outside of hospital at 30 days (median (range) 18 (0-25) versus 21 (16-23)). Cumulatively, the Comprehensive High-Risk Surgical patient cohort compared to the 2017 cohort (both n=23) occupied fewer postoperative intensive care (total 13 versus 24) and hospital bed-days (total 106 versus 212).

The results of our Comprehensive High-Risk Surgical Patient pilot project audit suggest improved individual outcomes for high-risk patients proceeding with surgery. In addition, the results support potential resource savings through more appropriate patient selection.

The PERCEIVE quantitative study: PrEdiction of Risk and Communication of outcome following major lower-limb amputation: protocol for a collaboratiVE study

BACKGROUND

Accurate prediction of outcomes following surgery with high morbidity and mortality rates is essential for informed shared decision-making between patients and clinicians. It is unknown how accurately healthcare professionals predict outcomes following major lower-limb amputation (MLLA). Several MLLA outcome-prediction tools have been developed. These could be valuable in clinical practice, but most require validation in independent cohorts before routine clinical use can be recommended. The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of healthcare professionals' predictions of outcomes in adult patients undergoing MLLA for complications of chronic limb-threatening ischaemia (CLTI) or diabetes. Secondary aims include the validation of existing outcome-prediction tools.

METHOD

This study is an international, multicentre prospective observational study including adult patients undergoing a primary MLLA for CLTI or diabetes. Healthcare professionals' accuracy in predicting outcomes at 30-days (death, morbidity and MLLA revision) and 1-year (death, MLLA revision and ambulation) will be evaluated. Sixteen existing outcome-prediction tools specific to MLLA will be examined for validity. Data collection began on 1 October 2020; the end of follow-up will be 1 May 2022. The C-statistic, Hosmer-Lemeshow test, reclassification tables and Brier score will be used to evaluate the predictive performance of healthcare professionals and prediction tools, respectively.

STUDY REGISTRATION AND DISSEMINATION

This study will be registered locally at each centre in accordance with local policies before commencing data collection, overseen by local clinician leads. Results will be disseminated to all centres, and any subsequent presentation(s) and/or publication(s) will follow a collaborative co-authorship model.

Ethical Dilemma: Elexacaftor-Tezacaftor-Ivacaftor or Lung Transplantation in Cystic Fibrosis and End-Stage Lung Disease?

Cystic fibrosis (CF) is caused by mutations in the cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator gene (CFTR). Novel, highly effective, modulator therapies correcting and potentiating CFTR function are changing the course of this disease. We present an ethical dilemma involving an 11-year-old child with CF and end-stage lung disease. Shortly after starting treatment with elexacaftor-tezacaftor-ivacaftor, the family received notification that a matched donor lung had been allocated. Clinical decision-making in this case is challenging as definitive data to medically support one treatment option over the other are limited. A survey of CF center team members was conducted for the purpose of this article. Ethical principles that may guide us in these situations are discussed. Overall, results of the survey present a lack of agreement as to the best approach in this situation. Physicians, when compared with other team members, are more likely to provide a specific recommendation vs presenting the information to the family and letting them decide (OR, 4.0; 95% CI, 1.2-12.8; P = .021). A shared decision-making model, stressing our moral obligation as physicians to respect autonomy by appreciating family values, while offering to participate in the decision-making process and ensuring nonmaleficence, is presented. In summary, CFTR modulators affect the outcomes of CF disease and influence clinical decision-making. The current lack of data on long-term outcomes, in young patients with CF receiving effective modulator therapy, should not preclude CF team participation in decision-making. Shared decision-making, which is focused on respecting autonomy, is our preferred approach in these situations.

Participation preferences of health service users in health care decision-making regarding rehabilitative care in Germany-A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Involving patients and citizens in health care decision-making is considered increasingly important in Germany. Participatory structures have been implemented, especially in rehabilitative care. However, it is unknown whether and to what extent German patients and citizens want to participate in decisions that exceed their own medical treatment.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to survey participation preferences and associated factors of health service users in decisions regarding rehabilitative care at micro, meso and macro levels.

METHODS

A questionnaire was sent to 3872 former rehabilitants. We collected participation preferences using the Control Preference Scale or an adapted form. Possible influencing factors were examined using logistic regression models.

RESULTS

The response rate was 5.7% (n = 217). At all decision-making levels, joint decision-making was preferred. At the macro level, preferences for actively participating were the highest. Preferences were significantly interrelated between decision-making levels. At the micro level, an orthopaedic indication significantly decreased the desire for participation compared to psychosomatic indications (odds ratio = 0.44, p = .019).

DISCUSSION

Participants wanted to be equally involved in decision-making as experts. Higher preferences for active participation at the macro level might be due to dissatisfaction with the current health care organisation and lack of trust in politicians. Compared to the general public, our study sample was older (73.3% between 50 and 69 years) and more often chronically ill-factors associated with increased participation preferences in the literature.

CONCLUSION

Contrary to the identified preferences, participation opportunities in the German health care system are rare. Further research on participation preferences and structures that enable meaningful involvement are needed.

Shared decision-making in neurosurgery: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

In modern neurosurgery, there are often several treatment alternatives, with different risks and benefits. Shared decision-making (SDM) has gained interest during the last decade, although SDM in the neurosurgical field is not widely studied. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review was to present the current landscape of SDM in neurosurgery.

METHODS

A literature review was carried out in PubMed and Scopus. We used a search strategy based on keywords used in existing literature on SDM in neurosurgery. Full-text, peer-reviewed articles published from 2000 up to the search date February 16, 2021, with patients 18 years and older were included if articles evaluated SDM in neurosurgery from the patient's perspective.

RESULTS

We identified 22 articles whereof 7 covered vestibular schwannomas, 7 covered spinal surgery, and 4 covered gliomas. The other topics were brain metastases, benign brain lesions, Parkinson's disease and evaluation of neurosurgical care. Different methods were used, with majority using forms, questionnaires, or interviews. Effects of SDM interventions were studied in 6 articles; the remaining articles explored factors influencing patients' decisions or discussed SDM aids.

CONCLUSION

SDM is a tool to involve patients in the decision-making process and considers patients' preferences and what the patients find important. This scoping review illustrates the relative lack of SDM in the neurosurgical literature. Even though results indicate potential benefit of SDM, the extent of influence on treatment, outcome, and patient's satisfaction is still unknown. Finally, the use of decision aids may be a meaningful contribution to the SDM process.

The impact of patient and public involvement in health research versus healthcare: A scoping review of reviews

Many policies promote patient and public involvement (PPI) in health research and healthcare provision. However, research points to uncertainties about its impact. The aim of the article was to compare what types of impact have been reported in reviews of PPI in health research and healthcare, respectively, and to map differences and similarities between the review studies. A review of reviews was undertaken with a search strategy based on the PCC mnemonic for scoping reviews. Four online databases were searched. Studies published in English between the years 2000-2020, using a review-based method and aiming to demonstrate impact of PPI were included, resulting in sixty-one articles. More reviews of PPI impact in healthcare than in health research were found, although the latter included a larger number of empirical studies. Systematic reviews, quality assessment and quantitative studies were less common in health research. Many original studies were from the United Kingdom. In health research, reported impacts most often related to research design and delivery, while in healthcare the most commonly reported impacts were individual health outcomes/clinical outcomes. However, there is still uncertainty about the strength of evidence for PPI, in particular when it comes to collective involvement in healthcare, that is in policymaking and service improvement initiatives at hospitals or the like.

Consequences and predisposing factors of self-discharge against medical advice in plastic and hand surgery

Purpose

Therapeutic success of surgical interventions is significantly affected by patients’ adherence. Patient autonomy can lead to unreasonable behavior. We analyzed the consequences and predisposing factors of patient self-discharge in a plastic and hand surgery cohort.

Study design and setting

Data was collected retrospectively in a case–control study with n = 73 patients who had self-discharged in a 10-year time period and n = 130 controls (discharge by the surgeon). Data was collected through the hospital information systems and a particular questionnaire. Statistical analyses were performed via chi-squared test and logistic regression analyses.

Results

Patients who self-discharged against medical advice had a significantly higher complication rate (p = 0.045) and a higher number of revision operations (p < 0.001). They were more often dissatisfied with the primary inpatient treatment (p < 0.05). Secondly, they lived more often in shared households (p = 0.002; OR 5.387 (1.734–16.732)) or had to take care of their children at home (p = 0.006; OR 1.481 (1.280–1.741)). There was a significantly lower pain score (NAS) on time of self-discharge (p = 0.002) as well as 24 h after self-discharge (p < 0.001) in self-discharged patients.

Conclusion

Self-discharge was associated with predisposing factors and poorer outcomes. Patient autonomy can lead to health-compromising behavior and patients should be counseled accordingly.

Informed Consent for the Orthopaedic Surgeon

»

In the United States, orthopaedic surgeons have a legal obligation to obtain informed consent from patients before performing surgery; it is a process that includes a signed written document.

»

There are specific legal requirements that vary somewhat by state but generally include disclosure and documentation of the diagnosis, an explanation of the recommended procedure, a conversation about the risks and benefits of the procedure, and a discussion about alternative treatments.

»

Inadequate disclosure of risks and alternatives is associated with increased indemnity risk.

»

Studies have shown that many consent processes and forms are suboptimal.

Clinician Factors Rather Than Patient Factors Affect Discussion of Treatment Options

BACKGROUND

Shared decision-making aims to combine what matters most to a patient with clinician expertise to develop a personalized health strategy. It is a dialogue between patient and clinician in which preferences are expressed, misconceptions reoriented, and available options are considered. To improve patient involvement, it would help to know more about specific barriers and facilitators of patient-clinician communication. Health literacy, the ability to obtain, process, and understand health information, may affect patient participation in decision-making. If the patient is quiet, deferential, and asks few questions, the clinician may assume a more paternalistic style. A patient with greater agency and engagement could be the catalyst for shared decisions.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

We assessed (1) whether effective clinician communication and effort is related to patient health literacy, and (2) if there are other factors associated with effective clinician communication and effort.

METHODS

We combined a prospective, cross-sectional cohort of 86 audio-recorded visits of adult patients seeking specialist hand care for a new problem at an urban community hospital in the Netherlands with a cohort of 72 audio-recorded hand surgery visits from a tertiary hospital in the United States collected for a prior study. The American cohort represents a secondary use of data from a set of patients from a separate study using audio-recorded visits and administering similar questionnaires that assessed different endpoints. In both cohorts, adult patients seeking specialist hand care for a new problem were screened. In total, 165 patients were initially screened, of which 96% (158) participated. Eight percent (13) of visits were excluded since the final diagnosis remained unclear, 8% (12) since it was not the first consultation for the current problem, 5% (8) in which only one treatment option was available, and < 1% (1) since there was a language barrier. A total of 123 patients were analyzed, 68 from the Netherlands and 55 from the United States. The Newest Vital Sign (NVS) health literacy test, validated in both English and Dutch, measures the ability to use health information and is based on a nutrition label from an ice cream container. It was used to assess patient health literacy on a scale ranging from 0 (low) to 6 (high). The 5-item Observing Patient Involvement (OPTION5) instrument is commonly used to assess the quality of patient-clinician discussion of options. Scores may be influenced by clinician effort to involve patients in decision-making as well as patient engagement and agency. Each item is scored from 0 (no effort) to 4 (maximum effort), with a total maximum score of 20. Two independent raters reached agreement (kappa value 0.8; strong agreement), after which all recordings were scored by one investigator. Visit duration and patient questions were assessed using the audio recordings. Patients had a median (interquartile range) age of 54 (38 to 66) years, 50% were men, 89% were white, 66% had a nontraumatic diagnosis, median (IRQ) years of education was 16 (12 to 18) years, and median (IQR) health literacy score was 5 (2 to 6). Median (IQR) visit duration was 9 (7 to 12) minutes. Cohorts did not differ in important ways. The number of visits per clinician ranged from 14 to 29, and the mean overall communication effectiveness and effort score for the visits was low (8.5 ± 4.2 points of 20 points). A multivariate linear regression model was used to assess factors associated with communication effectiveness and effort.

RESULTS

There was no correlation between health literacy and clinician communication effectiveness and effort (r = 0.087 [95% CI -0.09 to 0.26]; p = 0.34), nor was there a difference in means (SD) when categorizing health literacy as inadequate (7.8 ± 3.8 points) and adequate (8.9 ± 4.5 points; mean difference 1.0 [95% CI -2.6 to 0.54]; p = 0.20). After controlling for potential confounding variables such as gender, patient questions, and health literacy, we found that longer visit duration (per 1 minute increase: r2 = 0.31 [95% CI -0.14 to 0.48]; p < 0.001), clinician 3 (compared with clinician 1: OR 33 [95% CI 4.8 to 229]; p < 0.001) and clinician 5 (compared with clinician 1: OR 11 [95% CI 1.5 to 80]; p = < 0.02) were independently associated with more effective communication and effort, whereas clinician 6 was associated with less effective communication and effort (compared with clinician 1: OR 0.08 [95% CI 0.01 to 0.75]; p = 0.03). Clinicians' communication strategies (the clinician variable on its own) accounted for 29% of the variation in communication effectiveness and effort, longer visit duration accounted for 11%, and the full model accounted for 47% of the variation (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The finding that the overall low mean communication effectiveness and effort differed between clinicians and was not influenced by patient factors including health literacy suggests clinicians may benefit from training that moves them away from a teaching or lecturing style where patients receive rote directives regarding their health. Clinicians can learn to adapt their communication to specific patient values and needs using a guiding rather than directing communication style (motivational interviewing).Level of Evidence Level II, prognostic study.

A Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis of Risk Prediction Tools Used to Estimate Mortality, Morbidity, and Other Outcomes Following Major Lower Limb Amputation

OBJECTIVE

The decision to undertake a major lower limb amputation can be complex. This review evaluates the performance of risk prediction tools in estimating mortality, morbidity, and other outcomes following amputation.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched to identify studies reporting on risk prediction tools that predict outcomes following amputation. Outcome measures included the accuracy of the risk tool in predicting a range of post-operative complications, including mortality (both short and long term), peri-operative morbidity, need for re-amputation, and ambulation success. A narrative synthesis was performed in accordance with the Guidance on the Conduct of Narrative Synthesis In Systematic Reviews.

RESULTS

The search identified 518 database records. Twelve observational studies, evaluating 13 risk prediction tools in a total cohort of 61 099 amputations, were included. One study performed external validation of an existing risk prediction tool, while all other studies developed novel tools or modified pre-existing generic calculators. Two studies conducted external validation of the novel/modified tools. Nine tools provided risk estimations for mortality, two tools provided predictions for post-operative morbidity, two for likelihood of ambulation, and one for re-amputation to the same or higher level. Most mortality prediction tools demonstrated acceptable discrimination performance with C statistic values ranging from 0.65 to 0.81. Tools estimating the risk of post-operative complications (0.65 - 0.74) and necessity for re-amputation (0.72) also performed acceptably. The Blatchford Allman Russell tool demonstrated outstanding discrimination for predicting functional mobility outcomes post-amputation (0.94). Overall, most studies were at high risk of bias with poor external validity.

CONCLUSION

This review identified several risk prediction tools that demonstrate acceptable to outstanding discrimination for objectively predicting an array of important post-operative outcomes. However, the methodological quality of some studies was poor, external validation studies are generally lacking, and there are no tools predicting other important outcomes, especially quality of life.

Predicted versus actual complications in Australian women undergoing post-mastectomy breast reconstruction: a retrospective cohort study using the BRA Score tool

INTRODUCTION

The Breast Reconstruction Risk Assessment (BRA) Score tool is a risk calculator developed to predict the risk of complications in individual patients undergoing breast reconstruction. It was developed in a North American population exclusively undergoing immediate breast reconstruction. This study sought to assess the predictions of the BRA Score tool against the measured outcomes of surgery for an Australian public hospital population, including both immediate and delayed reconstructions.

METHOD

This was a retrospective cohort study of data from women at a single Australian public teaching hospital unit. Data from the Flinders Breast Reconstruction Database was retrieved and compared to BRA Scores calculated for each patient. Receiver operating curve area under the curve analysis was performed as well as Brier scores to compare predicted versus observed complications.

RESULTS

BRA Score predictions were reasonable or good (C-statistic >0.7, Brier score <0.09) for the complications of overall surgical complications, surgical site infection (SSI) and seroma at 30 days, and similarly accurate for prediction of the same complications for implant reconstructions at 12 months. There were similar findings between delayed and immediate reconstructions.

CONCLUSION

The BRA Score risk calculator is valid to detect some risks in both patients undergoing immediate and delayed breast reconstruction in an Australian public hospital setting. SSI is the best predicted complication and is well-predicted across both autologous and prosthetic reconstruction types.

Outpatients' perception of their preoperative information regarding their health literacy skills and their preoperative anxiety level: Protocol for a prospective multicenter cross-sectional study

Despite the benefits related to ambulatory surgery such as cost reduction due to lack of accommodation and patient satisfaction due to early home return, it may not lead to these expected benefits. Indeed, this kind of practice can increase responsibility for the person being treated and his or her relatives. It is therefore essential to inform them as well as possible to obtain their adherence to the proposed care protocol. Nevertheless, patients' failures to comply with preoperative instructions or the non-attendance of the patient may result in late cancellation of the scheduled surgery. In order to reduce this kind of dysfunction, the Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris (APHP) uses a reminder system by Short Message Service (SMS).This study is a descriptive cross-sectional multicenter study that focuses on outpatients' lived experiences of their preoperative preparation and information. It aims to collect patients' perceptions of their ability to follow preoperative instructions received by SMS the day before an operation performed for ambulatory surgery, according to their level of health literacy (HL) and preoperative anxiety. Indeed, poor communication between patients and doctors can contribute to preoperative anxiety, while low health literacy (LHL) can lead to poor understanding of preoperative preparation instructions. Therefore, it seems important to take these 2 criteria into account in this study. This research is designed to interview outpatients undergoing ambulatory surgery in the establishments of APHP. A self-questionnaire will be used for this purpose. The choice of this institution is justified by its decision to use in all care units the reminder of preoperative instructions by SMS.The main outcome is the perception of outpatients with LHL skills regarding preoperative information provided by doctors.French ethics review committee (Comité d'Ethique de la Recherche) of the University of Paris has approved the study protocol (IRB 00012020-14). Results from this study will be disseminated through oral communications and a scientific article in an international peer-reviewed journal.This protocol is registered on researchregistry.com (researchregistry5834). This version number is 1.1 Protocol dated July 22, 2020.

Anaesthesia for the elderly: a narrative review

As octogenarians in the operation room are no longer an exemption but the norm, perioperative management needs to be adopted to meet the special requirements of this group of patients. Anaesthesia does not need to be re-invented to fit the elderly. However, as elderly patients are among those most affected by adverse postoperative outcomes, the same diligence that is as a matter of course exercised in anaesthesiologic care of the youngest patients needs to be exercised for the eldest as well. Aging is associated with characteristic physiologic changes and an overall reduction in compensation width. However, the individual relevance of these changes varies distinctly. A comprehensive preoperative assessment is therefore essential to identify those at high risk. Maintaining functionality and preventing cognitive decline are central elements of perioperative care for frail elders, often only requiring unspectacular, but effective adjustments to established routine care processes. This review focuses on current recommendations in the perioperative anaesthesiologic management of elderly patients with a view towards assisting clinical anaesthesiologists in implementing respective structures in their setting and adjusting care pathways to meet the needs of this vulnerable but growing group of patients and improve their postoperative outcome.

Outcomes in Octogenarians and the Effect of Comorbidities After Intact Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Repair in the Netherlands: A Nationwide Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

Age is an independent risk factor for mortality after both elective open surgical repair (OSR) and endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR). As a result of an ageing population, and the less invasive nature of EVAR, the number of patients over 80 years (octogenarians) being treated is increasing. The mortality and morbidity following aneurysm surgery are increased for octogenarians. However, the mortality for octogenarians who have either low or high peri-operative risks remains unclear. The aim of this study was to provide peri-operative outcomes of octogenarians vs. non-octogenarians after OSR and EVAR for intact aneurysms, including separate subanalyses for elective and urgent intact repair, based on a nationwide cohort. Furthermore, the influence of comorbidities on peri-operative mortality was examined.

METHODS

All patients registered in the Dutch Surgical Aneurysm Audit (DSAA) undergoing intact AAA repair between 2013 and 2018, were included. Patient characteristics and peri-operative outcomes (peri-operative mortality, and major complications) of octogenarians vs. non-octogenarians for both OSR and EVAR were compared using descriptive statistics. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to examine whether age and the presence of cardiac, pulmonary, or renal comorbidities were associated with mortality.

RESULTS

This study included 12 054 EVAR patients (3 015 octogenarians), and 3 815 OSR patients (425 octogenarians). Octogenarians in both the EVAR and OSR treatment groups were more often female and had more comorbidities. In both treatment groups, octogenarians had significantly higher mortality rates following intact repair as well as higher major complication rates. Mortality rates of octogenarians were 1.9% after EVAR and 11.8% after OSR. Age ≥ 80 and presence of cardiac, pulmonary, and renal comorbidities were associated with mortality after EVAR and OSR.

CONCLUSION

Because of the high peri-operative mortality rates of octogenarians, awareness of the presence of comorbidities is essential in the decision making process before offering aneurysm repair to this cohort, especially when OSR is considered.

Shared Decision Making: The 9-Item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire Does Not Discriminate Between Surgeons

Purpose

To determine if shared decision making (SDM) scores vary between individual otolaryngologists in a large specialty clinic. 

Methods

Consecutive patients that consented to surgery were surveyed using the 9-item Shared Decision Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9), a validated scale for SDM. Demographic details included the respondent's age, gender, education level, marital status, whether the consent was for themselves or their child, whether surgery was for malignancy, and surgery being performed. Scores were evaluated for all demographic variables, as well as individual surgeons, surgeons' gender, age category, and subspecialty.

Results

A total of 233 patients completed the surveys. No significant differences were found among individual and total scores for SDM when compared among or between patient demographics (p > 0.05). A total of 10 surgeons for whom five or more SDM-Q-9s were completed were included in the study. No significant difference was found when SDM was evaluated for surgeon characteristics as well (p > 0.05). 

Conclusion

SDM scores do not vary between these otolaryngologists.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Inpatient palliative care utilization for patients with brain metastases

Introduction

Given the high symptom burden and complex clinical decision making associated with a diagnosis of brain metastases (BM), specialty palliative care (PC) can meaningfully improve patient quality of life. However, no prior study has formally evaluated patient-specific factors associated with PC consultation among BM patients.

Methods

We examined the rates of PC consults in a cohort of 1303 patients with BM admitted to three tertiary medical centers from October 2015 to December 2018. Patient demographics, surgical status, 30-day readmission, and death data were collected via retrospective chart review. PC utilization was assessed by identifying encounters for which an inpatient consult to PC was placed. Statistical analyses were performed to compare characteristics and outcomes between patients who did and did not receive PC consults.

Results

We analyzed 1303 patients admitted to the hospital with BM. The average overall rate of inpatient PC consultation was 19.6%. Rates of PC utilization differed significantly by patient race (17.5% in White/Caucasian vs 26.0% in Black/African American patients, P = .0014). Patients who received surgery during their admission had significantly lower rates of PC consultation (3.9% vs 22.4%, P < .0001). Patients who either died during their admission or were discharged to hospice had significantly higher rates of PC than those who were discharged home or to rehabilitation (P < .0001).

Conclusions

In our dataset, PC consultation rates varied by patient demographic, surgical status, discharging service, and practice setting. Further work is needed to identify the specific barriers to optimally utilizing specialty PC in this population.

Exploring Factors Associated With Morbidity and Mortality in Patients With Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders: A National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Database Analysis Within Surgical Groups

BACKGROUND

Anesthesiologists caring for patients with do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders may have ethical concerns because of their resuscitative wishes and may have clinical concerns because of their known increased risk of morbidity/mortality. Patient heterogeneity and/or emphasis on mortality outcomes make previous studies among patients with DNR orders difficult to interpret. We sought to explore factors associated with morbidity and mortality among patients with DNR orders, which were stratified by surgical subgroups.

METHODS

Exploratory retrospective cohort study in adult patients undergoing prespecified colorectal, vascular, and orthopedic surgeries was performed using the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participant Use File data from 2010 to 2013. Among patients with preoperative DNR orders (ie, active DNR order written in the patient's chart before surgery), factors associated with 30-day mortality, increased length of stay, and inpatient death were determined via penalized regression. Unadjusted and adjusted estimates for selected variables are presented.

RESULTS

After selection as above, 211,420 patients underwent prespecified procedures, and of those, 2755 (1.3%) had pre-existing DNR orders and met above selection to address morbidity/mortality aims. By specialty, of these patients with a preoperative DNR, 1149 underwent colorectal, 870 vascular, and 736 orthopedic surgery. Across groups, 36.2% were male and had a mean age 79.9 years (range 21-90). The 30-day mortality was 15.4%-27.2% and median length of stay was 6-12 days. Death at discharge was 7.0%, 13.1%, and 23.0% in orthopedics, vascular, and colorectal patients with a DNR, respectively. The strongest factors associated with increased odds of 30-day mortality were preoperative septic shock in colorectal patients, preoperative ascites in vascular patients, and any requirement of mechanical ventilation at admission in orthopedic patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with DNR orders undergoing common surgical procedures, the association of characteristics with morbidity and mortality varies in both direction and magnitude. The DNR order itself should not be the defining measure of risk.

Smartphone Global Positioning System (GPS) Data Enhances Recovery Assessment After Breast Cancer Surgery

PURPOSE

We sought to determine whether smartphone GPS data uncovered differences in recovery after breast-conserving surgery (BCS) and mastectomy, and how these data aligned with self-reported quality of life (QoL).

METHODS

In a prospective pilot study, adult smartphone-owners undergoing breast surgery downloaded an application that continuously collected smartphone GPS data for 1 week preoperatively and 6 months postoperatively. QoL was assessed with the Short-Form-36 (SF36) via smartphone delivery preoperatively and 4 and 12 weeks postoperatively. Endpoints were trends in daily GPS-derived distance traveled and home time, as well as SF36 Physical (PCS) and Mental Component Scores (MCS) comparing BCS and mastectomy patients.

RESULTS

Thirty-one patients were included. Sixteen BCS and fifteen mastectomy patients were followed for a mean of 201 (SD 161) and 174 (107) days, respectively. There were no baseline differences in demographics, PCS/MCS, home time, or distance traveled. Through 12 weeks postoperatively, mastectomy patients spent more time at home [e.g., week 4: 16.7 h 95% CI (14.3, 19.6) vs. 11.0 h (9.4, 12.9), p < 0.001] and traveled shorter distances [e.g., week 4: 52.5 km 95% CI (36.1, 76.0) vs. 107.7 km (75.8-152.9), p = 0.009] compared with BCS patients. There were no significant QoL differences throughout the study as measured by the MCS [e.g., week 4 difference: 7.83 95% CI (- 9.02, 24.7), p = 0.362] or PCS [e.g., week 4 difference: 8.14 (- 6.67, 22.9), p = 0.281]. GPS and QoL trends were uncorrelated (ρ < ± 0.26, p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in BCS and mastectomy recovery were successfully captured using smartphone GPS data. These data may describe currently unmeasured aspects of physical and mental recovery, which could supplement traditional and QoL outcomes to inform shared decision-making.

Association of shared decision making with inpatient satisfaction: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

We assessed inpatient perceived shared decision making (SDM) and tested the association of SDM with inpatient satisfaction in public tertiary hospitals in Shanghai, China.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of 2585 inpatients in 47 public tertiary hospitals in Shanghai in July and August 2018 was conducted. We assessed overall SDM and 4 aspects of SDM and tested the factors influencing SDM and the association of SDM with patient satisfaction (patient satisfaction with physician services, medical expenses, outcomes and overall inpatient care), by adopting linear or two-level regression models.

RESULTS

The positive response rate (PRR) and high positive response rate (HPRR) to overall SDM among the inpatients of public tertiary hospitals in Shanghai were relatively high (95.30% and 87.86%, respectively), while the HPRR to "My physician informed me of different treatment alternatives" was relatively low (80.09%). In addition, the inpatients who underwent surgery during admission had higher HPRRs and adjusted HPRRs to overall SDM than those who did not undergo surgery. The study showed that the adjusted high satisfaction rates (HSRs) with physician services, medical expenses, outcomes and overall inpatient care among the inpatients with high level of overall SDM were higher (96.50%, 68.44%, 89.50% and 92.60%) than those among the inpatients without a high level of overall SDM (71.77%, 35.19%, 57.30% and 67.49%). The greatest differences in the adjusted HSRs between the inpatients with and without a high level of SDM were found in inpatient satisfaction with medical expenses and informed consent in SDM. Moreover, 46.22% of the variances in the HSRs with overall inpatient care across the hospitals were attributed to the hospital type (general hospitals vs. specialty hospitals).

CONCLUSIONS

Inpatient PRRs and HPRRs to SDM in public tertiary hospitals in Shanghai are relatively high overall but lower to information regarding alternatives. SDM can be affected by the SDM preference of both the patients and physicians and medical condition. Patient satisfaction can be improved through better SDM and should be committed at the hospital level.

Identifying Entrustable Professional Activities for Shared Decision Making in Postgraduate Medical Education: A National Delphi Study

PURPOSE

Although shared decision making (SDM) is considered the preferred approach in medical decision making, it is currently not routinely used in clinical practice. To bridge the transfer gap between SDM training and application, the authors aimed to reach consensus on entrustable professional activities (EPAs) for SDM and associated behavioral indicators as a framework to support self-directed learning during postgraduate medical education.

METHOD

Using existing literature on SDM frameworks and competencies; input from an interview study with 17 Dutch experts in SDM, doctor-patient communication, and medical education; and a national SDM expert meeting as a starting point, in 2017, the authors conducted a modified online Delphi study with a multidisciplinary Dutch panel of 32 experts in SDM and medical education.

RESULTS

After 3 Delphi rounds, consensus was reached on 4 EPAs-(1) the resident discusses the desirability of SDM with the patient, (2) the resident discusses the options for management with the patient, (3) the resident explores the patient's preferences and deliberations, and (4) the resident takes a well-argued decision together with the patient. Consensus was also reached on 18 associated behavioral indicators. Of the 32 experts, 30 (94%) agreed on this list of SDM EPAs and behavioral indicators.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors succeeded in developing EPAs and associated behavioral indicators for SDM for postgraduate medical education to improve the quality of SDM training and the application of SDM in clinical practice. These EPAs are characterized as process EPAs for SDM in contrast with content EPAs related to diverse medical complaints. A next step is the implementation of the SDM EPAs in existing competency-based workplace curricula.

Survey to define informational needs of patients undergoing surgery for Crohn's anal fistula

AIM

There are many surgical treatments used in Crohn's anal fistula, although none is perfect. Decisions about surgery in this condition may be preference sensitive. The aim of this study was to identify what information patients would like in order to make treatment decisions and to explore experiences of making decisions in this setting.

METHOD

A survey was designed based upon qualitative interviews and input from patients and clinicians. It included a long list of informational items to be ranked on a scale of importance, a control preference scale, the decision regret scale, and items exploring preferred information formats. This was distributed through 10 English hospitals to patients with recent surgical treatment for Crohn's anal fistula. Results were analysed using principal component analysis, to identify key informational needs, and other appropriate descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

In total 92 questionnaires were returned (response rate 41.8%); 48 (52.5%) respondents were women and 54 (58.7%) had undergone seton insertion. Principal component analysis identified three information needs: wound and aftercare, effect on perianal symptoms, severity of surgery. Decision-making preferences showed a desire to participate in decision-making. Median decision regret score was 25/100 (i.e., low). The preferred format for sharing information to support decision-making was from the surgeon, 80/92 (87.0%), and from a booklet, 58/92 (63.0%).

CONCLUSION

Key informational needs in this condition are wound and after care, effect on perianal symptoms, and severity of surgery. Patients would like this information to help engage in shared decision-making.

A Randomized Controlled Trial to Assess the Use of a Virtual Decisional Aid to Improve Knowledge and Patient Satisfaction in Women Considering Breast Reconstruction Following Mastectomy

Background

The decisional process of navigating breast reconstruction surgery is very challenging for patients with a breast cancer diagnosis. This study aims to assess the impact of a virtual breast reconstruction decision aid program on the decision-making process of breast cancer patients considering breast reconstruction. 

Methods

A two-arm, randomized, controlled trial was conducted at the University of Pittsburgh. Patients were blindly assigned to one of two arms: Emmi Decide (Emmi Solutions LLC, Chicago, IL) program prior to traditional consultation (intervention) and traditional consultation alone (control). All patients completed a baseline pre- and post-intervention questionnaire to evaluate knowledge, patient satisfaction, and psychological status. Surgeons' satisfaction and consultation time were also recorded.

Results

A total of 26 patients participated in the study (n=13 in each arm). Patients in the intervention group reported a greater BREAST-Q reconstruction module score (control=47.9±8.2, intervention=56.8±4.2, p=0.0017), lower decisional conflict scale score (control=30.2±11.8, intervention=14.5±8.8, p=0.017), and improved patient knowledge (control=70.8±15.5%, intervention=83.1±13.8%, p=0.018). No difference was noted in consultation time (control=51.0±7.8 min, intervention=47.8±13.7 min, p=0.46) and psychological testing (control=49.7±16.0, intervention=44.6±15.2, p=0.26). However, surgeons reported greater satisfaction with their consultations with interventional group participants (control=3.4±0.7, intervention=4.8±0.4, p=0.000056).

Conclusions

The use of a virtual decisional aid program to assist the decision-making of breast reconstruction patients was shown to significantly benefit both patients and surgeons, by improving patient knowledge and satisfaction without placing an additional psychological burden on them. This supports the notion that this resource is a promising tool that can improve the difficult process of breast reconstruction in the vulnerable population of breast cancer patients. 

Surgical Support for Severe COVID-19 Patients: A Retrospective Cohort Study in a French High-Density COVID-19 Cluster

Background. The COVID-19 epidemic has resulted in a massive surge in the need for intensive care unit (ICU) care. To avoid being overwhelmed, hospitals had to adapt and support the ICU teams in structured ICU care including involving surgical teams. This work aims at describing the collaborative efforts between the ICU care team and the Surgical Task Force (STF) during a surge of ICU activity in a University Hospital in a French high-density COVID-19 cluster. Study Design. This retrospective single center study analyzed the STF workflow and the ICU population. The study included 55 patients hospitalized in our ICU, ICU-converted step-down units, and post-anesthesia care units. The primary measure was the global daily STF activity. The secondary measure was the daily activity for each of the 5 tasks accomplished by the STF. Results. The STF attempted 415 phone calls for 55 patients' families, 237 mobilizations of patients requiring prone positions, follow-up of 20 patients requiring medevac, and contribution to ethical discussion for 2 patients. The mean (SD) daily number of successful phones calls, ethical discussions, mobilizations of patients requiring prone positions and medevac follow-up were 18 (7), .1 (.4), 10 (7), and 2 (3), respectively. No actions for discharge summaries writing were required. The maximum number of daily mobilizations for patients requiring prone positions was 25. The maximum number of daily attempted phone calls and successful phone calls were 37 and 26, respectively. Conclusion. Surgeons' technical and nontechnical skills represented an effective support for ICU teams during the COVID-19 pandemic.

A Practical Guideline for the Implementation of Shared Decision-making in Complex Ventral Incisional Hernia Repair

BACKGROUND

Although obtaining preoperative procedural consent is required to meet legal and ethical obligations, consent is often relegated to a unidirectional conversation between surgeons and patients. In contrast, shared decision-making (SDM) is a collaborative dialog that elicits patient preferences. Despite emerging interest in SDM, there is a paucity of literature on its application to ventral incisional hernia repair (VIHR). The various surgical techniques and mesh types available, the potential impact on functional outcomes and quality of life, the largely elective nature of the operation, and the significant risk of perioperative patient complications render VIHR an ideal field for SDM implementation.

METHODS

The authors reviewed the current literature and drew on their own practice experience to describe evidence-based practical guidelines for implementing the SDM into VIHR care.

RESULTS

We summarized the evidence basis for SDM in surgery and discussed how this model can be applied to VIHR given the multiple, complex factors that influence surgical decision-making. We outlined an example of using an SDM framework, "SHARE," with a patient with a large, recurrent ventral hernia.

CONCLUSIONS

SDM has the potential to improve patient-centered and preference-concordant care among individuals being considered for VIHR to ensure that treatment interventions meet a patient's goals, rather than solely treating the underlying disease process.

A Complicated Case of Vaccine Refusal

Parents in the United States have a legal right to refuse vaccination for their children. There are, however, special circumstances under which the state may compel vaccination against parental wishes. In this Ethics Rounds article, we present the case of a young boy with sickle cell disease who was partially vaccinated against encapsulated bacteria and the ethics of whether to compel complete vaccination before splenectomy.

Caregivers' impression of epilepsy surgery in patients with tuberous sclerosis complex

Epilepsy surgery is successful in the majority of patients with tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC), with high rates of postoperative seizure reduction and even seizure freedom. Epilepsy surgery is recommended after failing two appropriate antiseizure medication trials; however, this is rare in clinical practice. We hypothesized that following surgery, caregivers' perspectives on the path they took to epilepsy surgery would inform changes in clinical practice and future research to increase utilization and early use of surgery. A questionnaire was developed to explore caregivers' perspectives on their child's path to epilepsy surgery. All 46 caregivers that filled out the majority of the survey were glad that their child underwent epilepsy surgery. Fourteen of 34 caregivers that commented on surgery timing wished their child had undergone epilepsy surgery earlier. Epilepsy with a duration of 23.5 months [interquartile range (IQR), 11.1 to 32.2 months, N = 14] prior to surgery was associated with caregiver dissatisfaction and was twice as long compared with caregivers who were satisfied with the timing of surgery (10 months, IQR, 7 to 17.3 months, p = 0.03). Caregivers were willing to accept a lower likelihood of seizure freedom and improvement than what they felt was likely from the preoperative discussions with their physicians. Forty caregivers rated various neurology physician factors as very important in their decision to undergo surgery: neurologist's attitude toward epilepsy surgery, experience with epilepsy surgery, and discussions around the risks of having and not having epilepsy surgery. Optimizing the caregiver-physician relationship can help facilitate early surgery referral and caregiver perception of surgery, potentially preventing delays to surgery and improved caregiver satisfaction.

Shared decision making in peri-operative medicine: Miles to go in Indian scenario

Shared Decision Making (SDM) in peri-operative medicine is increasingly encouraged as an ideal model of treatment decision making in the medical encounter. Moreover, it has the potential to improve the quality of the decision-making process for patients and ultimately, patient outcomes. This review focuses on several published literature on SDM in peri-operative medicine, its Implementation, barriers faced by Patient and the Provider, Myths regarding SDM and current scenario of SDM in India. Within the anesthetic community, patient consent is vigorously guided. However, this community suffers from lack of advancements in implementing the patient-focused rather than doctor-focused characteristics of SDM. Out of the several barriers, the most common barrier towards the implementation of SDM is the lack of time from the provider community. Within the anesthesia domain, the consultations discussed directly preceding the surgery do not pursue the customary and highly organized stages of typical outpatient consultations. Under these backgrounds and to be successfully implemented, it becomes imperative to begin the process of SDM pre-operative assessment clinic targeting both the high- and low-risk patients. It is critical to summarise that SDM does not end at the time of anesthesia for the peri-operative healthcare professional, but it gets to carry forward until patient discharge. Therefore, it is carried as the Pinnacle of Patient-Centred Care.

Development of an Instrument for Preoperative Prediction of Adverse Discharge in Patients Scheduled for Cardiac Surgery

OBJECTIVE

Inability of home discharge occurs in nearly a third of patients undergoing cardiac surgery and is associated with increased mortality. The authors aimed to evaluate the incidence and risk factors for adverse discharge disposition (ADD) after cardiac surgery and develop a prediction tool for preoperative risk assessment.

DESIGN

This retrospective cohort study included adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery between 2010 and 2018. The primary outcome was ADD, defined as in-hospital mortality, discharge to a skilled nursing facility, or transfer to a long-term care hospital. The authors created a prediction tool using stepwise backward logistic regression and used 5-fold and leave-one-out cross-validation.

SETTING

University hospital network.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients living at home prior to surgery, who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting and/or valve procedures at the authors' institution.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 3,760 patients were included in the final study cohort. The observed rate of ADD was 33.3%. The prediction model showed good discrimination and accuracy, with C-statistic of 0.78 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-0.79) and unmodified Brier score of 0.177 (reliability 0.001). The final model comprised 14 predictors. Patients who experienced ADD were more likely to be older, of female sex, to have had higher length of hospital stay prior to surgery, and to have undergone emergency surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors present an instrument for prediction of loss of the ability to live independently in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. The authors' score may be useful in identifying high-risk patients such that earlier coordination of care can be initiated in this vulnerable patient population.

Decision analysis and reinforcement learning in surgical decision-making

BACKGROUND

Surgical patients incur preventable harm from cognitive and judgment errors made under time constraints and uncertainty regarding patients' diagnoses and predicted response to treatment. Decision analysis and techniques of reinforcement learning theoretically can mitigate these challenges but are poorly understood and rarely used clinically. This review seeks to promote an understanding of decision analysis and reinforcement learning by describing their use in the context of surgical decision-making.

METHODS

Cochrane, EMBASE, and PubMed databases were searched from their inception to June 2019. Included were 41 articles about cognitive and diagnostic errors, decision-making, decision analysis, and machine-learning. The articles were assimilated into relevant categories according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines.

RESULTS

Requirements for time-consuming manual data entry and crude representations of individual patients and clinical context compromise many traditional decision-support tools. Decision analysis methods for calculating probability thresholds can inform population-based recommendations that jointly consider risks, benefits, costs, and patient values but lack precision for individual patient-centered decisions. Reinforcement learning, a machine-learning method that mimics human learning, can use a large set of patient-specific input data to identify actions yielding the greatest probability of achieving a goal. This methodology follows a sequence of events with uncertain conditions, offering potential advantages for personalized, patient-centered decision-making. Clinical application would require secure integration of multiple data sources and attention to ethical considerations regarding liability for errors and individual patient preferences.

CONCLUSION

Traditional decision-support tools are ill-equipped to accommodate time constraints and uncertainty regarding diagnoses and the predicted response to treatment, both of which often impair surgical decision-making. Decision analysis and reinforcement learning have the potential to play complementary roles in delivering high-value surgical care through sound judgment and optimal decision-making.

Which disease-related factors influence patients' and physicians' willingness to consider joint replacement in hip and knee OA? Results of a questionnaire survey linked to claims data

Background

A great heterogeneity in total joint replacement (TJR) rates has been reported for osteoarthritis (OA), most likely arising from a gap between patients’ and physicians’ views on the need for TJR. The purpose of this study therefore was to analyze potential cofactors which might influence the desire of patients to undergo TJR and physicians’ willingness to discuss surgery with their patients.

Methods

A total of 8995 patients in Germany with a claims data diagnosis of hip or knee OA or polyarthrosis were asked to complete a questionnaire for this cross-sectional study of sociodemographic factors, indicators of current joint function (WOMAC score), willingness to undergo TJR and whether they had already discussed TJR with a physician. The overall response rate was 40%. Responders with polyarthrosis and individuals without current or chronic symptoms in the corresponding joints, pain in already replaced joints or simultaneous symptomatic hip and knee OA were excluded. We linked the survey results to claims data. Separate logistic regression models were used to assess which parameters were associated with patients’ willingness to undergo TJR and physicians’ discussion of surgery.

Results

We analyzed 478 hip OA and 932 knee OA patients. Just 17% with hip OA and 14% with knee OA were willing to undergo TJR, although 44 and 45% had already discussed surgery with their physicians.

Patients’ willingness was associated with higher WOMAC scores, a deterioration of symptoms over the last 2 years, and previous TJR for another joint. The discussion with a physician was influenced by the impact on personal life and previous arthroplasty. Older age (odds Ratio (OR) 1.2 per 10 years), male sex (OR 0.69 vs female), longer symptom duration (OR 1.08 per 5 years), deterioration of symptoms (OR 2.0 vs no change/improvement), a higher WOMAC score (OR 1.3 per 10% deterioration) and reduced well-being (OR 1.1 per 10% deterioration) were associated with physician discussion in knee OA patients.

Conclusions

The proportion of patients willing to undergo TJR is lower than the proportion in whom physicians discuss surgery. While previous TJR seems to enhance patients’ and surgeons’ willingness, the influence of other cofactors is heterogeneous.

Shared decision making and consent post-Montgomery, UK Supreme Court judgement supporting best practice

The UK Supreme Court Montgomery judgement marks a decisive shift in the legal test of duty of care in the context of consent to treatment from the perspective of the clinician (as represented by Bolam rules) to that of the patient. This has important implications in the surgical field worldwide, where informed consent is critical. This paper aims to explain the ruling and how it impacts the consent process. The case and ruling are outlined and summarised as pertaining to consent and requirements for validity; a shift from the clinician's interpretation about what would be best for patients to the values of the particular patient concerned in the decision in question. A sample of recent commentaries is reviewed. Four examples illustrate some of the practical applications of the Montgomery ruling on consent and how the ruling can empower doctors and patients to make mutually beneficial shared decisions. Future consent should be obtained using a Montgomery compliant strategy in accordance with the principles of shared decision making.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

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

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

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