Editorial: The Shortcomings and Harms of Using Hard Cutoffs for BMI, Hemoglobin A1C, and Smoking Cessation as Conditions for Elective Orthopaedic Surgery.

S. Leopold
{"title":"Editorial: The Shortcomings and Harms of Using Hard Cutoffs for BMI, Hemoglobin A1C, and Smoking Cessation as Conditions for Elective Orthopaedic Surgery.","authors":"S. Leopold","doi":"10.1097/CORR.0000000000000979","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Most orthopaedic surgeons I know pride themselves on engaging with their patients as individuals. Many bridle at the idea that trendy, shared decision-making models are somehow something new, as they feel they’ve been sharing decisions with their patients all along; I believe many of them are right about this. And yet some of those same surgeons adopt heavy-handed approaches that seem to misunderstand how surgical risk really works when they insist on binary cutoffs for parameters like BMI, hemoglobin A1C, and cigarette smoking as a condition to offer elective surgery to their patients. When a surgeon unilaterally defines and applies such cutoffs in practice, by definition shared decision-making cannot take place. When the risk factors only seem modifiable, but in fact are not (or when they are only minimally modifiable), the use of rigid thresholds may become coercive. For these and other reasons, orthopaedic surgeons should stop using hard cutoffs for parameters like BMI, hemoglobin A1C, and smoking in the context of deciding whether to offer a patient elective surgery. The idea of using surgery as a “carrot” to nudge patients towards healthier behaviors—with the endpoint of offering an elective procedure the patient seeks as the inducement for efforts made—is entirely reasonable. When done with care and sensitivity, it can be one portion of a healthcare partnership in which both parties take some responsibility for achieving a result that both will be pleased with. But surgeons don’t have to operate on anyone we don’t want to treat, and increasingly we’re being held to financial account for the complications that result from our elective procedures. I believe this combination can result in surgeons setting unrealistic or impossible health goals for patients who seek particular interventions, and withholding those interventions from patients when they inevitably (or nearly inevitably) fall short [9]. This strikes me as potentially coercive. It’s also not well-supported by the available evidence.","PeriodicalId":10465,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research","volume":"14 12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"27","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Orthopaedics & Related Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CORR.0000000000000979","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 27

Abstract

Most orthopaedic surgeons I know pride themselves on engaging with their patients as individuals. Many bridle at the idea that trendy, shared decision-making models are somehow something new, as they feel they’ve been sharing decisions with their patients all along; I believe many of them are right about this. And yet some of those same surgeons adopt heavy-handed approaches that seem to misunderstand how surgical risk really works when they insist on binary cutoffs for parameters like BMI, hemoglobin A1C, and cigarette smoking as a condition to offer elective surgery to their patients. When a surgeon unilaterally defines and applies such cutoffs in practice, by definition shared decision-making cannot take place. When the risk factors only seem modifiable, but in fact are not (or when they are only minimally modifiable), the use of rigid thresholds may become coercive. For these and other reasons, orthopaedic surgeons should stop using hard cutoffs for parameters like BMI, hemoglobin A1C, and smoking in the context of deciding whether to offer a patient elective surgery. The idea of using surgery as a “carrot” to nudge patients towards healthier behaviors—with the endpoint of offering an elective procedure the patient seeks as the inducement for efforts made—is entirely reasonable. When done with care and sensitivity, it can be one portion of a healthcare partnership in which both parties take some responsibility for achieving a result that both will be pleased with. But surgeons don’t have to operate on anyone we don’t want to treat, and increasingly we’re being held to financial account for the complications that result from our elective procedures. I believe this combination can result in surgeons setting unrealistic or impossible health goals for patients who seek particular interventions, and withholding those interventions from patients when they inevitably (or nearly inevitably) fall short [9]. This strikes me as potentially coercive. It’s also not well-supported by the available evidence.
社论:使用BMI、糖化血红蛋白和戒烟的硬性临界值作为选择性骨科手术的条件的缺点和危害。
我认识的大多数整形外科医生都以与病人交流为傲。许多人认为,时髦的共享决策模式在某种程度上是一种新事物,这让他们感到恼火,因为他们觉得自己一直在与患者分享决策;我相信他们中的许多人在这一点上是对的。然而,同样是这些外科医生中的一些人,在坚持将BMI、血红蛋白A1C和吸烟等参数的二元截止值作为向患者提供选择性手术的条件时,采取了似乎误解了手术风险的真正运作方式的严厉方法。当外科医生在实践中单方面定义和应用这种界限时,根据定义,共同决策就不可能发生。当风险因素似乎是可以改变的,但实际上不是(或者当它们只能最低限度地改变时),使用严格的阈值可能会变得强制性。由于这些和其他原因,骨科医生在决定是否为患者提供选择性手术时,应停止使用BMI、血红蛋白A1C和吸烟等参数的硬截止值。用手术作为“胡萝卜”来推动病人做出更健康的行为的想法是完全合理的,其最终目的是为病人提供一种选择性的手术,作为他们努力的诱因。如果谨慎而敏感地完成,它可以成为医疗保健合作伙伴关系的一部分,其中双方都承担一些责任,以实现双方都满意的结果。但外科医生不必为我们不想治疗的人做手术,而且我们越来越多地要为我们的选择性手术所导致的并发症承担经济责任。我认为,这种结合可能导致外科医生为寻求特定干预措施的患者设定不切实际或不可能的健康目标,并且当这些干预措施不可避免(或几乎不可避免)达不到要求时,他们会对患者隐瞒这些干预措施[9]。这给我的印象是潜在的强制性。它也没有得到现有证据的充分支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信