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

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Lily N Stalter, Nathan D Baggett, Bret M Hanlon, Anne Buffington, Elle L Kalbfell, Amy B Zelenski, Robert M Arnold, Justin T Clapp, Margaret L Schwarze
{"title":"Identifying Patterns in Preoperative Communication about High-Risk Surgical Intervention: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.","authors":"Lily N Stalter,&nbsp;Nathan D Baggett,&nbsp;Bret M Hanlon,&nbsp;Anne Buffington,&nbsp;Elle L Kalbfell,&nbsp;Amy B Zelenski,&nbsp;Robert M Arnold,&nbsp;Justin T Clapp,&nbsp;Margaret L Schwarze","doi":"10.1177/0272989X231164142","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Surgeons are entrusted with providing patients with information necessary for deliberation about surgical intervention. Ideally, surgical consultations generate a shared understanding of the treatment experience and determine whether surgery aligns with a patient's overall health goals. In-depth assessment of communication patterns might reveal opportunities to better achieve these objectives.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a secondary analysis of audio-recorded consultations between surgeons and patients considering high-risk surgery. For 43 surgeons, we randomly selected 4 transcripts each of consultations with patients aged ≥60 y with at least 1 comorbidity. We developed a coding taxonomy, based on principles of informed consent and shared decision making, to categorize surgeon speech. We grouped transcripts by treatment plan and recorded the treatment goal. We used box plots, Sankey diagrams, and flow diagrams to characterize communication patterns.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 169 transcripts, of which 136 discussed an oncologic problem and 33 considered a vascular (including cardiac and neurovascular) problem. At the median, surgeons devoted an estimated 8 min (interquartile range 5-13 min) to content specifically about intervention including surgery. In 85.5% of conversations, more than 40% of surgeon speech was consumed by technical descriptions of the disease or treatment. \"Fix-it\" language was used in 91.7% of conversations. In 79.9% of conversations, no overall goal of treatment was established or only a desire to cure or control cancer was expressed. Most conversations (68.6%) began with an explanation of the disease, followed by explanation of the treatment in 53.3%, and then options in 16.6%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Explanation of disease and treatment dominate surgical consultations, with limited time spent on patient goals. Changing the focus of these conversations may better support patients' deliberation about the value of surgery.<b>Trial registration:</b> ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02623335.</p><p><strong>Highlights: </strong>In decision-making conversations about high-risk surgical intervention, surgeons emphasize description of the patient's disease and potential treatment, and the use of \"fix-it\" language is common.Surgeons dedicated limited time to eliciting patient preferences and goals, and 79.9% of conversations resulted in no explicit goal of treatment.Current communication practices may be inadequate to support deliberation about the value of surgery for individual patients and their families.</p>","PeriodicalId":49839,"journal":{"name":"Medical Decision Making","volume":"43 4","pages":"487-497"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medical Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X231164142","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

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

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

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

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

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

高危手术干预术前沟通模式的识别:一项随机临床试验的二次分析
简介:外科医生被委托为患者提供必要的信息,以考虑手术干预。理想情况下,外科会诊产生对治疗经验的共同理解,并确定手术是否符合患者的整体健康目标。对通讯模式的深入评估可能揭示更好地实现这些目标的机会。方法:我们对外科医生和考虑高危手术的患者之间的录音咨询进行了二次分析。在43名外科医生中,我们随机选取年龄≥60岁且至少有一种合并症的患者的4份会诊记录。基于知情同意和共同决策的原则,我们开发了一种编码分类法来对外科医生的语言进行分类。将转录本按治疗方案分组,记录治疗目标。我们使用箱形图、Sankey图和流程图来描述通信模式。结果:我们纳入了169个转录本,其中136个讨论了肿瘤问题,33个考虑了血管(包括心脏和神经血管)问题。在中位数上,外科医生花了大约8分钟(四分位数范围5-13分钟)专门讨论包括手术在内的干预措施。在85.5%的谈话中,超过40%的外科医生言语被疾病或治疗的技术描述所消耗。91.7%的谈话中使用了“修复”语言。在79.9%的谈话中,没有建立总体治疗目标,或者只是表达了治愈或控制癌症的愿望。大多数对话(68.6%)以对疾病的解释开始,53.3%的人解释了治疗方法,16.6%的人解释了治疗方案。结论:对疾病和治疗的解释是外科会诊的主要内容,花在患者目标上的时间有限。改变这些谈话的焦点可能会更好地支持患者对手术价值的思考。试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov标识符:NCT02623335。重点:在关于高风险手术干预的决策对话中,外科医生强调对患者疾病和潜在治疗方法的描述,并且使用“修复”语言是常见的。外科医生花费有限的时间来引出患者的偏好和目标,79.9%的谈话没有明确的治疗目标。目前的沟通实践可能不足以支持对个别患者及其家属进行手术价值的审议。
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
Medical Decision Making
Medical Decision Making 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
5.60%
发文量
146
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medical Decision Making offers rigorous and systematic approaches to decision making that are designed to improve the health and clinical care of individuals and to assist with health care policy development. Using the fundamentals of decision analysis and theory, economic evaluation, and evidence based quality assessment, Medical Decision Making presents both theoretical and practical statistical and modeling techniques and methods from a variety of disciplines.
×
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