IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v43y2023i4p487-497.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Lily N. Stalter

    (Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, USA)

  • Nathan D. Baggett

    (HealthPartners Institute/Regions Hospital Emergency Medicine, St Paul, MN, USA)

  • Bret M. Hanlon

    (Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, USA
    Department of Biostatistics & Medical Informatics, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, USA)

  • Anne Buffington

    (Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, USA)

  • Elle L. Kalbfell

    (Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, USA)

  • Amy B. Zelenski

    (Department of Medicine, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, USA)

  • Robert M. Arnold

    (Section of Palliative Care and Medical Ethics, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA)

  • Justin T. Clapp

    (Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA)

  • Margaret L. Schwarze

    (Department of Surgery, University of Wisconsin–Madison, Madison, WI, USA)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • 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, 2023. "Identifying Patterns in Preoperative Communication about High-Risk Surgical Intervention: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 43(4), pages 487-497, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:43:y:2023:i:4:p:487-497
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X231164142
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X231164142
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X231164142?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jeffrey L. Jackson & Derek Storch & Wilkins Jackson & Dorothy Becher & Patrick G. O’Malley, 2020. "Direct-Observation Cohort Study of Shared Decision Making in a Primary Care Clinic," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 40(6), pages 756-765, August.
    2. Andrew Lloyd & Paul Hayes & Peter R. F. Bell & A. Ross Naylor, 2001. "The Role of Risk and Benefit Perception in Informed Consent for Surgery," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 21(2), pages 141-149, April.
    3. Yael Schenker & Alicia Fernandez & Rebecca Sudore & Dean Schillinger, 2011. "Interventions to Improve Patient Comprehension in Informed Consent for Medical and Surgical Procedures," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(1), pages 151-173, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ian G. J. Dawson & Johnnie E. V. Johnson & Michelle A. Luke, 2017. "One Too Many? Understanding the Influence of Risk Factor Quantity on Perceptions of Risk," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(6), pages 1157-1169, June.
    2. Reynolds, William W. & Nelson, Robert M., 2007. "Risk perception and decision processes underlying informed consent to research participation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 65(10), pages 2105-2115, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:43:y:2023:i:4:p:487-497. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.