Treatment recommendations to parents during pediatric tonsillectomy consultations: A mixed methods analysis of surgeon language.

OBJECTIVE: A deeper understanding of the dialogue clinicians use to relay treatment recommendations is needed to fully understand their influence on patient decisions about surgery. We characterize how otolaryngologists provide treatment recommendations and suggest a classification framework. METHODS: We qualitatively analyzed surgeon recommendations from 55 encounters between otolaryngologists and parents of children evaluated for tonsillectomy, and classified recommendation types by phrasing. Multilevel logistic regression identified predictors of recommendation phrasing. RESULTS: Clinicians provided 183 recommendations (mean/visit = 3.3). We identified four domains of recommendation-phrasing (direct, passive, acceptable, parent-oriented). Direct recommendations (n = 68, 37%) included presumptive statements phrasing intentions as inevitable. Passive recommendations (n = 65, 36%) included practice-based recommendations utilizing general statements. Acceptable recommendations (n = 29, 16%) included speaking positively about treatment options. Parent-oriented recommendations (n = 21, 11%) included parent choice statements. Clinicians more commonly made direct recommendations to parents who were racial minorities (OR = 2.7, p = .02, 95% CI [1.7, 5.9]) or had an annual income <$50,000 (OR = 2.2, p = .03, 95% CI [1.1, 4.4]). CONCLUSION: Clinicians provide treatment recommendations in a variety of ways that may introduce more or less certainty and choice to parental treatment decisions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Findings may be implemented into training which increases clinician awareness of dialogue use when recommending treatment alternatives to patients.

Parental role in decision-making for pediatric surgery: Perceptions of involvement in consultations for tonsillectomy.

OBJECTIVE: Parental role in decision-making has implications for quality of care. We describe roles of parent participation in decision-making for tonsillectomy. METHODS: Parents reported preferred role in decision-making before consultations for tonsillectomy and the role they experienced after their consult. Parents completed questionnaires, including items evaluating clinician/parent communication. Clinicians rated perception of parents' preferred role in decision-making. Congruence between parent and clinician responses was evaluated via kappa analysis. Logistic regression identified associations between decision-making roles and socioemotional and communication factors. RESULTS: Consults between 63 parents and 8 otolaryngologists were analyzed.There was inadequate agreement between clinician and parent ratings of preferred roles (37%, p = 0.6, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.001]). Parents perceived greater involvement when clinicians discussed reasons to have (OR = 4.3, p = 0.03) or not have (OR = 4.1, p = 0.005) surgery. Parents perceived less involvement when clinicians used jargon (OR = 0.1, p = 0.03), and when parents trusted clinicians (OR = 0.4, p = 0.049), or experienced greater decisional conflict (OR = 0.9, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Parents and clinicians perceived parental preference for decision-making involvement differently during consultations for tonsillectomy. Clinician information-sharing, jargon use, and parent trust in clinician predicted extent of perceived engagement. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Findings may enhance understanding of strategies to effectively communicate and engage parents in shared decision-making for pediatric surgical care.

An expanded framework to define and measure shared decision-making in dialogue: A 'top-down' and 'bottom-up' approach.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to develop a comprehensive, descriptive framework to measure shared decision making (SDM) in clinical encounters. METHODS: We combined a top-down (theoretical) approach with a bottom-up approach based on audio-recorded dialogue to identify all communication processes related to decision making. We coded 55 pediatric otolaryngology visits using the framework and report interrater reliability. RESULTS: We identified 14 clinician behaviors and 5 patient behaviors that have not been previously described, and developed a new SDM framework that is descriptive (what does happen) rather than normative (what should happen). Through the bottom-up approach we identified three broad domains not present in other SDM frameworks: socioemotional support, understandability of clinician dialogue, and recommendation-giving. We also specify the ways in which decision-making roles are assumed implicitly rather than discussed explicitly. Interrater reliability was >75% for 92% of the coded behaviors. CONCLUSION/PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This SDM framework allows for a more expansive understanding and analysis of how decision making takes place in clinical encounters, including new domains and behaviors not present in existing measures. We hope that this new framework will bring attention to a broader conception of SDM and allow researchers to further explore the new domains and behaviors identified.