Better Conversations for Better Informed Consent: Talking with Surgical Patients.

For more than sixty years, surgeons have used bioethical strategies to promote patient self-determination, many of these now collectively described as "informed consent." Yet the core framework-understanding, risks, benefits, and alternatives-fails to support patients in deliberation about treatment. We find that surgeons translate this framework into an overly complicated technical explanation of disease and treatment and an overly simplified narrative that surgery will "fix" the problem. They omit critical information about the goals and downsides of surgery and present untenable options as a matter of patient choice. We propose a novel framework called "better conversations." Herein, surgeons provide context about clinical norms, establish the goals of surgery, and comprehensively delineate the downsides of surgery to generate a deliberative space for patients to consider whether surgery is right for them. This paradigm shift meets the standards for informed consent, supports deliberation, and allows patients to anticipate and prepare for the experience of treatment.

Language in Bioethics: Beyond the Representational View.

Though assumptions about language underlie all bioethical work, the field has rarely partaken of theories of language. This article encourages a more linguistically engaged bioethics. We describe the tacit conception of language that is frequently upheld in bioethics-what we call the representational view, which sees language essentially as a means of description. We examine how this view has routed the field's theories and interventions down certain paths. We present an alternative model of language-the pragmatic view-and explore how it expands and clarifies traditional bioethical concerns. To lend concreteness, we apply the pragmatic view to a pervasive concept in bioethics and adjacent fields: decision making. We suggest that problems of the decision-making approach to bioethical issues are grounded in adherence to the representational view. Drawing on empirical work in surgery and critical care, we show how the pragmatic view productively reframes bioethical questions about how medical treatments are pursued.

Qualitative study of perceptions of factors contributing to success or failure among participants in a US weight loss trial of financial incentives and environmental change strategies.

BACKGROUND: The use of financial incentives and environmental change strategies to encourage health behaviour change is increasingly prevalent. However, the experiences of participants in incentive interventions are not well characterised. Examination of participant perceptions of financial incentives and environmental strategies can offer insights about how these interventions are facilitating or failing to encourage behaviour change. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to learn how participants in a randomised trial that tested financial incentives and environmental interventions to support weight loss perceived factors contributing to their success or failure in the trial. DESIGN: Qualitative study with one-time interviews of trial participants with high and low success in losing weight, supplemented by study records of incentive payments and weight loss. PARTICIPANTS: 24 trial participants (12 with substantial weight loss and 12 with no weight loss) stratified equally across the 4 trial arms (incentives, environmental strategies, combined and usual care) were interviewed. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Transcribed interviews were coded and interpreted using an iterative process. Explanation development was completed using an abductive approach. RESULTS: Responses of trial participants who were very successful in losing weight differed in several ways from those who were not. Successful participants described more robust prior attempts at dietary and exercise modification, more active engagement with self-limitations, more substantial social support and a greater ability to routinise dietary and exercise changes than did participants who did not lose weight. Successful participants often stated that weight loss was its own reward, even without receiving incentives. Neither group could articulate the details of the incentive intervention or consistently differentiate incentives from study payments. CONCLUSIONS: A number of factors distinguished successful from unsuccessful participants in this intervention. Participants who were successful tended to attribute their success to intrinsic motivation and prior experience. Making incentives more salient may make them more effective for participants with greater extrinsic motivation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02878343.

"The Equipoise Ruler:" A National Survey on Surgeon Judgment about the Value of Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to understand professional norms regarding the value of surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Agreed-upon professional norms may improve surgical decision making by contextualizing the nature of surgical treatment for patients. However, the extent to which these norms exist among surgeons practicing in the US is not known. METHODS: We administered a survey with 30 exemplar cases asking surgeons to use their best judgement to place each case on a scale ranging from "Definitely would do this surgery" to "Definitely would not do this surgery." We then asked surgeons to repeat their assessments after providing responses from the first survey. We interviewed respondents to characterize their rationale. RESULTS: We received 580 responses, a response rate of 28.5%. For 19 of 30 cases there was consensus (≥60% agreement) about the value of surgery (range 63% - 99%). There was little within-case variation when the mode was for surgery and more variation when the mode was against surgery or equipoise. Exposure to peer response increased the number of cases with consensus. Women were more likely to endorse a non-operative approach when treatment had high mortality. Specialists were less likely to operate for salvage procedures. Surgeons noted their clinical practice was to withhold judgment and let patients decide despite their assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Professional judgment about the value of surgery exists along a continuum. While there is less variation in judgment for cases that are highly beneficial, consensus can be improved by exposure to the assessments of peers.

Innovations in Surgical Communication 3-Promote Deliberation, Not Technical Education.

This Viewpoint is the third of a 4-part series discussing ways to improve communication between surgeons and patients.

The Duality of "Goals of Care" Language: A Qualitative Focus Group Study With Frontline Clinicians.

CONTEXT: The phrase "goals of care" (GOC) is common in serious illness care, yet it lacks clarity and consistency. Understanding how GOC is used across healthcare contexts is an opportunity to identify and mitigate root causes of serious illness miscommunication. OBJECTIVES: We sought to characterize frontline palliative and critical care clinicians' understanding and use of the phrase GOC in clinical practice. METHODS: We conducted a secondary qualitative thematic analysis of focus group transcripts (n = 10), gathered as part of a parent study of care delivery for patients with respiratory failure. Participants (n = 59) were members of the palliative and critical care interprofessional teams at two academic medical centers. RESULTS: Clinicians primarily use GOC as a shorthand signal among team members to indicate a patient is nearing the end of life. This signal can also indicate conflict with patients and families when clinicians' expectations-typically an expected "transition" toward a different type of care-are not met. Clinicians distinguish their clinical use of GOC from an "ideal" meaning of the phrase, which is broader than end of life and focused on patients' values. Palliative care specialists encourage other clinicians to shift toward the "ideal" GOC concept in clinical practice. CONCLUSION: Frontline palliative and critical care clinicians understand a duality in GOC, as an idealized concept and as an expeditious signal for clinical care. Our findings suggest ambiguous phrases like GOC persist because of unmet needs for better ways to discuss and address diverse and complex priorities for patients with serious illness.

Innovations in Surgical Communication 2-Focus on the Goals of Surgery.

This Viewpoint discusses communicating goals of surgeries with patients.

Innovations in Surgical Communication-Provide Your Opinion, Don't Hide It.

This Viewpoint discusses why surgeons should reveal their initial impressions about surgery so that they can move forward in a space of deliberation to consider whether their inclination makes sense for the patient.

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

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.

Escalation and Withdrawal of Treatment for Patients on Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe decisions about the escalation and withdrawal of treatment for patients on extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Interventions premised on facilitating patient autonomy have proven problematic in guiding treatment decisions in intensive care units (ICUs). Calls have thus been made to better understand how decisions are made in critical care. ECMO is an important form of cardiac and respiratory support, but care on ECMO is characterized by prognostic uncertainty, varying time course, and high resource use. It remains unclear how decisions about treatment escalation and withdrawal should be made for patients on ECMO and what role families should play in these decisions. METHODS: We performed a focused ethnography in 2 cardiothoracic ICUs in 2 US academic hospitals. We conducted 380 hours of observation, 34 weekly interviews with families of 20 ECMO patients, and 13 interviews with unit clinicians from January to September 2018. Qualitative analysis used an iterative coding process. RESULTS: Following ECMO initiation, treatment was escalated as complications mounted until the patient either could be decannulated or interventional options were exhausted. Families were well-informed about treatment and prognosis but played minimal roles in shaping the trajectory of care. CONCLUSIONS: Discussion between clinicians and families about prognosis and goals was frequent but did not occasion decision-making moments. This study helps explain why communication interventions intended to maintain patient autonomy through facilitating surrogate participation in decisions have had limited impact. A more comprehensive understanding of upstream factors that predispose courses of critical care is needed.

Surgeon Use of Shared Decision-making for Older Adults Considering Major Surgery: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Because major surgery carries significant risks for older adults with comorbid conditions, shared decision-making is recommended to ensure patients receive care consistent with their goals. However, it is unknown how often shared decision-making is used for these patients. Objective: To describe the use of shared decision-making during discussions about major surgery with older adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a secondary analysis of conversations audio recorded during a randomized clinical trial of a question prompt list. Data were collected from June 1, 2016, to November 31, 2018, from 43 surgeons and 446 patients 60 years or older with at least 1 comorbidity at outpatient surgical clinics at 5 academic centers. Interventions: Patients received a question prompt list brochure that contained questions they could ask a surgeon. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 5-domain Observing Patient Involvement in Decision-making (OPTION5) score (range, 0-100, with higher scores indicating greater shared decision-making) was used to measure shared decision-making. Results: A total of 378 surgical consultations were analyzed (mean [SD] patient age, 71.9 [7.2] years; 206 [55%] male; 312 [83%] White). The mean (SD) OPTION5 score was 34.7 (20.6) and was not affected by the intervention. The mean (SD) score in the group receiving the question prompt list was 36.7 (21.2); in the control group, the mean (SD) score was 32.9 (19.9) (effect estimate, 3.80; 95% CI, -0.30 to 8.00; P = .07). Individual surgeon use of shared decision-making varied greatly, with a lowest median score of 10 (IQR, 10-20) to a high of 65 (IQR, 55-80). Lower-performing surgeons had little variation in OPTION5 scores, whereas high-performing surgeons had wide variation. Use of shared decision-making increased when surgeons appeared reluctant to operate (effect estimate, 7.40; 95% CI, 2.60-12.20; P = .003). Although longer conversations were associated with slightly higher OPTION5 scores (effect estimate, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52-0.88; P < .001), 57% of high-scoring transcripts were 26 minutes long or less. On multivariable analysis, patient age and gender, patient education, surgeon age, and surgeon gender were not significantly associated with OPTION5 scores. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that although shared decision-making is important to support the preferences of older adults considering major surgery, surgeon use of shared decision-making is highly variable. Skillful shared decision-making can be done in less than 30 minutes; however, surgeons who engage in high-scoring shared decision-making are more likely to do so when surgical intervention is less obviously beneficial for the patient. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02623335.

Physicians' perspectives of prognosis and goals of care discussions after hip fracture.

BACKGROUND: Hip fracture often represents a major transition in patients' health, with a 1-year mortality rate between 25% and 30% and a challenging recovery course. Caring for hip fracture patients presents opportunities for goals of care discussions that include prognostic information and guidance about functional dependence. METHODS: We conducted qualitative, semi-structured interviews with 23 attending physicians involved with the care of hip fracture patients, including orthopedic surgeons, anesthesiologists, internists, and geriatricians, across 13 health systems in the United States and Canada. Questions addressed knowledge and interpretation of prognosis, discussing prognosis and goals of care, and timing and prioritization of surgery. Interviews were analyzed using a constructivist grounded theory approach to identify themes and develop a coding taxonomy. RESULTS: Physicians agreed that hip fracture had a considerable 1-year mortality, felt that it was important to discuss prognostic outcomes and the recovery process, wanted to elucidate patients' priorities, and often promoted timely surgery. Physicians perceived challenges when discussing mortality data with new patients in an acute setting. They more easily discussed outcomes related to functional dependence and quality of life. Some physicians used iterative communication as a strategy to have in-depth conversations in a busy perioperative setting. CONCLUSION: Providing timely, compassionate care for hip fracture patients is challenging. There are opportunities to study iterative communication to encourage dialogue at key points of patient care to better discuss prognosis and recovery and bolster coordinated multidisciplinary care that focuses on patients' goals and values.

What is the patient experience of surgical care during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic? A mixed-methods study at a single institution.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak has spread worldwide and has resulted in hospital restrictions. The perceived impact of these practices on patients undergoing essential surgeries is less understood. METHODS: Adult (≥18 years) patients who underwent medically necessary surgical procedures spanning multiple surgical specialties from March 23, 2020, to April 24, 2020, during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic were identified as eligible for a phone survey. Survey responses were analyzed using a mixed-methods approach involving descriptive statistics and thematic analysis of coded and annotated survey results. RESULTS: Of the 212 patients who underwent medically necessary surgical procedures during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the majority of these patients were male (61.3%), White (83.5%), married or with a domestic partner (68.9%), and underwent oncologic procedures (69.3%). Of the 46 patients (21.7%) who completed the survey, the majority of these patients indicated that coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic restrictions had no impact on their inpatient hospital stay and were satisfied with their decision to proceed with surgery. Severity of patient condition (44.4%), the risk/benefit discussion with the surgeon (24.4%), and coronavirus disease 2019 education and testing (19.5%) were the most important factors in proceeding with surgery during the pandemic; 34.4% of patients said their inpatient postoperative course was negatively affected by the lack of visitors. CONCLUSION: Medically necessary, time-sensitive surgical procedures, as determined by the surgeon, can be performed during a pandemic with good patient satisfaction provided there is an appropriate discussion between the surgeon and patient about the risks and benefits.

Improving Surgical Informed Consent: Unanswered Questions.

Objective: This study reviews randomized clinical trials that have attempted to improve the process of informed consent. Consent should be guided by the ethical imperatives of autonomy, beneficence, and social justice. Summary Background: Informed consent is constantly evolving. Yet our review of the randomized trials done to improve the surgical informed consent process raises a number of questions: How does one define surgical informed consent? What interventions have been tried to measure and improve informed consent? Have the interventions in informed consent actually led to improvements? What efforts have been made to improve informed consent? And what steps can be taken to improve the process further? Methods: A literature search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs)on informed consent identified 70 trials. Demographics, interventions, assessments, and a semi-quantitative summary of the findings were tabulated. The assessments done in the RCTs, show the surrogate for patient autonomy was comprehension; for beneficence, satisfaction and mental state (anxiety or depression); and, for social justice, language, literacy, learning needs, and cost. Results: There were 4 basic categories of interventions: printed matter; non-interactive audiovisual tools; interactive multimedia; and a smaller group defying easy description. Improvement was documented in 46 of the 65 trials that studied comprehension. Thirteen of 33 trials showed improved satisfaction. Three of 30 studies showed an increase in anxiety. Few studies tried to assess primary language or literacy, and none looked at learning needs or cost. Conclusions: No single study improved all 3 principles of informed consent. Validated interventions and assessments were associated with greater impact on outcomes. All 3 ethical principles should be assessed; autonomy (as comprehension), beneficence (as satisfaction, anxiety), and social justice. Not enough consideration has been given to social justice; appropriate language translation, standardized reading levels, assessment of learning needs, and cost to the individual are all important elements worthy of future study.

Nephrology in the Academic Intensive Care Unit: A Qualitative Study of Interdisciplinary Collaboration.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Collaboration between nephrology consultants and intensive care unit (ICU) teams is important in light of the high incidence of acute kidney injury in today's ICUs. Although there is considerable debate about how nephrology consultants and ICU teams should collaborate, communicative dynamics between the 2 parties remain poorly understood. This article describes interactions between nephrology consultants and ICU teams in the academic medical setting. STUDY DESIGN: Focused ethnography using semi-structured interviews and participant observation. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: Purposive sampling was used to enroll nephrologists, nephrology fellows, and ICU practitioners across several roles collaborating in 3 ICUs (a medical ICU, a surgical ICU, and a cardiothoracic surgical ICU) of a large urban US academic medical center. Participant observation (150 hours) and semi-structured interviews (35) continued until theoretical saturation. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Interview and fieldnote transcripts were coded in an iterative team-based process. Explanation was developed using an abductive approach. RESULTS: Nephrology consultants and surgical ICU teams exhibited discordant preferences about the aggressiveness of renal replacement therapy based on different understandings of physiology, goals of care, and acuity. Collaborative difficulties resulting from this discordance led to nephrology consultants often serving as dialysis proceduralists rather than diagnosticians in surgical ICUs and to consultants sometimes choosing not to express disagreements about clinical care because of the belief that doing so would not lead to changes in the course of care. LIMITATIONS: Aspects of this single-site study of an academic medical center may not be generalizable to other clinical settings and samples. Surgical team perspectives would provide further detail about nephrology consultation in surgical ICUs. The effects of findings on patient care were not examined. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in approach between internal medicine-trained nephrologists and anesthesia- and surgery-trained intensivists and surgeons led to collaborative difficulties in surgical ICUs. These findings stress the need for medical teamwork research and intervention to address issues stemming from disciplinary siloing rooted in long-term socialization to different disciplinary practices.

Let's Be Reasonable: Surgical Informed Consent in the COVID-19 Era.

Mini-Abstract Our perspective on informed consent is that expanding the duty to disclose novel uncertainties (eg, the covid-19 pandemic) stretches the doctrine to almost limitless proportions. Instead, we argue for a more conventional view in which the informed consent process should remain focused on the proposed operation and its ramifications.

Failure to Debrief after Critical Events in Anesthesia Is Associated with Failures in Communication during the Event.

WHAT WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THIS TOPIC: Debriefing after an actual critical event is an established good practice in medicine, but a gap exists between principle and implementation. WHAT THIS ARTICLE TELLS US THAT IS NEW: Failure to debrief after critical events is common among anesthesia trainees and likely anesthesia teams. Communication breakdowns are associated with a high rate of the failure to debrief. BACKGROUND: Debriefing after an actual critical event is an established good practice in medicine, but a gap exists between principle and implementation. The authors' objective was to understand barriers to debriefing, characterize quantifiable patterns and qualitative themes, and learn potential solutions through a mixed-methods study of actual critical events experienced by anesthesia personnel. METHODS: At a large academic medical center, anesthesiology residents and a small number of attending anesthesiologists were audited and/or interviewed for the occurrence and patterns of debriefing after critical events during their recent shift, including operating room crises and disruptive behavior. Patterns of the events, including event locations and event types, were quantified. A comparison was done of the proportion of cases debriefed based on whether the event contained a critical communication breakdown. Qualitative analysis, using an abductive approach, was performed on the interviews to add insight to quantitative findings. RESULTS: During a 1-yr period, 89 critical events were identified. The overall debriefing rate was 49% (44 of 89). Nearly half of events occurred outside the operating room. Events included crisis events (e.g., cardiac arrest, difficult airway requiring an urgent surgical airway), disruptive behavior, and critical communication breakdowns. Events containing critical communication breakdowns were strongly associated with not being debriefed (64.4% [29 of 45] not debriefed in events with a communication breakdown vs. 36.4% [16 of 44] not debriefed in cases without a communication breakdown; P = 0.008). Interview responses qualitatively demonstrated that lapses in communication were associated with enduring confusion that could inhibit or shape the content of discussions between involved providers. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the value of proximal debriefing to reducing provider burnout and improving wellness and learning, failure to debrief after critical events can be common among anesthesia trainees and perhaps anesthesia teams. Modifiable interpersonal factors, such as communication breakdowns, were associated with the failure to debrief.

Surgical Consultation as Social Process: Implications for Shared Decision Making.

OBJECTIVE: This qualitative study examines surgical consultation as a social process and assesses its alignment with assumptions of the shared decision-making (SDM) model. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: SDM stresses the importance of patient preferences and rigorous discussion of therapeutic risks/benefits based on these preferences. However, empirical studies have highlighted discrepancies between SDM and realities of surgical decision making. Qualitative research can inform understanding of the decision-making process and allow for granular assessment of the nature and causes of these discrepancies. METHODS: We observed consultations between 3 general surgeons and 45 patients considering undergoing 1 of 2 preference-sensitive elective operations: (1) hernia repair, or (2) cholecystectomy. These patients and surgeons also participated in semi-structured interviews. RESULTS: By the time of the consultation, patients and surgeons were predisposed toward certain decisions by preceding events occurring elsewhere. During the visit, surgeons had differential ability to arbitrate surgical intervention and construct the severity of patients' conditions. These upstream dynamics frequently displaced the centrality of the risk/benefit-based consent discussion. CONCLUSION: The influence of events preceding consultation suggests that decision-making models should account for broader spatiotemporal spans. Given surgeons' authority to define patients' conditions and control service provision, SDM may be premised on an overestimation of patients' power to alter the course of decision making once in a specialist's office. Considering the subordinate role of the risk/benefit discussion in many surgical decisions, it will be important to study if and how the social process of decision making is altered by SDM-oriented decision aids that foreground this discussion.