Spine surgeons facing second opinions: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: The social and technological mutation of our contemporary period disrupts the traditional dyad that prevails in the relationship between physicians and patients. PURPOSE: The solicitation of a second opinion by the patient may potentially alter this dyad and degrade the mutual trust between the stakeholders concerned. The doctor-patient relationship has often been studied from the patient's perspective, but data are scarce from the spine surgeon's point of view. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: This qualitative study used the grounded theory approach, an inductive methodology emphasizing field data and rejecting predetermined assumptions. PATIENT SAMPLE: We interviewed spine surgeons of different ages, experiences, and practice locations. We initially contacted 30 practitioners, but the final number (24 interviews; 11 orthopedists and 13 neurosurgeons) was determined by data saturation (the point at which no new topics appeared). OUTCOME MEASURES: Themes and subthemes were analyzed using semistructured interviews until saturation was reached. METHODS: Data were collected through individual interviews, independently analyzed thematically using specialized software, and triangulated by three researchers (an anthropologist, psychiatrist, and neurosurgeon). RESULTS: Index surgeons were defined when their patients went for a second opinion and recourse surgeons were defined as surgeons who were asked for a second opinion. Data analysis identified five overarching themes based on recurring elements in the interviews: (1) analysis of the patient's motivations for seeking a second opinion; (2) impaired trust and disloyalty; (3) ego, authority, and surgeon image; (4) management of a consultation recourse (measurement and ethics); and (5) the second opinion as an avoidance strategy. Despite the inherent asymmetry in the doctor-patient relationship, surgeons and patients share two symmetrical continua according to their perspective (professional or consumerist), involving power and control on the one hand and loyalty and autonomy on the other. These shared elements can be found in index consultations (seeking high-level care/respecting trust/closing the loyalty gap/managing disengagement) and referral consultations (objective and independent advice/trusting of the index advice/avoiding negative and anxiety-provoking situations). CONCLUSIONS: The second opinion often has a negative connotation with spine surgeons, who see it as a breach of loyalty and trust, without neglecting ego injury in their relationship with the patient. A paradigm shift would allow the second opinion to be perceived as a valuable resource that broadens the physician-patient relationship and optimizes the shared surgical decision-making process.

Spine neurosurgeons facing the judicialization of their profession: disenchantment and alteration of daily practice-a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The judicialization of medicine can lead to professional disenchantment and defensive attitudes among surgeons. Some quantitative studies have investigated this topic in spine surgery, but none has provided direct thematic feedback from physicians. This qualitative study aimed to identify the impact of this phenomenon in the practice of spine neurosurgeons. METHODS: We proposed a qualitative study using grounded theory approach. Twenty-three purposively selected private neurosurgeons participated. Inclusion took place until data saturation was reached. Data were collected through individual interviews and analyzed thematically and independently by three researchers (an anthropologist, a psychiatrist, and a neurosurgeon). RESULTS: Data analysis identified five superordinate themes that were based on items that recurred in interviews: (1) private practice of spinal surgery (high-risk surgery based on frequent functional symptoms, in an unfavorable medicolegal context); (2) societal transformation of the doctor-patient relationship (new societal demands, impact of the internet and social network); (3) judicialization of spine surgery (surgeons' feelings about the frequency and motivation of the complaints they receive, and their own management of them); (4) coping strategies (identification and solutions for "at risk" situations and patients); and (5) professional disenchantment (impact of these events on surgeons' daily practice and career planning). Selected quotes of interviews were reported to support these findings. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights several elements that can alter the quality of care in a context of societal change and the judicialization of medicine. The alteration of the doctor-patient relationship and the permanent pressure of a possible complaint encourage surgeons to adopt defensive attitudes in order to minimize the risks of litigation and increased insurance premiums. These phenomena can affect the quality of care and the privacy of physicians to the extent that they may consider changing or interrupting their careers earlier.