"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.

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.

Factors Associated With Provision of Nonbeneficial Surgery: A National Survey of Surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: We tested the association of systems factors with the surgeon's likelihood of offering surgical intervention for older adults with life-limiting acute surgical conditions. BACKGROUND: Use of surgical treatments in the last year of life is frequent. Improved risk prediction and clinician communication are solutions proposed to improve serious illness care, yet systems factors may also drive receipt of nonbeneficial treatment. METHODS: We mailed a national survey to 5200 surgeons randomly selected from the American College of Surgeons database comprised of a clinical vignette describing a seriously ill older adult with an acute surgical condition, which utilized a 2×2 factorial design to assess patient and systems factors on receipt of surgical treatment to surgeons. RESULTS: Two thousand one hundred sixty-one surgeons responded for a weighted response rate of 53%. For an 87-year-old patient with fulminant colitis and advanced dementia or stage IV lung cancer, 40% of surgeons were inclined to offer an operation to remove the patient's colon while 60% were inclined to offer comfort-focused care only. Surgeons were more likely to offer surgery when an operating room was readily available (odds ratio: 4.05, P <0.001) and the family requests "do everything" (odds ratio: 2.18, P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Factors outside the surgeon's control contribute to nonbeneficial surgery, consistent with our model of clinical momentum. Further characterization of the systems in which these decisions occur might expose novel strategies to improve serious illness care for older patients and their families.

The Association Between Factors Promoting Nonbeneficial Surgery and Moral Distress: A National Survey of Surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the prevalence of moral distress among surgeons and test the association between factors promoting non-beneficial surgery and surgeons' moral distress. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Moral distress experienced by clinicians can lead to low-quality care and burnout. Older adults increasingly receive invasive treatments at the end of life that may contribute to surgeons' moral distress, particularly when external factors, such as pressure from colleagues, institutional norms, or social demands, push them to offer surgery they consider non-beneficial. METHODS: We mailed surveys to 5200 surgeons randomly selected from the American College of Surgeons membership, which included questions adapted from the revised Moral Distress Scale. We then analyzed the association between factors influencing the decision to offer surgery to seriously ill older adults and surgeons' moral distress. RESULTS: The weighted adjusted response rate was 53% (n = 2161). Respondents whose decision to offer surgery was influenced by their belief that pursuing surgery gives the patient or family time to cope with the patient's condition were more likely to have high moral distress (34% vs 22%, P < 0.001), and this persisted on multivariate analysis (odds ratio 1.44, 95% confidence interval 1.02-2.03). Time required to discuss nonoperative treatments or the consulting intensivists' endorsement of operative intervention, were not associated with high surgeon moral distress. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons experience moral distress when they feel pressured to perform surgery they believe provides no clear patient benefit. Strategies that empower surgeons to recommend nonsurgical treatments when they believe this is in the patient's best interest may reduce nonbeneficial surgery and surgeon moral distress.

Qualitative Analysis of Single-Site Headache Surgery: Is It Different From Multiple-Site Surgery?

BACKGROUND: Migraine surgery has been shown to be efficacious, but nuanced effects of surgery on pain and individuals' lives remain incompletely understood. Surgery may be performed at a single or multiple "primary" sites. The aims of this study were to investigate patient perceptions following single-site surgery and compare themes in patients undergoing single-site surgery with those from a previously published conceptual framework generated with patients undergoing multisite surgery. METHODS: Patients who underwent single-site headache surgery participated in open-ended interviews at least 1 year after surgery. Participants (n = 14) had undergone either occipital, temporal, or nasoseptal site surgery. A multidisciplinary team analyzed transcripts. Recurring themes were identified and compared and contrasted to those observed in patients who underwent multiple-site surgery (n = 15) in a previous study (Plast Reconstr Surg 2019;144(4):956-964). RESULTS: Similar recurring themes emerged from the single-site cohort, and the conceptual framework was applicable to all participants. Two new themes emerged from the single-site analysis. First, 5 of 14 participants described being "migraine-free" postoperatively, a finding not observed in the multisite group. Second, several individuals described financial benefits after surgery, via decreased prescription medication requirements, raises at work, and improved productivity. CONCLUSIONS: Single-site headache surgery appears to positively impact patients' lives in ways that support and expand upon previously published outcomes. Patients undergoing surgery at a single site may be more likely to experience a "pain-free" state, which may relate to the underlying pathophysiology of chronic headache. The effect of surgery on finances appears to be an outcome of interest to patients, which should be explored further.

Lower Extremity Amputation and Health Care Utilization in the Last Year of Life among Medicare Beneficiaries with ESRD.

BACKGROUND: Lower extremity amputation is common among patients with ESRD, and often portends a poor prognosis. However, little is known about end-of-life care among patients with ESRD who undergo amputation. METHODS: We conducted a mortality follow-back study of Medicare beneficiaries with ESRD who died in 2002 through 2014 to analyze patterns of lower extremity amputation in the last year of life compared with a parallel cohort of beneficiaries without ESRD. We also examined the relationship between amputation and end-of-life care among the patients with ESRD. RESULTS: Overall, 8% of 754,777 beneficiaries with ESRD underwent at least one lower extremity amputation in their last year of life compared with 1% of 958,412 beneficiaries without ESRD. Adjusted analyses of patients with ESRD showed that those who had undergone lower extremity amputation were substantially more likely than those who had not to have been admitted to-and to have had prolonged stays in-acute and subacute care settings during their final year of life. Amputation was also associated with a greater likelihood of dying in the hospital, dialysis discontinuation before death, and less time receiving hospice services. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly one in ten patients with ESRD undergoes lower extremity amputation in their last year of life. These patients have prolonged stays in acute and subacute health care settings and appear to have limited access to hospice services. These findings likely signal unmet palliative care needs among seriously ill patients with ESRD who undergo amputation as well as opportunities to improve their care.

Family and transplant professionals' views of organ recovery before circulatory death for imminently dying patients: A qualitative study using semistructured interviews and focus groups.

Donation before circulatory death for imminently dying patients has been proposed to address organ scarcity and harms of nondonation. To characterize stakeholder attitudes about organ recovery before circulatory death we conducted semistructured interviews with family members (N = 15) who had experienced a loved one's unsuccessful donation after circulatory death and focus groups with professional stakeholders (surgeons, anesthesiologists, critical care specialists, palliative care specialists, organ procurement personnel, and policymakers, N = 46). We then used qualitative content analysis to characterize these perspectives. Professional stakeholders believed that donation of all organs before circulatory death was unacceptable, morally repulsive, and equivalent to murder; consent for such a procedure would be impermissible. Respondents feared the social costs related to recovery before death were too high. Although beliefs about recovery of all organs were widely shared, some professional stakeholders could accommodate removal of a single kidney before circulatory death. In contrast, family members were typically accepting of donation before circulatory death for a single kidney, and many believed recovery of all organs was permissible because they believed the cause of death was the donor's injury, not organ procurement. These findings suggest that definitions of death and precise rules around organ donation are critical for professional stakeholders, whereas donor families find less relevance in these constructs for determining the acceptability of organ donation. Donation of a single kidney before circulatory death warrants future exploration.

Patient and Family Engagement During Treatment Decisions in an ICU: A Discourse Analysis of the Electronic Health Record.

OBJECTIVES: Shared decision-making is recommended for critically ill adults who face major, preference-sensitive treatment decisions. Yet, little is known about when and how patients and families are engaged in treatment decision-making over the longitudinal course of a critical illness. We sought to characterize patterns of treatment decision-making by evaluating clinician discourse in the electronic health record of critically ill adults who develop chronic critical illness or die in an ICU. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: We conducted qualitative content analysis of the electronic health record of 52 adult patients, admitted to a medical ICU in a tertiary medical center from January 1, 2016, to December 31, 2016. We included patients who met a consensus definition of chronic critical illness (26 patients) and a matched sample who died or transitioned to hospice care in the ICU before developing chronic critical illness (26 patients). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Characterization of clinician decision-making discourse documented during the course of an ICU stay. Clinician decision-making discourse in the electronic health record followed a single, consistent pattern across both groups. Initial decisions about admission to the ICU focused on specific interventions that can only be provided in an ICU environment (intervention-focused decisions). Following admission, the documented rationale for additional treatments was guided by physiologic abnormalities (physiology-centered decisions). Clinician discourse transitioned to documented engagement of patients and families in decision-making when treatments failed to achieve specified physiologic goals. The phrase "goals of care" is common in the electronic health record and is used to indicate poor prognosis, to describe conflict with families, and to provide rationale for treatment limitations. CONCLUSIONS: Clinician discourse in the electronic health record reveals that patient physiology strongly guides treatment decision-making throughout the longitudinal course of critical illness. Documentation of patient and family engagement in treatment decision-making is limited until available medical treatments fail to achieve physiologic goals.

Harms of unsuccessful donation after circulatory death: An exploratory study.

While donation after circulatory death (DCD) has expanded options for organ donation, many who wish to donate are still unable to do so. We conducted face-to-face interviews with family members (N = 15) who had direct experience with unsuccessful DCD and 5 focus groups with professionals involved in the donation process. We used qualitative content analysis to characterize the harms of nondonation as perceived by participants. Participants reported a broad spectrum of harms affecting organ recipients, donors, and donor families. Harms included waste of precious life-giving organs and hospital resources, inability to honor the donor's memory and character, and impaired ability for families to make sense of tragedy and cope with loss. Donor families empathized with the initial hope and ultimate despair of potential recipients who must continue their wait on the transplant list. Focus group members reinforced these findings and highlighted the struggle of families to navigate the uncertainty regarding the timing of death during the donation process. While families reported significant harm, many appreciated the donation attempt. These findings highlight the importance of organ donation to donor families and the difficult experiences associated with current processes that could inform development of alternative donation strategies.

Palliative Care in Surgery: Defining the Research Priorities.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the existing science of palliative care in surgery within three priority areas and expose specific gaps within the field. BACKGROUND: Given the acute and often life-limiting nature of surgical illness, as well as the potential for treatment to induce further suffering, surgical patients have considerable palliative care needs. Yet these patients are less likely to receive palliative care than their medical counterparts and palliative care consultations often occur when death is imminent, reflecting poor quality end-of-life care. METHODS: The National Institutes of Health and the National Palliative Care Research Center convened researchers from several medical subspecialties to develop a national agenda for palliative care research. The surgeon work group reviewed the existing surgical literature to identify critical knowledge gaps. RESULTS: To date, evidence to support the role of palliative care in surgical practice is sparse and palliative care research in surgery is encumbered by methodological challenges and entrenched cultural norms that impede appropriate provision of palliative care. Priorities for future research on palliative care in surgery include: 1) measuring outcomes that matter to patients, 2) communication and decision making, and 3) delivery of palliative care to surgical patients. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical patients would likely benefit from early palliative care delivered alongside surgical treatment to promote goal-concordant decision making and to improve patients' physical, emotional, social and spiritual well-being and quality of life. We propose a research agenda to address major gaps in the literature and provide a road map for future investigation.

Barriers to Goal-concordant Care for Older Patients With Acute Surgical Illness: Communication Patterns Extrinsic to Decision Aids.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize patterns of communication extrinsic to a decision aid that may impede goal-concordant care. BACKGROUND: Decision aids are designed to facilitate difficult clinical decisions by providing better treatment information. However, these interventions may not be sufficient to effectively reveal patient values and promote preference-aligned decisions for seriously ill, older adults. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of 31 decision-making conversations between surgeons and frail, older inpatients with acute surgical problems at a single tertiary care hospital. Conversations occurred before and after surgeons were trained to use a decision aid. We used directed qualitative content analysis to characterize patterns within 3 communication elements: disclosure of prognosis, elicitation of patient preferences, and integration of preferences into a treatment recommendation. RESULTS: First, surgeons missed an opportunity to break bad news. By focusing on the acute surgical problem and need to make a treatment decision, surgeons failed to expose the life-limiting nature of the patient's illness. Second, surgeons asked patients to express preference for a specific treatment without gaining knowledge about the patient's priorities or exploring how patients might value specific health states or disabilities. Third, many surgeons struggled to integrate patients' goals and values to make a treatment recommendation. Instead, they presented options and noted, "It's your decision." CONCLUSIONS: A decision aid alone may be insufficient to facilitate a decision that is truly shared. Attention to elements beyond provision of treatment information has the potential to improve communication and promote goal-concordant care for seriously ill older patients.

Surgical Transfer Decision Making: How Regional Resources are Allocated in a Regional Transfer Network.

BACKGROUND: Tertiary care centers often operate above capacity, limiting access to emergency surgical care for patients at nontertiary facilities. For nontraumatic surgical emergencies there are no guidelines to inform patient selection for transfer to another facility. Such decisions may be particularly difficult for gravely ill patients when the benefits of transfer are uncertain. METHODS: To characterize surgeons' decision-making strategies for transfer, a qualitative analysis of semistructured interviews was conducted with 16 general surgeons who refer and accept patients within a regional transfer network. Interviews included case-based vignettes about surgical patients with high comorbidity, multisystem organ failure, and terminal conditions. An inductive coding strategy was used, followed by performance of a higher-level analysis to characterize important themes and trends. RESULTS: Surgeons at outlying hospitals seek transfer when the resources to care for patients' surgical needs or comorbid conditions are unavailable locally. In contrast, surgeons at the tertiary center accept all patients regardless of outcome or resource considerations. Bed availability at the tertiary care center restricts transfer capacity, harming patients who cannot be transferred. Surgeons sometimes transfer dying patients in order to exhaust all treatment options or appease families, but they are conflicted about the value of transfer, which displaces patients from their local communities and limits access to tertiary care for others. CONCLUSION: Decisions to transfer surgical patients are complex and require comprehensive understanding of local capacity and regional resources. Current decision-making strategies fail to optimize patient selection for transfer and can inappropriately allocate scarce tertiary care beds.

Conflict in the intensive care unit: Nursing advocacy and surgical agency.

BACKGROUND: Nurses and surgeons may experience intra-team conflict during decision making about the use of postoperative life-sustaining treatment in the intensive care unit due to their perceptions of professional roles and responsibilities. Nurses have a sense of advocacy-a responsibility to support the patient's best interest; surgeons have a sense of agency-a responsibility to keep the patient alive. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to (1) describe the discourse surrounding the responsibilities of nurses and surgeons, as "advocates" and "agents," and (2) apply these findings to determine how differences in role responsibilities could foster conflict during decision making about postoperative life-sustaining treatment in the intensive care unit. RESEARCH DESIGN: Articles, books, and professional documents were explored to obtain descriptions of nurses' and surgeons' responsibilities to their patients. Using discourse analysis, responsibilities were grouped into themes and then compared for potential for conflict. Ethical considerations: No data were collected from human participants and ethical review was not required. The texts were analyzed by a surgeon and a nurse to minimize profession-centric biases. FINDINGS: Four themes in nursing discourse were identified: responsibility to support patient autonomy regarding treatment decisions, responsibility to protect the patient from the physician, responsibility to act as an intermediary between the physician and the patient, and the responsibility to support the well-being of the patient. Three themes in surgery discourse were identified personal responsibility for the patient's outcome, commitment to patient survival, and the responsibility to prevent harm to the patient from surgery. DISCUSSION: These responsibilities may contribute to conflict because each profession is working toward different goals and each believes they know what is best for the patient. It is not clear from the existing literature that either profession understands each other's responsibilities. CONCLUSION: Interventions that improve understanding of each profession's responsibilities may be helpful to reduce intra-team conflict in the intensive care unit.

Patient-reported Limitations to Surgical Buy-in: A Qualitative Study of Patients Facing High-risk Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize how patients buy-in to treatments beyond the operating room and what limits they would place on additional life-supporting treatments. BACKGROUND: During a high-risk operation, surgeons generally assume that patients buy-in to life-supporting interventions that might be necessary postoperatively. How patients understand this agreement and their willingness to participate in additional treatment is unknown. METHODS: We purposively sampled surgeons in Toronto, Ontario, Boston, Massachusetts, and Madison, Wisconsin, who are good communicators and routinely perform high-risk operations. We audio-recorded their conversations with patients considering high-risk surgery. For patients who were then scheduled for surgery, we performed open-ended preoperative and postoperative interviews. We used directed qualitative content analysis to analyze the interviews and surgeon visits, specifically evaluating the content about the use of postoperative life support. RESULTS: We recorded 43 patients' conversations with surgeons, 34 preoperative, and 27 postoperative interviews. Patients expressed trust in their surgeon to make decisions about additional treatments if a serious complication occurred, yet expressed a preference for significant treatment limitations that were not discussed with their surgeon preoperatively. Patients valued the existence or creation of an advance directive preoperatively, but they did not discuss this directive with their surgeon. Instead they assumed it would be effective if needed and that family members knew their wishes. CONCLUSIONS: Patients implicitly trust their surgeons to treat postoperative complications as they arise. Although patients may buy-in to some additional postoperative interventions, they hold a broad range of preferences for treatment limitations that were not discussed with the surgeon preoperatively.

Constructing High-stakes Surgical Decisions: It's Better to Die Trying.

OBJECTIVE: To explore high-stakes surgical decision making from the perspective of seniors and surgeons. BACKGROUND: A majority of older chronically ill patients would decline a low-risk procedure if the outcome was severe functional impairment. However, 25% of Medicare beneficiaries have surgery in their last 3 months of life, which may be inconsistent with their preferences. How patients make decisions to have surgery may contribute to this problem of unwanted care. METHODS: We convened 4 focus groups at senior centers and 2 groups of surgeons in Madison and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where we showed a video about a decision regarding a choice between surgery and palliative care. We used qualitative content analysis to identify themes about communication and explanatory models for end-of-life treatment decisions. RESULTS: Seniors (n = 37) and surgeons (n = 17) agreed that maximizing quality of life should guide treatment decisions for older patients. However, when faced with an acute choice between surgery and palliative care, seniors viewed this either as a choice between life and death or a decision about how to die. Although surgeons agreed that very frail patients should not have surgery, they held conflicting views about presenting treatment options. CONCLUSIONS: Seniors and surgeons highly value quality of life, but this notion is difficult to incorporate in acute surgical decisions. Some seniors use these values to consider a choice between surgery and palliative care, whereas others view this as a simple choice between life and death. Surgeons acknowledge challenges framing decisions and describe a clinical momentum that promotes surgical intervention.

Trajectories and Prognosis of Older Patients Who Have Prolonged Mechanical Ventilation After High-Risk Surgery.

OBJECTIVES: Surgical patients often receive routine postoperative mechanical ventilation with excellent outcomes. However, older patients who receive prolonged mechanical ventilation may have a significantly different long-term trajectory not fully captured in 30-day postoperative metrics. The objective of this study is to describe patterns of mortality and hospitalization for Medicare beneficiaries 66 years old and older who have major surgery with and without prolonged mechanical ventilation. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Hospitals throughout the United States. PATIENTS: Five percent random national sample of elderly Medicare beneficiaries (age ≥ 66 yr) who underwent 1 of 227 operations previously defined as high risk during an inpatient stay at an acute care hospital between January 1, 2005, and November 30, 2009. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified 117,917 episodes for older patients who had high-risk surgery; 4% received prolonged mechanical ventilation during the hospitalization. Patients who received prolonged mechanical ventilation had higher 1-year mortality rate than patients who did not have prolonged ventilation (64% [95% CI, 62-65%] vs 17% [95% CI, 16.4-16.9%]). Thirty-day survivors who received prolonged mechanical ventilation had a 1-year mortality rate of 47% (95% CI, 45-48%). Thirty-day survivors who did not receive prolonged ventilation were more likely to be discharged home than patients who received prolonged ventilation 71% versus 10%. Patients who received prolonged ventilation and were not discharged by postoperative day 30 had a substantially increased 1-year mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 4.39 [95% CI, 3.29-5.85]) compared with patients discharged home by day 30. Hospitalized 30-day survivors who received prolonged mechanical ventilation and died within 6 months of their index procedure spent the majority of their remaining days hospitalized. CONCLUSIONS: Older patients who require prolonged mechanical ventilation after high-risk surgery and survive 30 days have a significant 1-year risk of mortality and high burdens of treatment. This difficult trajectory should be considered in surgical decision making and has important implications for surgeons, intensivists, and patients.

"And I think that we can fix it": mental models used in high-risk surgical decision making.

OBJECTIVE: To examine how surgeons use the "fix-it" model to communicate with patients before high-risk operations. BACKGROUND: The "fix-it" model characterizes disease as an isolated abnormality that can be restored to normal form and function through medical intervention. This mental model is familiar to patients and physicians, but it is ineffective for chronic conditions and treatments that cannot achieve normalcy. Overuse may lead to permissive decision making favoring intervention. Efforts to improve surgical decision making will need to consider how mental models function in clinical practice, including "fix-it." METHODS: We observed surgeons who routinely perform high-risk surgery during preoperative discussions with patients. We used qualitative content analysis to explore the use of "fix-it" in 48 audio-recorded conversations. RESULTS: Surgeons used the "fix-it" model for 2 separate purposes during preoperative conversations: (1) as an explanatory tool to facilitate patient understanding of disease and surgery, and (2) as a deliberation framework to assist in decision making. Although surgeons commonly used "fix-it" as an explanatory model, surgeons explicitly discussed limitations of the "fix-it" model as an independent rationale for operating as they deliberated about the value of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Although the use of "fix-it" is familiar for explaining medical information to patients, surgeons recognize that the model can be problematic for determining the value of an operation. Whether patients can transition between understanding how their disease is fixed with surgery to a subsequent deliberation about whether they should have surgery is unclear and may have broader implications for surgical decision making.