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.

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.

Top Ten Tips Palliative Care Clinicians Should Know About Solid Organ Transplantation.

Solid organ transplantation (SOT) is a life-saving procedure for people with end-stage organ failure. However, patients experience significant symptom burden, complex decision making, morbidity, and mortality during both pre- and post-transplant periods. Palliative care (PC) is well suited and historically underdelivered for the transplant population. This article, written by a team of transplant specialists (surgeons, cardiologists, nephrologists, hepatologists, and pulmonologists), PC clinicians, and an ethics specialist, shares 10 high-yield tips for PC clinicians to consider when caring for SOT patients.

Best case/worst case for the trauma ICU: Development and pilot testing of a communication tool for older adults with traumatic injury.

BACKGROUND: "Best Case/Worst Case" (BC/WC) is a communication tool to support shared decision making in older adults with surgical illness. We aimed to adapt and test BC/WC for use with critically ill older adult trauma patients. METHODS: We conducted focus groups with 48 trauma clinicians in Wisconsin, Texas, and Oregon. We used qualitative content analysis to characterize feedback and adapted the tool to fit this setting. Using rapid sequence iterative design, we developed an implementation tool kit. We pilot tested this intervention at two trauma centers using a pre-post study design with older trauma patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Main outcome measures included study feasibility, intervention acceptability, quality of communication, and clinician moral distress. RESULTS: BC/WC for trauma patients uses a graphic aid to document major events over time, illustrate plausible scenarios, and convey uncertainty. We enrolled 86 of 116 eligible patients and their surrogates (48 pre/38 postintervention). The median patient age was 72 years (51-95 years) and mean Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score was 126.1 (±30.6). We trained 43 trauma attendings and trauma fellows to use the intervention. Ninety-four percent could perform essential tool elements after training. The median end-of-life communication score (scale 0-10) improved from 4.5 to 6.6 (p = 0.006) after intervention as reported by family and from 4.1 to 6.0 (p = 0.03) as reported by nurses. Moral distress did not change. However, there was improvement (less distress) reported by physicians regarding "witnessing providers giving false hope" from 7.34 to 5.03 (p = 0.022). Surgeons reported the tool put multiple clinicians on the same page and was useful for families, but tedious to incorporate into rounds. CONCLUSION: BC/WC trauma ICU is acceptable to clinicians and may support improved communication in the ICU. Future efficacy testing is threatened by enrollment challenges for severely injured older adults and their family members. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level III.

Opportunities to Improve Shared Decision Making in Dialysis Decisions for Older Adults with Life-Limiting Kidney Disease: A Pilot Study.

Background: Lack of awareness about the life-limiting nature of renal failure is a significant barrier to palliative care for older adults with end-stage renal disease. Objective: To train nephrologists to use the best case/worst case (BC/WC) communication tool to improve shared decision making about dialysis initiation for older patients with limited life expectancy. Design: This is a pre-/postinterventional pilot study. Setting/Subjects: There were 16 nephrologists and 30 patients of age 70 years and older with estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <20 mL/min per 1.73 m2 in outpatient nephrology clinics, in Madison, WI. Measurements: Performance of tool elements, content of communication about dialysis, shared decision making, acceptability of the intervention, decisions to pursue dialysis, and palliative care referrals were measured. Results: Fifteen of 16 nephrologists achieved competence performing the BC/WC tool with standardized patients, executing at least 14 of 19 items. Nine nephrologists met with 30 patients who consented to audio record their clinic visit. Before training, clinic visits focused on laboratory results and preparation for dialysis. After training, nephrologists noted that declining kidney function was "bad news," presented dialysis and "no dialysis" as treatment options, and elicited patient preferences. Observer-measured shared decision-making (OPTION 5) scores improved from a median of 20/100 (interquartile range [IQR] 15-35) before training to 58/100 (IQR 55-65). Patients whose nephrologist used the BC/WC tool were less likely to make a decision to initiate dialysis and were more likely to be referred to palliative care. Conclusions: Nephrologists can learn to use the BC/WC tool with older patients to improve shared decision making about dialysis, which may increase access to palliative care.

Effectiveness of a Question Prompt List Intervention for Older Patients Considering Major Surgery: A Multisite Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Poor preoperative communication can have serious consequences, including unwanted treatment and postoperative conflict. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of a question prompt list (QPL) intervention vs usual care on patient engagement and well-being among older patients considering major surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial used a stepped-wedge design to randomly assign patients to a QPL intervention (n = 223) or usual care (n = 223) based on the timing of their visit with 1 of 40 surgeons at 5 US study sites. Patients were 60 years or older with at least 1 comorbidity and an oncologic or vascular (cardiac, neurosurgical, or peripheral vascular) problem that could be treated with major surgery. Family members were also enrolled (n = 263). The study dates were June 2016 to November 2018. Data analysis was by intent-to-treat. Interventions: A brochure of 11 questions to ask a surgeon developed by patient and family stakeholders plus an endorsement letter from the surgeon were sent to patients before their outpatient visit. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary patient engagement outcomes included the number and type of questions asked during the surgical visit and patient-reported Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions scale assessed after the surgical visit. Primary well-being outcomes included (1) the difference between patient's Measure Yourself Concerns and Well-being (MYCaW) scores reported after surgery and scores reported after the surgical visit and (2) treatment-associated regret at 6 to 8 weeks after surgery. Results: Of 1319 patients eligible for participation, 223 were randomized to the QPL intervention and 223 to usual care. Among 446 patients, the mean (SD) age was 71.8 (7.1) years, and 249 (55.8%) were male. On intent-to-treat analysis, there was no significant difference between the QPL intervention and usual care for all patient-reported primary outcomes. The difference in MYCaW scores for family members was greater in usual care (effect estimate, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.28-2.74; P = .008). When the QPL intervention group was restricted to patients with clear evidence they reviewed the QPL, a nonsignificant increase in the effect size was observed for questions about options (odds ratio, 1.88; 95% CI, 0.81-4.35; P = .16), expectations (odds ratio, 1.59; 95% CI, 0.67-3.80; P = .29), and risks (odds ratio, 2.41; 95% CI, 1.04-5.59; P = .04) (nominal α = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this study were null related to primary patient engagement and well-being outcomes. Changing patient-physician communication may be difficult without addressing clinician communication directly. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02623335.

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.