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.

Embedding an Education Intervention about Shared Decision Making into an RCT: Ensuring competency and fidelity.

Objective: To describe the outcomes of training nephrology clinicians and clinical research participants, to use the Best Case/Worst Case Communication intervention, for discussions about dialysis initiation for patients with life-limiting illness, during a randomized clinical trial to ensure competency, fidelity to the intervention, and adherence to study protocols and the intervention throughout the trial. Methods: We enrolled 68 nephrologists at ten study sites and randomized them to receive training or wait-list control. We collected copies of completed graphic aids (component of the intervention), used with study-enrolled patients, to measure fidelity and adherence. Results: We trained 34 of 36 nephrologists to competence and 27 completed the entire program. We received 60 graphic aids for study-enrolled patients for a 73% return rate in the intervention arm. The intervention fidelity score for the graphic aid reflected completion of all elements throughout the study. Conclusion: We successfully taught the Best Case/Worst Case Communication intervention to clinicians as research participants within a randomized clinical trial. Innovation: Decisions about dialysis are an opportunity to discuss prognosis and uncertainty in relation to consideration of prolonged life supporting therapy. Our study reveals a strategy to evaluate adherence to a communication intervention in real time during a clinical study.

"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.

Decision-Making in Surgery.

Surgeons face unique challenges in perioperative decision-making and communication with patients and families. In cardiothoracic surgery, the stakes are high, life and death decisions must be made quickly, and surgeons often lack a longstanding relationship with patients and families prior to intervention. This review considers specific challenges in the preoperative period followed by those faced postoperatively. While preoperative deliberation and informed consent focus on reaching a decision between 2 or more alternative approaches, the most vexing postoperative decisions often involve the patient's discontent with the best-case outcome or how to ensure goal-concordant care when complications arise. This review explores the preoperative ethical and legal requirement for informed consent by describing the contemporary preferred method, shared decision-making. We also present a framework to optimize surgeon communication and promote patient and family engagement in the setting of high-risk surgery for older patients with serious illness. In the postoperative period the family is often tasked with deciding what to do about major complications when the patient has lost decision-making capacity. We discuss several examples and offer strategies for surgeons to navigate these challenging situations. We also explore the concepts of clinical heroism and futility in relation to communicating with patients and families about the outcomes of surgery. Persistent ethical challenges in decision-making suggest that surgeons should improve their skills in communicating with patients to better engage with them, both before and after surgery.

Innovations in Surgical Communication 4-Present the Downsides of Surgery, Not Just Risks.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

Impact of Care Coordination on the Content of Communication Between Surgeons and Patients With Rectal Cancer.

Management of patients with rectal cancer can be complex, requiring significant care coordination and decisions that balance functional and oncologic outcomes. Objective: To characterize care coordination occurring during surgical consultation for rectal cancer and consequences of using face-to-face time in clinic for care coordination. Methods: Secondary analysis was performed on audio recordings of clinic visits with colorectal surgeons to discuss surgery for rectal cancer at 5 academic medical centers. Analysis included the content of communication related to types of care coordination, specific details and conditions under which care coordination was conducted, and consequences. Results: The cohort included 18 patients seen by 8 surgeons. Care coordination consumed much of the conversation; on average 23.7% (SD 14.6) of content. Communication about care coordination included gathering information from work-up already performed, logistics for completing further work-up, gathering multidisciplinary opinions, and logistics for treatment planning. Obtaining imaging results was particularly challenging and surgeons went to great lengths to gather this information. To mitigate information gaps, surgeons asked patients about critical clinical details. Patients expressed remorse when they could not provide needed information, relay technical details, or had missing reports. Surgeons voiced frustration at the system related to the need to gather information from multiple sources and coordinate logistics. Surgeons worked to inform patients about their disease and discuss important lifestyle and cancer-related tradeoffs. However, the ability to solicit patient input and engage in shared decision making was often limited by incomplete data or conditioned on approval by a multidisciplinary tumor board. Conclusion: Much of the conversation between surgeons and patients with rectal cancer is consumed by care coordination. Organizing care coordination outside of the clinic visit would likely improve the experience for both patients and surgeons, addressing both clinician burnout and variation in management and outcomes.

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.

"You have to be sure that the patient has the full picture": Adaptation of the Best Case/Worst Case communication tool for geriatric oncology.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) is especially important for older adults with cancer given the risks of over- and undertreatment, uncertainty regarding benefits/harms worsened by research underrepresentation, and individual preferences. We aimed to adapt the Best Case/Worst Case (BC/WC) communication tool, which improves SDM in geriatric surgery, to geriatric oncology. METHODS: We conducted focus groups with 40 stakeholders (fourteen older adults with lung cancer, twelve caregivers, fourteen medical oncologists) to elicit perspectives on using the BC/WC tool for geriatric oncology and to identify components needing refinement. During each focus group, participants viewed a BC/WC demonstration video and answered questions modified from the Decision Aid Acceptability Scale. We analyzed transcripts using deductive and inductive thematic analyses. DISCUSSION: Participants believed that the BC/WC tool could help patients understand their cancer care choices, explore tradeoffs and picture potential outcomes, and deliberate about decisions based on their goals, preferences, and values. Oncologists also reported the tool could guide conversations to address points that may frequently be skipped (e.g., alternative options, treatment goals). Participant preferences varied widely regarding discussion of the worst-case scenario and desire for statistical information. CONCLUSION: The BC/WC tool is a promising strategy that may improve SDM in geriatric oncology and patient understanding of alternative options and treatment goals. Based on participant input, adaptations will include framing cancer care as a series of decisions, eliciting patient preferences and asking permission before offering the worst-case scenario, and selection of the two most relevant options to present if multiple exist.

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.

How to Support Patients Near the End of Life Whose Pain Is Best Treated With Surgery?

For seriously ill patients whose pain is best treated with surgery, it is important to discuss and explore treatment goals preoperatively. Knowing which health states a patient would tolerate helps the surgeon identify interventions that are overly burdensome, overreach survival goals, or undermine the patient's quality of life. Surgical success should be defined by how well an intervention aligns with patients' goals. Early integration of specialty palliative care can help identify surgical patients with unmet needs, optimize symptom management, clarify preferences, and improve end-of-life care.