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.

The relative importance of treatment outcomes to surgeons' recommendations for low-risk thyroid cancer.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of low-risk thyroid cancer is controversial. We evaluated the importance of treatment outcomes to surgeons' recommendations. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey asked thyroid surgeons for their treatment recommendations for a healthy 45-year-old patient with a solitary, low-risk, 2-cm papillary thyroid cancer. The importance of the 10 treatment outcomes (survival, recurrence, etc.) to their recommendation was evaluated using constant sum scaling, a method where 100 points are allocated among the treatment outcomes; more points indicate higher importance. The distribution of points was compared between surgeons recommending total thyroidectomy and surgeons recommending lobectomy using Hottelling's T2 test. RESULTS: Of 165 respondents (74.3% response rate), 35.8% (n = 59) recommended total thyroidectomy and 64.2% (n = 106) lobectomy. The importance of the 10 treatment outcomes was significantly different between groups (P < .05). Surgeons recommending total thyroidectomy were most influenced by the risk of recurrence (19.1 points; standard deviation 16.5) and rated this 1.6-times more important than those recommending lobectomy. Conversely, surgeons recommending lobectomy placed high emphasis on need for hormone replacement (14.3 points; standard deviation 15.4), rating this 3.1-times more important than those recommending total thyroidectomy. CONCLUSION: Surgeons who recommend total thyroidectomy and those who recommend lobectomy differently prioritize the importance of cancer recurrence and thyroid hormone replacement. Understanding how surgeons' beliefs influence their recommendations is important for ensuring patients receive treatment aligned with their values.