Spine surgeons facing second opinions: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT

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.