Opportunities for shared decision-making about major surgery: findings from a multi-method qualitative study of decision-making about orthopaedic, colorectal and cardio thoracic surgery with high risk patients
Shaw, S.; Hughes, G.; Pearse, R.; Avagliano, E.; Day, J.; Edwards, J.; Edsell, M.; Everest, L.; Stephens, T.
Show abstract
BackgroundLittle is known about the opportunities for shared decision-making when high-risk patients (over 60 years, with co-morbidities) are offered major surgery. This paper examines when and why clinicians and patients can share decision-making about major surgery. MethodsMulti-method qualitative study, combining video-recordings of pre-operative consultations, interviews and focus groups (with a maximum variation sample of 31 patients, 19 relatives, 37 clinicians), with observations of clinics in five UK hospitals undertaking major joint, colorectal and/or cardiac surgery. ResultsThree opportunities for shared decision making about major surgery were identified. Resolution-focused consultations (cardiac/colorectal) resulted in a single agreed preferred option related to a potentially life-threatening problem, with limited opportunities for shared decision-making. Evaluative and deliberative consultations offered more opportunity. The former focused on assessing the likelihood of benefits of surgery for a presenting problem that was not a threat to life for the patient (e.g. orthopaedic consultations) and the later (largely colorectal) involving discussion of a range of options while also considering significant comorbidities and patient preferences. The extent to which opportunities for shared decision-making were available, and taken up by surgeons, was influenced by nature of the presenting problem, clinical pathway and patient trajectory. Conclusion and relevanceDecisions about major surgery are not always shared between patients and doctors. The nature of the presenting problem, comorbidities, clinical pathways and patient trajectories all inform the type of consultation and opportunities for sharing decision-making. This has implications for clinicians, with shared decision-making about major surgery most feasible when the focus is on life-enhancing rather than life-saving treatment.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Surgery & COVID-19: A rapid scoping review of the impact of COVID-19 on surgical services during public health emergencies 95%
- Which factors should be included in triage? An online survey of the attitudes of the UK general public to pandemic triage dilemmas 94%
- Feasibility study of a randomised controlled trial of pre and postoperative nutritional supplementation in major lung surgery 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Impact of the Federated Data Platform's digital surgery scheduling system on elective theatre utilisation at an NHS Trust: an interrupted time series analysis 91%
- The performance of national COVID-19 ‘Symptom Checkers’: A comparative case simulation study 90%
- Measures of socioeconomic advantage are not independent predictors of support for healthcare AI: subgroup analysis of a national Australian survey 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Surgical activity in England and Wales during the COVID-19 pandemic: a nationwide observational cohort study 94%
- Effect of Telemedicine Support for Intraoperative Anaesthesia Care on Postoperative Outcomes: The TECTONICS Randomised Clinical Trial 91%
- Preoperative predictions of in-hospital mortality using electronic medical record data 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- The impact of atypical intrahospital transfers on patient outcomes: a mixed methods study 93%
- Comparison of COVID-19 outcomes among shielded and non-shielded populations: A general population cohort study of 1.3 million 90%
- Disparities in outcomes among patients diagnosed with cancer associated with emergency department visits 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.