Dataset Information

Do Surgeons Treat Their Patients Like They Would Treat Themselves?

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is substantial unexplained geographical and surgeon-to-surgeon variation in rates of surgery. One would expect surgeons to treat patients and themselves similarly based on best evidence and accounting for patient preferences.

Questions/purposes

(1) Are surgeons more likely to recommend surgery when choosing for a patient than for themselves? (2) Are surgeons less confident in deciding for patients than for themselves?

Methods

Two hundred fifty-four (32%) of 790 Science of Variation Group (SOVG) members reviewed 21 fictional upper extremity cases (eg, distal radius fracture, De Quervain tendinopathy) for which surgery is optional answering two questions: (1) What treatment would you choose/recommend: operative or nonoperative? (2) On a scale from 0 to 10, how confident are you about this decision? Confidence is the degree that one believes that his or her decision is the right one (ie, most appropriate). Participants were orthopaedic, trauma, and plastic surgeons, all with an interest in treating upper extremity conditions. Half of the participants were randomized to choose for themselves if they had this injury or illness. The other half was randomized to make treatment recommendations for a patient of their age and gender. For the choice of operative or nonoperative, the overall recommendation for treatment was expressed as a surgery score per surgeon by dividing the number of cases they would operate on by the total number of cases (n = 21), where 100% is when every surgeon recommended surgery for every case. For confidence, we calculated the mean confidence for all 21 cases per surgeon; overall score ranges from 0 to 10 with a higher score indicating more confidence in the decision for treatment.

Results

Surgeons were more likely to recommend surgery for a patient (44.2% ± 14.0%) than they were to choose surgery for themselves (38.5% ± 15.4%) with a mean difference of 6% (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.1%-9.4%; p = 0.002). Surgeons were more confident in deciding for themselves than they were for a patient of similar age and gender (self: 7.9 ± 1.0, patient: 7.5 ± 1.2, mean difference: 0.35 [CI, 0.075-0.62], p = 0.012).

Conclusions

Surgeons are slightly more likely to recommend surgery for a patient than they are to choose surgery for themselves and they choose for themselves with a little more confidence. Different perspectives, preferences, circumstantial information, and cognitive biases might explain the observed differences. This emphasizes the importance of (1) understanding patients' preferences and their considerations for treatment; (2) being aware that surgeons and patients might weigh various factors differently; (3) giving patients more autonomy by letting them balance risks and benefits themselves (ie, shared decision-making); and (4) assessing how dispassionate evidence-based decision aids help inform the patient and influences their decisional conflict.

Level of evidence

Level III, diagnostic study.

SUBMITTER: Janssen SJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4586191 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Do Surgeons Treat Their Patients Like They Would Treat Themselves?

Janssen Stein J SJ Teunis Teun T Guitton Thierry G TG Ring David D

Clinical orthopaedics and related research 20151101 11

<h4>Background</h4>There is substantial unexplained geographical and surgeon-to-surgeon variation in rates of surgery. One would expect surgeons to treat patients and themselves similarly based on best evidence and accounting for patient preferences.<h4>Questions/purposes</h4>(1) Are surgeons more likely to recommend surgery when choosing for a patient than for themselves? (2) Are surgeons less confident in deciding for patients than for themselves?<h4>Methods</h4>Two hundred fifty-four (32%) of ...[more]

PMID: 25957212

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRepresentation of specialist international medical graduates (SIMGs) in specific specialties such as surgery can be expected to grow as doctor shortages are predicted in the context of additional care provision for aging populations and limited local supply. Many national medical boards and colleges provide pathways for medical registration and fellowship of SIMGs that may include examinations and short-term training. There is currently very little understanding of how SIMGs are perceived by colleagues and whether their performance is perceived to be comparable to locally trained medical specialists. It is also not known how SIMGs perceive their own capabilities in comparison to local specialists. The aim of this study is to explore the relationships between colleague feedback and self-evaluation in the specialist area of surgery to identify possible methods for enhancing registration and follow-up training within the jurisdiction of Australia and New Zealand.MethodsFeedback from 1728 colleagues to 96 SIMG surgeons and 406 colleagues to 25 locally trained Fellow surgeons was collected, resulting in 2134 responses to 121 surgeons in total. Additionally, 98 SIMGs and 25 Fellows provided self-evaluation scores (123 in total). Questionnaire and data reliability were calculated before analysis of variance, principal component analysis and network analysis were performed to identify differences between colleague evaluations and self-evaluations by surgeon type.ResultsColleagues rated SIMGs and Fellows in the 'very good' to 'excellent' range. Fellows received a small but statistically significant higher average score than SIMGs, especially in areas dealing with medical skills and expertise. However, SIMGs received higher scores where there was motivation to demonstrate working well with colleagues. Colleagues rated SIMGs using one dimension and Fellows using three, which can be identified as clinical management skills, inter-personal communication skills and self-management skills. On self-evaluation, both SIMGs and Fellows gave themselves a significant lower average score than their colleagues, with SIMGs giving themselves a statistically significant higher score than Fellows.ConclusionsColleagues rate SIMGs and Fellows highly. The results of this study indicate that SIMGs tend to self-assess more highly, but according to colleagues do not display the same level of differentiation between clinical management, inter-personal and self-management skills. Further research is required to confirm these provisional findings and possible reasons for lack of differentiation if this exists. Depending on the outcome, possible support mechanisms can be explored that may lead to increased comparable performance with locally trained graduates of Australia and New Zealand in these three dimensions.

Project description:BackgroundThere is little information available regarding the decision-making process of clinicians, especially in the choice of therapy for a severely atrophic tooth gap. The aim of this research was to use case vignettes to determine the influence of possible factors on the decision making of maxillofacial and oral surgeons.MethodsA total of 250 maxillofacial (MFS) and oral (OS) surgeons in southern Germany were surveyed for atrophic single- or multiple-tooth gap with the help of case vignettes. The influence of different determinants on the therapy decision was investigated. Two case vignettes were designed for this purpose: vignette 1 with determinants "patient age" and "endocarditis prophylaxis" and vignette 2 with determinants "anxiety" and "bisphosphonate therapy". Furthermore, the specialist designation was assessed for both. The options available to achieve a sufficient implant site were "bone split", "bone block", "augmentation with bone substitute material" and "bone resection". Therapy was either recommended or rejected based on principle.ResultsA total of 117 participants returned the questionnaire: 68 (58%) were OS and 49 (42%) MFS. "Patient age" and "patient anxiety" were not significantly associated with any therapy decision. However, required "endocarditis prophylaxis" led to significantly higher refusal rates for "bone split", "bone block" and "bone replacement material" and to higher rates of general refusal of a therapy. "Bisphosphonate therapy" was significantly associated with general refusal of therapy, but with no significant correlation with different therapy options. In vignette 1, OS refused therapy significantly more often than MFS, though there was no association with the specialist designation for other therapy modalities. In vignette 2, specialty was not significantly associated with the therapy decision.Conclusion"Patient age" as well as "patient anxiety" appear to have no or little influence on the treatment decision for severely atrophic single- or multiple-tooth gap by specialist surgeons. Surgeons more often refuse treatment for patients with endocarditis prophylaxis and bisphosphonate therapy.

Project description:BackgroundPrimary health professionals are well positioned to support the delivery of patient self-management in an evidence-based, structured capacity. A need exists to better understand the active components required for effective self-management support, how these might be delivered within primary care, and the training and system changes that would subsequently be needed.Objectives(1) To examine self-management support interventions in primary care on health outcomes for a wide range of diseases compared to usual standard of care; and (2) To identify the effective strategies that facilitate positive clinical and humanistic outcomes in this setting.MethodA systematic review of randomized controlled trials evaluating self-management support interventions was conducted following the Cochrane handbook & PRISMA guidelines. Published literature was systematically searched from inception to June 2019 in PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science. Eligible studies assessed the effectiveness of individualized interventions with follow-up, delivered face-to-face to adult patients with any condition in primary care, compared with usual standard of care. Matrices were developed that mapped the evidence and components for each intervention. The methodological quality of included studies were appraised.Results6,510 records were retrieved. 58 studies were included in the final qualitative synthesis. Findings reveal a structured patient-provider exchange is required in primary care (including a one-on-one patient-provider consultation, ongoing follow up and provision of self-help materials). Interventions should be tailored to patient needs and may include combinations of strategies to improve a patient's disease or treatment knowledge; independent monitoring of symptoms, encouraging self-treatment through a personalized action plan in response worsening symptoms or exacerbations, psychological coping and stress management strategies, and enhancing responsibility in medication adherence and lifestyle choices. Follow-up may include tailored feedback, monitoring of progress with respect to patient set healthcare goals, or honing problem-solving and decision-making skills. Theoretical models provided a strong base for effective SMS interventions. Positive outcomes for effective SMS included improvements in clinical indicators, health-related quality of life, self-efficacy (confidence to self-manage), disease knowledge or control. An SMS model has been developed which sets the foundation for the design and evaluation of practical strategies for the construct of self-management support interventions in primary healthcare practice.ConclusionsThese findings provide primary care professionals with evidence-based strategies and structure to deliver SMS in practice. For this collaborative partnership approach to be more widely applied, future research should build on these findings for optimal SMS service design and upskilling healthcare providers to effectively support patients in this collaborative process.

Dataset Information

Do Surgeons Treat Their Patients Like They Would Treat Themselves?

Background

Questions/purposes

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Level of evidence

Publications

Do Surgeons Treat Their Patients Like They Would Treat Themselves?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets