Dataset Information

A Framework to Improve Surgeon Communication in High-Stakes Surgical Decisions: Best Case/Worst Case.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

Although many older adults prefer to avoid burdensome interventions with limited ability to preserve their functional status, aggressive treatments, including surgery, are common near the end of life. Shared decision making is critical to achieve value-concordant treatment decisions and minimize unwanted care. However, communication in the acute inpatient setting is challenging.

Objective

To evaluate the proof of concept of an intervention to teach surgeons to use the Best Case/Worst Case framework as a strategy to change surgeon communication and promote shared decision making during high-stakes surgical decisions.

Design, setting, and participants

Our prospective pre-post study was conducted from June 2014 to August 2015, and data were analyzed using a mixed methods approach. The data were drawn from decision-making conversations between 32 older inpatients with an acute nonemergent surgical problem, 30 family members, and 25 surgeons at 1 tertiary care hospital in Madison, Wisconsin.

Interventions

A 2-hour training session to teach each study-enrolled surgeon to use the Best Case/Worst Case communication framework.

Main outcomes and measures

We scored conversation transcripts using OPTION 5, an observer measure of shared decision making, and used qualitative content analysis to characterize patterns in conversation structure, description of outcomes, and deliberation over treatment alternatives.

Results

The study participants were patients aged 68 to 95 years (n = 32), 44% of whom had 5 or more comorbid conditions; family members of patients (n = 30); and surgeons (n = 17). The median OPTION 5 score improved from 41 preintervention (interquartile range, 26-66) to 74 after Best Case/Worst Case training (interquartile range, 60-81). Before training, surgeons described the patient's problem in conjunction with an operative solution, directed deliberation over options, listed discrete procedural risks, and did not integrate preferences into a treatment recommendation. After training, surgeons using Best Case/Worst Case clearly presented a choice between treatments, described a range of postoperative trajectories including functional decline, and involved patients and families in deliberation.

Conclusions and relevance

Using the Best Case/Worst Case framework changed surgeon communication by shifting the focus of decision-making conversations from an isolated surgical problem to a discussion about treatment alternatives and outcomes. This intervention can help surgeons structure challenging conversations to promote shared decision making in the acute setting.

SUBMITTER: Taylor LJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5479749 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background"Best Case/Worst Case" (BC/WC) is a communication tool to support shared decision making in older adults with surgical illness. We aimed to adapt and test BC/WC for use with critically ill older adult trauma patients.MethodsWe conducted focus groups with 48 trauma clinicians in Wisconsin, Texas, and Oregon. We used qualitative content analysis to characterize feedback and adapted the tool to fit this setting. Using rapid sequence iterative design, we developed an implementation tool kit. We pilot tested this intervention at two trauma centers using a pre-post study design with older trauma patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Main outcome measures included study feasibility, intervention acceptability, quality of communication, and clinician moral distress.ResultsBC/WC for trauma patients uses a graphic aid to document major events over time, illustrate plausible scenarios, and convey uncertainty. We enrolled 86 of 116 eligible patients and their surrogates (48 pre/38 postintervention). The median patient age was 72 years (51-95 years) and mean Geriatric Trauma Outcome Score was 126.1 (±30.6). We trained 43 trauma attendings and trauma fellows to use the intervention. Ninety-four percent could perform essential tool elements after training. The median end-of-life communication score (scale 0-10) improved from 4.5 to 6.6 (p = 0.006) after intervention as reported by family and from 4.1 to 6.0 (p = 0.03) as reported by nurses. Moral distress did not change. However, there was improvement (less distress) reported by physicians regarding "witnessing providers giving false hope" from 7.34 to 5.03 (p = 0.022). Surgeons reported the tool put multiple clinicians on the same page and was useful for families, but tedious to incorporate into rounds.ConclusionBC/WC trauma ICU is acceptable to clinicians and may support improved communication in the ICU. Future efficacy testing is threatened by enrollment challenges for severely injured older adults and their family members.Level of evidenceTherapeutic, level III.

Project description:Plasma proteomics holds immense potential for clinical research and biomarker discovery, serving as a non-invasive "liquid biopsy" for tissue sampling. Mass spectrometry (MS)-based proteomics, thanks to improvement in speed and robustness, emerges as an ideal technology for exploring the plasma proteome for its unbiased and highly specific protein identification and quantification. Despite its potential, plasma proteomics is still a challenge due to the vast dynamic range of protein abundance, hindering the detection of less abundant proteins. Different approaches can help overcome this challenge. Conventional depletion methods face limitations in cost, throughput, accuracy, and off-target depletion. Nanoparticle-based enrichment shows promise in compressing dynamic range, but cost remains a constraint. Enrichment strategies for extracellular vesicles (EVs) can enhance plasma proteome coverage dramatically, but current methods are still too laborious for large series. Neat plasma remains popular for its cost-effectiveness, time efficiency, and low volume requirement. We used a test set of 33 plasma samples for all evaluations. Samples were digested using Strap and analysed on Evosep and nanoElute coupled to a timsTOF Pro using different elution gradients and ion mobility ranges. Data were mainly analyzed using library-free searched using DIANN. This study explores ways to improve proteome coverage in neat plasma both in MS data acquisition and MS data analysis. We demonstrate the value of sampling smaller hydrophilic peptides, increasing chromatographic separation, and using library-free searches. Additionally, we introduce the EV boost approach, that leverages on the extracellular vesicle fraction to enhances protein identification in neat plasma samples. Globally, out optimized analysis workflow allows the quantification of over 1000 proteins in neat plasma with a 24SPD throughput. We believe that these considerations can be of help independently of the LC-MS platform used.

Project description:BackgroundEffective risk communication is challenging. Ensuring potential trial participants' understand 'risk' information presented to them is a key aspect of the informed consent process within clinical trials, yet minimal research has looked specifically at how to communicate probabilities to support decisions about trial participation. This study reports a systematic review of the literature focusing on presentation of probabilistic information or understanding of risk by potential trial participants.MethodsA search strategy for risk communication in clinical trials was designed and informed by systematic reviews of risk communication in treatment and screening contexts and supplemented with trial participation terms. Extracted data included study characteristics and the main interventions/findings of each study. Explanatory studies that investigated the methods for presenting probabilistic information within participant information leaflets for a clinical trial were included, as were interventions that focused on optimising understanding of probabilistic information within the context of a clinical trial.ResultsThe search strategy identified a total of 4931 studies. Nineteen papers were selected for full text screening, and seven studies included. All reported results from risk communication studies that aimed to support potential trial participants' decision making set within hypothetical trials. Five of these were randomised comparisons of risk communication interventions, and two were prospectively designed, non-randomised studies. Study interventions focused on probability presentation, risk framing and risk interpretation with a wide variety of interventions being evaluated and considerable heterogeneity in terms of outcomes assessed. Studies show conflicting findings when it comes to how best to present information, although numerical, particularly frequency formats and some visual aids appear to have promise.ConclusionsThe evidence base surrounding risk communication in clinical trials indicates that there is as yet no clear optimal method for improving participant understanding, or clear consensus on how it affects their willingness to participate. Further research into risk communication within trials is needed to help illuminate the mechanisms underlying risk perception and understanding and provide appropriate ways to present and communicate risk in a trial context so as to further promote informed choices about participation. A key focus for future research should be to investigate the potential for learning in the evidence on risk communication from treatment and screening decisions when applied to decisions about trial participation.