A framework to improve surgeon communication in high-stakes surgical decisions best case/worst case

Lauren J. Taylor, Michael J. Nabozny, Nicole M. Steffens, Jennifer L. Tucholka, Karen Brasel, Sara K. Johnson, Amy Zelenski, Paul J. Rathouz, Qianqian Zhao, Kristine L. Kwekkeboom, Toby C. Campbell, Margaret L. Schwarze

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

30 Citations (Scopus)

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 studywas 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)531-538
Number of pages8
JournalJAMA Surgery
Volume152
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2017

Fingerprint

Communication
Decision Making
Inpatients
Therapeutics
Surgeons
Aptitude
Tertiary Healthcare
varespladib methyl
Tertiary Care Centers

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery

Cite this

Taylor, L. J., Nabozny, M. J., Steffens, N. M., Tucholka, J. L., Brasel, K., Johnson, S. K., ... Schwarze, M. L. (2017). A framework to improve surgeon communication in high-stakes surgical decisions best case/worst case. JAMA Surgery, 152(6), 531-538. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2016.5674

A framework to improve surgeon communication in high-stakes surgical decisions best case/worst case. / Taylor, Lauren J.; Nabozny, Michael J.; Steffens, Nicole M.; Tucholka, Jennifer L.; Brasel, Karen; Johnson, Sara K.; Zelenski, Amy; Rathouz, Paul J.; Zhao, Qianqian; Kwekkeboom, Kristine L.; Campbell, Toby C.; Schwarze, Margaret L.

In: JAMA Surgery, Vol. 152, No. 6, 01.06.2017, p. 531-538.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Taylor, LJ, Nabozny, MJ, Steffens, NM, Tucholka, JL, Brasel, K, Johnson, SK, Zelenski, A, Rathouz, PJ, Zhao, Q, Kwekkeboom, KL, Campbell, TC & Schwarze, ML 2017, 'A framework to improve surgeon communication in high-stakes surgical decisions best case/worst case', JAMA Surgery, vol. 152, no. 6, pp. 531-538. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2016.5674
Taylor, Lauren J. ; Nabozny, Michael J. ; Steffens, Nicole M. ; Tucholka, Jennifer L. ; Brasel, Karen ; Johnson, Sara K. ; Zelenski, Amy ; Rathouz, Paul J. ; Zhao, Qianqian ; Kwekkeboom, Kristine L. ; Campbell, Toby C. ; Schwarze, Margaret L. / A framework to improve surgeon communication in high-stakes surgical decisions best case/worst case. In: JAMA Surgery. 2017 ; Vol. 152, No. 6. pp. 531-538.
@article{98bc9e3bac6f4b7a8de404a8b2845b17,
title = "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 studywas 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.",
author = "Taylor, {Lauren J.} and Nabozny, {Michael J.} and Steffens, {Nicole M.} and Tucholka, {Jennifer L.} and Karen Brasel and Johnson, {Sara K.} and Amy Zelenski and Rathouz, {Paul J.} and Qianqian Zhao and Kwekkeboom, {Kristine L.} and Campbell, {Toby C.} and Schwarze, {Margaret L.}",
year = "2017",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1001/jamasurg.2016.5674",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "152",
pages = "531--538",
journal = "JAMA Surgery",
issn = "2168-6254",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A framework to improve surgeon communication in high-stakes surgical decisions best case/worst case

AU - Taylor, Lauren J.

AU - Nabozny, Michael J.

AU - Steffens, Nicole M.

AU - Tucholka, Jennifer L.

AU - Brasel, Karen

AU - Johnson, Sara K.

AU - Zelenski, Amy

AU - Rathouz, Paul J.

AU - Zhao, Qianqian

AU - Kwekkeboom, Kristine L.

AU - Campbell, Toby C.

AU - Schwarze, Margaret L.

PY - 2017/6/1

Y1 - 2017/6/1

N2 - 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 studywas 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.

AB - 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 studywas 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85021144124&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85021144124&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.5674

DO - 10.1001/jamasurg.2016.5674

M3 - Article

VL - 152

SP - 531

EP - 538

JO - JAMA Surgery

JF - JAMA Surgery

SN - 2168-6254

IS - 6

ER -