Claire K Ankuda1, Susan D Block2, Zara Cooper3, Darin J Correll4, David L Hepner4, Morana Lasic4, Atul A Gawande5, Angela M Bader6. 1. Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, USA. 2. Department of Psychiatry, Harvard Medical School, USA; Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, USA; Department of Psychosocial Oncology and Palliative Care, Dana Farber Cancer Institute, USA. 3. Harvard Medical School, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, USA. 4. Harvard Medical School, Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, USA. 5. Harvard Medical School, USA; Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, USA; Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, USA. 6. Harvard Medical School, Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, USA. Electronic address: abader@partners.org.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Identifying patient factors correlated with specific needs in preoperative decision making is of clinical and ethical importance. We examined patterns and predictors of deficiencies in informed surgical consent and shared decision-making in preoperative patients. METHODS: Validated measures were used to survey 1034 preoperative patients in the preoperative clinic after signed informed consent. Principal component analysis defined correlated groupings of factors. Multivariable analysis assessed patient factors associated with resultant groupings. RESULTS: 13% of patients exhibited deficits in their informed consent process; 33% exhibited other types of deficits. Informed consent deficits included not knowing the procedure being performed or risks and benefits. Other deficits included not having addressed patient values, preferences and goals. Non-English language and lower educational level were factors correlated with higher risk for deficits. CONCLUSION: Deficits exist in over a third of patients undergoing preoperative decision-making. Sociodemographic factors such as language and educational level identified particularly vulnerable groups at risk for having an incomplete, and possibly ineffective, decision-making process. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Interventions to identify vulnerable groups and address patient centered surgical decision making in the pre-operative setting are needed. Focused interventions to address the needs of at-risk patients have potential to improve the surgical decision-making process and reduce disparities.
OBJECTIVE: Identifying patient factors correlated with specific needs in preoperative decision making is of clinical and ethical importance. We examined patterns and predictors of deficiencies in informed surgical consent and shared decision-making in preoperative patients. METHODS: Validated measures were used to survey 1034 preoperative patients in the preoperative clinic after signed informed consent. Principal component analysis defined correlated groupings of factors. Multivariable analysis assessed patient factors associated with resultant groupings. RESULTS: 13% of patients exhibited deficits in their informed consent process; 33% exhibited other types of deficits. Informed consent deficits included not knowing the procedure being performed or risks and benefits. Other deficits included not having addressed patient values, preferences and goals. Non-English language and lower educational level were factors correlated with higher risk for deficits. CONCLUSION: Deficits exist in over a third of patients undergoing preoperative decision-making. Sociodemographic factors such as language and educational level identified particularly vulnerable groups at risk for having an incomplete, and possibly ineffective, decision-making process. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Interventions to identify vulnerable groups and address patient centered surgical decision making in the pre-operative setting are needed. Focused interventions to address the needs of at-risk patients have potential to improve the surgical decision-making process and reduce disparities.
Authors: Ryan K Schmocker; Linda M Cherney Stafford; Alexander B Siy; Glen E Leverson; Emily R Winslow Journal: Surgery Date: 2015-07-17 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: Matthew J Hagan; Nathan J Pertsch; Owen P Leary; Bryan Zheng; Joaquin Q Camara-Quintana; Tianyi Niu; Kyle Mueller; Zain Boghani; Albert E Telfeian; Ziya L Gokaslan; Adetokunbo A Oyelese; Jared S Fridley Journal: J Spine Surg Date: 2021-09
Authors: Zara Cooper; Puneet Sayal; Sarah K Abbett; Mark D Neuman; Elizabeth M Rickerson; Angela M Bader Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Kevin Mertz; Romil F Shah; Sara L Eppler; Jeffrey Yao; Marc Safran; Ariel Palanca; Serena S Hu; Michael Gardner; Derek F Amanatullah; Robin N Kamal Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Johanna Glaser; Sarah Nouri; Alicia Fernandez; Rebecca L Sudore; Dean Schillinger; Michele Klein-Fedyshin; Yael Schenker Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2020-01-16 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Amy C Robertson; Leslie C Fowler; Jon Niconchuk; Michael Kreger; Elizabeth Rickerson; Nicholas Sadovnikoff; David L Hepner; Angela M Bader; Matthew D Mcevoy; Richard D Urman Journal: J Educ Perioper Med Date: 2019-01-01
Authors: Tannaz Moin; O Kenrik Duru; Norman Turk; Janet S Chon; Dominick L Frosch; Jacqueline M Martin; Kia Skrine Jeffers; Yelba Castellon-Lopez; Chi-Hong Tseng; Keith Norris; Carol M Mangione Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-08-30 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Lindsay K Haines; Allyson C Cook; Justin S Hatchimonji; Vanessa P Ho; Elle L Kalbfell; Kathleen M O'Connell; Jacinta C Robenstine; Mathias Schlögl; Christine C Toevs; Christopher A Jones; Robert S Krouse; Niels D Martin Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2021-07 Impact factor: 2.947