Jacqueline M Kruser1, Kristen E Pecanac, Karen J Brasel, Zara Cooper, Nicole M Steffens, Martin F McKneally, Margaret L Schwarze. 1. *Department of Medicine and †School of Nursing, University of Wisconsin, Madison ‡Department of Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee §Department of Surgery, Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA ¶Department of Surgery, Division of Vascular Surgery, University of Wisconsin, Madison ‖Department of Surgery and **Joint Centre for Bioethics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada ††Department of Medical History and Bioethics, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine how surgeons use the "fix-it" model to communicate with patients before high-risk operations. BACKGROUND: The "fix-it" model characterizes disease as an isolated abnormality that can be restored to normal form and function through medical intervention. This mental model is familiar to patients and physicians, but it is ineffective for chronic conditions and treatments that cannot achieve normalcy. Overuse may lead to permissive decision making favoring intervention. Efforts to improve surgical decision making will need to consider how mental models function in clinical practice, including "fix-it." METHODS: We observed surgeons who routinely perform high-risk surgery during preoperative discussions with patients. We used qualitative content analysis to explore the use of "fix-it" in 48 audio-recorded conversations. RESULTS: Surgeons used the "fix-it" model for 2 separate purposes during preoperative conversations: (1) as an explanatory tool to facilitate patient understanding of disease and surgery, and (2) as a deliberation framework to assist in decision making. Although surgeons commonly used "fix-it" as an explanatory model, surgeons explicitly discussed limitations of the "fix-it" model as an independent rationale for operating as they deliberated about the value of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Although the use of "fix-it" is familiar for explaining medical information to patients, surgeons recognize that the model can be problematic for determining the value of an operation. Whether patients can transition between understanding how their disease is fixed with surgery to a subsequent deliberation about whether they should have surgery is unclear and may have broader implications for surgical decision making.
OBJECTIVE: To examine how surgeons use the "fix-it" model to communicate with patients before high-risk operations. BACKGROUND: The "fix-it" model characterizes disease as an isolated abnormality that can be restored to normal form and function through medical intervention. This mental model is familiar to patients and physicians, but it is ineffective for chronic conditions and treatments that cannot achieve normalcy. Overuse may lead to permissive decision making favoring intervention. Efforts to improve surgical decision making will need to consider how mental models function in clinical practice, including "fix-it." METHODS: We observed surgeons who routinely perform high-risk surgery during preoperative discussions with patients. We used qualitative content analysis to explore the use of "fix-it" in 48 audio-recorded conversations. RESULTS: Surgeons used the "fix-it" model for 2 separate purposes during preoperative conversations: (1) as an explanatory tool to facilitate patient understanding of disease and surgery, and (2) as a deliberation framework to assist in decision making. Although surgeons commonly used "fix-it" as an explanatory model, surgeons explicitly discussed limitations of the "fix-it" model as an independent rationale for operating as they deliberated about the value of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Although the use of "fix-it" is familiar for explaining medical information to patients, surgeons recognize that the model can be problematic for determining the value of an operation. Whether patients can transition between understanding how their disease is fixed with surgery to a subsequent deliberation about whether they should have surgery is unclear and may have broader implications for surgical decision making.
Authors: Jane C Weeks; Paul J Catalano; Angel Cronin; Matthew D Finkelman; Jennifer W Mack; Nancy L Keating; Deborah Schrag Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-10-25 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Daniel E Hall; Penelope Morrison; Cara Nikolajski; Michael Fine; Robert Arnold; Susan L Zickmund Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2012-09-01 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Alexander K Smith; Irena Stijacic Cenzer; W John Boscardin; Christine S Ritchie; Margaret L Wallhagen; Kenneth E Covinsky Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Jacqueline M Kruser; Lauren J Taylor; Toby C Campbell; Amy Zelenski; Sara K Johnson; Michael J Nabozny; Nicole M Steffens; Jennifer L Tucholka; Kris L Kwekkeboom; Margaret L Schwarze Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2017-01-04 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Rebecca A Aslakson; Shivani V Chandrashekaran; Elizabeth Rickerson; Bridget N Fahy; Fabian M Johnston; Judith A Miller; Alison Conca-Cheng; Suwei Wang; Arden M Morris; Karl Lorenz; Jennifer S Temel; Thomas J Smith Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2019-09 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: Michael J Nabozny; Jacqueline M Kruser; Nicole M Steffens; Kristen E Pecanac; Karen J Brasel; Eva H Chittenden; Zara Cooper; Martin F McKneally; Margaret L Schwarze Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Jacqueline M Kruser; Michael J Nabozny; Nicole M Steffens; Karen J Brasel; Toby C Campbell; Martha E Gaines; Margaret L Schwarze Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2015-08-17 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Nicole M Steffens; Jennifer L Tucholka; Michael J Nabozny; Andrea E Schmick; Karen J Brasel; Margaret L Schwarze Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2016-10-01 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Holly B Cunningham; Shannon A Scielzo; Paul A Nakonezny; Brandon R Bruns; Karen J Brasel; Kenji Inaba; Scott C Brakenridge; Jeffrey D Kerby; Bellal A Joseph; M J Mohler; Joseph Cuschieri; Mary E Paulk; Akpofure P Ekeh; Tarik D Madni; Luis R Taveras; Jonathan B Imran; Steven E Wolf; Herb A Phelan Journal: J Burn Care Res Date: 2018-10-23 Impact factor: 1.845