Renda Soylemez Wiener1, Christopher G Slatore2, Chris Gillespie3, Jack A Clark4. 1. Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial VA Hospital, Bedford, MA; Pulmonary Center, Department of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR. Electronic address: rwiener@bu.edu. 2. Health Services Research and Development, Department of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR; Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, VA Portland Health Care System, Portland, OR; Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Medicine, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR. 3. Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial VA Hospital, Bedford, MA. 4. Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial VA Hospital, Bedford, MA; Department of Health Policy and Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Selecting a strategy (surveillance, biopsy, resection) for pulmonary nodule evaluation can be complex given the absence of high-quality data comparing strategies and the important tradeoffs among strategies. Guidelines recommend a three-step approach: (1) assess the likelihood of malignancy, (2) evaluate whether the patient is a candidate for invasive intervention, and (3) elicit the patient's preferences and engage in shared decision-making. We sought to characterize how pulmonologists select a pulmonary nodule evaluation strategy and the extent to which they report following the guideline-recommended approach. METHODS: We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with 14 pulmonologists who manage patients with pulmonary nodules at four clinical sites. Transcripts of audiorecorded interviews were analyzed using the principles of grounded theory. RESULTS: Pulmonologists reported consistently performing steps 1 and 2 but described diverse approaches to step 3 that ranged from always engaging the patient in decision-making to never doing so. Many described incorporating patients' preferences only in particular circumstances, such as when the patient appeared particularly anxious or was aggressive in questioning management options. Indeed, other factors, including convenience, physician preferences, physician anxiety, malpractice concerns, and physician experience, appeared to drive decision-making as much as, if not more than, patient preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Although pulmonologists appear to routinely personalize pulmonary nodule evaluation strategies based on the individual patient's risk-benefit tradeoffs, they may not consistently take patient preferences into account during the decision-making process. In the absence of high-quality evidence regarding the optimal methods of pulmonary nodule evaluation, physicians should strive to ensure that management decisions are consistent with patients' values.
BACKGROUND: Selecting a strategy (surveillance, biopsy, resection) for pulmonary nodule evaluation can be complex given the absence of high-quality data comparing strategies and the important tradeoffs among strategies. Guidelines recommend a three-step approach: (1) assess the likelihood of malignancy, (2) evaluate whether the patient is a candidate for invasive intervention, and (3) elicit the patient's preferences and engage in shared decision-making. We sought to characterize how pulmonologists select a pulmonary nodule evaluation strategy and the extent to which they report following the guideline-recommended approach. METHODS: We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with 14 pulmonologists who manage patients with pulmonary nodules at four clinical sites. Transcripts of audiorecorded interviews were analyzed using the principles of grounded theory. RESULTS: Pulmonologists reported consistently performing steps 1 and 2 but described diverse approaches to step 3 that ranged from always engaging the patient in decision-making to never doing so. Many described incorporating patients' preferences only in particular circumstances, such as when the patient appeared particularly anxious or was aggressive in questioning management options. Indeed, other factors, including convenience, physician preferences, physician anxiety, malpractice concerns, and physician experience, appeared to drive decision-making as much as, if not more than, patient preferences. CONCLUSIONS: Although pulmonologists appear to routinely personalize pulmonary nodule evaluation strategies based on the individual patient's risk-benefit tradeoffs, they may not consistently take patient preferences into account during the decision-making process. In the absence of high-quality evidence regarding the optimal methods of pulmonary nodule evaluation, physicians should strive to ensure that management decisions are consistent with patients' values.
Authors: Heber MacMahon; John H M Austin; Gordon Gamsu; Christian J Herold; James R Jett; David P Naidich; Edward F Patz; Stephen J Swensen Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Christopher G Slatore; Nancy Press; David H Au; J Randall Curtis; Renda Soylemez Wiener; Linda Ganzini Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2013-08
Authors: Garrett M Chinn; Pang-Hsiang Liu; Carrie N Klabunde; Katherine L Kahn; Nancy L Keating Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Stella K Kang; Laura D Scherer; Alec J Megibow; Leslie J Higuita; Nathanael Kim; R Scott Braithwaite; Angela Fagerlin Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2017-11-15 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Marc R Freiman; Jack A Clark; Christopher G Slatore; Michael K Gould; Steven Woloshin; Lisa M Schwartz; Renda Soylemez Wiener Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2016-03-07 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Jonathan M Iaccarino; James Simmons; Michael K Gould; Christopher G Slatore; Steven Woloshin; Lisa M Schwartz; Renda Soylemez Wiener Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2017-06
Authors: Michael N Kammer; Dianna J Rowe; Stephen A Deppen; Eric L Grogan; Alexander M Kaizer; Anna E Barón; Fabien Maldonado Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2022-09-02 Impact factor: 4.090
Authors: Jonathan Shelver; Chris H Wendt; Melissa McClure; Brian Bell; Angela E Fabbrini; Thomas Rector; Kathryn Rice Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2017-04-21 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Francys C Verdial; David K Madtes; Guang-Shing Cheng; Sudhakar Pipavath; Richard Kim; Jesse J Hubbard; Megan Zadworny; Douglas E Wood; Farhood Farjah Journal: Chest Date: 2019-12-17 Impact factor: 9.410