Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36307856›Full record

ArticlePatient safety in surgery2022

The "teach-back" method improves surgical informed consent and shared decision-making: a proof of concept study.

Kevin D Seely, Jordan A Higgs, Lindsey Butts, Jason M Roe, Colton B Merrill, Isain Zapata, Andrew Nigh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient safety in surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Kevin D SeelyDivision of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Rocky Vista University, UT 84765, Ivins, UT, USA. Kevin.seely@rvu.edu.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0390-813X
Jordan A HiggsDivision of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Rocky Vista University, UT 84765, Ivins, UT, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7613-7650
Lindsey ButtsDivision of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Rocky Vista University, UT 84765, Ivins, UT, USA.
Jason M RoeDivision of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Rocky Vista University, UT 84765, Ivins, UT, USA.
Colton B MerrillDivision of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Rocky Vista University, UT 84765, Ivins, UT, USA.
Isain ZapataDepartment of Research and Development, Rocky Vista University, Parker, CO, USA.
Andrew NighDivision of Clinical Medicine and Surgery, College of Osteopathic Medicine, Rocky Vista University, UT 84765, Ivins, UT, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe teach-back method is a communication tool that can improve patient safety and shared decision-making. Its utility in patient care has been studied extensively in many areas of clinical medicine. However, the literature on teach-back in surgical patient education and informed consent is limited, and few studies have been conducted to test its impact on perioperative patient interactions. The objective of this study was to evaluate if the teach-back method can improve informed consent and surgeon trust. An assessment of the time required to be implemented was also evaluated.

methodsA standardized interaction role-playing a pre-operative informed consent discussion was designed. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy was selected as the proposed procedure. Standardized patients were split into two groups: teach-back and a control group. The control group was delivered a script that discloses the risks and benefits of laparoscopic cholecystectomy followed by a concluding prompt for any questions. The teach-back group was presented the same script followed by the teach-back method. Interactions were timed and patients completed a quiz assessing their knowledge of the risks and benefits and a survey assessing subjective perceptions about the interaction. Statistical analysis through Generalized Linear Models (GLMs) was used to compare visit length, performance on the comprehension quiz, and subjective surgeon trust perceptions.

results34 participants completed the scenario, the comprehension quiz, and the survey (n = 34). Analysis of the subjective evaluation of the physician and encounter was significant for increased physician trust (p = 0.0457). The intervention group performed higher on the knowledge check by an average of one point when compared to the control group (p = 0.0479). The visits with intervention took an average of 2.45 min longer than the control group visits (p = 0.0014). People who had the actual procedure in the past (evaluated as a confounder) were not significantly more likely to display the same effect as the teach-back method, suggesting that the knowledge and trust gained were not based on previous experiences with the procedure.

conclusionWhen employed correctly by surgeons in the perioperative setting, the teach-back method enhances shared decision-making, comprehension, and surgeon trust. Incorporating the teach-back method into risk and benefit disclosures effectively informs and more fully engages patients in the informed consent process. Notably, the added benefits from using teach-back can be obtained without a burdensome increase in the length of visit.

Indexed as

communicationinformed consentpatient educationpatient safetysurgeon trustSurgeryteach-back method

Identifiers

PMID36307856
PMCPMC9617437

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.