Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37117099›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of anaesthesia2023

Opportunities for shared decision-making about major surgery with high-risk patients: a multi-method qualitative study.

Sara E Shaw, Gemma Hughes, Rupert Pearse, Ester Avagliano, James R Day, Mark E Edsell, Jennifer A Edwards, Leslie Everest, Timothy J Stephens

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of anaesthesia, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
9.2field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Sara E ShawNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Electronic address: sara.shaw@phc.ox.ac.uk.
Gemma HughesNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Rupert PearseFaculty of Medicine & Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Ester AvaglianoHammersmith Hospital Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust London, London, UK.
James R DayDepartment of Anaesthesia, Oxford University Hospitals Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Mark E EdsellDepartment of Anaesthesia, The Royal Brompton & Harefield Hospitals, London, UK.
Jennifer A EdwardsDepartment of Anaesthesia, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley, UK.
Leslie EverestPatient Representative, London, UK.
Timothy J StephensFaculty of Medicine & Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Queen Mary University of London · GBUniversity of Oxford · GBHarefield Hospital · GBImperial College Healthcare NHS Trust · GBOxford University Hospitals NHS Trust · GBRoyal Alexandra Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLittle is known about the opportunities for shared decision-making when older high-risk patients are offered major surgery. This study examines how, when, and why clinicians and patients can share decision-making about major surgery.

methodsThis was a multi-method qualitative study, combining video recordings of preoperative consultations, interviews, and focus groups (33 patients, 19 relatives, 36 clinicians), with observations and documentary analysis in clinics in five hospitals in the UK undertaking major orthopaedic, colorectal, and/or cardiac surgery.

resultsThree opportunities for shared decision-making about major surgery were identified. Resolution-focused consultations (cardiac/colorectal) resulted in a single agreed preferred option related to a potentially life-threatening problem, with limited opportunities for shared decision-making. Evaluative and deliberative consultations offered more opportunity. The former focused on assessing the likelihood of benefits of surgery for a presenting problem that was not a threat to life for the patient (e.g., orthopaedic consultations) and the latter (largely colorectal) involved discussion of a range of options while also considering significant comorbidities and patient preferences. The extent to which opportunities for shared decision-making were available, and taken up by surgeons, was influenced by the nature of the presenting problem, clinical pathway, and patient trajectory.

conclusionsDecisions about major surgery were not always shared between patients and doctors. The nature of the presenting problem, comorbidities, clinical pathways, and patient trajectories all informed the type of consultation and opportunities for sharing decision-making. Our findings have implications for clinicians, with shared decision-making about major surgery most feasible when the focus is on life-enhancing treatment.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsSurgeonsDecision MakingDecision Making, SharedHumansPatient ParticipationPhysician-Patient RelationsVideo Recordingcardiac surgerycolorectal surgerydecision-making consultationhigh-risk patientsmajor surgerymulti-method qualitative studyorthopaedic surgeryshared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID37117099
PMCPMC10308437
OpenAlexW4367056385

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.