American journal of surgery · 2024
"So, what are you saying?": A qualitative study of surgeon-patient communication in the rectal cancer consultations.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Fritz Melanie L, Sommovilla Joshua, Lawson Elise H, Zelenski Amy B, Schwarze Margaret L, De Roo Ana C
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Patients with rectal cancer face a potentially life-limiting disease with multi-modal treatment options conferring substantial symptom burdens. Treatment decisions frequently require trade-offs and input from a multidisciplinary team: ideal cases for shared decision-making. Using qualitative analysis, we characterized the content of communication between surgeons and patients who have rectal cancer.
METHODS: We performed secondary analysis of audio-recorded clinic visits of patients with rectal cancer (n = 18) with colorectal surgeons (n = 8) at 5 academic centers. Four coders used inductive content analysis with an analytical emphasis on communication about decision-making.
RESULTS: Surgeons focused on communicating technical details of potential treatment pathways. Patients sought information around prognosis, functional changes, long-term recovery, and next steps. Surgeons laid groundwork for shared decision-making; patient goals were not routinely clarified. Decisions were typically deferred due to uncertainty and missing information needed to determine appropriate treatment options.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest avenues for surgeons to enhance communication around rectal cancer decision-making: acknowledging uncertainty and providing concrete information when able, focusing on topics such as prognosis, tradeoffs, and long-term recovery, and clarifying patient preferences.
METHODS: We performed secondary analysis of audio-recorded clinic visits of patients with rectal cancer (n = 18) with colorectal surgeons (n = 8) at 5 academic centers. Four coders used inductive content analysis with an analytical emphasis on communication about decision-making.
RESULTS: Surgeons focused on communicating technical details of potential treatment pathways. Patients sought information around prognosis, functional changes, long-term recovery, and next steps. Surgeons laid groundwork for shared decision-making; patient goals were not routinely clarified. Decisions were typically deferred due to uncertainty and missing information needed to determine appropriate treatment options.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest avenues for surgeons to enhance communication around rectal cancer decision-making: acknowledging uncertainty and providing concrete information when able, focusing on topics such as prognosis, tradeoffs, and long-term recovery, and clarifying patient preferences.