“So, what are you saying?”: A qualitative study of surgeon-patient communication in the rectal cancer consultations

IF 2.7 3区 医学 Q1 SURGERY American journal of surgery Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2024.116115
Melanie L. Fritz , Joshua Sommovilla , Elise H. Lawson , Amy B. Zelenski , Margaret L. Schwarze , Ana C. De Roo
{"title":"“So, what are you saying?”: A qualitative study of surgeon-patient communication in the rectal cancer consultations","authors":"Melanie L. Fritz ,&nbsp;Joshua Sommovilla ,&nbsp;Elise H. Lawson ,&nbsp;Amy B. Zelenski ,&nbsp;Margaret L. Schwarze ,&nbsp;Ana C. De Roo","doi":"10.1016/j.amjsurg.2024.116115","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>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.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":7771,"journal":{"name":"American journal of surgery","volume":"240 ","pages":"Article 116115"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002961024006676","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“那么,你想说什么?”直肠癌会诊中医患沟通的定性研究。
简介:直肠癌患者面临着一种潜在的限制生命的疾病,多种治疗方案赋予了大量的症状负担。治疗决策经常需要权衡和多学科团队的投入:共同决策的理想案例。通过定性分析,我们描述了外科医生和直肠癌患者之间交流的内容。方法:我们对5个学术中心的直肠癌患者(n = 18)与结直肠外科医生(n = 8)的门诊录音进行了二次分析。四名编码员使用归纳内容分析,分析重点是决策沟通。结果:外科医生注重沟通潜在治疗途径的技术细节。患者寻求有关预后、功能改变、长期恢复和下一步的信息。外科医生为共同决策奠定了基础;病人的目标没有被常规地澄清。由于不确定和缺少确定适当治疗方案所需的信息,决定通常被推迟。结论:我们的研究结果为外科医生在直肠癌决策方面加强沟通提供了途径:承认不确定性并在可能的情况下提供具体信息,关注诸如预后、权衡和长期恢复等主题,并澄清患者的偏好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
6.70%
发文量
570
审稿时长
56 days
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Surgery® is a peer-reviewed journal designed for the general surgeon who performs abdominal, cancer, vascular, head and neck, breast, colorectal, and other forms of surgery. AJS is the official journal of 7 major surgical societies* and publishes their official papers as well as independently submitted clinical studies, editorials, reviews, brief reports, correspondence and book reviews.
期刊最新文献
From the Editor - In - Chief. Using 360-degree feedback to identify actionable strategies to improve surgeon intraoperative non-technical skills. Learning how to suture: Should learners observe a demonstration of someone who is experienced or inexperienced to improve their own performance? Pediatric trauma transfer patients have low rates of additional traumatic injuries Corrigendum to "Meta-analysis: The utility of the anterior Quadratus Lumborum block in abdominal surgery" [Am J Surg 239 (2025) 116014].
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1