Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Involving Patients in Difficult Decisions About Having Surgery

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Difficult Decisions in Thoracic Surgery

Part of the book series: Difficult Decisions in Surgery: An Evidence-Based Approach ((DDSURGERY))

  • 593 Accesses

Abstract

There is increasing involvement of patients participating in difficult decisions related to their health interventions, like whether or not to have surgery. Such patients must be informed about their treatment options and the risks and benefits that go along with each so that they can apply their preferences in making the decision. This process can be problematic in surgical clinics where time with patients is limited. Helping surgeons educate patients and incorporate the patient’s preferences into the treatment choice is a major challenge that requires research and guidance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Katz P. The Scalpel’s edge: the culture of surgeons. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hollingham R. Blood and guts : a history of surgery. 1st U.S. ed. New York: Thomas Dunne Books/St. Martin’s Press; 2009. p. 319.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Taking shared decision making more seriously. Lancet. 2011;377(9768):784.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Salzburg Global Seminar. Salzburg statement on shared decision making. Br Med J. 2011;342:d1745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Singh JA, Sloan JA, Atherton PJ, Smith T, Hack TF, Huschka MM, et al. Preferred roles in treatment decision making among patients with cancer: a pooled analysis of studies using the Control Preferences Scale. Am J Manag Care. 2010;16(9):688–96.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Ekdahl AW, Andersson L, Friedrichsen M. “They do what they think is the best for me.” Frail elderly patients’ preferences for participation in their care during hospitalization. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;80(2):233–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Elwyn G, Miron-Shatz T. Deliberation before determination: the definition and evaluation of good decision making. Health Expect. 2010;13(2):139–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Peters E, Hess TM, Västfjäll D, Auman C. Adult age differences in dual information processes: implications for the role of affective and deliberative processes in older adults’ decision making. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2007;2(1):1–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fagerlin A, Sepucha KR, Couper MP, Levin CA, Singer E, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. Patients’ knowledge about 9 common health conditions: the DECISIONS survey. Med Decis Making. 2010;30(5 Suppl):35S–52S.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fagerlin A, Lakhani I, Lantz PM, Janz NK, Morrow M, Schwartz K, et al. An informed decision? Breast cancer patients and their knowledge about treatment. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;64(1-3):303–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Whelan T, Levine M, Willan A, Gafni A, Sanders K, Mirsky D, et al. Effect of a decision aid on knowledge and treatment decision making for breast cancer surgery: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2004;292(4):435–41.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Nelson WL, Han PKJ, Fagerlin A, Stefanek M, Ubel PA. Rethinking the objectives of decision aids: a call for conceptual clarity. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(5):609–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ambady N, LaPlante D, Nguyen T, Rosenthal R, Chaumeton N, Levinson W. Surgeons’ tone of voice: a clue to malpractice history. Surgery. 2002;132(1):5–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Levinson W, Roter DL, Mullooly JP, Dull VT, Frankel RM. Physician-patient communication: the relationship with malpractice claims among primary care physicians and surgeons. JAMA. 1997;277(7):553–9.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Beckman HB, Markakis KM, Suchman AL, Frankel RM. The doctor-patient relationship and malpractice. Lessons from plaintiff depositions. Arch Intern Med. 1994;154(12):1365–70.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Projections of the population by age and sex for the United States: 2010 to 2050 (NP2008-T12). In: Division P, editor. U.S. Census Bureau; 14 Aug 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA. Cure me even if it kills me: preferences for invasive cancer treatment. Med Decis Making. 2005;25(6):614–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Battafarano RJ, Piccirillo JF, Meyers BF, Hsu H-S, Guthrie TJ, Cooper JD, et al. Impact of comorbidity on survival after surgical resection in patients with stage I non–small cell lung cancer. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002;123(2):280–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Velanovich V, Antoine H, Swartz A, Peters D, Rubinfeld I. Accumulating deficits model of frailty and postoperative mortality and morbidity: its application to a national database. J Surg Res. 2013;183(1):104–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fried LP, Tangen CM, Walston J, Newman AB, Hirsch C, Gottdiener J, et al. Frailty in older adults: evidence for a phenotype. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2001;56(3):M146–57.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Cicerchia M, Ceci M, Locatelli C, Gianni W, Repetto L. Geriatric syndromes in peri-operative elderly cancer patients. Surg Oncol. 2010;19(3):131–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Makary MA, Segev DL, Pronovost PJ, Syin D, Bandeen-Roche K, Patel P, et al. Frailty as a predictor of surgical outcomes in older patients. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;210(6):901–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ferguson MK, Farnan J, Hemmerich JA, Slawinski K, Acevedo J, Small S. The impact of perceived frailty on surgeons’ estimates of surgical risk. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;98(1):210–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Reyna VF, Lloyd FJ. Physician decision making and cardiac risk: effects of knowledge, risk perception, risk tolerance, and fuzzy processing. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2006;12(3):179–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Reyna VF. A theory of medical decision making and health: fuzzy trace theory. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(6):850–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gainer RA, Curran J, Buth KJ, David JG, Légaré JF, Hirsch GM. Toward optimal decision making among vulnerable patients referred for cardiac surgery: a qualitative analysis of patient and provider perspectives. Med Decis Making. 2017;37(5):600–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mokhles S, Maat APWM, Aerts JGJV, Nuyttens JJME, Bogers AJJC, Takkenberg JJM. Opinions of lung cancer clinicians on shared decision making in early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2017;25(2):278–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Finucane ML. Emotion, affect, and risk communication with older adults: challenges and opportunities. J Risk Res. 2008;11(8):983–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Pargament KI, Smith BW, Koenig HG, Perez L. Patterns of positive and negative religious coping with major life stressors. J Sci Study Relig. 1998;37(4):710–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. DeLisser HM, Keirns CC, Clinton EA, Margolis ML. “The air got to it:” exploring a belief about surgery for lung cancer. J Natl Med Assoc. 2009;101(8):765–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Cykert S, Dilworth-Anderson P, Monroe MH, Walker P, McGuire FR, Corbie-Smith G, et al. Factors associated with decisions to undergo surgery among patients with newly diagnosed early-stage lung cancer. JAMA. 2010;303(23):2368–76.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Margolis M, Kaiser L, Christie J. Patient decisions to undergo surgery for early-stage lung cancer. JAMA. 2010;304(11):1165.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Axelrod DA, Goold S. Maintaining trust in the surgeon-patient relationship: challenges for the new millennium. Arch Surg. 2000;135(1):55–61.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Butow P, Juraskova I, Chang S, Lopez A-L, Brown R, Bernhard J. Shared decision making coding systems: how do they compare in the oncology context? Patient Educ Couns. 2010;78(2):261–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Goel V, Sawka CA, Thiel EC, Gort EH, O’Connor AM. Randomized trial of a patient decision aid for choice of surgical treatment for breast cancer. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(1):1–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Lantz PM, Janz NK, Fagerlin A, Schwartz K, Liu L, Lakhani I, et al. Satisfaction with surgery outcomes and the decision process in a population-based sample of women with breast cancer. Health Serv Res. 2005;40(3):745–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. O’Leary KA, Estabrooks CA, Olson K, Cumming C. Information acquisition for women facing surgical treatment for breast cancer: influencing factors and selected outcomes. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;69(1–3):5–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Joshua A. Hemmerich & Kellie Van Voorhis

  2. Department of Surgery, The University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Mark K. Ferguson

Authors
  1. Joshua A. Hemmerich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kellie Van Voorhis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mark K. Ferguson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mark K. Ferguson .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA

    Mark K. Ferguson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hemmerich, J.A., Van Voorhis, K., Ferguson, M.K. (2020). Involving Patients in Difficult Decisions About Having Surgery. In: Ferguson, M. (eds) Difficult Decisions in Thoracic Surgery. Difficult Decisions in Surgery: An Evidence-Based Approach. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47404-1_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47404-1_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-47403-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-47404-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation