Surgeon Use of Shared Decision-making for Older Adults Considering Major Surgery

JAMA Surgery · 2022 · 44 citations

• Medicine
• Physical therapy
• General surgery

Importance: Because major surgery carries significant risks for older adults with comorbid conditions, shared decision-making is recommended to ensure patients receive care consistent with their goals. However, it is unknown how often shared decision-making is used for these patients. Objective: To describe the use of shared decision-making during discussions about major surgery with older adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a secondary analysis of conversations audio recorded during a randomized clinical trial of a question prompt list. Data were collected from June 1, 2016, to November 31, 2018, from 43 surgeons and 446 patients 60 years or older with at least 1 comorbidity at outpatient surgical clinics at 5 academic centers. Interventions: Patients received a question prompt list brochure that contained questions they could ask a surgeon. Main Outcomes and Measures: The 5-domain Observing Patient Involvement in Decision-making (OPTION5) score (range, 0-100, with higher scores indicating greater shared decision-making) was used to measure shared decision-making. Results: A total of 378 surgical consultations were analyzed (mean [SD] patient age, 71.9 [7.2] years; 206 [55%] male; 312 [83%] White). The mean (SD) OPTION5 score was 34.7 (20.6) and was not affected by the intervention. The mean (SD) score in the group receiving the question prompt list was 36.7 (21.2); in the control group, the mean (SD) score was 32.9 (19.9) (effect estimate, 3.80; 95% CI, -0.30 to 8.00; P = .07). Individual surgeon use of shared decision-making varied greatly, with a lowest median score of 10 (IQR, 10-20) to a high of 65 (IQR, 55-80). Lower-performing surgeons had little variation in OPTION5 scores, whereas high-performing surgeons had wide variation. Use of shared decision-making increased when surgeons appeared reluctant to operate (effect estimate, 7.40; 95% CI, 2.60-12.20; P = .003). Although longer conversations were associated with slightly higher OPTION5 scores (effect estimate, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.52-0.88; P < .001), 57% of high-scoring transcripts were 26 minutes long or less. On multivariable analysis, patient age and gender, patient education, surgeon age, and surgeon gender were not significantly associated with OPTION5 scores. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that although shared decision-making is important to support the preferences of older adults considering major surgery, surgeon use of shared decision-making is highly variable. Skillful shared decision-making can be done in less than 30 minutes; however, surgeons who engage in high-scoring shared decision-making are more likely to do so when surgical intervention is less obviously beneficial for the patient. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02623335.

Consensus-Based Guidance on Opioid Management in Individuals With Advanced Cancer-Related Pain and Opioid Misuse or Use Disorder

JAMA Oncology · 2022 · 49 citations

• Medicine
• Psychiatry
• Family medicine

Importance: Opioid misuse and opioid use disorder (OUD) are important comorbidities in people with advanced cancer and cancer-related pain, but there is a lack of consensus on treatment. Objective: To develop consensus among palliative care and addiction specialists on the appropriateness of various opioid management strategies in individuals with advanced cancer-related pain and opioid misuse or OUD. Design, Setting, and Participants: For this qualitative study, using ExpertLens, an online platform and methodology for conducting modified Delphi panels, between August and October 2020, we conducted 2 modified Delphi panels to understand the perspectives of palliative and addiction clinicians on 3 common clinical scenarios varying by prognosis (weeks to months vs months to years). Of the 129 invited palliative or addiction medicine specialists, 120 participated in at least 1 round. A total of 84 participated in all 3 rounds. Main Outcomes and Measures: Consensus was investigated for 3 clinical scenarios: (1) a patient with a history of an untreated opioid use disorder, (2) a patient taking more opioid than prescribed, and (3) a patient using nonprescribed benzodiazepines. Results: Participants were mostly women (47 [62%]), White (94 (78 [65%]), and held MD/DO degrees (115 [96%]). For a patient with untreated OUD, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to begin treatment with buprenorphine/naloxone and inappropriate to refer to a methadone clinic. Beginning split-dose methadone was deemed appropriate for patients with shorter prognoses and of uncertain appropriateness for those with longer prognoses. Beginning a full opioid agonist was deemed of uncertain appropriateness for those with a short prognosis and inappropriate for those with a longer prognosis. Regardless of prognosis, for a patient with no medical history of OUD taking more opioids than prescribed, it was deemed appropriate to increase monitoring, inappropriate to taper opioids, and of uncertain appropriateness to increase the patient's opioids or transition to buprenorphine/naloxone. For a patient with a urine drug test positive for non-prescribed benzodiazepines, regardless of prognosis, it was deemed appropriate to increase monitoring, inappropriate to taper opioids and prescribe buprenorphine/naloxone. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this qualitative study provide urgently needed consensus-based guidance for clinicians and highlight critical research and policy gaps.

Expert Panel Consensus on Management of Advanced Cancer–Related Pain in Individuals With Opioid Use Disorder

JAMA Network Open · 2021 · 48 citations

• Medicine
• Family medicine
• Psychiatry

Importance: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is an important comorbidity in individuals with advanced cancer, in whom pain is common. Full-agonist opioid medications are the cornerstone of cancer pain management, but the existing literature does not address how to manage cancer pain in patients with OUD. Objective: To conduct an expert panel to develop consensus on the appropriateness of management of cancer pain in individuals with co-occurring advanced cancer and OUD. Evidence Review: A 3-round modified Delphi process was completed from August to October 2020 with 2 cases: patient with advanced cancer, pain, and OUD treated with buprenorphine-naloxone or methadone. Participants rated management strategies in round 1, discussed results in round 2, and provided final responses in round 3. ExpertLens, an online approach to conducting modified Delphi panels, was used. Participants were experts in palliative care, addiction, or both, recruited by email from palliative care and addiction-focused professional groups, lists from prior studies, and snowball sampling. Data analysis was performed from November 2020 to July 2021. Findings: Of 120 experts (median age, 40-49 years), most were White (78 participants [94%]), female (74 participants [62%]), and held MD or DO degrees (115 participants [96%]); 84 (70%) participated in all rounds. For a patient with OUD taking buprenorphine-naloxone, it was deemed appropriate to continue buprenorphine-naloxone with thrice-daily dosing. Continuing buprenorphine-naloxone and adding a full-agonist opioid was deemed to be appropriate for patients with a prognosis of weeks to months and of uncertain appropriateness for patients with a prognosis of months to years. For a patient with OUD taking methadone dispensed at a methadone clinic, it was deemed appropriate to take over prescribing and dose twice or thrice daily. Continuing methadone daily while adding another full-agonist opioid was deemed appropriate for patients with a prognosis of weeks to months and of uncertain appropriateness for those with a prognosis of months to years. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this qualitative study provide urgently needed, consensus-based guidance for clinicians and highlight critical research and policy gaps needed to facilitate implementation.

Effect of Default Options in Advance Directives on Hospital-Free Days and Care Choices Among Seriously Ill Patients

JAMA Network Open · 2020 · 50 citations

• Medicine
• Emergency medicine
• Nursing

Importance: There is limited evidence regarding how patients make choices in advance directives (ADs) or whether these choices influence subsequent care. Objective: To examine whether default options in ADs influence care choices and clinical outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This randomized clinical trial included 515 patients who met criteria for having serious illness and agreed to participate. Patients were enrolled at 20 outpatient clinics affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania Health System and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center from February 2014 to April 2016 and had a median follow-up of 18 months. Data analysis was conducted from November 2018 to April 2019. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to complete 1 of the 3 following ADs: (1) a comfort-promoting plan of care and nonreceipt of potentially life-sustaining therapies were selected by default (comfort AD), (2) a life-extending plan of care and receipt of potentially life-sustaining therapies were selected by default (life-extending AD), or (3) no choices were preselected (standard AD). Main Outcomes and Measures: This trial was powered to rule out a reduction in hospital-free days in the intervention groups. Secondary outcomes included choices in ADs for an overall comfort-oriented approach to care, choices to forgo 4 forms of life support, patients' quality of life, decision conflict, place of death, admissions to hospitals and intensive care units, and costs of inpatient care. Results: Among 515 patients randomized, 10 withdrew consent and 13 were later found to be ineligible, leaving 492 (95.5%) in the modified intention-to-treat (mITT) sample (median [interquartile range] age, 63 [56-70] years; 279 [56.7%] men; 122 [24.8%] black; 363 [73.8%] with cancer). Of these, 264 (53.7%) returned legally valid ADs and were debriefed about their assigned intervention. Among these, patients completing comfort ADs were more likely to choose comfort care (54 of 85 [63.5%]) than those returning standard ADs (45 of 91 [49.5%]) or life-extending ADs (33 of 88 [37.5%]) (P = .001). Among 492 patients in the mITT sample, 57 of 168 patients [33.9%] who completed the comfort AD, 47 of 165 patients [28.5%] who completed the standard AD, and 35 of 159 patients [22.0%] who completed the life-extending AD chose comfort care (P = .02), with patients not returning ADs coded as not selecting comfort care. In mITT analyses, median (interquartile range) hospital-free days among 168 patients assigned to comfort ADs and 159 patients assigned to life-extending default ADs were each noninferior to those among 165 patients assigned to standard ADs (standard AD: 486 [306-717] days; comfort AD: 554 [296-833] days; rate ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.90-1.23; P < .001; life-extending AD: 550 [325-783] days; rate ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.88-1.20; P < .001). There were no differences among groups in other secondary outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, default options in ADs altered the choices seriously ill patients made regarding their future care without changing clinical outcomes. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02017548.