Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

The Role of Perioperative Shared Decision Making: When Risk Is Non-modifiable

  • PREHABILITATION (B RIEDEL and S JACK, SECTION EDITORS)
  • Published:
Current Anesthesiology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This review describes the need for and yet the challenges inherent in operationalising shared decision making (SDM) in the perioperative setting. A novel approach to the role of SDM in preparing for high-risk surgery is described as well as a pragmatic outline of the individual components that make up this process.

Recent Findings

Significant heterogeneity exists in the literature examining perioperative SDM. Despite the reported benefits, SDM is not being consistently delivered to surgical cohorts. This is primarily related to difficulties in defining and measuring both SDM and associated outcomes pertinent to the surgical context.

Summary

There is a pressing need for perioperative clinicians to better delineate how SDM can be most effectively delivered in high-risk and emergent surgery. Future research efforts will require the perioperative community to further define consensus outcomes of interest. These research targets must be complemented by educational initiatives aimed at providing clinicians with the necessary communication skills training to effectively execute and widely adopt SDM.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. • Hargraves IG, Montori VM, Brito JP, Kunneman M, Shaw K, LaVecchia C, et al. Purposeful SDM: a problem-based approach to caring for patients with shared decision making. Patient Education and Counseling. 2019 Oct;102(10):1786–92. (This article describes a novel approach to understanding what SDM is and how it can be adapted to meet the individual needs of our patients.)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Niburski K, Guadagno E, Mohtashami S, Poenaru D. Shared decision making in surgery: a scoping review of the literature. Health Expect England. 2020;23(5):1241–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Légaré F, Ratté S, Gravel K, Graham ID. Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: update of a systematic review of health professionals’ perceptions. Patient Educ Couns. 2008 Dec;73(3):526–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. What is Shared Decision Making? 1st ed. 2017 May 3. Available from: https://mghdecisionsciences.org/about-us-home/shared-decision-making/

  5. Fucile B, Bridge E, Journal CDPE, 2017. Experience-based co-design: a method for patient and family engagement in system-level quality improvement. pxjournalorg

  6. Spatz ES, Krumholz HM, Moulton BW. Prime time for shared decision making. JAMA Am Med Assoc. 2017 Apr 4;317(13):1309–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Shay LA, Lafata JE. Where is the evidence? A systematic review of shared decision making and patient outcomes. Med Decis Making. 2015 Jan;35(1):114–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Oshima Lee E, Emanuel EJ. Shared decision making to improve care and reduce costs. N Engl J Med. 2013 Jan 3;368(1):6–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Teisberg E, Wallace S, O’Hara S. Defining and implementing value-based health care: a strategic framework. Acad Med. 2020 May;95(5):682–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. de Mik SML, Stubenrouch FE, Balm R, Ubbink DT. Systematic review of shared decision-making in surgery. Br J Surg England. 2018;105(13):1721–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bomhof-Roordink H, Gärtner FR, Stiggelbout AM, Pieterse AH. Key components of shared decision making models: a systematic review. BMJ Open. 2019 Dec 17;9(12):e031763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Pearse RM, Harrison DA, James P, Watson D, Hinds C, Rhodes A, et al. Identification and characterisation of the high-risk surgical population in the United Kingdom. Crit Care BioMed Central. 2006;10(3):R81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sullivan R, Alatise OI, Anderson BO, Audisio R, Autier P, Aggarwal A, et al. Global cancer surgery: delivering safe, affordable, and timely cancer surgery. Lancet Oncol. 2015 Sep;16(11):1193–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Pilleron S, Sarfati D, Janssen-Heijnen M, Vignat J, Ferlay J, Bray F, et al. Global cancer incidence in older adults, 2012 and 2035: a population-based study. Int J Cancer. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2019 Jan 1;144(1):49–58.

  15. Story DA, Leslie K, Myles PS, Fink M, Poustie SJ, Forbes A, et al. Complications and mortality in older surgical patients in Australia and New Zealand (the REASON study): a multicentre, prospective, observational study*. Anaesthesia. Blackwell Publishing Ltd; 2010 Sep 9;65(10):1022–30.

  16. Irwin MG, Kong VKF. Quantifying and communicating peri-operative risk. Anaesthesia. 2014 Dec;69(12):1299–303.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Kerr RS. Surgery in the 2020s: Implications of advancing technology for patients and the workforce. Future Healthc J Royal College of Physicians. 2020;7(1):46–9.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Detering KM, Hancock AD, Reade MC, Silvester W. The impact of advance care planning on end of life care in elderly patients: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd; 2010;340(mar23 1):c1345–5.

  19. • de Mik SML, Stubenrouch FE, Balm R, Ubbink DT. Systematic review of shared decision-making in surgery. Br J Surg. 2018 Dec;105(13):1721–30. (This article describes how SDM is measured in clinical practice and the implications of this for future research.)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Wong DJN, Oliver CM, Moonesinghe SR. Predicting postoperative morbidity in adult elective surgical patients using the Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT). Br J Anaesth. 2017 Jul 1;119(1):95–105.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Boss EF, Mehta N, Neck NNHA, 2016. Shared decision making and choice for elective surgical care: a systematic review. journalssagepubcom

  22. Shinkunas LA, Klipowicz CJ, Carlisle EM. Shared decision making in surgery: a scoping review of patient and surgeon preferences. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak England. 2020;20(1):190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Politi MC, Dizon DS, Frosch DL, Kuzemchak MD, Stiggelbout AM. Importance of clarifying patients’ desired role in shared decision making to match their level of engagement with their preferences. BMJ British Medical Journal Publishing Group. 2013;2(347):f7066.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Knops AM, Legemate DA, Goossens A, Bossuyt PMM, Ubbink DT. Decision aids for patients facing a surgical treatment decision: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2013 May;257(5):860–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Apr;12(4):CD001431.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Barton JL, Kunneman M, Hargraves I, LeBlanc A. Envisioning shared decision making: a reflection for the Next Decade. 2020.

  27. Aslakson RA, Schuster ALR, Reardon J, Lynch T, Suarez-Cuervo C, Miller JA, et al. Promoting perioperative advance care planning: a systematic review of advance care planning decision aids. J Comp Eff Res. 2015 Nov;4(6):615–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. • Kruser JM, Taylor LJ, Campbell TC, and AZJOP, 2017. “Best case/worst case”: training surgeons to use a novel communication tool for high-risk acute surgical problems. Elsevier. (This article outlines the development and validation of a decision aid for surgical patients that is very useful in the context of perioperative SDM.)

  29. Cohen-Mansfield J, Skornick-Bouchbinder M, Brill S. Trajectories of end of life: a systematic review. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2018 Apr 16;73(4):564–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Measuring Shared Decision Making [Internet]. Cambridge; 2012 Dec pp. 1–26. Available from: https://www.rightcare.nhs.uk/sdm

  31. Trevena LJ, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Edwards A, Gaissmaier W, Galesic M, Han PKJ, et al. Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak BioMed Central. 2013;13 Suppl 2(Suppl 2):S7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Siminoff LA, Step MM. A communication model of shared decision making: accounting for cancer treatment decisions. Health Psychol. 2005 Jul;24(4S):S99–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Légaré F, Thompson-Leduc P. Twelve myths about shared decision making. Patient Educ Couns. 2014 Sep;96(3):281–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Hoffmann TC, Légaré F, Simmons MB, McNamara K, McCaffery K, Trevena LJ, et al. Shared decision making: what do clinicians need to know and why should they bother? Med J Aust. 2014 Jul 7;201(1):35–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anaesthesia, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan Street, Parkville, VIC, 3000, Australia

    Debra Leung

  2. Centre for Integrated Critical Care, Melbourne Medical School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

    Debra Leung

  3. The Sir Peter Maccallum Department of Oncology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

    Debra Leung

Authors
  1. Debra Leung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Debra Leung.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The author does not have any potential conflicts of interest to disclose.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Prehabilitation

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Leung, D. The Role of Perioperative Shared Decision Making: When Risk Is Non-modifiable. Curr Anesthesiol Rep 12, 148–155 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40140-021-00492-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40140-021-00492-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation