Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Decision Making: The Patient’s Perspective

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Difficult Decisions in Thoracic Surgery

Part of the book series: Difficult Decisions in Surgery: An Evidence-Based Approach ((DDSURGERY,volume 1))

  • 1327 Accesses

Abstract

Healthcare is moving towards a practice model involving patient participation for difficult decisions, such as whether or not to have surgery. For proper Shared Decision Making (SDM), the 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. SDM can be problematic in surgical clinics where time with patients is limited. Helping surgeons educate patients for SDM and incorporate the patient’s preferences into the choice is a major challenge that requires research and guidance for those who see older sicker patients.

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 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight 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. Elwyn G, Edwards A, Kinnersley P, Grol R. Shared decision making and the concept of equipoise: the competences of involving patients in healthcare choices. Br J Gen Pract. 2000;50(460):892–9.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  3. No Authorship i. Taking shared decision making more seriously. Lancet. 2011; 377(9768):784.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Seminar SG. Salzburg statement on shared decision making. Brit 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 Central  PubMed  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  PubMed  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  PubMed  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–52.

    Article  PubMed  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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Whelan T, Levine M, Willan A, 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  PubMed  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  PubMed  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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  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  PubMed  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. Cencus Bureau. August 14 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Howlader NNA, Krapcho M, Garshell J, Neyman N, Altekruse SF, Kosary CL, Yu M, Ruhl J, Tatalovich Z, Cho H, Mariotto A, Lewis DR, Chen HS, Feuer EJ, Cronin KA. SEER cancer statistics review, 1975–2010. Bethesda: Institute NC. 2013.

    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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Brunelli A, Kim AW, Berger KI, Addrizzo-Harris DJ. Physiologic evaluation of the patient with lung cancer being considered for resectional surgery: diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest J. 2013;143(5_suppl):e166S–90.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 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  PubMed  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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Dale W, Hemmerich J, Kamm A, Posner MC, Matthews JB, Rothman R, et al. Geriatric assessment improves prediction of surgical outcomes in older adults undergoing pancreaticoduodenectomy: a prospective cohort study. Ann Surg. 2013; Publish Ahead of Print:10.1097/SLA.0000000000000226.

    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  PubMed  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  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 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 

  28. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  32. 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. 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  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, The University of Chicago, 5841 S Maryland Ave, MC 6098, W700, Chicago, IL, 60637, USA

    Joshua A. Hemmerich PhD & Kellie Van Voorhis BS

Authors
  1. Joshua A. Hemmerich PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Kellie Van Voorhis BS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joshua A. Hemmerich PhD .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Surgery, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, USA

    Mark K. Ferguson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer-Verlag London

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Hemmerich, J.A., Van Voorhis, K. (2014). Decision Making: The Patient’s Perspective. In: Ferguson, M. (eds) Difficult Decisions in Thoracic Surgery. Difficult Decisions in Surgery: An Evidence-Based Approach, vol 1. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6404-3_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-6404-3_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4471-6403-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-6404-3

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation