Communication Frameworks for Palliative Surgical Consultations

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate whether patients with advanced cancer prefer surgeons to use the best case/worst case (BC/WC) communication framework over the traditional risk/benefit (R/B) framework in the context of palliative surgical scenarios. Background: Identifying the patient’s preferred communication frameworks may improve satisfaction and outcome measures during difficult clinical decision-making. Methods: In a video-vignette–based randomized, double-blinded study from November 2020 to May 2021, patients with advanced cancer viewed 2 videos depicting a physician-patient encounter in a palliative surgical scenario, in which the surgeon uses either the BC/WC or the R/B framework to discuss treatment options. The primary outcome was the patients’ preferred video surgeon. Results: One hundred fifty-five patients were approached to participate; 66 were randomized and 58 completed the study (mean age 55.8 ± 13.8 years, 60.3% males). 22 patients (37.9%, 95% CI: 25.4%–50.4%) preferred the surgeon using the BC/WC framework, 21 (36.2%, 95% CI: 23.8%–48.6%) preferred the surgeon using the R/B framework, and 15 (25.9%, 95% CI: 14.6%–37.2%) indicated no preference. High trust in the medical profession was inversely associated with a preference for the surgeon using BC/WC framework (odds ratio: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.70–0.98, P = 0.03). The BC/WC framework rated higher for perceived surgeon’s listening (4.6 ± 0.7 vs 4.3±0.9, P = 0.03) and confidence in the surgeon’s trustworthiness (4.3 ± 0.8 vs 4.0 ± 0.9, P = 0.04). Conclusions: Surgeon use of the BC/WC communication framework was not universally preferred but was as acceptable to patients as the traditional R/B framework and rated higher in certain aspects of communication. A preference for a surgeon using BC/WC was associated with lower trust in the medical profession. Surgeons should consider the BC/WC framework to individualize their approach to challenging clinical discussions.