Abstract
Abstract
Background
To address the problem of overuse of elective surgery and to support patients in their decision-making process, a Second Opinion Directive was introduced in Germany, which enables patients with statutory health insurance to obtain a second opinion for certain surgical indications. The study aims to identify, based on the experiences of patients who have undergone elective surgery, the role of seeking a second opinion in reaching their decision.
Methods
Sixty-two patients who had undergone an elective surgery (hysterectomy, tonsillectomy, shoulder arthroscopy) were recruited using purposive sampling and interviewed during October to December 2020. The transcribed interviews were analysed using a framework analysis to create a typology from the patient’s perspective.
Results
The time spent by patients in making the decision to undergo surgery varies between individuals, and is influenced by factors such as the type of physician-patient relationship, individual patient aspects, prior experiences in the health care system, as well as information needs. Within the framework of the analysis, we were able to identify three patterns of patient types based on the three different time-points or phases when decisions were typically made, with one type being divided into two subtypes: Type 1a: Quick decision making, Type 1b: Overwhelmed quick decision making, Type 2: Time to consider, Type 3: Struggling with the decision.
Conclusions
Patients who followed a recommendation for elective surgery appreciate having the possibility to seek a second opinion. However, various factors influenced their opting for a second opinion during the decision-making process. Patients have differing information needs, such that a one-size-fits-all second opinion service may not fit adequately for all patients.
Funder
Innovation Fund, Germany
Medizinische Hochschule Brandenburg CAMPUS gGmbH
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference46 articles.
1. Chassin MR, Galvin RW. The urgent need to improve health care quality. Institute of Medicine National Roundtable on health care quality. JAMA. 1998;280(11):1000–5. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.280.11.1000 PMID: 9749483.
2. Morgan DJ, Dhruva SS, Coon ER, Wright SM, Korenstein D. 2018 update on medical overuse. JAMA Intern Med. 2019;179(2):240–6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.5748 PMID: 30508032.
3. Ellen ME, Wilson MG, Vélez M, Shach R, Lavis JN, Grimshaw JM, et al. Synthesis working group. Addressing overuse of health services in health systems: a critical interpretive synthesis. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018;16(1):48. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0325-x PMID: 29907158; PMCID: PMC6003114.
4. Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss. Richtlinie des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über die Konkretisierung des Anspruchs auf eine Unabhängige Ärztliche Zweitmeinung Gemäß § 27b Absatz 2 des Fünften Buches Sozialgesetzbuch (SGB V). 2018. Available online: https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/62-492-2349/Zm-RL_2020-10-15_iK-2021-01-12.pdf (Accessed on 2 Apr 2021).
5. Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss. Richtlinie des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über die Konkretisierung des Anspruchs auf eine Unabhängige Ärztliche Zweitmeinung Gemäß § 27b Absatz 2 des Fünften Buches Sozialgesetzbuch (SGB V). 2020. Available online: https://www.g-ba.de/downloads/62-492-2044/Zm-RL_2019-11-22_iK-2020-02-20.pdf (Accessed on 2 Apr 2021).