Author:
May Susann,Könsgen Nadja,Glatt Angelina,Bruch Dunja,Muehlensiepen Felix,Mählmann Sonja,von Peter Sebastian,Pieper Dawid,Neugebauer Edmund,Prediger Barbara
Abstract
Abstract
Background
A Second Opinion Directive (SOD) was introduced in Germany in December 2018 for elective surgeries such as hysterectomy, tonsillotomy, tonsillectomy, and shoulder arthroscopy. The aim of the SOD is to avoid surgeries which are not medically induced and to support patients in their decision-making process. A physician who indicates an SOD-relevant procedure must inform the patient about the SOD and its specifications. At this time, it is not clear whether physicians provide information about the SOD to patients and whether and how the SOD is implemented in daily practice. Furthermore, nothing is known about how patients react when they are told that they have the right to seek a second opinion according to the SOD.
Methods
To assess this, we undertook a parallel-convergent mixed-methods study with a qualitative and quantitative phase. Qualitative data were analysed by structured qualitative content analysis and survey data were analysed descriptively.
Results
26 interviews were conducted with patients for whom one of the above-mentioned surgeries was indicated. In parallel, a questionnaire survey with 102 patients was conducted. The results show that the SOD is not implemented in Germany for the selected indications because patients were not informed as intended. At the same time, when the right to obtain a second opinion was explained, it seemed to have a positive effect on the physician-patient relationship from patients` perspective.
Conclusions
It is possible that there is a lack of information for physicians, which in turn leads to an information deficit for patients. Better information for physicians might be part of the solution, but a negative attitude towards the SOD might also result in the low education rate. Therefore, in addition, potential patients or even the general population should be better informed about the possibility of obtaining a second opinion.
Funder
Private Universität Witten/Herdecke gGmbH
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference43 articles.
1. Halasy M, Shafrin J. When should you trust your doctor? Establishing a theoretical model to evaluate the value of second opinion visits. Mayo Clin Proceedings: Innovations Qual Outcomes. 2021;5(2):502–10.
2. Fuchs T, Hanaya H, Seilacher E, Koester M-J, Keinki C, Liebl P, Huebner J. Information deficits and second opinion seeking–A survey on cancer patients. Cancer Invest. 2017;35(1):62–9.
3. Hillen MA, Gutheil CM, Smets EM, Hansen M, Kungel TM, Strout TD, Han PK. The evolution of uncertainty in second opinions about Prostate cancer treatment. Health Expect. 2017;20(6):1264–74.
4. Helpap B, Oehler U. Bedeutung Der Zweitmeinung Bei Prostatabiopsien. Pathologe. 2012;33(2):103–12.
5. Lenza M, Buchbinder R, Staples MP, Dos Santos OF, Brandt RA, Lottenberg CL, Cendoroglo M, Ferretti M. Second opinion for degenerative spinal conditions: an option or a necessity? A prospective observational study. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2017;18(1):1–12.