Was a decision made? An assessment of patient-clinician discordance in medical oncology encounters

Aaron L. Leppin, Katherine M. Humeniuk, Cara Fernandez, Victor Manuel Montori, Kathleen J Yost, Ashok Kumbamu, Gail Geller, Jon C Tilburt

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Shared decision making is promoted to improve cancer care quality. Patients and clinicians may have different ideas about what constitutes a cancer care decision, which may limit the validity of self-reported measures of shared decision making. We sought to estimate the extent to which patients and clinicians agree on whether a cancer care decision was made during an outpatient encounter. Methods: We surveyed patients and clinicians immediately after an oncology encounter at a large, tertiary medical centre and calculated agreement in response to the single-item question, 'Was a specific decision about cancer care made during the appointment today?' Answer options were 'yes' and 'no'. Participants were 315 oncology patients, with any solid tumour malignancy and at any stage of management, and their clinicians (22 staff oncologists, nine senior fellows and five nurse practitioners). Results: Patients and clinicians reported having made a cancer care decision in 184 (58%) and 174 (55%) of encounters, respectively. They agreed on whether a cancer care decision was made in 213 (68%) of encounters (chance-adjusted agreement was 0.34); in 56 of the 102 discordant encounters, the patient reported making a decision while the clinician did not. We found no significant correlates with discordance. Conclusions: Patients and clinicians do not always agree on whether a cancer care decision was made. As such, measures that ask patients and/or clinicians to evaluate a decision-making process or outcome may be methodologically insufficient when they do not explicitly orient respondents towards the thing they are being asked to assess.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalHealth Expectations
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - 2015

Fingerprint

Medical Oncology
Neoplasms
Decision Making
Nurse Practitioners
Quality of Health Care
Appointments and Schedules
Outpatients

Keywords

  • Cancer communication
  • Discordance
  • Medical decisions
  • Shared decision making

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Was a decision made? An assessment of patient-clinician discordance in medical oncology encounters. / Leppin, Aaron L.; Humeniuk, Katherine M.; Fernandez, Cara; Montori, Victor Manuel; Yost, Kathleen J; Kumbamu, Ashok; Geller, Gail; Tilburt, Jon C.

In: Health Expectations, 2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a233876702e446198fac317201a7a5e4,
title = "Was a decision made? An assessment of patient-clinician discordance in medical oncology encounters",
abstract = "Background: Shared decision making is promoted to improve cancer care quality. Patients and clinicians may have different ideas about what constitutes a cancer care decision, which may limit the validity of self-reported measures of shared decision making. We sought to estimate the extent to which patients and clinicians agree on whether a cancer care decision was made during an outpatient encounter. Methods: We surveyed patients and clinicians immediately after an oncology encounter at a large, tertiary medical centre and calculated agreement in response to the single-item question, 'Was a specific decision about cancer care made during the appointment today?' Answer options were 'yes' and 'no'. Participants were 315 oncology patients, with any solid tumour malignancy and at any stage of management, and their clinicians (22 staff oncologists, nine senior fellows and five nurse practitioners). Results: Patients and clinicians reported having made a cancer care decision in 184 (58{\%}) and 174 (55{\%}) of encounters, respectively. They agreed on whether a cancer care decision was made in 213 (68{\%}) of encounters (chance-adjusted agreement was 0.34); in 56 of the 102 discordant encounters, the patient reported making a decision while the clinician did not. We found no significant correlates with discordance. Conclusions: Patients and clinicians do not always agree on whether a cancer care decision was made. As such, measures that ask patients and/or clinicians to evaluate a decision-making process or outcome may be methodologically insufficient when they do not explicitly orient respondents towards the thing they are being asked to assess.",
keywords = "Cancer communication, Discordance, Medical decisions, Shared decision making",
author = "Leppin, {Aaron L.} and Humeniuk, {Katherine M.} and Cara Fernandez and Montori, {Victor Manuel} and Yost, {Kathleen J} and Ashok Kumbamu and Gail Geller and Tilburt, {Jon C}",
year = "2015",
doi = "10.1111/hex.12340",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Health Expectations",
issn = "1369-6513",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Was a decision made? An assessment of patient-clinician discordance in medical oncology encounters

AU - Leppin, Aaron L.

AU - Humeniuk, Katherine M.

AU - Fernandez, Cara

AU - Montori, Victor Manuel

AU - Yost, Kathleen J

AU - Kumbamu, Ashok

AU - Geller, Gail

AU - Tilburt, Jon C

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - Background: Shared decision making is promoted to improve cancer care quality. Patients and clinicians may have different ideas about what constitutes a cancer care decision, which may limit the validity of self-reported measures of shared decision making. We sought to estimate the extent to which patients and clinicians agree on whether a cancer care decision was made during an outpatient encounter. Methods: We surveyed patients and clinicians immediately after an oncology encounter at a large, tertiary medical centre and calculated agreement in response to the single-item question, 'Was a specific decision about cancer care made during the appointment today?' Answer options were 'yes' and 'no'. Participants were 315 oncology patients, with any solid tumour malignancy and at any stage of management, and their clinicians (22 staff oncologists, nine senior fellows and five nurse practitioners). Results: Patients and clinicians reported having made a cancer care decision in 184 (58%) and 174 (55%) of encounters, respectively. They agreed on whether a cancer care decision was made in 213 (68%) of encounters (chance-adjusted agreement was 0.34); in 56 of the 102 discordant encounters, the patient reported making a decision while the clinician did not. We found no significant correlates with discordance. Conclusions: Patients and clinicians do not always agree on whether a cancer care decision was made. As such, measures that ask patients and/or clinicians to evaluate a decision-making process or outcome may be methodologically insufficient when they do not explicitly orient respondents towards the thing they are being asked to assess.

AB - Background: Shared decision making is promoted to improve cancer care quality. Patients and clinicians may have different ideas about what constitutes a cancer care decision, which may limit the validity of self-reported measures of shared decision making. We sought to estimate the extent to which patients and clinicians agree on whether a cancer care decision was made during an outpatient encounter. Methods: We surveyed patients and clinicians immediately after an oncology encounter at a large, tertiary medical centre and calculated agreement in response to the single-item question, 'Was a specific decision about cancer care made during the appointment today?' Answer options were 'yes' and 'no'. Participants were 315 oncology patients, with any solid tumour malignancy and at any stage of management, and their clinicians (22 staff oncologists, nine senior fellows and five nurse practitioners). Results: Patients and clinicians reported having made a cancer care decision in 184 (58%) and 174 (55%) of encounters, respectively. They agreed on whether a cancer care decision was made in 213 (68%) of encounters (chance-adjusted agreement was 0.34); in 56 of the 102 discordant encounters, the patient reported making a decision while the clinician did not. We found no significant correlates with discordance. Conclusions: Patients and clinicians do not always agree on whether a cancer care decision was made. As such, measures that ask patients and/or clinicians to evaluate a decision-making process or outcome may be methodologically insufficient when they do not explicitly orient respondents towards the thing they are being asked to assess.

KW - Cancer communication

KW - Discordance

KW - Medical decisions

KW - Shared decision making

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84921825437&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84921825437&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/hex.12340

DO - 10.1111/hex.12340

M3 - Article

C2 - 25619877

AN - SCOPUS:84955182026

JO - Health Expectations

JF - Health Expectations

SN - 1369-6513

ER -