Primary Care Physicians’ Views on Medical Error and Disclosure in Cancer Care

Introduction: Effective physician-patient communication is critical in cancer care. Breakdowns in communication may follow an actual or suspected medical error because of various professional or medicolegal concerns about those events. We examined views of primary care physicians (PCPs) regarding two hypothetical medical errors, their perceptions of responsibility and intent to communicate these events to patients. Objectives: To describe PCPs views on medical errors, perceived responsibility and communication after errors during cancer care. Methods: We surveyed 630 PCPs at 3 healthcare organizations participating in the Cancer Research Network. Questionnaires included two vignettes describing possible medical errors: a delayed diagnosis of breast cancer and; preventable complications of colon cancer treatment. Questions assessed perceived responsibility and intent to communicate with the patient after the event. Results: A total of 333 PCPs responded (response rate =53%). Eighty-one percent felt that the delayed diagnosis vignette described a serious error; (60%) believed that the preventable complications of colon cancer treatment vignette represented a serious medical error. Few would offer no apology at all for the delayed diagnosis (4%) or the colon cancer complications complications (7%). The most common expression of regret was “I am sorry about what happened to you” without elaboration (48% delayed diagnosis; 56% complications). Just over half (51%) would not volunteer the cause of the delayed diagnosis; compared to 25% in the complications vignette. Perception of the error as serious, and of greater personal responsibility were both predictive of being more forthcoming when communicating to patient after the event; perceived self-efficacy in communication and the belief that one’s organization values good communication were not. Conclusion: PCPs vary in their attitudes towards medical errors, and their perceptions of responsibility. These attitudes and perceptions are predictive of how physicians intend to communicate with patients after such events, at least in response to two hypothetical cases

Identifying barriers to shared decision-making about bariatric surgery in two large health systems.

OBJECTIVE: Prior research suggests shared decision-making (SDM) could improve patient and health care provider communication about bariatric surgery. The aim of this work was to identify and prioritize barriers to SDM around bariatric surgery to help guide implementation of SDM. METHODS: Two large US health care systems formed multidisciplinary teams to facilitate the implementation of SDM around bariatric surgery. The teams used a nominal group process approach involving (1) generation of multilevel barriers, (2) round-robin recording of barriers, (3) facilitated discussion, and (4) selection and ranking of barriers according to importance and feasibility to address. RESULTS: One health system identified 13 barriers and prioritized 5 as the most important and feasible to address. The second health system identified 14 barriers and prioritized 6. Both health systems commonly prioritized six barriers: lack of insurance coverage; lack of understanding of insurance coverage; lack of organizational prioritization of SDM; lack of knowledge about bariatric surgery; lack of interdepartmental clarity between primary and specialty care; and limited training on SDM conversations and tools. CONCLUSIONS: Health systems face numerous barriers to SDM around bariatric surgery, and these can be easily identified and prioritized by multistakeholder teams. Future research should seek to identify effective strategies to address these common barriers

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Bariatric Procedures for Weight Loss: A PCORnet Cohort Study.

BackgroundThere has been a dramatic shift in use of bariatric procedures, but little is known about their long-term comparative effectiveness.ObjectiveTo compare weight loss and safety among bariatric procedures.DesignRetrospective observational cohort study, January 2005 to September 2015. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02741674).Setting41 health systems in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network.Participants65 093 patients aged 20 to 79 years with body mass index (BMI) of 35 kg/m2 or greater who had bariatric procedures.Intervention32 208 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), 29 693 sleeve gastrectomy (SG), and 3192 adjustable gastric banding (AGB) procedures.MeasurementsEstimated percent total weight loss (TWL) at 1, 3, and 5 years; 30-day rates of major adverse events.ResultsTotal numbers of eligible patients with weight measures at 1, 3, and 5 years were 44 978 (84%), 20 783 (68%), and 7159 (69%), respectively. Thirty-day rates of major adverse events were 5.0% for RYGB, 2.6% for SG, and 2.9% for AGB. One-year mean TWLs were 31.2% (95% CI, 31.1% to 31.3%) for RYGB, 25.2% (CI, 25.1% to 25.4%) for SG, and 13.7% (CI, 13.3% to 14.0%) for AGB. At 1 year, RYGB patients lost 5.9 (CI, 5.8 to 6.1) percentage points more weight than SG patients and 17.7 (CI, 17.3 to 18.1) percentage points more than AGB patients, and SG patients lost 12.0 (CI, 11.6 to 12.5) percentage points more than AGB patients. Five-year mean TWLs were 25.5% (CI, 25.1% to 25.9%) for RYGB, 18.8% (CI, 18.0% to 19.6%) for SG, and 11.7% (CI, 10.2% to 13.1%) for AGB. Patients with diabetes, those with BMI less than 50 kg/m2, those aged 65 years or older, African American patients, and Hispanic patients lost less weight than patients without those characteristics.LimitationPotential unobserved confounding due to nonrandomized design; electronic health record databases had missing outcome data.ConclusionAdults lost more weight with RYGB than with SG or AGB at 1, 3, and 5 years; however, RYGB had the highest 30-day rate of major adverse events. Small subgroup differences in weight loss outcomes were observed.Primary funding sourcePatient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute

Understanding the Bariatric Patient Perspective in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) Bariatric Study

BACKGROUND: In 2016, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute funded the National Patient Centered Clinical Research Network (PCORnet) Bariatric Study (PBS). Understanding the experience of postoperative patients was a key component of this study. METHODS: Nine focus groups were conducted in Southern California, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, and Ohio and in a national advocacy conference for patients with obesity. Participants were identified and recruited in both clinical and community settings. Focus group transcripts were analyzed using an iterative inductive-deductive approach to identify global overarching themes. RESULTS: There were 76 focus group participants. Participants were mostly women (81.4%), had primarily undergone gastric sleeve (47.0%), were non-Hispanic white (51.4%), had some college education (44.3%), and made $100,000 annual income or less (65.7%). Qualitative findings included negative reactions patients received from friends, family, and co-workers once they disclosed that they had bariatric surgery to lose weight; and barriers to follow-up care included insurance coverage, emotional and situational challenges, and physical pain limiting mobility. CONCLUSIONS: These findings confirm the other qualitative findings in this area. The approach to bariatric surgery should be expanded to provide long-term comprehensive care that includes in-depth postoperative lifetime monitoring of emotional and physical health