Dexter, Franklin

BACKGROUND: Studies of shared (patient-provider) decision making for elective surgical care have examined both the decision whether to have surgery and patients’ understanding of treatment options. We consider shared decision making applied to case scheduling, since implementation would reduce labor costs. METHODS: Study questions were presented in sequence of waiting times, starting with 4 workdays. “Assume the consultant surgeon (ie, the surgeon in charge) you met in clinic did not have time available to do your surgery within the next 4 workdays, but his/her colleague would have had time to do your surgery within the next 4 workdays. Would you have wanted to discuss with a member of the surgical team (eg, the scheduler or the surgeon) the availability of surgery with a different, equally qualified surgeon at Mayo Clinic who had time available within the next 4 workdays, on a date of your choosing?” There were 980 invited patients who underwent lung resection or cholecystectomy between 2011 and 2016; 135 respondents completed the study and 6 respondents dropped out after the study questions were displayed. RESULTS: The percentages of patients whose response to the study questions was “4 days” were 58.8% (40/68) among lung resection patients and 58.2% (39/67) among cholecystectomy patients. The 97.5% 2-sided confidence interval for the median maximum wait was 4 days to 4 days. Patients’ choices for the waiting time sufficient to discuss having another surgeon perform the procedure did not differ between procedures ( P = .91). Results were insensitive to patients’ sex, age, travel time to hospital, or number of office visits before surgery (all P ≥ .20). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that bringing up the option with the patient of changing surgeons when a colleague is available and has the operating room time to perform the procedure sooner is being respectful of most patients’ individual preferences (ie, patient-centered).

ObjectivesFor 8.5 consecutive years, all patient safety articles of a journal underwent statistical review before publication. We sought to establish the prevalence of statistical themes in the statistical reviews, consideration of contemporary statistical methods, and their associations with time to journal receipt of authors' revision.MethodsAn initial set of statistical themes was created using the statistical editor's notes. For example, for the statistical theme of “CONSORT checklist,” the search term needed was “CONSORT.” A complete (exhaustive) list of additional themes was obtained inductively.ResultsAmong the 273 subsequent reviews for manuscripts that were ultimately accepted, the number of paragraphs that included a theme of a statistical method was only weakly associated with longer revision times (Kendall τ = 0.139 ± 0.039,P= 0.0004). Among the total 3274 paragraphs of statistical reviews, 72.2% did not include a theme of a statistical method (e.g., the editor instead asked the authors to clarify what statistical method had been used) (95% confidence interval [CI] = 70.6%-73.7%,P< 0.0001 versus 50%).Among the 207 manuscripts with a review that included a statistical method, 47.3% included a contemporary topic (e.g., generalized pivotal methods) (95% CI = 40.4%–54.4%). However, among the 911 corresponding paragraphs of statistical review comments, only 16.0% included a contemporary theme (95% CI = 13.7%–18.6%).ConclusionsThe revised versions of patient safety articles, which are eventually to be accepted for publication, have many statistical limitations especially in the reporting (writing) of basic statistical methods and results. The results suggest a need for education of patient safety investigators to include statistical writing.