ABSTRACT
The practice of clinical medicine is imbued with uncertainty. The ways in which clinicians and patients think about, communicate about, and act within situations of heightened uncertainty can have significant implications for the therapeutic alliance and for the trajectory and outcomes of clinical care. Despite this, there is limited guidance about the best methods for physicians to recognize, acknowledge, communicate about, and manage uncertainty in clinical settings. In this paper, we propose a structured approach for discussing and managing uncertainty within the context of a clinician-patient relationship. The approach involves four steps: Recognize, Acknowledge, Partner, and Seek Support (i.e., the RAPS framework). The approach is guided by existing literature on uncertainty as well as our own experience as clinicians working at different stages of career. We define each component of the approach and present sample language and actions for how to implement it in practice. Our aim is to empower clinicians to regard situations of high uncertainty as an opportunity to deepen the therapeutic alliance with the patient, and simultaneously to grow and learn as practitioners.
Subject(s)
Physician-Patient Relations , Humans , Uncertainty , CommunicationABSTRACT
Pulmonary chronic graft-versus-host-disease (cGVHD), or bronchiolitis obliterans syndrome (BOS), is a highly morbid complication of hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). The clinical significance of a single instance of pulmonary decline not meeting the criteria for BOS is unclear. We conducted a retrospective analysis in a cohort of patients who had an initial post-HCT decline in the absolute value of forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) of ≥10% or mid-expiratory flow rate of ≥25% but not meeting the criteria for BOS (pre-BOS). We examined the impact of clinical variables in patients with pre-BOS on the risk for subsequent BOS. Pre-BOS developed in 1325 of 3170 patients (42%), of whom 72 (5%) later developed BOS. Eighty-four patients developed BOS without detection of pre-BOS by routine screening. Among patients with pre-BOS, after adjusting for other significant variables, airflow obstruction (hazard ratio [HR], 2.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1 to 3.7; P = .02), percent-predicted FEV1 on decline (HR, .98; 95% CI, .97 to 1.0; P = .02), active cGVHD (HR, 7.7; 95% CI, 3.1 to 19.3; P < .001), peripheral blood stem cell source (HR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.7 to 8.6; P = .001), and myeloablative conditioning (HR, 2.0; 95% CI, 1.1 to 3.5; P = .02) were associated with subsequent BOS. The absence of airflow obstruction and cGVHD had a negative predictive value of 100% at 6 months for subsequent BOS, but the positive predictive value of both factors was low (cGVHD, 3%; any obstruction, 4%; combined, 6%). Several clinical factors at the time of pre-BOS, particularly active cGVHD and airflow obstruction, increase the risk for subsequent BOS. These factors merit consideration to be included in screening practices to improve the detection of BOS, with the caveat that the predictive utility of these factors is limited by the overall low incidence of BOS among patients with pre-BOS.
