Time for a paradigm shift in shared decision-making in trauma and emergency surgery? Results from an international survey.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) between clinicians and patients is one of the pillars of the modern patient-centric philosophy of care. This study aims to explore SDM in the discipline of trauma and emergency surgery, investigating its interpretation as well as the barriers and facilitators for its implementation among surgeons. METHODS: Grounding on the literature on the topics of the understanding, barriers, and facilitators of SDM in trauma and emergency surgery, a survey was created by a multidisciplinary committee and endorsed by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES). The survey was sent to all 917 WSES members, advertised through the society's website, and shared on the society's Twitter profile. RESULTS: A total of 650 trauma and emergency surgeons from 71 countries in five continents participated in the initiative. Less than half of the surgeons understood SDM, and 30% still saw the value in exclusively engaging multidisciplinary provider teams without involving the patient. Several barriers to effectively partnering with the patient in the decision-making process were identified, such as the lack of time and the need to concentrate on making medical teams work smoothly. DISCUSSION: Our investigation underlines how only a minority of trauma and emergency surgeons understand SDM, and perhaps, the value of SDM is not fully accepted in trauma and emergency situations. The inclusion of SDM practices in clinical guidelines may represent the most feasible and advocated solutions.

What are the long-term patient-reported and clinical outcomes after lateral clavicle fractures? A cross-sectional study of 619 patients.

BACKGROUND: Lateral clavicle fractures account for 17% of all clavicle fractures and large studies comparing nonoperative and operative treatment are lacking. Therefore, patients cannot be properly informed about different treatment options and prognosis. We assessed long-term patient-reported and clinical outcomes in patients with lateral clavicle fractures. METHODS: A multicenter cross-sectional study was performed in patients treated for lateral clavicle fractures between 2007 and 2016. Primary outcome included patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) (DASH, EQ-5D, return to work, sports, cosmetics and satisfaction). Questionnaires were sent to 619 eligible patients, of which 353 (57%) responded after a mean follow-up of 7.4 ± 2.8 years. Secondary outcome included adverse events and secondary interventions. Outcomes after nonoperative vs. operative treatment (stratified by nondisplaced vs. displaced fractures) were compared using Student t tests and linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Nondisplaced lateral clavicle fractures were treated nonoperatively and resulted in excellent PROMs. Six patients (3%) developed a nonunion. For displaced lateral clavicle fractures, no differences were found between nonoperative and operative treatment with regard to DASH score (7.8 ± 12.5 vs 5.4 ± 8.6), EQ-5D (0.91 ± 0.13 vs 0.91 ± 0.09), pain (0.9 ± 1.7 vs. 0.8 ± 1.6), patient satisfaction (90.1 ± 25.5 vs. 86.3 ± 20.4), return to work (96.4% vs. 100%) and sports (61.4% vs. 62.3%). The absolute risk of nonunion in patients with a displaced fracture was higher after nonoperative than operative treatment (20.2% vs. 2.9%; p = 0.002), with six patients needing treatment to avoid one nonunion. CONCLUSIONS: Nondisplaced lateral clavicle fractures should be treated nonoperatively and result in good functional outcomes and high union rates. For displaced fractures, neither nonoperative nor operative treatment seems superior. Patients opting for nonoperative treatment should be informed that nonunion occurs in 20% of patients, but only half of these need additional operative treatment. Patients who opt for surgery should be told that nonunion occurs in only 3%; however, most patients (56%) will require secondary intervention for elective implant removal. Regardless of the type of treatment, no differences in functional outcome and PROMs should be expected at long-term follow-up.

Diversity and ethics in trauma and acute care surgery teams: results from an international survey.

BACKGROUND: Investigating the context of trauma and acute care surgery, the article aims at understanding the factors that can enhance some ethical aspects, namely the importance of patient consent, the perceptiveness of the ethical role of the trauma leader, and the perceived importance of ethics as an educational subject. METHODS: The article employs an international questionnaire promoted by the World Society of Emergency Surgery. RESULTS: Through the analysis of 402 fully filled questionnaires by surgeons from 72 different countries, the three main ethical topics are investigated through the lens of gender, membership of an academic or non-academic institution, an official trauma team, and a diverse group. In general terms, results highlight greater attention paid by surgeons belonging to academic institutions, official trauma teams, and diverse groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our results underline that some organizational factors (e.g., the fact that the team belongs to a university context or is more diverse) might lead to the development of a higher sensibility on ethical matters. Embracing cultural diversity forces trauma teams to deal with different mindsets. Organizations should, therefore, consider those elements in defining their organizational procedures. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Trauma and acute care teams work under tremendous pressure and complex circumstances, with their members needing to make ethical decisions quickly. The international survey allowed to shed light on how team assembly decisions might represent an opportunity to coordinate team member actions and increase performance.

Mid-Term Patient Satisfaction and Residual Symptoms After Plate Fixation or Nonoperative Treatment for Displaced Midshaft Clavicular Fractures.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate mid-term patient-reported satisfaction and residual symptoms after plate fixation (PF) or nonoperative treatment (NOT) for displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. DESIGN: Follow-up survey of randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Sixteen teaching and nonteaching hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: All 160 patients with a fully displaced, midshaft clavicular fracture who had been randomized were approached by telephone. INTERVENTION: Randomization for open reduction and internal PF or a sling for 2 weeks (NOT). MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes were satisfaction with the received treatment, with the cosmetic result and with shoulder function (on a scale of 1-10), and presence of residual symptoms. RESULTS: Seventy-nine patients (40 after PF and 39 after NOT) could be contacted. The median follow-up was 53 (34-79) months. Overall satisfaction was similar for PF and NOT (mean ± SD: 7.7 ± 2.1 vs. 6.9 ± 2.4, P = 0.12), as was satisfaction with the shoulder function (8.9 ± 1.6 vs. 8.4 ± 2.0, P = 0.27). Satisfaction with the cosmetic result was higher after PF (8.2 ± 1.6 vs. 6.8 ± 2.0, P = 0.002). Residual symptoms were frequently present in both groups (55% for PF vs. 41% for NOT, P = 0.26). After PF, 88% of patients would prefer the same treatment again compared with 41% after NOT (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Aspects of satisfaction seem higher after PF. Residual symptoms, however, were common after both treatments for clavicular fractures. The present results can be used to manage patients' expectations and provide objective information regarding both treatment options before a shared treatment decision is made. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level II. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Surgeons' perspective on shared decision making in trauma surgery. A national survey.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to answer the following research question: What is the knowledge, opinion, and experience of trauma surgeons with respect to shared decision making (SDM)? METHODS: An online survey was sent out in September 2016 to all 257 surgeons registered as a trauma surgeon with the Dutch Association of Trauma Surgery, to gather demographic, knowledge, and practice based information regarding their use of SDM. Results were presented according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). RESULTS: The questionnaire was filled out by 112 (44%) trauma surgeons. Opinions about what SDM entails differed, but 27% described a process that was clearly discordant with current consensus. Eighty-six percent of trauma surgeons regarded SDM as (very) relevant for providing good care. Sixty-two percent reported to encounter problems in achieving SDM. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: The general opinion of Dutch trauma surgeons towards SDM is very positive, but many lack the understanding of what SDM really implies and surgeons report SDM to be difficult to accomplish. To improve the occurrence of SDM in trauma surgery, there is an obvious need for education and training in SDM skills for surgeons.

Does clavicular shortening after nonoperative treatment of midshaft fractures affect shoulder function? A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Clavicular shortening due to non-anatomical healing of displaced clavicular fractures is believed to have a negative effect on shoulder function after recovery. The evidence for this, however, is equivocal. This review aimed to systematically evaluate the available literature to determine whether the current beliefs about clavicular shortening can be substantiated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This systematic review was performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Clinical Trial Registry were searched to identify all studies published in English that evaluated the association between clavicular shortening and shoulder function in patients aged ≥16 years with a nonoperatively treated, displaced midshaft clavicular fracture. Relevant data from the selected studies was extracted and summarized. Risk of bias of the included studies was assessed using the MINORS instrument. RESULTS: Six studies, of which five were retrospective, were included in this review analyzing a total of 379 patients. Due to heterogeneity in methods and reporting across studies, a pooled analysis of the results was not feasible. No clear associations were found between shortening and shoulder function scores (DASH and Constant score) or arm strength in each of the included studies. CONCLUSION: The existing evidence to date does not allow for a valid conclusion regarding the influence of shortening on shoulder function after union of nonoperatively treated midshaft clavicular fractures. Shortening alone is currently not an evidence-based indication to operate for the goal of functional improvement. Well-powered prospective comparative studies are needed to draw firm conclusions.

Plate Fixation Versus Nonoperative Treatment for Displaced Midshaft Clavicular Fractures: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to analyze whether patients with a displaced midshaft clavicular fracture are best managed with plate fixation or nonoperative treatment with respect to nonunion, secondary operations, and functional outcome, by evaluating all available randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on this subject. METHODS: A systematic search of electronic databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science) was performed to identify RCTs comparing nonoperative treatment with plate fixation for displaced midshaft clavicular fractures. Risk of bias of the studies was assessed. Outcomes evaluated were nonunion, shoulder function (Constant score and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand [DASH] score), and secondary operations. RESULTS: Six RCTs (614 patients) were included. The risk of nonunion was lower in the operatively treated patients (relative risk [RR] = 0.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.06 to 0.32). One-third of the patients with a nonunion did not receive further treatment. Secondary operations for adverse events were performed less often in the operatively treated patients (RR = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.25 to 0.71). When plate removal operations were also included, a secondary operation was performed in 17.6% in the operative group and 16.6% in the nonoperative group (RR = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.64 to 1.59). Constant and DASH scores after 1 year were somewhat better after plate fixation, with mean differences of 4.4 points (95% CI, 0.9 to 7.9 points) and 5.1 points (95% CI, 0.1 to 10.1 points), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Plate fixation significantly reduces the risk of nonunion, but does not have a clinically relevant advantage regarding final functional outcome. Secondary operations are common after both treatments. Overall, there is not enough evidence to support routine operative treatment for all patients with a displaced midshaft clavicular fracture. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Shared decision making in the management of midshaft clavicular fractures: Nonoperative treatment or plate fixation.

INTRODUCTION: Most patients with a displaced midshaft clavicular fracture can be treated either operatively or nonoperatively, with similar long-term outcomes. The treatment choice depends on individual preferences, and is therefore suited for a shared decision making (SDM) approach. However, little is known about SDM in fracture treatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the current daily practice of shared decisional behaviour in clavicular fracture treatment, in order to assess the need for improvement and set a baseline level for future research. PATIENTS AND METHODS: All consecutive adult patients treated in two hospitals for a displaced, midshaft clavicular fracture in 2015 filled out a questionnaire shortly after the decision making moment, that consisted of questions concerning their knowledge and preferences regarding the treatment options; the SDM-Q-9-NL to measure the perceived degree of SDM, and the Control Preferences Scale to measure patients' preferred and actual roles in decision making. RESULTS: Fifty patients were included. Eighteen percent of the patients were unaware of the treatment options before the consultation, 48% had no preference for either treatment option. The mean score for perceived degree of SDM was 74 out of 100 (SD 23, range 12.5-100). In 68% of patients, the preferred role matched the actual role in making the decision. Sixteen patients (32%) would have preferred either a less (n=8) or a more (n=8) active role. CONCLUSION: The patient-reported level of SDM in treatment decisions for clavicular fractures was high, but not all patients had the role in this process that they preferred. To improve patients' involvement in the treatment decision making process for clavicular fractures, it is important to create general awareness about SDM, and increase knowledge of orthopaedic trauma surgeons about SDM behaviour.

Plate Fixation Compared with Nonoperative Treatment for Displaced Midshaft Clavicular Fractures: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: The use of operative treatment for clavicular fractures is increasing, despite varying results in previous studies. The aim of this study was to compare plate fixation and nonoperative treatment for displaced midshaft clavicular fractures with respect to nonunion, adverse events, and shoulder function. METHODS: In this multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial, patients between 18 and 60 years old with a displaced midshaft clavicular fracture were randomized between nonoperative treatment and open reduction with internal plate fixation. The primary outcome was evidence of nonunion at 1 year. Other outcomes were secondary operations, arm function as measured with the Constant shoulder score and Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) score, pain, cosmetic results, and general health status. Outcomes were recorded at 6 weeks, 3 months, and 1 year following trauma. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty patients were randomized. The rate of nonunion was significantly higher in the nonoperatively treated group than in the operatively treated group (23.1% compared with 2.4%; p < 0.0001), as was the rate of nonunion for which secondary plate fixation was performed (12.9% compared with 1.2%; p = 0.006). The rate of secondary operations was 27.4% in the operatively treated group (16.7% for elective plate removal) and 17.1% in the nonoperatively treated group (p = 0.18). Nineteen percent of the patients in the operatively treated group had persistent loss of sensation around the scar. No difference was found between the groups with respect to the Constant and DASH scores at all time points. CONCLUSIONS: For patients with a diaphyseal fracture of the clavicle displaced at least 1 shaft width, plate fixation improves the chances that the bone will heal; however, the rate of patients who need a second operation is considerable. In addition, the procedure does not improve shoulder function or general symptoms, and it does not decrease limitations compared with nonoperative treatment in a sling. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic Level I. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.