Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Original research article
Patient and physician view on patient information and decision-making in congenital aortic and pulmonary valve surgery
  1. Jonathan R G Etnel1,
  2. Willem A Helbing2,
  3. Jolien W Roos-Hesselink3,
  4. Regina The4,
  5. Ad J J C Bogers1 and
  6. Johanna J M Takkenberg1
  1. 1 Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  2. 2 Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  3. 3 Department of Cardiology, Erasmus University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
  4. 4 ZorgKeuzeLab, Delft, The Netherlands
  1. Correspondence to Prof Dr Johanna J M Takkenberg; j.j.m.takkenberg{at}erasmusmc.nl

Abstract

Background To assess the current state of patient information and decision-making in congenital aortic and pulmonary valve disease, we conducted a survey among patients, parents and physicians.

Methods A questionnaire was sent by ground mail to 157 adults and 32 parents of children who previously underwent surgery for congenital aortic or pulmonary valve disease at 0–40 years of age between January 2005 and February 2014 at the Erasmus University Medical Center and to all paediatric and adult congenital cardiologists and congenital cardiac surgeons in the Netherlands (n=88).

Results 73 patients/parents (39% response rate, 62 adult patients, 11 parents of paediatric patients) and 35 physicians (40% response rate) responded. Median patient age at the time of surgery was 25.7 years. Basic disease-specific knowledge was adequate in 42% of patients/parents and numeracy was sufficient in 47%. Patients/parents reported that they rely heavily on their physicians for information and often experience difficulty in finding reliable information elsewhere. They lack information on psychosocial aspects of disease (29% of respondents) and risks and benefits of treatment options (26%). They feel less involved in decision-making than they would prefer to be (p=0.014). Decisional conflict at the time of surgery was experienced by 31% of patients/parents. If they had to do it again, 72% of patients/parents would want the same treatment. Quality of life is often impaired due to various valve-related anxieties and lifestyle changes. Physicians reported that they are unable to fully inform and sufficiently involve patients, due to limited patient/parent knowledge and understanding (56%) and limited time during consultations (32%). Patients/parents (98%) and physicians (97%) agree that they should have shared roles in decision-making.

Conclusion The substantial shortcomings in our current practice of patient information and decision-making underline the need for innovative solutions, such as careful implementation of patient information tools and shared decision-making in the care path.

  • congenital heart disease
  • cardiac surgery
  • valvular disease
  • surgery-valve

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Footnotes

  • Presented at Presented at the Scientific Meeting of the Heart Valve Society, 17–19 March 2016, New York City and at the Annual North American Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 23–26 October 2016, Vancouver.

  • Contributors All authors have made substantial contributions to all of the following: (1) the conception and design of the study or acquisition of data or analysis and interpretation of data, (2) drafting the article or revising it critically for important intellectual content, (3) final approval of the version to be submitted.

  • Funding This work was supported by the Dutch Heart Foundation (2013T093).

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Ethics approval Erasmus University Medical Center Medical and Ethical Review Committee.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement No additional data are available.