Better Conversations for Better Informed Consent: A Pilot Study to Automate Surgeon Training and Evaluate Patient-Reported Outcomes

Observational research shows that surgeons translate informed consent and shared decision-making standards into an overly complicated technical explanation of the patient's disease and treatment, and an overly simplified narrative that surgery will "fix" the patient's problem. They omit critical information about the goals and downsides of surgery and struggle to actualize the patient's role in medical decisions, while unintentionally concealing professional expertise. "Better Conversations" is a novel communication framework designed to address these problems. With this framework, surgeons provide context about clinical norms, clearly establish the goals of surgery, and comprehensively delineate the downsides of surgery as experienced by the patient to generate a deliberative space for patients to consider whether surgery is right for them. This paradigm-shifting framework meets the legal and ethical standards for informed consent, supports deliberation, and allows patients to anticipate and prepare for the experience of surgery.

The present study supports optimization of surgeon training and study procedures (Phase II) that is needed before large scale testing and dissemination (Phase III). Although this intervention is evidence based, collaborative efforts are needed to ultimately test and disseminate a major clinical shift. The long-term goal is for every surgeon to use Better Conversations with every patient, every time. The present study has two main objectives: 1) To make the education program scalable with automated assessment and feedback to surgeons using audio recordings from their clinical conversations, and 2) to evaluate patient and family reported outcome measures regarding surgeon communication.