Is there bias in the treatment of degenerative spine disease? Analysis of anonymous voting via a multidisciplinary conference

Abstract

Many institutions have developed shared decision-making conferences as a mechanism for reducing treatment costs and improving patient outcomes. Little is known about the process of shared decision-making that takes place in these conferences, and there is the possibility of bias among surgeons and nonsurgeons for treatment within their respective specialties. This study was conducted to determine who is contributing to the decision-making process in a multidisciplinary spine conference and to what extent treatment biases exist among the surgical and nonsurgical members of this conference. Voting data were collected during weekly multidisciplinary spine conferences. Descriptive statistics were calculated on the cases presented and the number and type of physicians voting for each case. The likelihood of a particular vote in the surgeon and nonsurgeon cohorts was evaluated using relative risk calculation and multinomial logistic regression. A total of 262 consecutive cases were analyzed. No significant differences in treatment recommendation were observed between surgery and nonsurgical management (relative risk, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.97–1.25) when comparing votes from the surgeon and nonsurgeon cohorts. Multinomial logistic regression showed the odds of nonsurgeons recommending nonsurgical management over surgery was 20% greater than receiving that recommendation from their surgeon colleagues. Individual surgeon and nonsurgeon voters were evenly distributed above and below the mean for treatment recommendation. Individual and group biases exist among surgeons and nonsurgeons treating degenerative spine diseases. Multidisciplinary conferences may or may not level these biases, depending on how they are conducted.