Patient Involvement In Decision Research Articles

Changing Healthcare: Stakeholder Perceptions of the Burden of Chronic Disease and the Value of Teams, Measurements and Communication

Canadian healthcare is changing. Over the course of the past decade, the Health Care in Canada Survey (HCIC) has annually measured the reactions of the public and professional stakeholders to many of these change forces. In HCIC 2008, for the first time, the public's perception of their health status and all stakeholders' views of the burden and effective management of chronic diseases were sought. Overall, Canadians perceive themselves as healthy, with 84% of adults reporting good-to-excellent health. However, good health decreased with age as the occurrence of chronic illness rose, from 12% in the age group 18-24 to 65% for the population =65 years. More than 70% of all stakeholders were strongly or somewhat supportive of the implementation of coordinated care, or disease management programs, to improve the care of patients with chronic illnesses. Concordant support was also expressed for key disease management components, including coordinated interventions to improve home, community and self-care; increased wellness promotion; and increased use of clinical measurements and feedback to all stakeholders. However, there were also important areas of non-concordance. For example, the public and doctors consistently expressed less support than other stakeholders for the value of team care, including the use of non-physician professionals to provide patient care; increased patient involvement in decision-making; and the use of electronic health records to facilitate communication. The actual participation in disease management programs averaged 34% for professionals and 25% for the public. We conclude that chronic diseases are common, age-related and burdensome in Canada. Disease management or coordinated intervention often delivered by teams is also relatively common, despite its less-than-universal acceptance by all stakeholders. Further insights are needed, particularly into the variable perceptions of the value and efficacy of team-delivered healthcare and its important components.

Patient Involvement in Decisions to Limit Treatment: The Crucial Role of Agreement Between Physician and Patient

The aim of this study was to describe, first, the decision-making process concerning the limitation of life-prolonging treatment (DLT); second, the extent to which patients are actually involved in these decisions; and third, to detect medical and ethical factors that affect patient involvement. This prospective qualitative study enrolled 76 patients with incurable cancer with whom the limitation of life-prolonging treatment was discussed. Embedded researchers on the wards recorded the patient's history, medical condition, type of treatment limitation discussed, patient wishes, decision-making capacity, and patient involvement using an in-depth documentation procedure. While the majority of patients were informed about their diagnosis, therapy, and course of disease (99%, 97%, 90%, respectively), only 47% were involved in DLT. Two thirds of the patients preferred palliative care, and one third wished to extend their lifetime. If patients preferred palliative care, they were more often in line with physicians' treatment goals than patients who were striving for longer survival (91.4% v 46.7%; P = .001). They also were involved significantly more often in DLT. Multivariate analysis showed that age, Karnofsky performance index or decision-making capacity had no impact on patient involvement. Only half of the patients were involved in DLT. Surprisingly, the main predictor of patient involvement was not their medical condition, but agreement with physicians' palliative treatment goals. These results show that if physicians switch to comfort care in terminally ill patients and patients are not yet prepared to follow this line, treatment limitations are often decided without involving the patient.

Changed Patterns in Dutch Palliative Sedation Practices After the Introduction of a National Guideline

Continuous sedation, contrary to euthanasia, has been increasingly accepted among medical professionals worldwide. In the Netherlands, a national guideline for continuous palliative sedation has been developed to contribute to the quality of palliative sedation practice. The present follow-up study investigated whether the practice of continuous sedation has changed after the introduction of this guideline. This study compared the practice of continuous sedation before and after the introduction of the guideline on December 7, 2005. A baseline measurement was performed between February 1, 2003, and May 1, 2005, with an enrollment of 492 physicians (medical specialists, general practitioners, and nursing home physicians). From January 1 to June 30, 2007, after the introduction of a national guideline for palliative sedation, a follow-up study was performed with the respondents of the baseline study. Physicians were asked to report on their last case of deep and continuous sedation in the past 12 months. This study reports the results of the follow-up study and compares them to the results of the baseline study. The response rate was 69.3% (n = 341). Of these physicians, 160 reported a last case of continuous sedation in both the baseline and the follow-up studies. Physicians reported a significant increase in patient involvement in decision making, from 72.3% to 82.2%. Pain remained the most often reported reason to start sedation, whereas exhaustion as a reason for sedation increased. The use of benzodiazepines increased from 69.9% to 90.4%. In the first and second measurements, symptom-directed treatment during sedation was applied in 56% to 58% of the cases. In the second period, there was more often an explicit decision to not give artificial hydration during sedation (78.8% vs 56.3%). Of the physicians, 34.2% were convinced that sedation shortened the life of the patient because of dehydration. After the introduction of the guideline, physicians reported that changes in palliative sedation practice conform to the recommendations of this guideline. For example, benzodiazepines were used for sedation more frequently than before and patient involvement in the decision-making process improved. Possible effects of dehydration and the large variation in symptom-directed treatment during sedation deserve careful attention.

A Perspective on the Patient's Role in Treatment Decisions

There is considerable evidence, across different clinical contexts, that treatment decisions are characterized by poor communication, significant knowledge gaps, and a lack of attention to patients' preferences for different health states. Over the past two decades, patient decision aids have been shown to be an effective means to improve the quality of decisions. More recently, the Internet has increased expectations about the impact of information and decision aids on the involvement of patients in decisions. However, there are several challenges to effective dissemination and implementation of decision support interventions, through the Internet or other media. The authors recommend specific policy and research initiatives to facilitate the local and system-level changes necessary to support patients more effectively in making treatment choices. More attention to measurement and policy-level interventions will be required to increase the use of proven tools and to achieve significant improvements in the quality of treatment decisions.

Early surgery was better than conservative care for short-term disability and pain in sciatica

ED FROM Peul WC, van den Hout WB, Brand R, et al. Prolonged conservative care versus early surgery in patients with sciatica caused by lumbar disc herniation: two year results...

Decision Making in Oncology: A Review of Patient Decision Aids to Support Patient Participation

Although cancer management is becoming more structured with disease-specific guidelines and clinical pathways, many decisions remain complex. Contributing to this complexity is the need to make value tradeoffs between benefits and harms across cancer treatment and/or screening options. Since there is no "best" option for everyone, decisions are defined as being of higher quality when informed with the latest scientific evidence and based on patients' informed values associated with outcomes of options. However, clinicians are not good judges of patients' values, and patients often have inadequate knowledge, unrealistic expectations, and decisional conflict that interfere with their involvement in decision making. Effective approaches to support patient involvement into clinical decisions include clinicians trained in shared decision making, question prompt sheets, patient decision aids, and decision coaching by nurses and other allied health professionals. Based on systematic review of 23 randomized trials of cancer patient decision aids, patients exposed to decision aids are more likely to participate in decision making and achieve higher-quality decisions. This review highlights key historical changes leading to patient involvement in decision making, summarizes evidence on effective interventions to support shared decision making, explores strategies to implement these interventions in oncology practices, and identifies future directions.

The Psychological Impact of Severe Hand Injury

The final outcome of severe hand injuries is not solely determined by the residual functional impairment, but is also a function of non-functional criteria, including the sequelae of the accompanying psychological trauma. This paper reviews the literature with respect to the psychological impact of severe hand injuries, including the special impact of amputations, adaptation processes, adaptation stages, prognostic criteria and aesthetic issues influencing the final individual outcome, including present recommendations for promoting a positive outcome. Motivated and psychologically stable people are reported to do well irrespective of the severity of a hand injury. In patients who find it difficult to cope mentally, successful treatment strategies have been proposed. Their implementation is in a constant state of evolution and includes not only improved surgical techniques and advanced pharmacological pain management but also early psychotherapeutic input and involvement of patients in decision making for treatment.

Patient decision aids in joint replacement surgery: a literature review and an opinion survey of consultant orthopaedic surgeons.

Patient decision aids could facilitate shared decision-making in joint replacement surgery. However, patient decision aids are not routinely used in this setting. With a view to developing a patient decision aid for UK hip/knee joint replacement practice, we undertook a systematic search of the literature for evidence on the use of shared decision-making and patient decision aids in orthopaedics, and a national survey of consultant orthopaedic surgeons on the potential acceptability and feasibility of patient decision aids. We found little published evidence regarding shared decision-making or patient decision aids in orthopaedics. In the survey, 362 of 639 (57%) randomly selected consultant orthopaedic surgeons responded. Respondents appear representative of consultant orthopaedic surgeons in the UK. Of 272 valid responses, 79% (95% CI, 73-85%) thought patient decision aids a good or excellent idea. There was consensus on the potential helpfulness of patient decision aids and core content. A booklet to take home was the preferred medium/practice model. Despite the increased emphasis on patient involvement in decision-making, there is little evidence in the medical literature relating to shared decision-making or the use of patient decision aids in orthopaedic surgery. Further research in this area of clinical practice is required. Our survey shows that consultant orthopaedic surgeons in the UK are generally positive about the use of patient decision aids for joint replacement surgery. Survey results could inform future development of patient decision aids for joint replacement practice in the UK.

Physician-Identified Factors Affecting Patient Participation in Reaching Treatment Decisions

Cancer physicians report high comfort with shared decision making but a lower frequency of using this approach in practice. Information regarding physicians' perceptions of what helps and what hinders patient involvement in decision making may facilitate understanding of this discrepancy. We surveyed 604 Australian cancer physicians treating breast, colorectal, gynecologic, hematologic, or urologic cancer to investigate barriers and facilitators to reaching treatment decisions with their patients and their support of strategies to encourage patient involvement and reflection on treatment options. Factor analysis and regression analyses were used to investigate relationships between variables and identify predictors of greater reporting of barriers to sharing treatment decisions with patients. Insufficient information at the first consultation (28.9%) and insufficient time (28.4%) were the most frequently reported barriers to reaching treatment decisions with patients. Multivariate analysis revealed that less experienced physicians more commonly reported system barriers (P = .00). Patients trusting their physician and being accompanied at the consultation were most helpful to reaching a treatment decision. Providing written information about treatment options, making a further appointment to reach a decision, encouraging the patient to speak with their family physician and treatment team, and the presence of a third person during the consultation were felt to encourage involvement and reflection on treatment decisions. Cancer physicians experience difficulties when reaching treatment decisions with their patients. Interventions and strategies that physicians support are required to enhance patient involvement in reaching a treatment decision.

Dealing With Delicate Issues in Continuous Deep Sedation<subtitle>Varying Practices Among Dutch Medical Specialists, General Practitioners, and Nursing Home Physicians</subtitle>

This article examines delicate issues in continuous deep sedation (CDS) from the perspectives of different types of physicians. The following sensitive issues involved in CDS were investigated: artificial hydration, sedation for nonphysical discomfort, the relationship between CDS and euthanasia, and patient involvement in decision making for CDS. A structured retrospective questionnaire concerning the most recent case of CDS during the past 12 months was sent to a sample of medical specialists (n = 727), general practitioners (n = 626), and nursing home physicians (n = 111). Response rates were 26.4% for medical specialists, 37.4% for general practitioners, and 59.5% for nursing home physicians. Indications for CDS differed among the types of physicians. General practitioners (25.0%) were most often confronted with a patient request for euthanasia before starting CDS compared with medical specialists (8.9%) and nursing home physicians (6.5%). A decision to forgo artificial hydration in CDS was more often made by nursing home physicians (91.3%) compared with medical specialists (53.7%) and general practitioners (51.2%). Shorter survival was found for patients sedated for nonphysical discomfort (vs other patients) by general practitioners. Among all patients, 74.5% were involved in decision making before the start of CDS. The present study demonstrates notable differences in CDS practice among various types of physicians. To what extent this is related to different patient populations or to different expertise requires further investigation. The use of CDS for nonphysical discomfort calls for critical examination to avoid ambiguous practice.

What Patients Want From Primary Care Consultations: A Discrete Choice Experiment to Identify Patients' Priorities

The consultation is fundamental to the delivery of primary care, but different ways of organizing consultations may lead to different patient experiences in terms of access, continuity, technical quality of care, and communication. Patients' priorities for these different issues need to be understood, but the optimal methods for assessing priorities are unclear. This study used a discrete choice experiment to assess patients' priorities. We surveyed patients from 6 family practices in England. The patients chose between primary care consultations differing in attributes such as ease of access (wait for an appointment), choice (flexibility of appointment times), continuity (physician's knowledge of the patient), technical quality (thoroughness of physical examination), and multiple aspects of patient-centered care (interest in patient's ideas, inquiry about patient's social and emotional well-being, and involvement of patient in decision making). We used probit models to assess the relative priority patients placed on different attributes and to estimate how much they were willing to pay for them. Analyses were based on responses from 1,193 patients (a 53% response rate). Overall, patients were willing to pay the most for a thorough physical examination ($40.87). The next most valued attributes of care were seeing a physician who knew them well ($12.18), seeing a physician with a friendly manner ($8.50), having a reduction in waiting time of 1 day ($7.22), and having flexibility of appointment times ($6.71). Patients placed similar value on the different aspects of patient-centered care ($12.06-$14.82). Responses were influenced by the scenario in which the decision was made (minor physical problem vs urgent physical problem vs ambiguous physical or psychological problem) and by patients' demographic characteristics. Although patient-centered care is important to patients, they may place higher priority on the technical quality of care and continuity of care. Discrete choice experiments may be a useful method for assessing patients' priorities in health care.

Improving patient adherence to lifestyle advice (IMPALA): a cluster-randomised controlled trial on the implementation of a nurse-led intervention for cardiovascular risk management in primary care (protocol).

BackgroundMany patients at high risk of cardiovascular diseases are managed and monitored in general practice. Recommendations for cardiovascular risk management, including lifestyle change, are clearly described in the Dutch national guideline. Although lifestyle interventions, such as advice on diet, physical exercise, smoking and alcohol, have moderate, but potentially relevant effects in these patients, adherence to lifestyle advice in general practice is not optimal. The IMPALA study intends to improve adherence to lifestyle advice by involving patients in decision making on cardiovascular prevention by nurse-led clinics. The aim of this paper is to describe the design and methods of a study to evaluate an intervention aimed at involving patients in cardiovascular risk management.MethodsA cluster-randomised controlled trial in 20 general practices, 10 practices in the intervention arm and 10 in the control arm, starting on October 2005. A total of 720 patients without existing cardiovascular diseases but eligible for cardiovascular risk assessment will be recruited.In both arms, the general practitioners and nurses will be trained to apply the national guideline for cardiovascular risk management. Nurses in the intervention arm will receive an extended training in risk assessment, risk communication, the use of a decision aid and adapted motivational interviewing. This communication technique will be used to support the shared decision-making process about risk reduction. The intervention comprises 2 consultations and 1 follow-up telephone call. The nurses in the control arm will give usual care after the risk estimation, according to the national guideline.Primary outcome measures are self-reported adherence to lifestyle advice and drug treatment. Secondary outcome measures are the patients' perception of risk and their motivation to change their behaviour. The measurements will take place at baseline and after 12 and 52 weeks. Clinical endpoints will not be measured, but the absolute 10-year risk of cardiovascular events will be estimated for each patient from medical records at baseline and after 1 year.DiscussionThe combined use of risk communication, a decision aid and motivational interviewing to enhance patient involvement in decision making is an innovative aspect of the intervention.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN51556722

The Influence of Age on the Breast Surgery Decision-Making Process

Mastectomy rates have been assumed to be a function of physician recommendations, although they correlate with patient involvement in decision making. The influence of age on the decision-making process and treatment choice is poorly described. All women with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and a random sample with invasive breast cancer were identified from two Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) program registries and surveyed 6 months postoperatively. Women older than 79 years with noninvasive or localized invasive breast cancer diagnosed in 2002 were included. Women with breast-conserving therapy (BCT) contraindications were excluded. Women were questioned about involvement in surgical decision-making, inquiring if this decision was patient-based, surgeon-based, or shared. Knowledge and concerns were assessed. The response rate was 77.0%. There were 1,259 patients who met the study eligibility criteria and age data was available for 1,131. Median patient age was 59.9 years. The frequency of patient-based decisions did not vary with age (p = 0.20), but older women had less knowledge for decision making. The mastectomy rate overall was 19.7%, with no differences in mastectomy choice by age (p = 0.18). In logistic regression for the likelihood of undergoing mastectomy, patient involvement (p < 0.0001), larger tumor size (p < 0.0001), lower education (p = 0.0002), number of surgeons consulted (p = 0.0005), and nonwhite race origin (p = 0.011) were significant predictors, while age, invasion, and comorbidities were not significant. Older women participate equally in breast cancer surgical decision making and are equally likely to select mastectomy, but use less knowledge to make the decision. The impact of education and ethnic origin on mastectomy use indicates the need for improved educational strategies for these groups.

Involvement in treatment decision-making: Its meaning to people with diabetes and implications for conceptualisation

Patient involvement in decision-making is widely regarded as an important feature of good-quality healthcare. Policy-makers have been particularly concerned to ensure that patients are informed about and enabled to choose between relevant treatment options, but it is not clear how patients understand and value involvement. We investigated the meaning of involvement in treatment decision-making for people with diabetes. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 18 people aged between 20 and 79 who had type 1 or type 2 diabetes selected from 4 multi-practitioner outpatient clinics in the Grampian area of Scotland. We used several strategies to probe their understandings of involvement, including a discussion of how they would respond to a question about involvement in treatment decisions that appears on the National Patient Survey used to monitor the quality of healthcare in England. Participants associated involvement in decision-making with a number of features relating to the ethos and feel of healthcare encounters (welcoming; respectful; facilitative of patients’ contributions; and non-judgemental); communication about health problems (practitioners attending to patients’ views and patients feeling listened to; practitioners giving clear explanations based on their professional knowledge and patients understanding these); and communication about treatments (practitioners explaining treatment rationales in ways that patients understand and enabling patients to feel they have a say). Our findings have implications for practical attempts to involve patients in decisions about their care and for the conceptualisation and assessment of patient involvement. They suggest that practitioners who aspire to facilitate patient involvement should attend to the ethos they foster in consultations and the way they discuss problems as well as to the provision of information about treatment options and the scope patients have to influence decisions. Models and taxonomies of patient involvement in decision-making need to be developed to accommodate both problem-solving phases and the relational and subjective dimensions of involvement.

Participation in Medical Decision Making: The Patients' Perspective

Variability in reports of patients' preferences to participate in decision making may be due in part to a lack of understanding about how patients conceptualize their participation. The authors sought to learn more about how patients view their involvement in decisions related to their health care. The authors conducted individual interviews to allow patients to frame the decision-making process from their own perspective. The constant comparative-method approach to analysis was employed to ensure that the analysts defined the codes in a consistent manner. Twenty-six persons were interviewed. The main themes discussed by the participants reflecting how they viewed their involvement in medical decision making are the following: 1) decision making is often an ongoing process in which patient participation may change over time, 2) decision making is performed within an extended social context, 3) the decisions patients report being involved in are often distinct from those traditionally studied (choice of treatment or screening strategies), 4) patient involvement in decision making occurs in response to physicians' recommendations, and 5) patients make choices in the context of their specific illness perceptions. Participants in this study view their participation in decision making as including ideas distinct from those traditionally discussed by researchers. These findings suggest that the variability in patient participation noted in previous studies may be due in part to limitations in study design.

``It's My Body'': Does Patient Involvement in Decision Making Reduce Decisional Conflict?

This study explores how much people with HIV/AIDS wanted and how much they actually perceived being involved in the decision to take or not to take antiretroviral treatment (ART). The congruence between desired and perceived decisional involvement was also related to decisional conflict. Cross-sectional (N = 79), the Control Preferences Scale assessed patients' preferred versus perceived role in treatment decision making. The Decisional Conflict Scale measured patients' perceived difficulties in decision making. Although a minority of patients (32%) perceived their role as shared decision making, the majority (59%) preferred shared decision making. Some did not desire shared decision making, with 28% preferring to decide on their own versus 13% wanting their physicians to decide for them. Overall, 58% did not feel they had achieved their desired role in decision making (half of whom perceived more control and the other half less control than preferred). Participants declining ART felt more pressure to decide alone compared with those taking ART (P < 0.01). Decisional conflict was expressed by 53% and was highest when physicians unilaterally made decisions about ART for patients who preferred shared decision making (P < 0.001). In this study, most physicians do not meet their patients' desired roles in decision making. One-third of people taking ART feel less involved than they desire. More critically, half of those declining ART feel pressured to decide alone, suggesting that physicians should remain involved in the decision to reject treatment, as this requires careful monitoring and periodical revisiting. Because lack of shared decision making is related to decisional conflict, physicians may reduce decisional conflict by meeting patients' desires for shared decision making.

Effectiveness of a Computerized Decision Aid in Primary Care on Decision Making and Quality of Life in Menorrhagia: Results of the MENTIP Randomized Controlled Trial

Computerized decision aids have the potential to increase patient involvement in the decision-making process. However, most published evidence concerning the effectiveness of decision aids is from secondary care. To evaluate whether the addition of a computerized decision aid to written information improves decision making in women consulting their general practitioner with menorrhagia compared with written information alone. of study. Randomized controlled trial. Nineteen general practices in the North of England. One hundred forty-nine women presenting with menorrhagia were randomized to receive written information and access to a computerized decision aid or written information alone. Outcomes were assessed using postal questionnaires. These were scores on the Decisional Conflict Scale and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory anxiety scale at 2 weeks and the Menorrhagia Specific Utility quality-of-life scale, knowledge about menorrhagia, and anxiety and process measures at 6 months. Two weeks after the intervention, there was significantly less decisional conflict in the intervention group (adjusted difference = -16.6; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -21.5 to -11.7; P < 0.001). At 6 months, the intervention group showed better knowledge about menorrhagia (adjusted difference = 9.3 ; 95% CI = 1.9 to 16.6; P = 0.014) and menorrhagia quality of life (adjusted difference = 10.9; 95% CI = 0.9 to 21.0; P = 0.033). There was no difference in anxiety scores at either 2 weeks or 6 months. A computerized decision aid, used outside of the primary care consultation, is effective in increasing patient involvement in decision making in primary care.

What can physicians do to promote patient involvement in decision making (DM) in the oncology consultation?

19553 Background: Facilitating patient involvement in TDM is a desirable feature of the oncology consultation. Greater patient involvement in TDM may lead to improved patient satisfaction, compliance and reduced psychological morbidity. However, there is little empiric evidence defining physician behaviors and attributes that facilitate patient involvement in TDM. This study used qualitative methods to identify such behaviors and attributes suggested by both practicing oncologists and patients. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 medical, 10 radiation oncologists and 19 patients with breast, lung, GI, or GU cancer to determine physician behaviors and attributes that facilitate patient involvement in TDM. Interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim, then analyzed independently by two researchers using inductively derived coding categories and predetermined coding rules. Behaviors and attributes were identified and coded into common themes. Six focus groups with an additional 37 patients were conducted to review these behaviors and attributes. Results: A total of 231 individual physician behaviors and attributes were identified by physicians (179) and patients (52) that facilitate patient involvement in DM. Common behaviors and attributes identified from the interviews include: assessing patient’s understanding and preferences, providing information, explaining the DM process, providing information on treatment options, allowing time to consider treatment options, checking patient understanding of options and inviting patient input into decisions. Other behaviors such as physicians’ communication skills were reported as facilitating TDM. Specific physician personality attributes, such as empathy, were identified as important facilitators. Conclusions: Physicians and patients identify a large number of physician behaviors and attributes that may facilitate patient involvement in TDM. These include both behaviors that are important in general physician-patient communication, as well as those that are specifically related to the decision making process. Further research is ongoing to determine the importance of these factors and approaches to encourage their use in the oncology consultation. No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Does Participatory Decision Making Improve Hypertension Self‐Care Behaviors and Outcomes?

This study examined patients' perceptions of their providers' participatory decision making (PDM) style and hypertension self-care behaviors and outcomes. Five hundred fifty-four veterans with hypertension enrolled in the Veterans' Study to Improve the Control of Hypertension rated providers' PDM styles using a validated 3-item instrument. Behaviors assessed included presence of a home blood pressure monitor, monitoring frequency, and self-reported antihypertensive medication adherence. Overall, veterans with hypertension rated providers as highly participatory. In adjusted analyses, a lower PDM score was associated with decreased odds of having a home monitor (odds ratio, 0.90 per 10-point decrement in PDM score; 95% confidence interval, 0.83-0.98) but not with monitoring frequency, adherence, or blood pressure control. Providers' involvement of patients in decision making, reflected in ratings of PDM style, may be important to securing patients' participation in their own care, but alone this factor seems insufficient. No relationship between PDM score and blood pressure control was observed.

From Policy To Patients And Back: Surgical Treatment Decision Making For Patients With Breast Cancer

Persistent use of mastectomy for breast cancer has motivated concerns about overtreatment by surgeons and lack of patient involvement in decisions. However, recent studies suggest that patients perceive substantial involvement and that some patients prefer more invasive surgery, while other research suggests that surgical treatment choices might be poorly informed. Decision-making quality can be improved by increasing patients' knowledge about treatments' risks and benefits and by optimizing their involvement. The mastectomy story underscores the limitations of utilization measures as quality indicators. Strategies to improve patient outcomes should focus on tools to improve the quality of decision making and innovations in multispecialty practice.