Requests For Second Opinions Research Articles

Impact of Second Opinions in Breast Cancer Diagnostics and Treatment: A Retrospective Analysis

BackgroundBreast cancer care is becoming increasingly complex, and patients with breast cancer are increasingly aware of the different treatment options, resulting in requests for second opinions (SOs). The current study investigates the impact of breast cancer SOs on final diagnosis and treatment in the Netherlands Cancer Institute (NCI) using a newly designed Breast Cancer Second Opinion (BCSO) classification system.MethodsPatients who visited the NCI for an SO between October 2015 and September 2016 were included. Demographics, diagnostics, and treatment proposals were compared between first and SO. Discrepancy was categorized using our BCSO classification system, categorizing SOs into (1) noncomparable, (2) identical, and (3) minor or (4) major discrepancy.ResultsThe majority of SOs (n = 591) were patient initiated (90.7%). A total of 121 patients underwent treatment prior to their SO, leaving 470 patients for assessment of discrepancies according to our BCSO classification system. More than 45% of these SOs resulted in at least one discrepancy, with comparable rates for physician- and patient-initiated SOs (42.5% vs. 45.6%, p = 0.708). Significantly more discrepancies were observed in patients with additional imaging (51.3% vs. 37.2%, p = 0.002) and biopsies (53.7% vs. 40.3%, p = 0.005). Almost 60% of all discrepancies were categorized as major (neoadjuvant systemic treatment instead of primary surgery, breast-conserving surgery instead of mastectomy, and proposing postmastectomy immediate breast reconstruction).ConclusionsOur findings show substantial differences in diagnostic and treatment options in breast cancer patients visiting the Netherlands Cancer Institute for an SO, thereby emphasizing more consensus for the indications of these treatment modalities.

Patient-Driven Second Opinions in Oncology: A Systematic Review.

Although patient-driven second opinions are increasingly sought in oncology, the desirability of this trend remains unknown. Therefore, this systematic review assesses evidence on the motivation for and frequency of requests for second opinions and examines how they evolve and their consequences for oncological practice. Relevant databases were sought using the terms "cancer," "second opinion," and "self-initiated." Included were peer-reviewed articles that reported on patient-initiated second opinions within oncology. Selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed and discussed by two researchers. Of the 25 included studies, the methodological designs were qualitative (n = 4), mixed (n = 1), or quantitative (n = 20). Study quality was rated high for 10 studies, moderate for eight, and low for seven studies. Reported rates of second opinion seeking ranged from 1%-88%. Higher education was most consistently related to seeking a second opinion. Patients' primary motivations were a perceived need for certainty or confirmation, a lack of trust, dissatisfaction with communication, and/or a need for more (personalized) information. Reported rates of diagnostic or therapeutic discrepancies between the first and second opinions ranged from 2%-51%. Additional studies are required to further examine the medical, practical, and psychological consequences of second opinions for patients and oncologists. Future studies could compare the potential advantages and disadvantages of second opinion seeking, and might offer guidance to patients and physicians to better facilitate the second opinion process. Some practical recommendations are provided for oncologists to optimally discuss and conduct second opinions with their patients. The Oncologist 2017;22:1197-1211 IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Although cancer patients increasingly seek a second opinion, the benefits of this process remain unclear. Results of this systematic review suggest that the available studies on this topic are highly variable in both methodology and quality. Moreover, reported rates for a second opinion (1%-88%) as well as for disagreement between the first and second opinion (2%-51%) range widely. The primary motivations of patients are a need for certainty, lack of trust, dissatisfaction with communication, and/or a need for more (personalized) information. Additional research should evaluate how unnecessary second opinions might be avoided. Practical suggestions are provided for oncologists to optimize second opinions.

Characteristics associated with requests by pathologists for second opinions on breast biopsies

AimsSecond opinions in pathology improve patient safety by reducing diagnostic errors, leading to more appropriate clinical treatment decisions. Little objective data are available regarding the factors triggering a request for...

German second-opinion network for testicular cancer: sealing the leaky pipe between evidence and clinical practice.

In 2006, the German Testicular Cancer Study Group initiated an extensive evidence-based national second-opinion network to improve the care of testicular cancer patients. The primary aims were to reflect the current state of testicular cancer treatment in Germany and to analyze the project’s effect on the quality of care delivered to testicular cancer patients. A freely available internet-based platform was developed for the exchange of data between the urologists seeking advice and the 31 second-opinion givers. After providing all data relevant to the primary treatment decision, urologists received a second opinion on their therapy plan within <48 h. Endpoints were congruence between the first and second opinion, conformity of applied therapy with the corresponding recommendation and progression-free survival rate of the introduced patients. Significance was determined by two-sided Pearson’s χ2 test. A total of 1,284 second-opinion requests were submitted from November 2006 to October 2011, and 926 of these cases were eligible for further analysis. A discrepancy was found between first and second opinion in 39.5% of the cases. Discrepant second opinions led to less extensive treatment in 28.1% and to more extensive treatment in 15.6%. Patients treated within the framework of the second-opinion project had an overall 2-year progression-free survival rate of 90.4%. Approximately every 6th second opinion led to a relevant change in therapy. Despite the lack of financial incentives, data from every 8th testicular cancer patient in Germany were submitted to second-opinion centers. Second-opinion centers can help to improve the implementation of evidence into clinical practice.

The Practice of Telehealth by Nurses: An Experience in Primary Healthcare in Brazil

In Brazil, in order to train the Family Health Strategy teams, the Health Ministry implemented the Brazil Telehealth Program to provide health support and permanent health education. In Pernambuco, the Telehealth Center Network of Pernambuco (RedeNUTES) offers telehealth services to 80 municipalities, supporting 154 Family Health Strategy teams. The goal of this article is to present a profile of nurses' participation in the telehealth services developed by RedeNUTES. This article is a descriptive study of the actions taken by nurses in tele-education and in the telesupport environment, covering the period from the beginning of 2009 to the end of 2010. Three-hundred forty-nine Web conferences in tele-education, which included nurses both as lecturers and as members of the audience, were analyzed. The median average number of participants was 50 per course during the 2-year period. The participation in the training courses, among the higher-education professionals, was mainly composed of nurses. In telesupport, nurses participated as teleconsultants, answering questions received by electronic forms and by remote Web conference consultations. The most popular categories found in the requests for second opinion, submitted by nursing professionals, were obstetrics, gynecology, and pediatrics. We conclude that nurses have participated in telehealth services as members of the audience, as lecturers, and as teleconsultants. We also consider that the active participation of nurses could bring benefits to the quality of the telehealth services provided to the community. These practices could help predict how healthcare will look like in the next few years.

Évaluation des demandes d’avis à un expert pour lésions de diagnostic difficile en anatomie et cytologie pathologiques. Analyse d’une année d’activité dans un service hospitalier

The objective of this study was to evaluate our practices concerning difficult lesions sent for second opinion to an expert. We analyzed retrospectively all the requests for second opinion carried out over one year in our laboratory. The following data were indexed: organ, pathology (tumoral or not), type of sampling, the time, additional techniques carried out by the expert and comparison of the initial diagnosis with that of the expert. A provisional report was systematically performed before sending the observation to the expert. Among the 54 cases, 40 lesions were tumoral and 31 malignant. The type of pathology which were more often sent for opinion were lymphomas (18.5%) and soft tissue tumors (11%). The average time between reception of the sampling in our laboratory and the answer of the expert was 32.8 days. In 40.7% of the cases, additional techniques like immunohistochemistry (19 cases) or molecular biology (7 cases) were carried out by the expert and concerned especially lymphomas or soft tissue pathology. The comparison of the initial diagnosis with that of the expert showed no change in 53.7% of cases, 13% of divergence from benign-malignant (6 cases) or malignant-benign (1 case) type, 16.7% of changes of classification without modification of the benignity or the malignity, and 16.7% of difficult interpretation. This study seems to be a good means of evaluating our professional practices related to difficult lesions and confirms the importance of deep-freezing tumors, holding multidisciplinary meetings and participating in specialized working groups.

Ethical And Moral Issues In Nephrology: Experience With Not Offering Dialysis to Patients With a Poor Prognosis

Despite ongoing discussion of dialysis rationing in the nephrology community, there are little available data describing current practice in treatment selection for very ill renal patients with a poor prognosis. We report a prospective survey of end-stage renal patients referred to our Canadian regional dialysis center who were not accepted to the dialysis program on the grounds of poor prognosis and low quality of life. One quarter of patients referred during 1992 were not accepted to the program, with a mean age of 74 ± 11 years. Patients were predominantly female and most suffered from a combination of renovascular and cardiovascular disease, with very poor functional capacity as determined by the Karnofsky scale. Nonacceptance to the dialysis program did not create legal difficulties or requests for second opinions. Based on our experience, we propose guidelines for nonacceptance of patients to dialysis programs. Despite ongoing discussion of dialysis rationing in the nephrology community, there are little available data describing current practice in treatment selection for very ill renal patients with a poor prognosis. We report a prospective survey of end-stage renal patients referred to our Canadian regional dialysis center who were not accepted to the dialysis program on the grounds of poor prognosis and low quality of life. One quarter of patients referred during 1992 were not accepted to the program, with a mean age of 74 ± 11 years. Patients were predominantly female and most suffered from a combination of renovascular and cardiovascular disease, with very poor functional capacity as determined by the Karnofsky scale. Nonacceptance to the dialysis program did not create legal difficulties or requests for second opinions. Based on our experience, we propose guidelines for nonacceptance of patients to dialysis programs.

Second Opinions for ECT and Extended Medication—Mental Health Act 1983: Attitudes of Consultant Psychiatrists and Analysis of 200 Second Opinion Visits

The 1983 Mental Health Act made a requirement under Section 58 for a second opinion by an Appointed Doctor when a detained patient either did not understand the nature, purpose, and likely effects of a treatment or did not consent. The present study is confined to second opinions relating to ECT (electric convulsion therapy) and extended medication. It was noted in the Mental Health Act Commission's Biennial report that requests for second opinions varied in numbers between different hospitals and psychiatric units. In 200 personal visits by the author a Treatment Plan by the Responsible Medical Officer (RMO), which is an indication of good practice in the operation of the Act, was written in the case notes in only 66 cases (33%) and then most often by a junior doctor. This finding has been reported generally. It seemed appropriate, therefore, to explore the opinions of Consultant Psychiatrists on the legal requirement for second opinion.