Abstract
Management of patients with rectal cancer can be complex, requiring significant care coordination and decisions that balance functional and oncologic outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To characterize care coordination occurring during surgical consultation for rectal cancer and consequences of using face-to-face time in clinic for care coordination. METHODS: Secondary analysis was performed on audio recordings of clinic visits with colorectal surgeons to discuss surgery for rectal cancer at 5 academic medical centers. Analysis included the content of communication related to types of care coordination, specific details and conditions under which care coordination was conducted, and consequences. RESULTS: The cohort included 18 patients seen by 8 surgeons. Care coordination consumed much of the conversation; on average 23.7% (SD 14.6) of content. Communication about care coordination included gathering information from work-up already performed, logistics for completing further work-up, gathering multidisciplinary opinions, and logistics for treatment planning. Obtaining imaging results was particularly challenging and surgeons went to great lengths to gather this information. To mitigate information gaps, surgeons asked patients about critical clinical details. Patients expressed remorse when they could not provide needed information, relay technical details, or had missing reports. Surgeons voiced frustration at the system related to the need to gather information from multiple sources and coordinate logistics. Surgeons worked to inform patients about their disease and discuss important lifestyle and cancer-related tradeoffs. However, the ability to solicit patient input and engage in shared decision making was often limited by incomplete data or conditioned on approval by a multidisciplinary tumor board. CONCLUSION: Much of the conversation between surgeons and patients with rectal cancer is consumed by care coordination. Organizing care coordination outside of the clinic visit would likely improve the experience for both patients and surgeons, addressing both clinician burnout and variation in management and outcomes.