Which Decisions For Management of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome and Distal Radius Fractures Should Be Shared?

Purpose: To evaluate, from the surgeon's perspective, the importance, feasibility, and appropriateness of sharing decisions during an episode of care of carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) or distal radius fracture in patients aged greater than 65 years.

Methods: A consortium of 9 fellowship-trained hand/upper-limb surgeons used the RAND Corporation/University of California Los Angeles Delphi Appropriateness method to evaluate the importance, feasibility, and appropriateness of sharing 27 decisions for CTS and 28 decisions for distal radius fractures in patients aged greater than 65 years. Panelists rated each measure on a scale of 1 (definitely not important/feasible/appropriate) to 9 (definitely important/feasible/appropriate) in 2 voting rounds with an intervening face-to-face discussion. Panelist agreement and disagreement were assessed using predetermined criteria.

Results: Panelists achieved agreement on 16 decisions (29%) as important, 43 (78%) as feasible, and 17 (31%) as appropriate for sharing with patients. Twelve decisions met all 3 of these criteria and were therefore considered important, feasible, and appropriate to share with patients. Examples in CTS included decisions to perform extra confirmatory diagnostic testing, to have surgery, and to perform a steroid injection into the carpal tunnel. Examples in distal radius fracture management included the decision to have surgery, type of pain medication prescribed after surgery, and whether to remove the implant. The remaining 43 decisions did not reach consensus on the importance, feasibility, and appropriateness of sharing with patients.

Conclusions: Using a validated consensus-building approach, we identified 12 decisions made during an episode of care for CTS or distal radius fracture that were important, feasible, and appropriate to share with patients from the surgeon's perspective. These decisions merit inclusion in shared decision-making models (eg, preoperative patient preference elicitation tools or decision aids) to align patient preferences with care decisions.

Clinical relevance: Understanding which aspects of care are important, feasible, and appropriate to share with patients may improve patient-centered care by aligning patient preferences with care decisions.