Shared Decision-Making in the Context of Uncertain Care Goals and Outcomes: Dissecting a Penetrating Abdominal Trauma Case Complicated by Enterocutaneous Fistulae

Surgeons care deeply about their patients, their patient’s surgical outcomes, and their fund of knowledge as it relates to disease, treatment options, and risk is remarkable. Unfortunately, surgical patients’ values, hopes, fears, and unacceptable levels of suffering are rarely elicited and addressed while constructing surgical treatment plans, even when the stakes are high. How can surgeons bring all their experience, education, and expertise to bear in a patient-centered manner amidst uncertainty? Surgeons typically emulate mentors who either employed a solely informative, facilitative, or directive/paternalistic approach to decision-making. These 3 styles fail to simultaneously address: (1) what matters most to patients and (2) the surgeon’s expertise. Since communication in each of these 3 approaches is unidirectional, and the decisional power locus is imbalanced, they are unshared, nonpartnering, and—perhaps surprisingly—not patient-centered. Patient-centered, collaborative shared decision-making (SDM) approaches align with palliative care principles and are rarely employed, taught, or modeled. Furthermore, nonpartnering approaches to surgical decision-making are often laden with unintended consequences, such as patient and family suffering and the suffering of surgeons. We present the high-risk case of an abdominal gunshot wound in a morbidly obese man, which was complicated by 3 enterocutaneous fistulae and a loss of abdominal wall integrity, where ongoing empathic, partnering SDM dialogue is enabling a patient-centered and value‐concordant care plan. The authors invite you to virtually journey with us as this case unfolds, as the impending surgical decisions are substantial and weighty. Uncertainty and risks appear at every turn—providing additional challenges to overcome.