Perioperative Interprofessional Communication Between Urology and Palliative Care: A Qualitative Analysis.

Gunturi A, Maheta BJ, Bodd M, Bergman J, Leppert JT, Lorenz KA, Raspi IG, Singh NK, Giannitrapani KF. Perioperative Interprofessional Communication Between Urology and Palliative Care: A Qualitative Analysis. The Journal of surgical research. 2025 Oct 7; 315:275-283, DOI: 10.1016/j.jss.2025.09.013.

Related HSR&D Project(s)

• CDA 19-075 – Building Better Interdisciplinary Pain Teams Across Disciplines

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.    Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions

Search for Abstract from PubMed

---

Abstract:

INTRODUCTION: Good-quality care for patients with a serious illness often requires interdisciplinary expertise. In the urologic perioperative period, this can include urologists and Palliative Care (PC). Our objective is to understand how to improve perioperative coordination between urologists and PC providers in the context of urologic serious illness. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We interviewed 38 providers: urologists (13), PC physicians (12), and clinical team members (13) in phase I of this study. From these interviews, there were 96 examples of interdisciplinary communication that were analyzed using qualitative content analysis with dual review in phase II of this study. RESULTS: Two key themes emerged regarding communication between urology and PC teams. First, effective collaboration is often hindered by logistical challenges, such as surgeons'' limited availability due to time spent in surgery and difficulties coordinating in-person meetings. Fostering bidirectional, timely communication through asynchronous communication and structured meetings improves alignment within the clinical team before patient interactions. Second, hierarchical structures within medical teams can discourage open dialogue, with nonsurgeons sometimes feeling hesitant to share input. Promoting mutual respect is essential to creating a more balanced and collaborative environment. Together, these themes highlight the need for systemic changes that support accessibility, respect, and communication in interdisciplinary care. CONCLUSIONS: Future directions include implementing an evidence-based intervention with structures and processes to improve interdisciplinary collaboration among urologists and PC.