Statistics from Altmetric.com
The practice of physicians seeking second opinions (SO) from colleagues is consistent with professional guidance on good medical practice.1 Despite an emphasis on shared decision-making,2 and better communication techniques,1 3 there is an increasing trend for patients, especially those facing serious illness or tough decisions, to seek SO directly. Significant drivers have been: healthcare globalisation; enhanced connectivity (ie, the internet and social media); increasing patient activism and consumerism; a desire for greater autonomy and a more critical view of medicine.
Although there is no UK legal right to SO,4 clearly they support patients’ rights to make freely informed healthcare choices by allowing clarification of clinical facts and defining treatment options.
Problems may arise if SO are sought from practitioners whose practice and values differ from the treating team, as occurred with three recent critically ill children whose cases attracted widespread comment and controversy.5 Despite this, there is little detailed guidance on best practice in seeking or providing SO, and that which exists relates to adult patients.6
The purpose of this paper is to review data on the practice of gaining SO, its ethical basis and to consider whether—in the current psychosocial milieu—regulation is necessary. We propose an outline framework for best practice in paediatric SO, and hope consequent harmonisation of process might be possible (box 1).
Best practice in paediatric second opinions
The following recommendations concerning best practice are made with the overarching principle that the child’s welfare is the paramount concern.
The primary duty of the provider of a second opinion is to the welfare of the child rather than to others. The fact that parents and others may desire a certain course of action should be considered but is not determinative.
The provider of the second opinion must be independent …
Contributors JB had the idea, developed the framework and wrote the initial manuscript plan. VL did the literature search and wrote the first version of there manuscript. JB finalised and edited the manuscript.
Funding This study was funded by Great Ormond Street Hospital Charity (http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100001279) and grant number: SERV18_19_001_Dr Joe Brierley.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.