Matthew Corriere, MD, believes a major shift is needed in how clinicians communicate and make decisions with their patients. During the 2025 distinguished address given at the New England Society for Vascular Surgery (NESVS) annual meeting in Providence, Rhode Island (Sept. 26–28), Corriere urged colleagues to step away from the computer and back toward the patient, highlighting shared decision-making and why it should become a central part of vascular care.
As director of the division of vascular surgery at Ohio State University’s Wexner Medical Center, Corriere has seen firsthand how time pressures and electronic record systems have made clinic visits less personal. He argued that effective care requires listening to patients.
“The patient is there to see me and my face,” Corriere said. “We need to not get so into the computer and input and billing that we start depersonalizing that individual in front of us. We need to get shared goals with them.”
This is especially true for patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD), who often arrive at visits expecting immediate procedures, he said. When dealing with claudication, some believe they will face amputation without surgery or stents. “There’s a clear argument that we need to be a little more open and engaging with our patients in treatment selection,” Corriere said.
Corriere emphasized the need to “right-size treatment intensity,” saving procedures for only when they improve quality of life and reduce harm. He warned that both overtreatment and undertreatment can lead to poor outcomes.
“I think the biggest value for shared decision making is when we’re at a point of equipoise,” Corriere said. “That could be because we have exhausted non-invasive strategies enough and it’s time to pull the trigger on something else. Or it can also be in decisions regarding restenosis, where we’re on the merry-go-round and we’re trying to balance the benefit for doing something more invasive or not.”
Corriere and his colleagues conducted a study that surveyed patients on how much they want to be involved in decision-making. Data showed that 93% of respondents wanted to choose a treatment together with their clinician. However, only about half reported ever being offered alternatives to a recommended procedure.
Although shared decision-making has proven to be beneficial, Corriere noted how many clinicians believe it is just rolling over and doing whatever the patient wants. He said that should never be the case.
Corriere encouraged clinicians to ask their patients questions and really listen to their answers. “When you have goals and preferences that seem discordant with your clinical judgment, focus on the conversation and reorienting to get a mutually agreed upon set of goals and a plan,” he said.
