Search

Objective: To explore the impact of short-term surgical missions (STMs) on medical practice in Guatemala as perceived by Guatemalan and foreign physicians. Summary Background Data: STMs send physicians from high-income countries to low and middle-income countries to address unmet surgical needs. Although participation among foreign surgeons has grown, little is known of the impact on the practice of foreign or local physicians. Methods: Using snowball sampling, we interviewed 22 local Guatemalan and 13 visiting foreign physicians regarding their perceptions of the impact of Guatemalan STMs. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, iteratively coded, and analyzed to identify emergent themes. Findings were validated through triangulation and searching for disconfirming evidence. Results: We identified 2 overarching domains. First, the delivery of surgical care by both Guatemalan and foreign physicians was affected by practice in the STM setting. Differences from usual practice manifested as occasionally inappropriate utilization of skills, management of postoperative complications, the practice of perioperative care versus "pure surgery," and the effect on patient–physician communication and trust. Second, both groups noted professional and financial implications of participation in the STM. Conclusions: While Guatemalan physicians reported a net benefit of STMs on their careers, they perceived STMs as an imperfect solution to unmet surgical needs. They described missed opportunities for developing local capacity, for example through education and optimal resource planning. Foreign physicians described costs that were manageable and high personal satisfaction with STM work. STMs could enhance their impact by strengthening working relationships with local physicians and prioritizing sustainable educational efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: We characterized the quality of statistical methods for studies of racial and ethnic disparities in the surgical-relevant literature during 2021-2022., Background: Hundreds of scientific papers are published each year describing racial and ethnic disparities in surgical access, quality, and outcomes. The content and design quality of this literature has never been systematically reviewed., Methods: We searched for 2021-2022 studies focused on describing racial and/or ethnic disparities in surgical or perioperative access, process quality, or outcomes. Identified studies were characterized in terms of three methodological criteria: 1) adjustment for variables related to both race/ethnicity and outcomes, including social determinants of health (SDOH); 2) accounting for clustering of patients within hospitals or other subunits ("providers") and; 3) distinguishing within- and between-provider effects., Results: We identified 224 papers describing racial and/or ethnic differences. Of the 38 single institution studies, 24 (63.2%) adjusted for at least one SDOH variable. Of the 186 multisite studies, 113 (60.8%) adjusted for at least one SDOH variable, and 43 (23.1%) accounted for clustering of patients within providers using appropriate statistical methods. Only 10 (5.4%) of multi-institution studies made efforts to examine how much of overall disparities were driven by within versus between provider effects., Conclusions: Most recently published papers on racial and ethnic disparities in the surgical literature do not meet these important statistical design criteria and therefore may risk inaccuracy in the estimation of group differences in surgical access, quality, and outcomes. The most potent leverage points for these improvements are changes to journal publication guidelines and policies., Competing Interests: None of the authors have relevant conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare access, quality, and clinical outcomes between Latino and non-Latino White Californians with colon cancer., Summary Background Data: Racial and ethnic disparities in cancer care remain understudied, particularly among patients who identify as Latino. Exploring potential mechanisms, including differential utilization of high-volume hospitals, is an essential first step to designing evidence-based policy solutions., Methods: We identified all adults diagnosed with colon cancer between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2020 from a statewide cancer registry linked to hospital administrative records. We compared survival, access (stage at diagnosis, receipt of surgical care, treatment at a high-volume hospital), and quality of care (receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, adequacy of lymph node resection) between patients who identified as Latino and as non-Latino White., Results: 75,543 patients met inclusion criteria, including 16,071 patients who identified as Latino (21.3%). Latino patients were significantly less likely to undergo definitive surgical resection (marginal difference [MD] -0.72 percentage points, 95% CI -1.19,-0.26), have an operation in a timely fashion (MD -3.24 percentage points, 95% CI -4.16,-2.32), or have an adequate lymphadenectomy (MD -2.85 percentage points, 95% CI -3.59,-2.12) even after adjustment for clinical and sociodemographic factors. Latino patients treated at high-volume hospitals were significantly less likely to die and more likely to meet access and quality metrics., Conclusions: Latino colon cancer patients experienced delays, segregation, and lower receipt of recommended care. Hospital-level colectomy volume appears to be strongly associated with access, quality, and survival--especially for patients who identify as Latino--suggesting that directing at-risk cancer patients to high-volume hospitals may improve health equity., Competing Interests: Disclosures: The authors report no conflicts of interest related to this work. The collection of cancer incidence data used in this study was supported by the California Department of Public Health pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 103885; Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) National Program of Cancer Registries, under cooperative agreement 1NU58DP007156; the National Cancer Institute’s Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results Program under contract HHSN261201800032I awarded to the University of California, San Francisco, contract HHSN261201800015I awarded to the University of Southern California, and contract HHSN261201800009I awarded to the Public Health Institute. The ideas and opinions expressed herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the State of California, Department of Public Health, the National Cancer Institute, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or their Contractors and Subcontractors., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)