Search

Background: The Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) has long recognized and championed increasing diversity within the surgical workplace. SAGES initiated the Fundamentals of Leadership Development (FLD) Curriculum to address these needs and to provide surgeon leaders with the necessary tools and skills to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in surgical practice. In 2019, the American College of Surgeons issued a request for anti-racism initiatives which lead to the partnering of the two societies. The primary goal of FLD was to create the first surgeon-focused leadership curriculum dedicated to DEI. The rationale/development of this curriculum and its evaluation/feedback methods are detailed in this White Paper. Methods: The FLD curriculum was developed by a multidisciplinary task force that included surgeons, education experts, and diversity consultants. The curriculum development followed the Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation and Evaluation (ADDIE) instructional design model and utilized a problem-based learning approach. Competencies were identified, and specific learning objectives and assessments were developed. The implementation of the curriculum was designed to be completed in short intervals (virtual and in-person). Post-course surveys used the Kirkpatrick's model to evaluate the curriculum and provide valuable feedback. Results: The curriculum consisted of interactive online modules, an online discussion forum, and small group interactive sessions focused in three key areas: (1) increasing pipeline of underrepresented individuals in surgical leadership, (2) healthcare equity, and (3) conflict negotiation. By focusing on positive action items and utilizing a problem-solving approach, the curriculum aimed to provide a framework for surgical leaders to make meaningful changes in their institutions and organizations. Conclusion: The FLD curriculum is a novel leadership curriculum that provided surgeon leaders with the knowledge and tools to improve diversity in three areas: pipeline improvement, healthcare equity, and conflict negotiation. Future directions include using pilot course feedback to enhance curricular effectiveness and delivery. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Individuals with Barrett's esophagus are believed to be at 30-120× risk of developing esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Early detection and endoscopic treatment of dysplasia/early cancer confers a significant advantage to patients under surveillance; however, most do not progress past the non-dysplastic state of Barrett's esophagus (NDBE), which is potentially an inefficient distribution of health care resources.Objectives: This article aimed to review the outcomes of cost-effectiveness studies reducing low-value care in the context of endoscopic surveillance for non-dysplastic Barrett's esophagus (NDBE).Methods: A systematic search was conducted by two reviewers in accordance with PRISMA guidelines.Inclusion Criteria: cost-utility analyses of endoscopic surveillance of NDBE patients with at least one treatment strategy focused on reduction of surveillance. A narrative synthesis of economic evaluations was undertaken, along with an in-depth analysis of input parameters contributing to stated Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER). Study appraisal was performed using the consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) tool.Results: 10 Studies met inclusion criteria. There was significant variation in cost-model structures, input parameters, ICER values, and willingness-to-pay thresholds between studies. All studies except one concluded guideline-specified endoscopic surveillance for NDBE patients was not cost-effective. Studies that explored a modified surveillance by deselection of low-risk NDBE patients found it to be a cost-effective strategy.Conclusion: Guideline specified endoscopic surveillance for NDBE was not found to be cost-effective in the studies examined. A modified endoscopic surveillance strategy removing individuals with the lowest risk for progression from NDBE to adenocarcinoma is likely to be cost-effective but is dependent on risk profile of patients excluded from surveillance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]