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: This study compares the impact of open (OIHR) versus laparoscopic (LIHR) inguinal hernia repair on healthcare spending and postoperative outcomes.Methods: The TRUVEN database was queried using ICD9 procedure codes for open, laparoscopic, and robotic-assisted IHR, from 2012 to 2013. Patients > 18 years of age and continuously enrolled for 12 months postoperatively were included. Demographics, patient comorbidities, postoperative complications, pain medication use, length of hospital stay, missed work hours, postoperative visits, and overall expenditure were collected, and assessed at time of surgery and at 30-, 60-, 90-, 180-, and 365-days postoperatively. Statistical analysis was conducted using SAS, with α = 0.05.Results: 66,116 patients were included (LIHR: N = 23,010; OIHR: N = 43,106). Robotic-assisted procedures were excluded due to small sample size (N = 61). The largest demographic was males between 55 and 64 years. LIHR had fewer surgical wound complications than OIHR (LIHR: 0.3%; OIHR: 0.5%, p = 0.007), less utilization of pain medication (LIHR: 23.3%; OIHR: 28.5%; p < 0.001), and fewer outpatient visits. In the 90-day postoperative period, LIHR had significantly fewer missed work hours (LIHR: 12.1 ± 23.2 h; OIHR: 12.9 ± 26.7 h, p = 0.023). LIHR had higher postoperative urinary complications (LIHR: 0.2%; OIHR: 0.1%; p < 0.001), consistent with the current literature. LIHR expenditures ($15,030 ± $25,906) were higher than OIHR ($13,303 ± 32,014), p < 0.001.Conclusions: The results highlight the benefits of laparoscopic repair with regard to surgical wound complications, postoperative pain, outpatient visits, and missed work hours. These improved outcomes with respect to overall healthcare spending and employee absenteeism support the paradigm shift toward laparoscopic inguinal hernia repairs, in spite of higher overall expenditures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Overprescribing of opioid medications for patients to be used at home after surgery is common. We sought to ascertain important patient and procedural characteristics that are associated with low versus high rates of self-reported utilization of opioids at home, 1-4 weeks after discharge following gastrointestinal surgery.Methods: We developed a survey consisting of questions from NIH PROMIS tools for pain intensity/interference and queries on postoperative analgesic use. Adult patients completed the survey weekly during the first month after discharge. Using regression procedures we determined the patient and procedure characteristics that predicted high post-discharge opioid use operationalized as 75 mg oral morphine equivalents/50 mg oxycodone reported taken.Results: The survey response rate was 86% (201/233). High opioid use was reported by 52.7% of patients (106/201). Median reported intake of opioid pain pills was 7 for week #1 and 0 for weeks #2-4. Combinations of acetaminophen and non-steroidal and anti-inflammatory drugs were used by 8.9%-12.5% of patients after discharge. Following adjustment for significant variables of the univariate analysis, last 24-h in-hospital opioid intake remained as a significant co-variate for post-discharge opioid intake.Conclusions: After gastrointestinal surgery, the equivalent of each oxycodone 5 mg tablet taken in the last 24 h before discharge increases the likelihood of taking the equivalent of > 10 oxycodone 5 mg tablets by 5%. Non-opioid analgesia was utilized in less than half of the cases. Maximizing non-opioid analgesic therapy and basing opioid prescriptions on 24-h pre-discharge opioid intake may improve the quality of post-discharge pain management. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Bariatric surgery patients with mental illness may experience worse surgical outcomes compared to those without. Depression is the most prevalent mental health diagnosis amongst Americans with obesity. Accurate diagnosis and treatment is of paramount importance to mitigate perioperative risk. Unfortunately, there is no standard method to screen patients for depression prior to surgery. Our goal was to understand the relationship between traditional clinical screening tools and a novel patient-reported depression screening survey, Patient Health Questionnaire 8 (PHQ-8), in the setting of the bariatric surgery preoperative assessment.Methods: The study included all adult bariatric surgery patients from January 2014 through June 2016. Patients who were not assessed using both the PHQ-8 and a traditional clinical depression screening were excluded from the study. There were a total of 4486 patients who met the eligibility criteria and were included in analysis. We used comparative statistics to examine the association between these screening tools and to test for contributing demographic, surgical, and socioeconomic factors.Results: The overall rate of clinically diagnosed depression in the study cohort was 45.6%. In comparison, 14.8% of all patients screened positive for depression using the PHQ-8. Of the patients without a traditional clinical diagnosis of depression, 10.2% screened positive for depression using the PHQ-8. This subset of undiagnosed patients was more likely to be non-white, employed, and had a higher BMI than their clinically diagnosed counterparts.Conclusions and Relevance: We found a higher rate of clinically diagnosed depression in our cohort compared to the general population. However, when using the validated PHQ-8 survey, the rate of depression more closely approximated the national incidence. Further, a significant proportion of patients were undiagnosed and/or misdiagnosed by current clinical assessments. Standardizing preoperative depression screening using validated patient-centered tools may prevent the consequences of untreated depression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]