Search

Objective: To create a blueprint for surgical department leaders, academic institutions, and funding agencies to optimally support surgeon-scientists. Background: Scientific contributions by surgeons have been transformative across many medical disciplines. Surgeon-scientists provide a distinct approach and mindset toward key scientific questions. However, lack of institutional support, pressure for increased clinical productivity, and growing administrative burden are major challenges for the surgeon-scientist, as is the time-consuming nature of surgical training and practice. Methods: An American Surgical Association Research Sustainability Task Force was created to outline a blueprint for sustainable science in surgery. Leaders from top NIH-sponsored departments of surgery engaged in video and in-person meetings between January and April 2023. A strength, weakness, opportunities, threats analysis was performed, and workgroups focused on the roles of surgeons, the department and institutions, and funding agencies. Results: Taskforce recommendations: (1) SURGEONS: Growth mindset : identifying research focus, long-term planning, patience/tenacity, team science, collaborations with disparate experts; Skill set : align skills and research, fill critical skill gaps, develop team leadership skills; DEPARTMENT OF SURGERY (DOS): (2) MENTORSHIP: Chair : mentor-mentee matching/regular meetings/accountability, review of junior faculty progress, mentorship training requirement, recognition of mentorship (eg, relative value unit equivalent, awards; Mentor: dedicated time, relevant scientific expertise, extramural funding, experience and/or trained as mentor, trusted advisor; Mentee : enthusiastic/eager, proactive, open to feedback, clear about goals; (3) FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY: diversification of research portfolio, identification of matching funding sources, departmental resource awards (eg, T-/P-grants), leveraging of institutional resources, negotiation of formalized/formulaic funds flow investment from academic medical center toward science, philanthropy; (4) STRUCTURAL/STRATEGIC SUPPORT: Structural: grants administrative support, biostats/bioinformatics support, clinical trial and research support, regulatory support, shared departmental laboratory space/equipment; Strategic: hiring diverse surgeon-scientist/scientists faculty across DOS, strategic faculty retention/ recruitment, philanthropy, career development support, progress tracking, grant writing support, DOS-wide research meetings, regular DOS strategic research planning; (5) COMMUNITY AND CULTURE: Community: right mix of faculty, connection surgeon with broad scientific community; Culture: building research infrastructure, financial support for research, projecting importance of research (awards, grand rounds, shoutouts); (6) THE ROLE OF INSTITUTIONS: Foundation: research space co-location, flexible start-up packages, courses/mock study section, awards, diverse institutional mentorship teams; Nurture: institutional infrastructure, funding (eg, endowed chairs), promotion friendly toward surgeon-scientists, surgeon-scientists in institutional leadership positions; Expectations: RVU target relief, salary gap funding, competitive starting salaries, longitudinal salary strategy; (7) THE ROLE OF FUNDING AGENCIES: change surgeon research training paradigm, offer alternate awards to K-awards, increasing salary cap to reflect market reality, time extension for surgeon early-stage investigator status, surgeon representation on study section, focused award strategies for professional societies/foundations. Conclusions: Authentic recommitment from surgeon leaders with intentional and ambitious actions from institutions, corporations, funders, and society is essential in order to reap the essential benefits of surgeon-scientists toward advancements of science. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text Objective: To evaluate the association between the introduction of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Health Insurance Marketplaces ("Marketplaces") and financial protection for patients undergoing surgery. Background: The ACA established Marketplaces through which individuals could purchase subsidized insurance coverage. However, the effect of these Marketplaces on surgical patients' healthcare spending remains largely unknown. Methods: We analyzed a nationally representative sample of adults aged 19–64 who underwent surgery in 2010–2017, using the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Low-income patients eligible for cost-sharing and premium subsidies in the Marketplaces [income 139%–250% federal poverty level (FPL)] and middle-income patients eligible only for premium subsidies (251%–400% FPL) were compared to high-income controls ineligible for subsidies (>400% FPL) using a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences approach. We evaluated 3 main outcomes: (1) out-of-pocket spending, (2) premium contributions, and (3) likelihood of experiencing catastrophic expenditures, defined as out-of-pocket plus premium spending exceeding 19.5% of family income. Results: Our sample included 5450 patients undergoing surgery, representing approximately 69 million US adults. Among low-income patients, Marketplace implementation was associated with $601 lower [95% confidence interval (CI): −$1169 to −$33; P = 0.04) out-of-pocket spending; $968 lower (95% CI: −$1652 to −$285; P = 0.006) premium spending; and 34.6% lower probability (absolute change: −8.3 percentage points; 95% CI: −14.9 to −1.7; P = 0.01) of catastrophic expenditures. We found no evidence that health expenditures changed for middle-income surgical patients. Conclusions: The ACA's insurance Marketplaces were associated with improved financial protection among low-income surgical patients eligible for both cost-sharing and premium subsidies, but not in middle-income patients eligible for only premium subsidies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

Objectives: Risky alcohol use before surgery is associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications and longer hospital stays. Preoperative alcohol interventions can improve surgical outcomes but are not commonly integrated into routine care. This study sought to better understand patient's and provider's perceptions of alcohol-related surgical health and healthcare practices and illuminate gaps in care and how they could be improved. Methods: This study used a descriptive qualitative research design. Data were collected between July 2017 and March 2018. One-on-one interviews assessed domains related to knowledge, gaps in alcoholrelated screening and intervention, and interest in enhancing alcoholrelated care. Key themes emerged from a process of iterative coding and thematic analysis. Results: Participants included elective surgical patients who met alcohol screening criteria (n = 20) and surgical healthcare providers (n = 9). Participants had modest or low awareness of alcohol-related surgical health risks. Basic alcohol screening was a routine part of care, but results were often discounted or overlooked. Providers did not routinely initiate preoperative alcohol education or intervention. Providers viewed improving alcohol-related clinical practices as a low priority. Patients were interested in receiving alcohol interventions before surgery if they were delivered in a nonjudgement style and focused on surgical health optimization. Conclusions: This study highlights potential gaps in alcohol-related knowledge and care, and found providers place a low priority on alcohol interventions in the perioperative context. Given the high complication rate associated with preoperative alcohol use, these topics are worthy of future research. To be successful strategies to overcome specific barriers to alcohol screening and intervention must address the needs of patients and providers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Our objective was to determine specialist physicians’ attitudes and practices regarding disclosure of pre-referral errors. Summary Background Data: Physicians are encouraged to disclose their own errors to patients. However, no clear professional norms exist regarding disclosure when physicians discover errors in diagnosis or treatment that occurred at other institutions before referral. Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews of cancer specialists from 2 National Cancer Institute-designated Cancer Centers. We purposively sampled specialists by discipline, sex, and experience-level who self-described a >50% reliance on external referrals (n = 30). Thematic analysis of verbatim interview transcripts was performed to determine physician attitudes regarding disclosure of pre-referral medical errors; whether and how physicians disclose these errors; and barriers to providing full disclosure. Results: Participants described their experiences identifying different types of pre-referral errors including errors of diagnosis, staging and treatment resulting in adverse events ranging from decreased quality of life to premature death. The majority of specialists expressed the belief that disclosure provided no benefit to patients, and might unnecessarily add to their anxiety about their diagnoses or prognoses. Specialists had varying practices of disclosure including none, non-verbal, partial, event-dependent, and full disclosure. They identified a number of barriers to disclosure, including medicolegal implications and damage to referral relationships, the profession's reputation, and to patient–physician relationships. Conclusions: Specialist physicians identify pre-referral errors but struggle with whether and how to provide disclosure, even when clinical circumstances force disclosure. Education- or communication-based interventions that overcome barriers to disclosing pre-referral errors warrant development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We report a patient who presented with rectal rupture and transanal evisceration, a rare entity with only 52 cases previously described in the world literature. Our case is the first to implicate sheer stress on the anterior rectum caused by postoperative adhesions as the major etiologic contributing feature. Moreover, this case is the third reported with chronic constipation without rectal prolapse as an additional preexisting contributory condition. A summary of the medical literature including etiology, treatment, and outcomes is presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Physical examination, mammography, ultrasonography, and fine needle aspiration are traditionally used to guide further management of palpable breast masses, often leading to open biopsy of benign masses. The triple test score (TTS) integrates physical examination, mammography, and fine needle aspiration in the initial evaluation, limiting open biopsy.Objective: To compare cost-effectiveness of TTS and traditional methods.Methods: The primary measure of clinical effectiveness, frequency of missed malignancy, was determined for each strategy using probabilities and outcomes from a systematic literature review. Costs were calculated using the Medicare resource-based relative-value scale. A decision-analytic model compared costs of initial work-up, costs per mass evaluated, and costs per malignancy diagnosed. Sensitivity analyses assessed the influence of variations in model assumptions.Results: In the base case, neither strategy led to undiagnosed breast cancer. However, open biopsy was required in 13% of benign masses using TTS versus 88% using the traditional strategy. The cost of the initial work-up using traditional management was less than TTS (377 US dollars vs. 627 US dollars), but cost per mass evaluated and cost per malignancy diagnosed (1793 US dollars vs. 925 US dollars and 5670 US dollars vs. 2925 US dollars) favored TTS, due to substantially reduced open biopsy.In sensitivity analyses, TTS cost varied most with changes in cost of initial evaluation, whereas the traditional strategy cost varied most with changes in open biopsy cost.Conclusions: The TTS provides equivalent diagnostic effectiveness but substantially lower cost than traditional management. Cost savings are based on decreased open biopsy, a major contributor to the cost of traditional evaluation in this model. [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.)

Background: Although racial disparities in the quality of surgical care are well described, the impact of socioeconomic status on operative mortality is relatively unexplored., Methods: We used Medicare data to identify all patients undergoing 1 of 6 common, high risk surgical procedures between 1999 and 2003. We constructed a summary measure of socioeconomic status for each US ZIP code using data from the 2000 US Census linked to the patient's ZIP code of residence. We assessed the effects of socioeconomic status on operative mortality rates while controlling for other patient characteristics and then examined the extent to which disparities in operative mortality could be attributed to differences in hospital factors., Results: Socioeconomic status was a significant predictor of operative mortality for all 6 procedures in crude analyses and in those adjusted for patient characteristics. Comparing the lowest quintile of socioeconomic status to the highest, the adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) ranged from OR = 1.17; 95% CI: 1.10-1.25 for colectomy to OR = 1.39; 95% CI: 1.18-1.65 for gastrectomy. After further adjustment for hospital factors, the odds ratio associated with socioeconomic status for coronary artery bypass (OR = 1.14; 95% CI: 1.09-1.19), aortic valve replacement (OR = 1.13; 95% CI: 1.04-1.23), and mitral valve replacement (OR = 1.11; 95% CI: 1.00-1.23) were diminished, and those for lung resection (OR = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.81-1.07), colectomy (OR = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.98-1.12), and gastrectomy (OR = 1.11; 95% CI: 0.90-1.38) were reduced and also were no longer statistically significant. Within hospitals, there were only small differences in adjusted operative mortality by patient socioeconomic status., Conclusions: Patients with lower socioeconomic status have higher rates of adjusted operative mortality than patients with higher socioeconomic status across a wide range of surgical procedures. These disparities in surgical outcomes are largely attributable to differences between the hospitals where patients of higher and lower socioeconomic status tend to receive surgical treatment.

Objective: To describe unplanned procedures following colorectal cancer surgery that might be used as intermediate outcome measures, and to determine their association with mortality and length of stay., Summary Background: Variation in the quality of surgical care, especially for common illnesses like colorectal cancer, has received increasing attention. Nonfatal complications resulting in procedural interventions are likely to play a role in poor outcomes but have not been well explored., Methods: Cohort analysis of 26,638 stage I to III colorectal cancer patients in the 1992 to 1996 SEER-Medicare database., Independent Variables: sociodemographics, tumor characteristics, comorbidity, and acuity., Primary Outcome: postoperative procedural intervention., Analysis: Logistic regression identified patient characteristics predicting postoperative procedures and the adjusted risk of 30-day mortality and prolonged hospitalization among patients with postoperative procedures., Results: A total of 5.8% of patients required postoperative intervention. Patient characteristics had little impact on the frequency of postoperative procedures, except for acute medical conditions, including bowel perforation (relative risk [RR] = 3.0, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 2.5-3.6), obstruction (RR = 1.6; 95% CI = 1.4-1.8), and emergent admission (RR = 1.3; 95% CI = 1.1-1.4). After a postoperative procedure, patients were more likely to experience early mortality (RR = 2.4; 95% CI = 2.1-2.9) and prolonged hospitalization (RR = 2.2; 95% CI = 2.1-2.4). The most common interventions were performed for abdominal infection (31.7%; RR mortality = 2.9; 95% CI = 2.3-3.7), wound complications (21.1%; RR mortality = 0.7; 95% CI = 0.4-1.3), and organ injury (18.7%; RR mortality = 1.6; 95% CI = 1.1-2.3)., Conclusions: Postoperative complications requiring additional procedures among colorectal cancer patients correlate with established measures of surgical quality. Prospective tracking of postoperative procedures as complication markers may facilitate outcome studies and quality improvement programs.

Objective: This study describes racial differences in postoperative mortality following 8 cardiovascular and cancer procedures and assesses possible explanations for these differences., Summary Background Data: Although racial disparities in the use of surgical procedures are well established, relationships between race and operative mortality have not been assessed systematically., Methods: We used national Medicare data to identify all patients undergoing one of 8 cardiovascular and cancer procedures between 1994 and 1999. We used multiple logistic regression to assess differences in operative mortality (death within 30 days or before discharge) between black patients and white patients, controlling for patient characteristics. Adding hospital indicators to these models, we then assessed the extent to which racial differences in operative mortality could be accounted for by the hospital in which patients were cared for., Results: Black patients had higher crude mortality rates than white patients for 7 of the 8 operations, including coronary artery bypass, aortic valve replacement, abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, carotid endarterectomy, radical cystectomy, pancreatic resection, and esophagectomy. Among these 7 procedures, odds ratios of mortality (black versus white) ranged from 1.23 (95% confidence interval, 1.18-1.29) for CABG to 1.61 (95% confidence interval, 1.28-2.03) for esophagectomy. Adjusting for patient characteristics had modest or no effect on odds ratios of mortality by race. However, there remained few clinically or statistically significant differences in mortality by race after we accounted for hospital. Hospitals that treated a large proportion of black patients had higher mortality rates for all 8 procedures, for white as well as black patients., Conclusions: Black patients have higher operative mortality risks across a wide range of surgical procedures, in large part because of higher mortality rates at the hospitals they attend.