Search

Background: Impaired capacity of patients necessitates the use of surrogates to make decisions on behalf of patients. Little is known about surrogate decision-making in the surgical intensive care unit, where the decline to critical illness is often unexpected. We sought to explore surrogate experiences with decision-making in the surgical intensive care unit., Methods: This qualitative study was performed at 2 surgical intensive care units at a single, tertiary, academic hospital Surrogate decision-makers who had made a major medical decision for a patient in the surgical intensive care unit were identified and enrolled prospectively. Semistructured telephone interviews following an interview guide were conducted within 90 days after hospitalization until thematic saturation. Recordings were transcribed, coded inductively, and analyzed utilizing an interpretive phenomenologic approach., Results: A major theme that emerged from interviews (N = 19) centered on how participants perceived the surrogate role, which is best characterized by 2 archetypes: (1) Preferences Advocates, who focused on patients' values; and (2) Clinical Facilitators, who focused on patients' medical conditions. The primary archetype of each surrogate influenced how they defined their role and approached decisions. Preferences Advocates framed decisions in the context of patients' values, whereas Clinical Facilitators emphasized the importance of clinical information., Conclusion: The experiences of surrogates in the surgical intensive care unit are related to their understanding of what it means to be a surrogate and how they fulfill this role. Future work is needed to identify and manage the informational needs of surrogate decision-makers., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The advancement of surgical science relies on educating new generations of surgeon-scientists. Career development awards (K Awards) from the National Institutes of Health, often considered a marker of early academic success, are one way physician-scientists may foster skills through a mentored research experience. This study aimed to develop a conceptual framework to understand institutional support and other factors leading to a K Award., Methods: A national, qualitative study was conducted with academic surgeons. Participants included 15 K Awardees and 12 surgery department Chairs. Purposive sampling ensured a diverse range of experiences. Semistructured, in-depth telephone interviews were conducted. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim, and 2 reviewers analyzed the transcripts using Grounded Theory methodology., Results: Participants described individual and institutional factors contributing to success. K Awardees cited personal factors such as perseverance and team leadership skills. Chairs described the K Awardee as an institutional "investment" requiring protected time for research, financial support, and mentorship. Both K Awardees and Chairs identified a number of challenges unique to the surgeon-scientist, including financial strains and competing clinical demands., Conclusion: Institutional support for surgeons pursuing K Awards is a complex investment with significant initial costs to the department. Chairs act as stewards of institutional resources and support those surgeon-scientists most likely to be successful. Although the K Award pathway is one way to develop surgeon-scientists, financial burdens and challenges may limit its usefulness. These findings, however, may better prepare young surgeons to develop career plans and identify new mechanisms for academic productivity., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Over the past 2 decades, researchers have recognized the value of qualitative research. Little has been done to characterize its application to surgery. We describe characteristics and overall prevalence of qualitative surgical research., Methods: We searched PubMed and CINAHL using "surgery" and 7 qualitative methodology terms. Four researchers extracted information; a fifth researcher reviewed 10% of abstracts for inter-rater reliability., Results: A total of 3,112 articles were reviewed. Removing duplicates, 28% were relevant (N = 878; κ = 0.70). Common qualitative methodologies included phenomenology (34.3%) and grounded theory (30.2%). Interviews were the most common data collection method (81.9%) of patients (64%) within surgical oncology (15.4%). Postdischarge was the most commonly studied topic (30.8%). Overall, 41% of studies were published in nursing journals, while 8% were published in surgical journals. More than half of studies were published since 2011., Conclusion: Results suggest qualitative surgical research is gaining popularity. Most is published in nonsurgical journals, however, utilizing only 2 methodologies (phenomenology, grounded theory). The surgical journals that have published qualitative research had study topics restricted to a handful of surgical specialties. Additional surgical qualitative research should take advantage of a greater variety of approaches to provide insight into rare phenomena and social context., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Despite recognition of racial/ethnic surgical disparities, few studies have considered the role of surgical residents. This study aimed to elucidate whether disparities in postoperative outcomes are associated with the presence/level of surgical residents involved in procedures., Methods: Patients who were classified as having laparoscopic cholecystectomy, laparoscopic appendectomy, and open hernia repair in the 2005-2010 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database were compared by level of provider (junior residents postgraduate year 1-2, senior residents, attending alone) for differences in patient demographics, clinical case-mix, and postoperative outcome information by the use of descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression., Results: A total of 196,770 patients met inclusion criteria. Attendings performed 43.0% of operations alone (senior residents 37.5%, junior residents 20.1%), They operated on 44.1% white, 30.1% black, and 43.9% Hispanic patients compared with 35.5%, 48.7%, and 41.3% and 20.4%, 21.3%, and 14.8% for senior and junior residents, respectively. Compared with attendings alone, senior residents were more likely to operate on black patients (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.02, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.95-2.09) and have major (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06-1.21) and minor complications (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.11-1.31). Junior residents also were more likely to operate on black patients but did not experience significantly worse outcomes., Conclusion: Greater risk-adjusted odds of complications among patients treated by senior residents need to be carefully weighed given the group's higher likelihood of operating on minority patients., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)