Financial costs and patients' perceptions of medical tourism in bariatric surgery.

SUMMARY: Many Canadians pursue surgical treatment for severe obesity outside of their province or country - so-called "medical tourism." We have managed many complications related to this evolving phenomenon. The costs associated with this care seem substantial but have not been previously quantified. We surveyed Alberta general surgeons and postoperative medical tourists to estimate costs of treating complications related to medical tourism in bariatric surgery and to understand patients' motivations for pursuing medical tourism. Our analysis suggests more than $560 000 was spent treating 59 bariatric medical tourists by 25 surgeons between 2012 and 2013. Responses from medical tourists suggest that they believe their surgeries were successful despite some having postoperative complications and lacking support from medical or surgical teams. We believe that the financial cost of treating complications related to medical tourism in Alberta is substantial and impacts existing limited resources.

Rates of reflux before and after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy for severe obesity.

BACKGROUND: A current management dilemma in laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) patients is the development of significant gastroesophageal reflux symptoms after surgery. Treatment is typically directed towards reducing acid reflux despite the surgical removal of parietal cell mass. In contrast, laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB) has been known to reduce or resolve preoperative reflux symptoms. The objective of this study was to determine the incidence of preoperative and postoperative reflux of LSG and LRYGB patients, and review reflux treatment type and response. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed for patients undergoing either LSG or LRYGB between January 2010 and December 2012 as part of the Weight Wise program, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Edmonton, Canada. RESULTS: A total of 387 cases were included in our review. We observed a significant reduction in BMI postoperatively for both LSG and LRYGB groups (p < 0.001). Between surgical groups, preoperative proton-pump inhibitor (PPI) use was not significantly different; however, at 1 month (p < 0.05) to 1-2 years (p < 0.001), there was significantly increased PPI use in patients after LSG in comparison to LRYGB. Of the LSG patients that continued their PPI treatment after surgery, 58% increased, 42% continued the same, and 0% decreased their dose 1 year after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Reflux symptoms are significantly increased after LSG in comparison to LRYGB patients. In addition, LSG patients more frequently require initiation of reflux treatment after surgery than that of LRYGB patients. Patients reported postoperative reflux symptom relief with acid-suppressant therapies.

Medical tourism and bariatric surgery: who pays?

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to determine the short-term cost impact that medical tourism for bariatric surgery has on a public healthcare system. Due to long wait times for bariatric surgery services, Canadians are venturing to private clinics in other provinces/countries. Postoperative care in this population not only burdens the provincial health system with intervention costs required for complicated patients, but may also impact resources allotted to patients in the public clinic. METHODS: A chart review was performed from January 2009 to June 2013, which identified 62 medical tourists requiring costly interventions related to bariatric surgery. Secondarily, a survey was conducted to estimate the frequency of bariatric medical tourists presenting to general surgeons in Alberta, necessary interventions, and associated costs. A threshold analysis was used to compare costs of medical tourism to those from our institution. RESULTS: A conservative cost estimate of $1.8 million CAD was calculated for all interventions in 62 medical tourists. The survey established that 25 Albertan general surgeons consulted 59 medical tourists per year: a cost of approximately $1 million CAD. Medical tourism was calculated to require a complication rate ≤ 28% (average intervention cost of $37,000 per patient) to equate the cost of locally conducted surgery: a rate less than the current supported evidence. Conducting 250 primary bariatric surgeries in Alberta is approximately $1.9 million less than the modeled cost of treating 250 medical tourists returning to Alberta. CONCLUSIONS: Medical tourism has a substantial impact on healthcare costs in Alberta. When compared to bariatric medical tourists, the complication rate for locally conducted surgery is less, and the cost of managing the complications is also much less. Therefore, we conclude that it is a better use of resources to conduct bariatric surgery for Albertan residents in Alberta than to fund patients to seek surgery out of province/country.

The cost of bariatric medical tourism on the Canadian healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: Medical tourists are defined as individuals who intentionally travel from their home province/country to receive medical care. Minimal literature exists on the cost of postoperative care and complications for medical tourists. The costs associated with these patients were reviewed. METHODS: Between February 2009 and June 2013, 62 patients were determined to be medical tourists. Patients were included if their initial surgery was performed between January 2003 and June 2013. A chart review was performed to identify intervention costs sustained upon their return. RESULTS: Conservatively, the costs of length of stay (n = 657, $1,433,673.00), operative procedures (n = 110, $148,924.30), investigations (n = 700, $214,499.06), blood work (n = 357, $19,656.90), and health professionals' time (n = 76, $17,414.87) were summated to the total cost of $1.8 million CAD. CONCLUSIONS: The absolute denominator of patients who go abroad for bariatric surgery is unknown. Despite this, a substantial cost is incurred because of medical tourism. Future investigations will analyze the cost effectiveness of bariatric surgery conducted abroad compared with local treatment.

Perceptions of conflict of interest: surgeons, internists, and learners compared.

BACKGROUND: Making a conflict of interest declaration is now mandatory at continuing medical education CME accredited events. However, these declarations tend to be largely perfunctory. This study sought to better understand physician perceptions surrounding conflict of interest. METHODS: The same PowerPoint (Microsoft, Canada) presentation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQSOvch7Yg0&feature=g-upl) was delivered at multiple University of Alberta and Royal College CME-accredited events to surgeons, internists, and learners. After each talk, the audience was invited to complete an anonymous, pretested, and standardized 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree) questionnaire. RESULTS: A total of 136 surveys were analyzed from 31 surgeons, 49 internists, and 56 learners. In response to the question regarding whether by simply making a declaration, the speaker had provided adequate proof of any conflicts of interest, 71% of surgeons thought so, whereas only 35% of internists and 39% of learners agreed or strongly agreed (P = .004). Further probing this theme, the audience was asked whether a speaker must declare fees or monies received from industry for consulting, speaking, and research support. Once again there was a variance of opinion, with only 43% of surgeons agreeing or strongly agreeing with this statement; yet, 80% of internists and 71% of learners felt that such a declaration was necessary (P = .013). On the topic of believability (a speaker declaration makes him or her and the presentation more credible), the 3 groups were less polarized: 50% of surgeons, 41% of internists, and 52% of learners (P = .2) felt that this was the case. Although two thirds of surgeons (68%) and learners (66%) and nearly all internists (84%) felt that industry-sponsored research was biased, these differences were not significant (P = .2). CONCLUSIONS: Even when they are completely open and honest, conflict of interest declarations do not negate the biases inherent in a speaker's talk or research when it is industry sponsored. The larger issue is how best to manage these conflicts.

Canadian general surgeons' opinions about clinical practice audit.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to explore the opinions of Canadian surgeons about their knowledge regarding clinical practice audit (CPA), existing audit tools, experience with CPA, barriers to implementation, and concerns about consequences of CPA implementation. METHODS: A 20-question survey was distributed to members of the Canadian Association of General Surgeons. RESULTS: Of the surveys distributed, 108 were completed, a response rate of 13.5%. The mean age of the participants was 44 years (SD, 12). Familiarity with common audit tools ranged from 4% to 28%, with 41% familiar with none and 44% having previously performed CPA. Most respondents believed that CPA should be mandatory (48%); that CPA is best done by self (34%); and that the Ministry of Health ought to pay for CPA (35%). Using a Likert scale, we found that a majority of respondents felt that CPA is effective in changing both clinical practice (73%) and patient outcomes (57%) and that barriers included time constraints (91%), cost (62%), resources (91%), and inadequate documentation (57%). A majority of respondents would participate in CPA if the data were reviewed by themselves (93%), their department (82%), the Royal College (51%), or provincial organizations (48%) as long as the data were not made available to the public (42%), the ministry of health (48%), or hospital administration (47%). CONCLUSION: Canadian surgeons perceive usefulness in clinical audit but have limited knowledge about available audit tools and resources. The creation of a national auditing system combined with strategies for effective implementation of this system is the stepping-stone in this process.

Biliopancreatic diversion: the effectiveness of duodenal switch and its limitations.

The prevalence of morbidly obese individuals is rising rapidly. Being overweight predisposes patients to multiple serious medical comorbidities including type two diabetes (T2DM), hypertension, dyslipidemia, and obstructive sleep apnea. Lifestyle modifications including diet and exercise produce modest weight reduction and bariatric surgery is the only evidence-based intervention with sustainable results. Biliopancreatic diversion (BPD) produces the most significant weight loss with amelioration of many obesity-related comorbidities compared to other bariatric surgeries; however perioperative morbidity and mortality associated with this surgery are not insignificant; additionally long-term complications including undesirable gastrointestinal side effects and metabolic derangements cannot be ignored. The overall quality of evidence in the literature is low with a lack of randomized control trials, a preponderance of uncontrolled series, and small sample sizes in the studies available. Additionally, when assessing remission of comorbidities, definitions are unclear and variable. In this review we explore the pros and cons of BPD, a less well known and perhaps underutilized bariatric procedure.

The economic impact of weight regain.

Background. Obesity is well known for being associated with significant economic repercussions. Bariatric surgery is the only evidence-based solution to this problem as well as a cost-effective method of addressing the concern. Numerous authors have calculated the cost effectiveness and cost savings of bariatric surgery; however, to date the economic impact of weight regain as a component of overall cost has not been addressed. Methods. The literature search was conducted to elucidate the direct costs of obesity and primary bariatric surgery, the rate of weight recidivism and surgical revision, and any costs therein. Results. The quoted cost of obesity in Canada was $2.0 billion-$6.7 billion in 2013 CAD. The median percentage of bariatric procedures that fail due to weight gain or insufficient weight loss is 20% (average: 21.1% ± 10.1%, range: 5.2-39, n = 10). Revision of primary surgeries on average ranges from 2.5% to 18.4%, and depending on the procedure accounts for an additional cost between $14,000 and $50,000 USD per patient. Discussion. There was a significant deficit of the literature pertaining to the cost of revision surgery as compared with primary bariatric surgery. As such, the cycle of weight recidivism and bariatric revisions has not as of yet been introduced into any previous cost analysis of bariatric surgery.

Hands-free technique in the operating room: reduction in body fluid exposure and the value of a training video.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine if (1) using a hands-free technique (HFT)--whereby no two surgical team members touch the same sharp item simultaneously--> or = 75% of the time reduced the rate of percutaneous injury, glove tear, and contamination (incidents); and (2) if a video-based intervention increased HFT use to > or = 75%, immediately and over time. METHODS: During three and four periods, in three intervention and three control hospitals, respectively, nurses recorded incidents, percentage of HFT use, and other information in 10,596 surgeries. The video was shown in intervention hospitals between Periods 1 and 2, and in control hospitals between Periods 3 and 4. HFT, considered used when > or = 75% passes were done hands-free, was practiced in 35% of all surgeries. We applied logistic regression to (1) estimate the rate reduction for incidents in surgeries when the HFT was used and not used, while adjusting for potential risk factors, and (2) estimate HFT use of about 75% and 100%, in intervention compared with control hospitals, in Period 2 compared with Period 1, and Period 3 compared with Period 2. RESULTS: A total of 202 incidents (49 injuries, 125 glove tears, and 28 contaminations) were reported. Adjusted for differences in surgical type, length, emergency status, blood loss, time of day, and number of personnel present for > or = 75% of the surgery, the HFT-associated reduction in rate was 35%. An increase in use of HFT of > or = 75% was significantly greater in intervention hospitals, during the first post-intervention period, and was sustained five months later. CONCLUSION: The use of HFT and the HFT video were both found to be effective.

The impact of a formal mentoring program for minimally invasive surgery on surgeon practice and patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Surgeons need a process by which to safely introduce new procedures, such as minimally invasive surgery (MIS), into practice. Emerging evidence would suggest that an effective strategy is the implementation of a mentorship program. This study analyzed the effect of mentoring on a single institution's advanced MIS practice. METHODS: We analyzed clinical outcomes by completing a retrospective review of patient charts 1 year before and 1 year after the recruitment of a fellowship-trained advanced MIS surgeon in July 2004 whose job description included facilitating the introduction of advanced gastrointestinal MIS. RESULTS: A total of 7 general surgeons were mentored at 1 site. After 1 year of intense mentoring, the number of surgeons completing >12 cases/y increased from 2 to 4, and the number of advanced MIS cases completed (excluding mentored ones) increased from 35 to 102. Fifty-three cases (52% of total) were formally mentored. Total conversions to open surgery decreased from 14.3% to 6.4% (P = .12). The number of colorectal resections increased from 11 to 92 (P = .0027). Intraoperative complications were not significantly decreased, eg, from 17.1% to 7.1% (P = .06). Postoperative complications remained unchanged (15.0% to 16.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons and the institutions in which they work have a duty to adopt advanced MIS techniques in a safe and appropriate manner. We believe our data demonstrate that a mentorship program is an effective strategy for safely introducing advanced MIS into practice.

The computer synoptic operative report--a leap forward in the science of surgery.

BACKGROUND: Quality of surgery is a proven prognostic factor in many tumors. It is critical to ensure that an effective method is in place to evaluate surgery accurately. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A provincial Cancer Surgery Working Group designed and piloted a computerized synoptic operative report template (WebSMR) in rectal cancer surgery, to replace the standard narrative operative record (NR). This included a precise description of the procedure, data on demographics, diagnostic evaluation, staging, and functional measures. A total of 70 items for anterior resection (AR) and 63 items for abdominoperinal excision (APR) were included. The WebSMR was assessed for comparison with 40 NR randomly selected from seven hospitals in Southern Alberta from 2001 to 2003. RESULTS: The NR contained 45.9% of the specified data elements and the WebSMR captured 99%. The most complete NR data (68.8% to 97%) concerned hospital and patient data, anesthetist and surgeon information, approach, and closure details. The important details of laparotomy and tumor resection were the next most complete data (33.5% to 47.5%) and the least complete (0 to 25%) concerned preoperative treatment, comorbidity, and metastatic and local assessment. All differences among these groups were statistically different (P < .001). No statistically significant differences were seen in the completeness of the NR according to the type of surgery (AR vs. APR; P = .1) or the dictating surgeon (colorectal vs. general vs. resident; P = .175). The time needed to complete the WebSMR test was only 6 minutes. CONCLUSION: The science of surgical technique can be better measured by this unique instrument and will create accountability in surgery.

Double gloving and practice attitudes among surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Exposure to blood and body fluids while operating places surgeons at risk. Double gloving is a safety measure, which decreases this risk. However, many surgeons do not incorporate this precaution into their personal practice. This study evaluates surgeons' gloving practices and hepatitis status. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to all consultant surgeons and residents in the surgical specialties in the Capital Health region, University of Alberta. A double mail-out design was used. A second questionnaire, containing information on safety issues, was sent to the general surgeons (consultants and residents) who did not double glove to ascertain whether this information would change their practice. RESULTS: In all, 268 surgeons and residents were sent the original questionnaire; 170 replied (63.4% response rate.) Fifty-seven percent of the respondents do not double glove (none of the urologists double glove versus 87% of orthopedic surgeons). The most common reason sited was a decrease in manual dexterity (46%). Ninety-seven percent of respondents are immunized for hepatitis B with 53% having had their titres recently checked. Thirty-seven general surgeons received the evidence on safety issues but only 9 (23%) of them would change their practice as a result of this information. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of surgeons and residents do not double glove. Even when provided with good evidence of efficacy, few surgeons contemplate adopting safety techniques.