Factors Contributing to Patient Satisfaction Among VA Medical Center and Non-VA Medical Center Hospitals.

INTRODUCTION: Veteran satisfaction of care within the Veterans Affairs is typically very high. Yet recommendation ratings of VA medical center (VA) hospitals as measured by Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems are generally lower than non-VA hospitals.Therefore, it was our objective to assess Veteran satisfaction and recommendation scores and then examine whether satisfaction correlates to recommendation. METHODS: We identified all acute care VAs as our primary analytic cohort. As a comparator group, we also included all acute care academic hospitals (non-VAs), as designated by the Centers for Medicare Services. Using data from Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems and Strategic Analytics for Improvement and Learning (SAIL) Value Model, we collated patient satisfaction scores, as well as markers of surgical safety from Hospital Compare. We then analyzed the correlation within VAs and non-VAs, primarily focusing the relationship between the "would you recommend Hospital Rating" and subdomains of the "Overall Hospital Rating," as well as a composite score of patient safety. RESULTS: A total of 133 VAs and 1116 non-VAs were identified. Among VAs, the "Would you Recommend" hospital rating was significantly and positively correlated with markers of patient satisfaction including care transitions (Pearson's r = 0.59, P = 0.03), Nursing communication (Pearson's R 0.79, P = 0.001), and percent of primary care provider wait times less than 30 min (Pearson's r = 0.25, P = 0.01). VA-recommended scores were negatively correlated with factors such as time to emergency department discharge, and the "leaving the emergency department before being evaluated." When looking at non-VAs, correlation directions were similar, albeit with stronger associations at almost every metric. While recommended scores correlated strongly to overall hospital ratings for both groups, VAs had no significant correlation between "would you recommend" and patient safety. However, there was a slight negative correlation between patient safety and "recommend" among non-VAs. CONCLUSIONS: Although satisfiers and dissatisfiers of care appear similar between VAs and non-VAs, "would you recommend" is a far weaker marker of patient perceptions of safety and quality. These seemingly empathetic markers such as "would you recommend" should be used with caution as they may not address the fundamental question being asked.

Performance of Artificial Intelligence Content Detectors Using Human and Artificial Intelligence-Generated Scientific Writing.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the performance of artificial intelligence (AI) content detection in scientific writing. This study evaluates the performance of publicly available AI content detectors when applied to both human-written and AI-generated scientific articles. METHODS: Articles published in Annals of Surgical Oncology (ASO) during the year 2022, as well as AI-generated articles using OpenAI's ChatGPT, were analyzed by three AI content detectors to assess the probability of AI-generated content. Full manuscripts and their individual sections were evaluated. Group comparisons and trend analyses were conducted by using ANOVA and linear regression. Classification performance was determined using area under the curve (AUC). RESULTS: A total of 449 original articles met inclusion criteria and were evaluated to determine the likelihood of being generated by AI. Each detector also evaluated 47 AI-generated articles by using titles from ASO articles. Human-written articles had an average probability of being AI-generated of 9.4% with significant differences between the detectors. Only two (0.4%) human-written manuscripts were detected as having a 0% probability of being AI-generated by all three detectors. Completely AI-generated articles were evaluated to have a higher average probability of being AI-generated (43.5%) with a range from 12.0 to 99.9%. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates differences in the performance of various AI content detectors with the potential to label human-written articles as AI-generated. Any effort toward implementing AI detectors must include a strategy for continuous evaluation and validation as AI models and detectors rapidly evolve.

Electronic health record-integrated questionnaires in colorectal surgery patients as a new standard: Could preoperative bowel function be used to predict postoperative patient-reported outcomes?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported bowel function has been previously shown to correlate with quality of life and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after colorectal surgery. We examined the relationship between preoperative patient-reported bowel function and postoperative symptom reporting using an electronic health record-integrated symptom management (eSyM). METHODS: Patients who underwent major abdominal surgery for colorectal cancer at a single institution were included. Preoperative bowel function was assessed prospectively using the validated colorectal functional outcome (COREFO) questionnaire. Patients with electronic portal access received automated eSyM questionnaires after discharge. Logistic regression was used to analyze the association between COREFO scores and eSyM use. RESULTS: 169 patients underwent surgery between April 2020 and June 2022 (median age 64, 46.7% female). 148 completed COREFO questionnaires preoperatively; 54 (36.5%) had scores ≥15. Of the 108 patients with portal access, 67.6% used eSyM postoperatively. Among users, 72.3% (47/73) reported severe symptoms. Those with COREFO scores ≥15 were more likely to use eSyM (80.0% vs. 62.7%) though this difference was not significant (p = 0.079). CONCLUSIONS: We found that eSyM utilization regardless of preoperative baseline bowel function was high in this cohort of colorectal surgery patients. This suggests that electronically captured PROs is an effective way for patients to communicate symptoms to their care teams in a postsurgical setting.

Systematic Review Assessing Quality of the Survey Literature in Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: The use of survey methodology in surgical research has proliferated in recent years, but the quality of these surveys and of their reporting is understudied. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive review of surgical survey literature (January 2022-July 2023) via PubMed in July 2023. Articles which (1) reported data gleaned from a survey, (2) were published in an English language journal, (3) targeted survey respondents in the United States or Canada, and (4) pertained to general surgery specialties were included. We assessed quality of survey reports using the Checklist for Reporting Of Survey Studies (CROSS) guidelines. Articles were evaluated for concordance with CROSS using a dichotomous (yes or no) scale. RESULTS: Initial literature search yielded 481 articles; 57 articles were included in analysis based on the inclusion criteria. The mean response rate was 37% (range 0.62%-98%). The majority of surveys were administered electronically (n = 50, 87.8%). No publications adhered to all 40 CROSS items; on average, publications met 61.2% of items applicable to that study. Articles were most likely to adhere to reporting criteria for title and abstract (mean adherence 99.1%), introduction (99.1%), and discussion (92.4%). Articles were least adherent to items related to methodology (42.6%) and moderately adherent to items related to results (76.6%). Only five articles cited CROSS guidelines or another standardized survey reporting tool (10.5%). CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis demonstrates that CROSS reporting guidelines for survey research have not been adopted widely. Surveys reported in surgical literature may be of variable quality. Increased adherence to guidelines could improve development and dissemination of surveys done by surgeons.

Evaluating clinical practice guidelines for the management of rectal cancer: Did they get it RIGHT?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) are crucial tools for clinicians seeking to deliver evidence-based patient care. We utilized the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) checklist to assess the reporting quality of CPGs addressing the management of rectal cancer. METHODS: Four multidisciplinary rectal cancer CPGs published 2017-2022 were evaluated: American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS), European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). We quantitatively assessed each CPG using the RIGHT checklist and qualitative analysis was performed to generate common themes. RESULTS: RIGHT checklist items fulfilled by each CPG ranged from 12 to 17 (out of 22). Each guideline demonstrated unique categories of weakness: ASCRS in Basic Information (1 of 4 items), ESMO in Evidence (1 of 3), NCCN in Recommendations (1 of 3), and NICE in Review and Quality Assurance (0 of 2). Common themes that emerged included sprase discussion on the financial aspects of rectal cancer management and lack of transparency in formulating recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Despite their variability, each of the 22 checklist elements are present in contemporary CPGs. Utilizing the RIGHT checklist would allow experts to create guidelines adhering to high-quality reporting standards.

Effects of a change in recall period on reporting severe symptoms: an analysis of a pragmatic multisite trial.

BACKGROUND: Optimal methods for deploying electronic patient-reported outcomes to manage symptoms in routine oncologic practice remain uncertain. The electronic symptom management (eSyM) program asks chemotherapy and surgery patients to self-report 12 common symptoms regularly. Feedback from nurses and patients led to changing the recall period from the past 7 days to the past 24 hours. METHODS: Using questionnaires submitted during the 16 weeks surrounding the recall period change, we assessed the likelihood of reporting severe or moderate and severe symptoms across 12 common symptoms and separately for the 5 most prevalent symptoms. Interrupted time-series analyses modeled the effects of the change using generalized linear mixed-effects models. Surgery and chemotherapy cohorts were analyzed separately. Study-wide effects were estimated using a meta-analysis method. RESULTS: In total, 1692 patients from 6 institutions submitted 7823 eSyM assessments during the 16 weeks surrounding the recall period change. Shortening the recall period was associated with lower odds of severe symptom reporting in the surgery cohort (odds ratio = 0.65, 95% confidence interval = 0.46 to 0.93; P = .02) and lower odds of moderate and severe symptom reporting in the chemotherapy cohort (odds ratio = 0.83, 95% confidence interval = 0.71 to 0.97; P = .02). Among the most prevalent symptoms, 24-hour recall was associated with a lower rate of reporting postoperative constipation but no differences in reporting rates for other symptoms. CONCLUSION: A shorter recall period was associated with a reduction in the proportion of patients reporting moderate-severe symptoms. The optimal recall period may vary depending on whether electronic patient-reported outcomes are collected for active symptom management, as a clinical trial endpoint, or another purpose. ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03850912.

Strategies for Implementing an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes-Based Symptom Management Program Across Six Cancer Centers.

Background: Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO)-based symptom management improves cancer patients' outcomes. However, implementation of ePROs is challenging, requiring technical resources for integration into clinical systems, substantial buy-in from clinicians and patients, novel workflows to support between-visit symptom management, and institutional investment. Methods: The SIMPRO Research Consortium developed eSyM, an electronic health record-integrated, ePRO-based symptom management program for medical oncology and surgery patients and deployed it at six cancer centers between August 2019 and April 2022 in a type II hybrid effectiveness-implementation cluster randomized stepped-wedge study. Sites documented implementation strategies monthly using REDCap, itemized them using the Expert Recommendations for Implementation Change (ERIC) list and mapped their target barriers using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to inform eSyM program enhancement, facilitate inter-consortium knowledge sharing and guide future deployment efforts. Results: We documented 226 implementation strategies: 35 'foundational' strategies were applied consortium-wide by the coordinating center and 191 other strategies were developed by individual sites. We consolidated these 191 site-developed strategies into 64 unique strategies (i.e., removed duplicates) and classified the remainder as either 'universal', consistently used by multiple sites (N=29), or 'adaptive', used only by individual sites (N=35). Universal strategies were perceived as having the highest impact; they addressed eSyM clinical preparation, training, engagement of patients/clinicians, and program evaluation. Across all documented SIMPRO strategies, 44 of the 73 ERIC strategies were addressed and all 5 CFIR barriers were addressed. Conclusion: Methodical collection of theory-based implementation strategies fostered the identification of universal, high-impact strategies that facilitated adoption of a novel care-delivery intervention by patients, clinicians, and institutions. Attention to the high-impact strategies identified in this project could support implementation of ePROs as a component of routine cancer care at other institutions.

A Retrospective Analysis of Surgical Acuity & Procedure Volume Before & During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: In March 2020, the American College of Surgeons recommended postponing elective procedures amid the COVID-19 pandemic. We used Medicare claims to analyze changes in surgical and interventional procedure volumes from 2016 to 2021. METHODS: We studied 37 common surgical and interventional procedures using 5% Medicare claims files from January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2021. Procedures were classified according to American College of Surgeons guidelines as low, intermediate, or high acuity, and counts were analyzed per calendar year quarter (Q1-Q4), with stratification by sex and race/ethnicity. RESULTS: We observed 1,840,577 procedures and identified two periods of marked decline. In Q2 2020, overall procedure counts decreased by 32.2%, with larger declines in low (41.1%) and intermediate (30.8%) acuity procedures. High acuity procedures declined the least (18.2%). Overall volumes increased afterward but never returned to baseline. Another marked decline occurred in Q4 2021, with all acuity levels having declined to a similar extent (40.1%, 44.2%, and 46.9% for low, intermediate, and high acuity, respectively). High and intermediate acuity procedures declined more in Q4 2021 than Q2 2020 (P = 0.002). Similar patterns were observed across sex and race/ethnicity strata. CONCLUSIONS: Two major procedural volume declines occurred between 2020 and 2022 during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. High acuity (life or limb threatening) procedures were least affected in the first decline (Q2 2020) but not spared in second decline (Q4 2021). Future efforts should prioritize preserving high-acuity access during times of stress.

Population-Based Validation of the MIA and MSKCC Tools for Predicting Sentinel Lymph Node Status.

Importance: Patients with melanoma are selected for sentinel lymph node biopsy (SLNB) based on their risk of a positive SLN. To improve selection, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) and Melanoma Institute Australia (MIA) developed predictive models, but the utility of these models remains to be tested. Objective: To determine the clinical utility of the MIA and MSKCC models. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a population-based comparative effectiveness research study including 10 089 consecutive patients with cutaneous melanoma undergoing SLNB from the Swedish Melanoma Registry from January 2007 to December 2021. Data were analyzed from May to August 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures,: The predicted probability of SLN positivity was calculated using the MSKCC model and a limited MIA model (using mitotic rate as absent/present instead of count/mm2 and excluding the optional variable lymphovascular invasion) for each patient. The operating characteristics of the models were assessed and compared. The clinical utility of each model was assessed using decision curve analysis and compared with a strategy of performing SLNB on all patients. Results: Among 10 089 included patients, the median (IQR) age was 64.0 (52.0-73.0) years, and 5340 (52.9%) were male. The median Breslow thickness was 1.8 mm, and 1802 patients (17.9%) had a positive SLN. Both models were well calibrated across the full range of predicted probabilities and had similar external area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC; MSKCC: 70.8%; 95% CI, 69.5-72.1 and limited MIA: 69.7%; 95% CI, 68.4-71.1). At a risk threshold of 5%, decision curve analysis indicated no added net benefit for either model compared to performing SLNB for all patients. At risk thresholds of 10% or higher, both models added net benefit compared to SLNB for all patients. The greatest benefit was observed in patients with T2 melanomas using a threshold of 10%; in that setting, the use of the nomograms led to a net reduction of 8 avoidable SLNBs per 100 patients for the MSKCC nomogram and 7 per 100 patients for the limited MIA nomogram compared to a strategy of SLNB for all. Conclusions and Relevance: This study confirmed the statistical performance of both the MSKCC and limited MIA models in a large, nationally representative data set. However, decision curve analysis demonstrated that using the models only improved selection for SLNB compared to biopsy in all patients when a risk threshold of at least 7% was used, with the greatest benefit seen for T2 melanomas at a threshold of 10%. Care should be taken when using these nomograms to guide selection for SLNB at the lowest thresholds.

Comparison of US Oncologist Rurality by Practice Setting and Patients Served.

Importance: Studies of the oncology workforce most often classify physician rurality by their practice location, but this could miss the true extent of physicians involved in rural cancer care. Objective: To compare a method for identifying oncology physicians involved in rural cancer care that uses the proportion of rural patients served with the standard method based on practice location. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used retrospective Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services encounter data on medical oncologists, radiation oncologists, and surgeons treating Medicare beneficiaries diagnosed with breast, colorectal, or lung cancer from January 1 to December 31, 2019. Data were analyzed from May to September 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: The standard method of classifying oncologist physician rurality based on practice location was compared with a novel method of classification based on proportion of rural patients served. Results: The study included 27 870 oncology physicians (71.3% male), of whom 835 (3.0%) practiced in a rural location. Physicians practicing in a rural location treated a high proportion of rural patients (median, 50.0% [IQR, 16.7%-100%]). When considering the rurality of physicians' patient panels, 5123 physicians (18.4%) whose patient panel included at least 20% rural patients, 3199 (11.5%) with at least 33% rural patients, and 1996 (7.2%) with at least 50% rural patients were identified. Using a physician's patient panel to classify physician rurality revealed a higher number and greater spread of oncology physicians involved in rural cancer care in the US than the standard method, while maintaining high performance (area under the curve, 0.857) and fair concordance (κ, 0.346; 95% CI, 0.323-0.369) with the method based on practice setting. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, classifying oncologist rurality by the proportion of rural patients served identified more oncology physicians treating patients living in rural areas than the standard method of practice location and may more accurately capture the rural cancer physician workforce, as many hospitals have historically been located in more urban areas. This new method may be used to improve future studies of rural cancer care delivery.

The role of comorbidities, medications, and social determinants of health in understanding urban-rural outcome differences among patients with heart failure.

PURPOSE: There is now a 20% disparity in all-cause, excess deaths between urban and rural areas, much of which is driven by disparities in cardiovascular death. We sought to explain the sources of these disparities for Medicare beneficiaries with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS: Using a sample of Medicare Parts A, B, and D, we created a cohort of 389,528 fee-for-service beneficiaries with at least 1 heart failure hospitalization from 2008 to 2017. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality after discharge; 1-year mortality, readmissions, and return emergency room (ER) admissions were secondary outcomes. We used hierarchical, logistic regression modeling to determine the contribution of comorbidities, guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT), and social determinants of health (SDOH) to outcomes. RESULTS: Thirty-day mortality rates after hospital discharge were 6.3% in rural areas compared to 5.7% in urban regions (P < .001); after adjusting for patient health and GDMT receipt, the 30-day mortality odds ratio for rural residence was 1.201 (95% CI 1.164-1.239). Adding the SDOH measure reduced the odds ratio somewhat (1.140, 95% CI 1.103-1.178) but a gap remained. Readmission rates in rural areas were consistently lower for all model specifications, while ER admissions were consistently higher. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with HFrEF, living in a rural area is associated with an increased risk of death and return ER visits within 30 days of discharge from HF hospitalization. Differences in SDOH appear to partially explain mortality differences but the remaining gap may be the consequence of rural-urban differences in HF treatment.

Disparities in electronic health record portal access and use among patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health record-linked portals may improve health-care quality for patients with cancer. Barriers to portal access and use undermine interventions that rely on portals to reduce cancer care disparities. This study examined portal access and persistence of portal use and associations with patient and structural factors before the implementation of 3 portal-based interventions within the Improving the Management of symPtoms during And following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Consortium. METHODS: Portal use data were extracted from electronic health records for the 12 months preceding intervention implementation. Sociodemographic factors, mode of accessing portals (web vs mobile), and number of clinical encounters before intervention implementation were also extracted. Rurality was derived using rural-urban commuting area codes. Broadband access was estimated using the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. Multiple logistic regression models tested the associations of these factors with portal access (ever accessed or never accessed) and persistence of portal use (accessed the portal ≤20 weeks vs ≥21 weeks in the 35-week study period). RESULTS: Of 28 942 eligible patients, 10 061 (35%) never accessed the portal. Male sex, membership in a racial and ethnic minority group, rural dwelling, not working, and limited broadband access were associated with lower odds of portal access. Younger age and more clinical encounters were associated with higher odds of portal access. Of those with portal access, 25% were persistent users. Using multiple modalities for portal access, being middle-aged, and having more clinical encounters were associated with persistent portal use. CONCLUSION: Patient and structural factors affect portal access and use and may exacerbate disparities in electronic health record-based cancer symptom surveillance and management.

Assessing Patient Readiness for an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome-Based Symptom Management Intervention in a Multisite Study.

PURPOSE: While the use of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) in routine clinical practice is increasing, barriers to patient engagement limit adoption. Studies have focused on technology access as a key barrier, yet other characteristics may also confound readiness to use ePROs including patients' confidence in using technology and confidence in asking clinicians questions. METHODS: To assess readiness to use ePROs, adult patients from six US-based health systems who started a new oncology treatment or underwent a cancer-directed surgery were invited to complete a survey that assessed access to and confidence in the use of technology, ease of asking clinicians questions about health, and symptom management self-efficacy. Multivariable ordinal logistic regression models were fit to assess the association between technology confidence, ease of asking questions, and symptom management self-efficacy. RESULTS: We contacted 3,212 individuals, and 1,043 (33%) responded. The median age was 63 years, 68% were female, and 75% reported having access to patient portals. Over 80% had two or more electronic devices. Most patients reported high technology confidence, higher ease of asking clinicians questions, and high symptom management self-efficacy (n = 692; 66%). Patients with high technology confidence also reported higher ease of asking nurses about their health (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 4.58 [95% CI, 2.36 to 8.87]; P ≤ .001). Those who reported higher ease of asking nurses questions were more likely to report higher confidence in managing symptoms (AOR, 30.54 [95% CI, 12.91 to 72.30]; P ≤ .001). CONCLUSION: Patient readiness to use ePROs likely depends on multiple factors, including technology and communication confidence, and symptom management self-efficacy. Future studies should assess interventions to address these factors.

The Association of Rural Residence With Surgery and Adjuvant Radiation in Medicare Beneficiaries With Rectal Cancer.

Purpose: Radiation therapy and surgery are fundamental site-directed therapies for nonmetastatic rectal cancer. To understand the relationship between rurality and access to specialized care, we characterized the association of rural patient residence with receipt of surgery and radiation therapy among Medicare beneficiaries with rectal cancer. Methods and Materials: We identified fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older diagnosed with nonmetastatic rectal cancer from 2016 to 2018. Beneficiary place of residence was assigned to one of 3 geographic categories (metropolitan, micropolitan, or small town/rural) based on census tract and corresponding rural urban commuting area codes. Multivariable regression models were used to determine associations between levels of rurality and receipt of both radiation and proctectomy within 180 days of diagnosis. In addition, we explored associations between patient rurality and characteristics of surgery and radiation such as minimally invasive surgery (MIS) or intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT). Results: Among 13,454 Medicare beneficiaries with nonmetastatic rectal cancer, 3926 (29.2%) underwent proctectomy within 180 days of being diagnosed with rectal cancer, and 1792 (13.3%) received both radiation and proctectomy. Small town/rural residence was associated with an increased likelihood of receiving both radiation and proctectomy within 180 days of diagnosis (adjusted subhazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.30). Furthermore, small town/rural radiation patients were significantly less likely to receive IMRT (adjusted odds ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48-0.80) or MIS (adjusted odds ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.66-0.97) than metropolitan patients. Conclusions: Although small town/rural Medicare beneficiaries were overall more likely to receive both radiation and proctectomy for their rectal cancer, they were less likely to receive preoperative IMRT or MIS as part of their treatment regimen. Together, these findings clarify that among Medicare beneficiaries, there appeared to be a similar utilization of radiation resources and time to radiation treatment regardless of rural/urban status.

Systematic symptom management in the IMPACT Consortium: rationale and design for 3 effectiveness-implementation trials.

Cancer and its treatment produce deleterious symptoms across the phases of care. Poorly controlled symptoms negatively affect quality of life and result in increased health-care needs and hospitalization. The Improving the Management of symPtoms during And following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Consortium was created to develop 3 large-scale, systematic symptom management systems, deployed through electronic health record platforms, and to test them in pragmatic, randomized, hybrid effectiveness and implementation trials. Here, we describe the IMPACT Consortium's conceptual framework, its organizational components, and plans for evaluation. The study designs and lessons learned are highlighted in the context of disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Implementing shared decision making for early-stage breast cancer treatment using a coproduction learning collaborative: the SHAIR Collaborative protocol.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making (SDM) in breast cancer care improves outcomes, but it is not routinely implemented. Results from the What Matters Most trial demonstrated that early-stage breast cancer surgery conversation aids, when used by surgeons after brief training, improved SDM and patient-reported outcomes. Trial surgeons and patients both encouraged using the conversation aids in routine care. We will develop and evaluate an online learning collaborative, called the SHared decision making Adoption Implementation Resource (SHAIR) Collaborative, to promote early-stage breast cancer surgery SDM by implementing the conversation aids into routine preoperative care. Learning collaboratives are known to be effective for quality improvement in clinical care, but no breast cancer learning collaborative currently exists. Our specific aims are to (1) provide the SHAIR Collaborative resources to clinical sites to use with eligible patients, (2) examine the relationship between the use of the SHAIR Collaborative resources and patient reach, and (3) promote the emergence of a sustained learning collaborative in this clinical field, building on a partnership with the American Society of Breast Surgeons (ASBrS). METHODS: We will conduct a two-phased implementation project: phase 1 pilot at five sites and phase 2 scale up at up to an additional 32 clinical sites across North America. The SHAIR Collaborative online platform will offer free access to conversation aids, training videos, electronic health record and patient portal integration guidance, a feedback dashboard, webinars, support center, and forum. We will use RE-AIM for data collection and evaluation. Our primary outcome is patient reach. Secondary data will include (1) patient-reported data from an optional, anonymous online survey, (2) number of active sites and interviews with site champions, (3) Normalization MeAsure Development questionnaire data from phase 1 sites, adaptations data utilizing the Framework for Reporting Adaptations and Modifications-Extended/-Implementation Strategies, and tracking implementation facilitating factors, and (4) progress on sustainability strategy and plans with ASBrS. DISCUSSION: The SHAIR Collaborative will reach early-stage breast cancer patients across North America, evaluate patient-reported outcomes, engage up to 37 active sites, and potentially inform engagement factors affecting implementation success and may be sustained by ASBrS.

Increased Preoperative Stress Test Utilization is Not Associated With Reduced Adverse Cardiac Events in Current US Surgical Practice.

OBJECTIVE: To measure the frequency of preoperative stress testing and its association with perioperative cardiac events. BACKGROUND: There is persistent variation in preoperative stress testing across the United States. It remains unclear whether more testing is associated with reduced perioperative cardiac events. METHODS: We used the Vizient Clinical Data Base to study patients who underwent 1 of 8 elective major surgical procedures (general, vascular, or oncologic) from 2015 to 2019. We grouped centers into quintiles by frequency of stress test use. We computed a modified revised cardiac risk index (mRCRI) score for included patients. Outcomes included in-hospital major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), myocardial infarction (MI), and cost, which we compared across quintiles of stress test use. RESULTS: We identified 185,612 patients from 133 centers. The mean age was 61.7 (±14.2) years, 47.5% were female, and 79.4% were White. Stress testing was performed in 9.2% of patients undergoing surgery, and varied from 1.7% at lowest quintile centers, to 22.5% at highest quintile centers, despite similar mRCRI comorbidity scores (mRCRI>1: 15.0% vs 15.8%; P =0.068). In-hospital MACE was less frequent among lowest versus highest quintile centers (8.2% vs 9.4%; P <0.001) despite a 13-fold difference in stress test use. Event rates were similar for MI (0.5% vs 0.5%; P =0.737). Mean added cost for stress testing per 1000 patients who underwent surgery was $26,996 at lowest quintile centers versus $357,300 at highest quintile centers. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variation in preoperative stress testing across the United States despite similar patient risk profiles. Increased testing was not associated with reduced perioperative MACE or MI. These data suggest that more selective stress testing may be an opportunity for cost savings through a reduction of unnecessary tests.

A Review and Assessment of Open Access Surgery Journals.

INTRODUCTION: Open access publishing has exhibited rapid growth in recent years. However, there is uncertainty surrounding the quality of open access journals and their ability to reach target audiences. This study reviews and characterizes open access surgical journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The directory of open access journals was used to search for open access surgical journals. PubMed indexing status, impact factor, article processing charge (APC), initial year of open access publishing, average weeks from manuscript submission to publication, publisher, and peer-review processes were evaluated. RESULTS: Ninety-two open access surgical journals were identified. Most (n = 49, 53.3%) were indexed in PubMed. Journals established >10 y were more likely to be indexed in PubMed compared to journals established <5 y (28 of 41 [68.3%] versus 4 of 20 [20%], P < 0.001). 44 journals (47.8%) used a double-blind review method. 49 (53.2%) journals received an impact factor for 2021, ranging from <0.1 to 10.2 (median 1.4). The median APC was $362 United States dollar [interquartile range $0 - 1802 United States dollar]. 35 journals (38%) did not charge a processing fee. There was a significant positive correlation between the APC and impact factor (r = 0.61, P < 0.001). If accepted, the median time from manuscript submission to publication was 12 wk. CONCLUSIONS: Open access surgical journals are largely indexed on PubMed, have transparent review processes, employ variable APCs (including no publication fees), and proceed efficiently from submission to publication. These results should increase readers' confidence in the quality of surgical literature published in open access journals.

Association of rurality, socioeconomic status, and race with pancreatic cancer surgical treatment and survival.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatectomy is a necessary component of curative intent therapy for pancreatic cancer, and patients living in nonmetropolitan areas may face barriers to accessing timely surgical care. We evaluated the intersecting associations of rurality, socioeconomic status (SES), and race on treatment and outcomes of Medicare beneficiaries with pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study, using fee-for-service Medicare claims of beneficiaries with incident pancreatic cancer (2016-2018). We categorized beneficiary place of residence as metropolitan, micropolitan, or rural. Measures of SES were Medicare-Medicaid dual eligibility and the Area Deprivation Index. Primary study outcomes were receipt of pancreatectomy and 1-year mortality. Exposure-outcome associations were assessed with competing risks and logistic regression. RESULTS: We identified 45 915 beneficiaries with pancreatic cancer, including 78.4%, 10.9%, and 10.7% residing in metropolitan, micropolitan, and rural areas, respectively. In analyses adjusted for age, sex, comorbidity, and metastasis, residents of micropolitan and rural areas were less likely to undergo pancreatectomy (adjusted subdistribution hazard ratio = 0.88 for rural, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.81 to 0.95) and had higher 1-year mortality (adjusted odds ratio = 1.25 for rural, 95% CI = 1.17 to 1.33) compared with metropolitan residents. Adjustment for measures of SES attenuated the association of nonmetropolitan residence with mortality, and there was no statistically significant association of rurality with pancreatectomy after adjustment. Black beneficiaries had lower likelihood of pancreatectomy than White, non-Hispanic beneficiaries (subdistribution hazard ratio = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.72 to 0.89, adjusted for SES). One-year mortality in metropolitan areas was higher for Black beneficiaries (adjusted odds ratio = 1.15, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.26). CONCLUSIONS: Rurality, socioeconomic deprivation, and race have complex interrelationships and are associated with disparities in pancreatic cancer treatment and outcomes.