Current Quality of Videos on Colorectal Cancer Screening for General Public.

BACKGROUND: One-third of American adults encompassed by current colorectal cancer screening guidelines fail to obtain recommended screening evaluations. Educational videos are a valuable medium through which to educate and encourage recommended health behaviors in patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional study reviewing the quality of patient education videos addressing colorectal cancer screening. Video quality was assessed in 3 domains: accountability, content, and production. RESULTS: Forty-four videos met inclusion criteria. Out of 33 possible points, videos scored a median of 15.0 (interquartile range 12.9-16.6). Videos scored 1.0 (interquartile range .8-1.0) out of 4.0 for accountability, 6.0 (interquartile range 4.4-8.0) out of 20 for content, and 8.0 (interquartile range 7.4-8.0) out of 9.0 for production. Colonoscopy was the most frequently discussed method of screening (38, 86%). While 13 (34%) videos discussed the risk of colorectal cancer in the general population and 15 (32%) discussed the risk in those with a family history, few videos addressed those with other risk factors. Most (31, 70%) videos discussed the medical consequences of not receiving screening, but only 1 (2%) video discussed the social consequences. Similarly, medical benefits were discussed in 34 (77%) videos while other benefits were not discussed by any video. Only one-fifth of the videos address three or more barriers to screening. CONCLUSIONS: Videos on colorectal cancer screening have excellent production quality but need improvement in the domains of accountability and content. The videos included in this analysis did not adequately address the concerns of viewers nor the benefits of colorectal cancer screening.

Critical Evaluation of the Efficiency of Colorectal Fellowship Websites: Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Websites are an important source of information for fellowship applicants, as they can influence ongoing interest and potential program selection. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the current state of colorectal fellowship websites. METHODS: This cross-sectional study evaluates the quantity and quality of information available on websites of colorectal fellowship programs verified by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education in 2019. RESULTS: A total of 63 colorectal fellowships were included for evaluation. Websites were surveyed for content items that previous studies have found to be influential to program applicants. The 58 (91%) programs with a functional website were evaluated using an information index (calculated as a function of availability of content items concerning education, application, personnel, and benefits) and an interactive index (calculated as a function of accessibility and usability of the webpage). Programs had a median total score of 27.8 (IQR 21.5-34.5) of 79. The median score for the interactive index was 7.5 of 15 and for the information index was 20 of 64. The median scores for website application, education, personnel, and benefits or life considerations were 5, 5.5, 3.3, and 4 of 13, 24, 13, and 14, respectively. There was no difference in total score between programs in different geographical regions (P=.46). CONCLUSIONS: Currently, colorectal surgery fellowship program websites do not provide enough content for applicants to make informed decisions. All training programs, regardless of specialty, should evaluate and improve their digital footprint to ensure their websites are accessible and provide the information desired by applicants.

Surgical Inpatient's Attitudes Toward Resident Participation: All About Expectations.

OBJECTIVE: Determine whether an educational video can improve surgical inpatients' attitudes toward resident participation in their care. METHODS: Patients admitted to the Trauma/Emergency General Surgery Service at University Hospital (San Antonio, Texas) were randomly divided into control and intervention groups. Patients in the intervention group viewed a short educational video about the role and responsibilities of medical students, residents, and attending surgeons. All patients then completed a previously published survey. RESULTS: A total of 140 patients responded to the survey (control = 81 and intervention = 59 patients). Overall, 86.4% of patients were welcoming of resident participation. Patients who were expecting residents to be involved in their care had attitudes that are more favorable on almost all survey questions regardless of their study condition. However, patients in the intervention group who expected resident involvement in their care had more favorable attitudes about senior residents (postgraduate year 3-5) assisting in routine or complicated surgery than those in the control group who were expecting resident involvement (both p ≤ 0.001). This same group of patients also had more favorable attitudes about surgical outcomes and overall surgical health when residents are involved (p = 0.004, p = 0.001, respectively). Most patients (79%) said they had no residents previously involved in their care, or they were unsure if residents were previously involved. CONCLUSIONS: Patient expectation of resident involvement is one of the most important factors influencing perceptions of inpatients about resident participation in surgery. Our goal should be early and frequent discussion with patients about resident involvement in order to foster an atmosphere of trust, including full transparency regarding resident involvement in surgical procedures. An educational video may help introduce the roles of trainees and attending surgeons but should not be used in lieu of direct discussion with patients.