"I Came up Short on the Academic Ladder": A Grounded Theory Study of Careerism in Academic Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the definition of career success in academic surgery. BACKGROUND: Career success in academic surgery is frequently defined as the achievement of a specific title, from full professor to department chair. This type of definition is convenient and established but potentially incomplete. The business literature has a more nuanced view of the relationship between titles and success, but this relationship has not been studied in medicine. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted from May to November 2020. Data were analyzed in an iterative fashion using grounded theory methodology to develop a conceptual model. RESULTS: We conducted 26 semi-structured interviews with practicing surgeons differing in years of experience; 12 (46%) participants were female, mean age of 48. Participants included 5 chairs of surgery, 6 division chiefs, and 7 past or current presidents of national societies. Four themes emerged on the importance of titles: Some study participants reported that (1) titles are a barometer of success; others argued that (2) titles are not a sufficient metric to define success; (3) titles are a means to an end; and (4) there is a desire to achieve the title of a respected mentor. CONCLUSIONS: As the definition of career success in academic surgery changes to encompass a broader range of interests and ambitions, the traditional markers of success must come into review. Academic surgeons see the value of titles as a marker of success and as a means to achieving other goals, but overwhelmingly our interviewees felt that titles were a double-edged sword and that a more inclusive definition of academic success was needed.

Using self-collection HPV testing to increase engagement in cervical cancer screening programs in rural Guatemala: a longitudinal analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer is a leading cause of death in low- and middle-income countries. Self-collection testing for human papillomavirus (HPV) is an alternative form of cervical cancer screening that can be completed privately and at home. Understanding how the use of HPV testing influences follow-up care in low-resourced settings is crucial before broad implementation. This study aimed to identify if access to self-collection HPV testing impacts participation in established cervical cancer screening programs among women in two rural communities in Guatemala. METHODS: A cohort of 956 women was recruited in 2016 and followed for 2 years for the HPV Multiethnic Study (HPV MES). At baseline, women answered a questionnaire assessing cervical cancer screening history and were offered self-collection HPV testing. Women were re-contacted yearly to determine receipt of additional screening. Statistical changes in screening behavior before and throughout study participation, stratified by self-collection status, were assessed using McNemar pair tests for proportions. Alluvial plots were constructed to depict changes in individual screening behavior. The odds of changes in Pap-compliance (screened in past 3 years), given collection status, were assessed using multivariate logistic regressions. RESULTS: Reported screening rates increased 2 years after enrollment compared to rates reported for the 3 years before study entry among women who collected a sample (19.1% increase, p < 0.05), received results of their test (22.1% increase, p < 0.05), and received positive (24.2% increase, p < 0.1) or negative results (21.7% increase, p < 0.05). However, most increases came from one community, with minimal changes in the other. The adjusted odds of becoming Pap compliant were higher for women who collected a sample vs. did not (OR: 1.48, 95% CI: 0.64, 3.40), received their result vs. did not (OR: 1.29, 95% CI: 0.52, 3.02), and received a positive result vs. negative (OR: 2.43, 95% CI: 0.63, 16.10). CONCLUSIONS: Participation in self-collection HPV testing campaigns may increase likelihood of involvement in screening programs. However, results varied between communities, and reporting of screening histories was inconsistent. Future work should identify what community-specific factors promote success in HPV testing programs and focus on improving education on existing cervical cancer interventions.

Multidisciplinary Difficult Airway Team Characteristics, Airway Securement Success, and Clinical Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether implementation of a multidisciplinary airway team was associated with improvement in (1) rate of successful airway securement at first attempt; (2) time to secure airway; and (3) overall complication rate in patients with a difficult airway, as compared with usual care. DATA SOURCES: Ovid Medline, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Central, and CINAHL databases. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic review of literature on inpatient multidisciplinary team management of difficult airways, including all studies performed in inpatient settings, excluding studies of ventilator weaning, flight/military medicine, EXIT procedures, and simulation or educational studies. DistillerSR was used for article screening and risk of a bias assessment to evaluate article quality. Data was extracted on study design, airway team composition, patient characteristics, and clinical outcomes including airway securement, complications, and mortality. RESULTS: From 5323 studies screened, 19 studies met inclusion criteria with 4675 patients. Study designs included 12 quality improvement projects, 6 cohort studies, and 1 randomized controlled trial. Four studies evaluated effect of multidisciplinary difficult airway teams on airway securement; all reported higher first attempt success rate with team approach. Three studies reported time to secure the difficult airways, all reporting swifter airway securement with team approach. The most common difficult airway complications were hypoxia, esophageal intubation, hemodynamic instability, and aspiration. Team composition varied, including otolaryngologists, anesthesiologists, intensivists, nurses, and respiratory care practitioners. CONCLUSION: Multidisciplinary difficult airway teams are associated with improved clinical outcomes compared to unstructured emergency airway management; however, studies have significant heterogeneity in team composition, algorithms for airway securement, and outcomes reported. Further evidence is necessary to define the clinical efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and best practices relating to implementing difficult airway teams in inpatient settings.