Effect of surgery setting for outpatient shoulder procedures on early postoperative complications in a military population.

BACKGROUND: There has been a recent push to transition procedures previously performed at hospital-based outpatient surgical departments (HOPDs) to ambulatory surgery centers (ASCs). However, limited data regarding differences in early postoperative complications and care utilization (eg, emergency department visits and unplanned admissions) may drive increased overall costs or worse outcomes. PURPOSE/HYPOTHESIS: The purpose of this study was to examine differences in early 90-day adverse outcomes and postoperative emergency department visits associated with shoulder surgeries excluding arthroplasties that were performed in HOPDs and ASCs in a closed military health care system. We hypothesized that there would be no difference in outcomes between treatment settings. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated the records for 1748 elective shoulder surgeries from 2015 to 2020. Patients were considered as 1 of 2 cohorts depending on whether they underwent surgery in an ASC or HOPD setting. We evaluated groups for differences incomplexity, surgical time, and medical risk. Outcome measures were emergency department visits, unplanned hospital admissions, and complications within the first 90 days after surgery. RESULTS: There was no difference in 90-day postoperative emergency department visits between procedures performed at HOPDs (n = 606) and ASCs (n = 1142). There was a slight increase in rate of unplanned hospital admission within 90 days after surgery in the HOPD cohort, most commonly for pain or overnight observation. The surgical time was significantly shorter (105 vs. 119 minutes, P < .01) at the ASC, but there was no difference in case complexity between the cohorts (P = .28). DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that in appropriate patients, surgery in ASCs can be safely leveraged for its costs savings, efficiency, patient satisfaction, decreases in operative time, and potentially decreased resource utilization both during surgery and in the early postoperative period.

Moral Injuries in Healthcare Workers: What Causes Them and What to Do About Them?

Moral injury (MI) refers to the persisting distress which may occur following exposure to potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs). The COVID-19 pandemic has drawn attention to MI in healthcare workers, who have been found to experience more frequent PMIEs in their day-to-day work than those in other occupational groups such as the military. These events may occur on an individual, team, organizational or system level and have been associated with increased clinician burnout and distress, and poor psychological wellbeing. This paper focuses on healthcare workers' experiences of MI, including potential causes and ways to reduce them. There are myriad challenges that influence the development of MI, such as chronic understaffing and the pressure to treat high numbers of patients with limited resources. There are also multiple impacts of MI: at the individual-level, MI can lead to increased staff absences and understaffing, and prolonged patient contact with limited decision-making power. COVID-19 exacerbated such impacts, with a lack of organizational support during a time of increased patient mortality, and uncertainty and heightened pressure on the clinical frontline associated with scarce resources and understaffing. Potential methods for reduction of MI in healthcare workers include pre-exposure mitigation, such as fostering work environments which treat PMIEs in the same way as other occupational hazards and post-exposure mitigation, such as facilitating healthcare workers to process their experiences of PMIEs in peer support groups or with spiritual advisors and, if MI is associated with mental ill-health, talking therapies using trauma-focused and compassion-oriented frameworks.

Primary Care and Mental Health Staff Perspectives on Universal Suicide Risk Screening and Care Coordination.

Little is known about staff or patient perspectives on suicide risk screening programs. The objectives of this study were to characterize Veterans Health Administration (VHA) primary care and mental health staff perspectives regarding the VHA Suicide Risk Identification Strategy screening and assessment program and to describe coordination of suicide prevention-related care following positive screening results. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 40 primary care and mental health staff at 12 VHA facilities. An inductive-deductive hybrid approach was used to conduct a thematic analysis. Several key themes were identified. Primary care and mental health staff participants accepted having a structured process for screening for suicidal ideation and conducting risk assessments, but both groups noted limitations and challenges with initial assessment and care coordination following screening. Mental health staff reported more concerns than primary care staff about negative impacts of the screening and assessment process on treatment. Both groups felt that better training was needed for primary care staff to effectively discuss and evaluate suicide risk. The results suggested that additional modifications of the screening and assessment process are needed for patients already known to have elevated risk of suicide or chronic suicidal ideation.

Veterans Health Administration staff experiences with suicidal ideation screening and risk assessment in the context of COVID-19.

Universal screening for suicidal ideation in primary care and mental health settings has become a key prevention tool in many healthcare systems, including the Veterans Healthcare Administration (VHA). In response to the coronavirus pandemic, healthcare providers faced a number of challenges, including how to quickly adapt screening practices. The objective of this analyses was to learn staff perspectives on how the pandemic impacted suicide risk screening in primary care and mental health settings. Forty semi-structured interviews were conducted with primary care and mental health staff between April-September 2020 across 12 VHA facilities. A multi-disciplinary team employed a qualitative thematic analysis using a hybrid inductive/deductive approach. Staff reported multiple concerns for patients during the crisis, especially regarding vulnerable populations at risk for social isolation. Lack of clear protocols at some sites on how to serve patients screening positive for suicidal ideation created confusion for staff and led some sites to temporarily stop screening. Sites had varying degrees of adaptability to virtual based care, with the biggest challenge being completion of warm hand-offs to mental health specialists. Unanticipated opportunities that emerged during this time included increased ability of patients and staff to conduct virtual care, which is expected to continue benefit post-pandemic.