[Preoperative evaluation of adult patients before elective, non-cardiothoracic surgery : A joint recommendation of the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, the German Society for Surgery and the German Society for Internal Medicine]. / Präoperative Evaluation erwachsener Patientinnen und Patienten vor elektiven, nicht herz-thoraxchirurgischen Eingriffen : Eine gemeinsame Empfehlung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Chirurgie und der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Innere Medizin.

The 70 recommendations summarize the current status of preoperative risk evaluation of adult patients prior to elective non-cardiothoracic surgery. Based on the joint publications of the German scientific societies for anesthesiology and intensive care medicine (DGAI), surgery (DGCH), and internal medicine (DGIM), which were first published in 2010 and updated in 2017, as well as the European guideline on preoperative cardiac risk evaluation published in 2022, a comprehensive re-evaluation of the recommendation takes place, taking into account new findings, the current literature, and current guidelines of international professional societies. The revised multidisciplinary recommendation is intended to facilitate a structured and common approach to the preoperative evaluation of patients. The aim is to ensure individualized preparation for the patient prior to surgery and thus to increase patient safety. Taking into account intervention- and patient-specific factors, which are indispensable in the preoperative risk evaluation, the perioperative risk for the patient should be minimized and safety increased. The recommendations for action are summarized under "General Principles (A)," "Advanced Diagnostics (B)," and the "Preoperative Management of Continuous Medication (C)." For the first time, a rating of the individual measures with regard to their clinical relevance has been given in the present recommendation. A joint and transparent agreement is intended to ensure a high level of patient orientation while avoiding unnecessary preliminary examinations, to shorten preoperative examination procedures, and ultimately to save costs. The joint recommendation of DGAI, DGCH and DGIM reflects the current state of knowledge as well as the opinion of experts. The recommendation does not replace the individualized decision between patient and physician about the best preoperative strategy and treatment.

General Surgery Resuscitation Preference Documentation: A Quality Improvement Initiative.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Documentation of resuscitation preferences is crucial for patients undergoing surgery. Unfortunately, this remains an area for improvement at many institutions. We conducted a quality improvement initiative to enhance documentation percentages by integrating perioperative resuscitation checks into the surgical workflow. Specifically, we aimed to increase the percentage of general surgery patients with documented resuscitation statuses from 82% to 90% within a 1-year period. METHODS: Three key change ideas were developed. First, surgical consent forms were modified to include the patient's resuscitation status. Second, the resuscitation status was added to the routinely used perioperative surgical checklist. Finally, patient resources on resuscitation processes and options were updated with support from patient partners. An audit survey was distributed mid-way through the interventions to evaluate process measures. RESULTS: The initiatives were successful in reaching our study aim of 90% documentation rate for all general surgery patients. The audit revealed a high uptake of the new consent forms, moderate use of the surgical checklist, and only a few patients for whom additional resuscitation details were added to their clinical note. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully increased the documentation percentage of resuscitation statuses within our large tertiary care center by incorporating checks into routine forms to prompt the conversation with patients early.

Improving outcomes in emergency general surgery: Construct of a collaborative quality initiative.

BACKGROUND: Emergency general surgery conditions are common, costly, and highly morbid. The proportion of excess morbidity due to variation in health systems and processes of care is poorly understood. We constructed a collaborative quality initiative for emergency general surgery to investigate the emergency general surgery care provided and guide process improvements. METHODS: We collected data at 10 hospitals from July 2019 to December 2022. Five cohorts were defined: acute appendicitis, acute gallbladder disease, small bowel obstruction, emergency laparotomy, and overall aggregate. Processes and inpatient outcomes investigated included operative versus nonoperative management, mortality, morbidity (mortality and/or complication), readmissions, and length of stay. Multivariable risk adjustment accounted for variations in demographic, comorbid, anatomic, and disease traits. RESULTS: Of the 19,956 emergency general surgery patients, 56.8% were female and 82.8% were White, and the mean (SD) age was 53.3 (20.8) years. After accounting for patient and disease factors, the adjusted aggregate mortality rate was 3.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.2-3.7), morbidity rate was 27.6% (95% CI, 27.0-28.3), and the readmission rate was 15.1% (95% CI, 14.6-15.6). Operative management varied between hospitals from 70.9% to 96.9% for acute appendicitis and 19.8% to 79.4% for small bowel obstruction. Significant differences in outcomes between hospitals were observed with high- and low-outlier performers identified after risk adjustment in the overall cohort for mortality, morbidity, and readmissions. The use of a Gastrografin challenge in patients with a small bowel obstruction ranged from 10.7% to 61.4% of patients. In patients who underwent initial nonoperative management of acute cholecystitis, 51.5% had a cholecystostomy tube placed. The cholecystostomy tube placement rate ranged from 23.5% to 62.1% across hospitals. CONCLUSION: A multihospital emergency general surgery collaborative reveals high morbidity with substantial variability in processes and outcomes among hospitals. A targeted collaborative quality improvement effort can identify outliers in emergency general surgery care and may provide a mechanism to optimize outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level III.

Moving toward the Development and Effective Implementation of High-Quality Guidelines in Pediatric Surgery: A Review of the Literature.

Applying evidence-based guidelines can enhance the quality of patient care. While robust guideline development methodology ensures credibility and validity, methodological variations can impact guideline quality. Besides methodological rigor, effective implementation is crucial for achieving improved health outcomes. This review provides an overview of recent literature pertaining to the development and implementation of guidelines in pediatric surgery. Literature was reviewed to provide an overview of sound guideline development methodologies and approaches to promote effective guideline implementation. Challenges specific to pediatric surgery were highlighted. A search was performed to identify published guidelines relevant to pediatric surgery from 2018 to June 2023, and their quality was collectively appraised using the AGREE II instrument. High-quality guideline development can be promoted by using methodologically sound tools such as the Guidelines 2.0 checklist, the GRADE system, and the AGREE II instrument. While implementation can be promoted during guideline development and post-publication, its effectiveness may be influenced by various factors. Challenges pertinent to pediatric surgery, such as limited evidence and difficulties with outcome selection and heterogeneity, may impact guideline quality and effective implementation. Fifteen guidelines were identified and collectively appraised as suboptimal, with a mean overall AGREE II score of 58%, with applicability being the lowest scoring domain. There are identified challenges and barriers to the development and effective implementation of high-quality guidelines in pediatric surgery. It is valuable to prioritize the identification of adapted, innovative methodological strategies and the use of implementation science to understand and achieve effective guideline implementation.

The Benefits of Benchmarking-A New Perspective on Measuring Quality in Surgery.

This Viewpoint discusses benchmarking as a new means to assess surgical quality.

Impacto de COVID-19 en la formación de los alumnos de la Carrera de Posgrado de Cirugía General en un Hospital COVID / Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on trainees' education in the Postgraduate Program in General Surgery in a COVID-19-dedicated hospital

RESUMEN Antecedentes: El Hospital Eva Perón de la ciudad de Granadero Baigorria se destinó a la atención casi exclusiva de pacientes afectados por COVID-19, lo que implicó modificar las actividades que allí se desarrollan. Allí se realizan actividades correspondientes al Posgrado de Cirugía General de la Facultad de Ciencias Médicas de la Universidad Nacional de Rosario. El objetivo es describir los cambios y el funcionamiento del posgrado de Cirugía General en el HEEP durante la pandemia por COVID-19, y el impacto que esta tuvo sobre la formación de los alumnos. Material y métodos: se realizó un trabajo descriptivo, comparativo. Período 20 de marzo de 2020 al 30 de septiembre de 2020 y el mismo período del año 2019. Variables analizadas: número de cirugías, horas en el hospital, número de guardias, actividad en consultorio y pacientes evaluados, seminarios teóricos, cursado de la carrera de posgrado. Resultados: las cirugías totales se redujeron un 74,88%. Las cirugías programadas se redujeron un 85,59%. Las cirugías de guardia se redujeron un 63,19%. Las guardias de R1, R2 y R3 se vieron disminuidas, al contrario de R4. Las horas en el hospital se redujeron en todos los alumnos. Los pacientes ingresados disminuyeron el 74,06%. La atención en todos los consultorios se vio reducida. Las actividades académicas se incrementaron, de forma no presencial. Conclusión: la pandemia por COVID-19 afectó significativamente la formación de los alumnos del posgrado de Cirugía General del HEEP. Se recurrió a métodos no tradicionales de enseñanza para realizar actualizaciones y discutir trabajos científicos.

ABSTRACT Background: Hospital Eva Perón in the city of Granadero Baigorria was almost exclusively dedicated to the care of COVID-19 patients; thereby, it was necessary to modify its activities, as those of the postgraduate program in General Surgery of Facultad de Ciencias Médicas, Universidad Nacional de Rosario, which take place in this hospital. The aim of this study is to describe the changes made and the performance of the postgraduate program in general surgery at HEEP during the COVID-19 pandemic, and its impact on trainees' education. Material and methods: We conducted a descriptive study comparing the period between March 20, 2020, and September 30, 2020, with the same period in 2019. The variables analyzed included number of surgeries, hours spent in hospital, number of in-house call shifts, activities in the outpatient clinic and evaluation of patients, theoretical seminars, attendance to classes of the postgraduate programs and research work. Results: The total number of surgeries decreased by 74.88%, scheduled surgeries by 85.59% and emergency surgeries by 63.19%. The numbers of in-house call shifts of PGY-1, PGY-2 and PGY-3 residents decreased but not those of PGY-4 residents. The hours spent in hospital decreased in all the trainees. The number of patients hospitalized decreased by 74.06% and there was a reduction in all the activities of the outpatient clinics. The academic activities, performed non-face-to-face, increased. Conclusion: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly affected trainees' education in the postgraduate program in General Surgery at HEEP. Non-traditional teaching methods were used for updating and discussing scientific papers.

Defining operative experience targets in surgical training: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The surgical learning curve is an observable and measurable phenomenon. Operative experience targets are well established as a proxy measure for operative competence in surgical training across jurisdictions. The aim of this study was to critique the available evidence regarding the relationship between operative experience in surgical training and trainee competence. METHODS: A systematic review of the PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane library databases was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Articles were sought that defined the relationship between procedural volume in surgical training and trainee competence, proficiency, or mastery. The educational impact of included studies was evaluated using a modified Kirkpatrick model. RESULTS: Of 3,672 records identified on database searching, 30 papers were ultimately included. Fourteen studies defined operative experience thresholds using operative time as a surrogate measure of competence, whereas another 8 used trainer assessments of operative performance (Kirkpatrick level 3). A further 5 studies were able to determine the relationship between trainee case volumes and subsequent patient outcomes (Kirkpatrick level 4b). CONCLUSION: Many studies have recorded competent trainee performance in key index procedures after reaching experience threshold numbers in excess of currently mandated targets across jurisdictions. The evidence relating current operative experience targets to patient outcomes across a range of surgical subspecialties of surgical subspecialties is lacking. This review supports a move toward criterion-based referencing of operative performance targets in surgical training.

Sesgos en investigación quirúrgica / Biases in surgical research

Resumen Los resultados de diversos hallazgos de investigación han sido objeto de crítica, en especial en los últimos años, debido a presencia de errores sistemáticos (sesgos), los que ponen en duda la validez interna de los resultados obtenidos. Estos sesgos pueden ocurrir en cualquier etapa del curso de una investigación, es decir, desde la planificación del estudio hasta la presentación y publicación de sus resultados. Los sesgos se han clasificado de diferentes formas, intentado agruparlos bajo dimensiones conceptuales, objeto de organizar de mejor forma la información existente, que además es considerable. Los sesgos pueden ocurrir por diversos motivos, pero en general, los más frecuentes son aquellos originados por el observador (él o los que miden), por lo que es observado (sujeto en estudio); y aquello con lo que se observa (instrumento de medición). Por otra parte, varios de los múltiples sesgos existentes, se pueden agrupar en: sesgos de selección, de medición o información, y de confusión. El objetivo de este manuscrito fue comentar la importancia de los sesgos más comunes en la investigación quirúrgica, y su relación con algunos diseños de investigación; así como, conocer las estrategias existentes para minimizar su ocurrencia.

The results of many research findings have come under scrutiny in recent years due to the introduction of systematic errors (biases), which can occur at any stage during an investigation, from planning to presentation of results and their presentation and further publication. Biases have been classified in different ways, trying to group them under conceptual dimensions to better organize the existing information, which is considerable. Biases can occur for various reasons, but in general, the most frequent are those originated by the observer, what is observed; and what is observed with. I.e., the subject that is measured, who measures it and with what it measures it. On the other hand, several of the multiple biases can be grouped into selection, measurement or information, and confounding biases. The aim of this manuscript was to comment on the importance of the most common biases in surgical research, and their relationship with some research designs; as well as know the existing strategies to reduce its occurrence.

Technical Standards for Cancer Surgery: Commission on Cancer Standards 5.3-5.8.

Clinical practice guidelines in oncology have typically focused on workup, disease staging, and medical management. Although recommendations for surgical care have been included in these guidelines, those recommendations have primarily addressed issues such as the role of surgery or the incorporation of surgery into multidisciplinary treatment strategies, not the technical performance of the operative procedures themselves. Therefore, the quality of surgery, the only component of multidisciplinary cancer care proven to be potentially curative, has been poorly controlled. During the past decade, the American College of Surgeons (ACS) cancer programs have attempted to fill this gap by developing "operative standards" for cancer surgery. This report discusses the history of the operative standards, highlights evidence to demonstrate their efficacy, and describes the activities of the ACS Commission on Cancer and Cancer Surgery Standards Program toward disseminating and implementing them.

Validity Evidence for Procedure-specific Competence Assessment Tools in General Surgery: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to provide a focused and detailed assessment of the validity evidence supporting procedure-specific operative assessment tools in general surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Competency-based assessment tools should be supported by robust validity evidence to be used reliably for evaluation of operative skills. The contemporary framework of validity relies on five sources of evidence: content, response process, internal structure, relation to other variables, and consequences. METHODS: A systematic search of 8 databases was conducted for studies containing procedure-specific operative assessment tools in general surgery. The validity evidence supporting each tool was assessed and scored in alignment with the contemporary framework of validity. Methodological rigour of studies was assessed with the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument. The educational utility of each tool was assessed with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education framework. RESULTS: There were 28 studies meeting inclusion criteria and 23 unique tools were assessed. Scores for validity evidence varied widely between tools, ranging from 3 - 14 (maximum 15). Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument scores assessing the quality of study methodology were also variable (8.5-15.5, maximum 16.5). Direct reporting of educational utility criteria was limited. CONCLUSIONS: This study has identified a small group of procedure-specific operative assessment tools in general surgery. Many of these tools have limited validity evidence and have not been studied sufficiently to be used reliably in high-stakes summative assessments. As general surgery transitions to competency-based training, a more robust library of operative assessment tools will be required to support resident education and evaluation.

For the People and the Profession.

In 1982 Dean Warren delivered the presidential address "Not for the Profession… For the People" in which he identified substandard surgical residency programs graduating residents who were unable to pass American Board of Surgery exams. Drs. Warren and Shires as members of the independent ACGME began to close the substandard programs in order to improve surgical care for average Americans i.e. "for the people". By 2003 these changes dramatically reduced the failure rate for the ABS exams and trained good surgeons who could operate independently however the residents were on duty for every other or every third night. In 2003 the ACGME mandated duty hour restrictions in order improve resident wellness and improve the training environment for the profession. However, work hour restrictions reduced the time surgical residents spent in the hospital environment primarily when residents had more autonomy and had exposure to emergency cases which degraded readiness for independent practice. Surgical educators in the 2 decades after the work hour restrictions have improved techniques of training so graduates could not only pass the board exams but also be prepared for independent practice. Surgical residency training has improved by both the changes implemented by the independent ACGME in 1981 and by the work hour restrictions mandated in 2003. Five recommendations are made to ensure that Dr Warren's culture of excellence in surgical training continues in an environment that enhances wellbeing of the trainee i.e. "For the People and the Profession".

Implementation and Evaluation of Quality Improvement Training in Surgery: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to review and appraise how quality improvement (QI) skills are taught to surgeons and surgical residents. BACKGROUND: There is a global drive to deliver capacity in undertaking QI within surgical services. However, there are currently no specifications regarding optimal QI content or delivery. METHODS: We reviewed QI educational intervention studies targeting surgeons or surgical trainees/residents published until 2017. Primary outcomes included teaching methods and training materials. Secondary outcomes were implementation frameworks and strategies used to deliver QI training successfully. RESULTS: There were 20,590 hits across 10 databases, of which 11,563 were screened following de-duplication. Seventeen studies were included in the final synthesis. Variable QI techniques (eg, combined QI models, process mapping, and "lean" principles) and assessment methods were found. Delivery was more consistent, typically combining didactic teaching blended with QI project delivery. Implementation of QI training was poorly reported and appears supported by collaborative approaches (including building learning collaboratives, and coalitions). Study designs were typically pre-/post-training without controls. Studies generally lacked clarity on the underpinning framework (59%), setting description (59%), content (47%), and conclusions (47%), whereas 88% scored low on psychometrics reporting. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that surgical QI training can focus on any well-established QI technique, provided it is done through a combination of didactic teaching and practical application. True effectiveness and extent of impact of QI training remain unclear, due to methodological weaknesses and inconsistent reporting. Conduct of larger-scale educational QI studies across multiple institutions can advance the field.

Novel method to link surgical trainee performance data to patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: A significant roadblock in surgical education research has been the inability to compare trainee performance to the outcomes of those surgeons after they enter independent practice. We describe the feasibility of an innovative method to link trainee performance data with patient outcomes. METHODS: We extracted surgeon NPI numbers from Medicare claims data for common general surgery procedures between 2007 and 2017. Next, American Board of Surgery (ABS) trainee performance data was cross-referenced with additional resources to supplement NPI data. The patient and trainee datasets were linked using NPI number and a linkage rate was calculated. RESULTS: We identified 12,952 unique surgeons in the Medicare file. Medicare surgeons were matched with ABS records by NPI number, with 96.2% (n = 12,460) of surgeons linked successfully. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated a novel process to link patient outcomes to trainee performance. This innovation can enable future research investigating the relationship between surgical trainee performance and patient outcomes in independent practice.

Does surgical observed structured clinical exam (OSCE) predict clerkship grade, shelf exam scores, and preceptor clinical evaluation?

BACKGROUND: Clinical evaluation of medical student performance has been criticized as variable and subjective. The aim of this study was to assess the correlation of a summative surgical OSCE exam to clinical faculty evaluations as well as surgery shelf exam score and final grades. METHODS: The performance of 392 students who completed the surgical clerkship between 2017 and 2019 was assessed via Pearson Coefficients comparing OSCE grades, clinical evaluations of Medical Knowledge and Patient Care, Communication and Professionalism, the National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) shelf surgical subject exam, and final clerkship grade. RESULTS: Results demonstrate a statistically significant positive relationship between the OSCE, Shelf score and grade, final clerkship grade, and all clinical evaluations except Communication skills. The greatest correlation occurred between OSCE and shelf scores and grades. Although significant, the degree of correlation with clinical observation was significantly less. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that a surgical OSCE has a small positive correlation with clinical knowledge as measured by the NBME shelf exam. There is also an equal correlation with medical knowledge standards, with the OSCE better predicting NBME shelf outcome. This lower correlation to clinical assessment suggests that either the clinical grades contain elements not detected on an OSCE exam but could also support the hypothesis that variability in clinical grades do contain a significant degree of subjectivity.