The Impact of Surgeon Adherence to Preoperative Optimization of Hernia Repairs.

BACKGROUND: At the patient level, optimizing risk factors before surgery is a proven approach to improve patient outcomes after hernia repair. However, nearly 25% of patients are not adequately optimized before surgery. It is currently unknown how surgeon-level adherence to preoperative optimization impacts postoperative outcomes. In this context, we evaluated the association between surgeon adherence to optimization practices and surgeon-level postoperative outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative data from 2014 to 2018 was analyzed to examine rates of surgeon adherence to preoperative optimization when performing elective ventral and incisional hernia repair. Adherence was defined as operating on patients who were nontobacco users with a body mass index >18.5 kg/m2 and <40 kg/m2. Surgeons were assigned a risk- and reliability-adjusted adherence rate which was used to divide surgeons into tertiles. Outcomes were compared between adherence tertiles. RESULTS: Across 70 hospitals in Michigan, 15,016 patients underwent ventral and incisional hernia repair, cared for by 454 surgeons. Surgeon adherence to preoperative optimization ranged from 51% to 76%. Surgeons in the lowest optimization tertile had higher rates of emergency department visits (8.78% versus 7.05% versus 7.03%, P < 0.001), serious complications (2.12% versus 1.56% versus 1.84%, P = 0.041), and any complication (4.08% versus 3.37% versus 4.04%, P = 0.043), than middle and high optimization tertiles. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons' clinical outcomes, including complication rates, are affected by the proportion of their patients who are preoperatively optimized with regard to obesity and tobacco use. These results suggest that surgeons can improve their postoperative outcomes by addressing these issues before surgery.

Challenges and Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Asylum Seeker Health at the U.S.-Mexico Border.

Purpose: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic presents health care challenges to asylum seekers living in congregate encampments, including those along the U.S.-Mexico border. It is necessary to understand the impact of the pandemic among this population to address health care needs, reduce transmission, and diminish COVID-19-related morbidity. Methods: Thirty interviews were conducted with asylum seekers and health care professionals in a temporary camp in Matamoros, Mexico to determine challenges, perceptions, and effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. Interviews were coded in NVivo12 by using a team-based approach. Results: The pandemic caused significant mental health burdens but no perceived adverse physical effects, with the U.S. border closure and health care access barriers as more pressing concerns. Participants reported access to information about COVID-19 but had varied levels of knowledge and adherence to disease reduction strategies due to camp conditions. Most participants believed that they had special protection from COVID-19, including strong immune systems or from God. The nongovernmental organizations providing health care and sanitation faced multiple challenges to implement new policies to manage COVID-19. The institution of required temperature checks and quarantine of COVID-19 positive patients led to distrust, decreased seeking of health care services among asylum seekers, and possible underreporting of COVID-19 cases. Conclusion: Our findings among asylum seekers in a Matamoros camp highlight the challenges to implementing disease reduction policies in low-resource congregate camps. Policies to address disease outbreaks focusing on the social determinants of health, health care access barriers, and community engagement may be more acceptable to asylum seekers, suggesting the need for effective strategies to provide prevention information that complements such measures.