The joy of surgery: how surgeons experience joy, time, and support.

BACKGROUND: Burnout is a crisis in medicine, and especially in surgery it has serious implications not only for physician well-being but also for patient outcomes. This study builds on previous SAGES Reimagining the Practice of Surgery Task Force work to better understand how organizations might intervene to increase the "joy in surgery." METHODS: This was a cross-sectional, descriptive study utilizing a REDCap survey with closed-ended questions for data collection across 5 domains: facilitators of joy, support for best work, time for work tasks, barriers to joy, and what they would do with more time. We calculated average scores and "percentage of respondents giving a high score" for each item. RESULTS: There were 307 individuals who started the survey; 223 completed it and were surgeons who met the inclusion criteria. The majority (85.7%) were trained in general surgery, regardless of sub-specialty. Surgeons found joy in operating and its technical skills, curing disease, patient relationships, and working with a good team. They reported usually having what they needed to deliver care. A majority felt valued and respected. Most were dissatisfied with reimbursement, perceiving it as unfair. The most commonly worked range of hours was 51-70 per week. They reported having little time for paperwork and documentation, and if they had more time, they would spend it with friends and family. CONCLUSION: Organizations should consider interventions to address the operative environment, provide appropriate staff support, and foster good teamwork. They can also consider interventions that alleviate time pressures and administrative burden while at the same time promoting sustainable workloads.

The joy of surgery: how gender influences surgeons' experiences.

INTRODUCTION: Burnout in medicine is an epidemic, and surgeons are not immune. Studies often focus on negative factors leading to burnout, with less emphasis on optimizing joy. The purpose of this study, conducted by the SAGES Reimagining the Practice of Surgery Task Force, was to explore how gender may influence surgeon well-being to better inform organizational change. METHODS: The study team developed a survey with the domains: facilitators of joy, support for best work, time for work tasks, barriers to joy, and what they would do with more time. The survey was emailed to 5777 addresses on the SAGES distribution list. Results were analyzed by calculating summary statistics. RESULTS: 223 surgeons completed the survey; 62.3% identified as men, 32.3% as women, and 5.4% did not indicate gender. Female compared to male respondents were younger (41.6 vs 52.5 years) and had practiced for fewer years (8.4 vs 19.4 years). The three greatest differences in facilitators of joy were being a leader in the field, leading clinical teams, and teaching, with a > 10 percentage point difference between men/women rating these highly (score of ≥ 8). Women generally perceived less support from their institutions than men. The greatest gender difference was in support for teaching, with 52.8% of men rating this highly compared to 30.2% of women. Only 52% of women felt respected by coworkers most of the time compared to 68.3% of men. Most (96.0%) respondents (men 95.7% and women 98.6%) reported wanting more time with family and friends. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the complexity of the personal and professional factors that influence joy in surgery, highlight gender differences that impact joy and suggests opportunities for improved gender-based support. These results can inform potential organization-level changes and further research to better understand emerging differences in joy across gender identities.

Factors influencing surgeon well-being: qualitatively exploring the joy of surgery.

BACKGROUND: There has been considerable research into burnout but much less into how surgeons thrive and find joy. This study, conducted by the SAGES Reimagining the Practice of Surgery Task Force, explored factors influencing surgeon well-being, the eventual goal being translating findings into tangible changes to help restore the joy in surgery. METHODS: This was a qualitative, descriptive study. Purposive sampling ensured representation across ages, genders, ethnicities, practice types, and geographies. Semi-structured interviews were recorded and transcribed. We coded inductively, finalized the codebook by consensus, and then constructed a thematic network. Global themes formed our conclusions; organizing themes gave additional detail. Analysis was facilitated by NVivo. RESULTS: We interviewed 17 surgeons from the US and Canada. Total interview time was 15 hours. Our global and organizing themes were: Stressors (Work-life Integration, Administration-related Concerns, Time and Productivity Pressures, Operating Room Factors, and Lack of Respect). Satisfaction (Service, Challenge, Autonomy, Leadership, and Respect and Recognition). Support (Team, Personal Life, Leaders, and Institutions). Values (Professional and Personal). Suggestions (Individual, Practice, and System level). Values, stressors, and satisfaction influenced perspectives on support. Experiences of support shaped suggestions. All participants reported stressors and satisfiers. Surgeons at all stages enjoyed operating and being of service. Supports and suggestions included compensation and infrastructure, but human resources were most critical. To experience joy, surgeons needed high-functioning clinical teams, good leaders/mentors, and supportive family/social networks. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicated organizations could (1) better understand surgeons' values, like autonomy; (2) provide more time for satisfiers, like patient relationship building; (3) minimize stressors, like time and financial pressures; and (4) at all levels focus on (4a) building teams and leaders and (4b) giving surgeons time and space for healthy family/social lives. Next steps include developing an assessment tool for individual institutions to build "joy improvement plans" and to inform surgical associations' advocacy efforts.

Implementation of entrustable professional activities into fellowship council accredited programs: a pilot project.

OBJECTIVE: The Fellowship Council (FC) is transitioning to a competency-based medical education (CBME) model, including the introduction of Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) for training and assessment of Fellows. This study describes the implementation process employed by the FC during a ten-month pilot project and presents data regarding feasibility and perceived value. METHODS: The FC coordinated the development of EPAs in collaboration with the sponsoring societies for Advanced GI/MIS, Bariatrics, Foregut, Endoscopy and Hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) fellowships encompassing the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases of care for key competencies. Fifteen accredited fellowship programs participated in this project. The assessments were collected through a unique platform on the FC website. Programs were asked to convene a Clinical Competency Committee (CCC) on a quarterly basis. The pilot group met monthly to support and improve the process. An exit survey evaluated the perceived value of EPAs. RESULTS: The 15 participating programs included 18 fellows and 106 faculty. A total of 655 assessments were initiated with 429 (65%) completed. The average (SD) number of EPAs completed for each fellow was 24(18); range 0-72. Intraoperative EPAs were preferentially completed (71%). The average(SD) time for both the fellow and faculty to complete an EPA was 27(78) hours. Engagement increased from 39% of fellows completing at least one EPA in September to 72% in December and declining to 50% in May. Entrustment level increased from 6% of EPAs evaluated as "Practice Ready" in September to 75% in June. The exit survey was returned by 63% of faculty and 72% of fellows. Overall, 46% of fellows and 74% of program directors recommended full-scale implementation of the EPA framework. CONCLUSION: A competency-based assessment framework was developed by the FC and piloted in several programs. Participation was variable and required ongoing strategies to address barriers. The pilot project has prepared the FC to introduce CBME across all FC training programs.

Pelvic Reconstruction following Abdominoperineal Resection and Pelvic Exenteration: Management Practices among Plastic and Colorectal Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic reconstruction with a muscle flap significantly improves postoperative outcomes following abdominoperineal resection (APR). Despite it being the gold standard, significant surgeon-selection bias remains with respect to the necessity of pelvic obliteration, flap choice, and ostomy placement. The objective of the study was to characterize management practices among colorectal surgeons (CSs) and plastic surgeons (PSs). METHODS: Specialty-specific surveys were distributed electronically to CSs and PSs via surgical societies. Surveys were designed to illustrate geographic and specialty-specific differences in management. RESULTS: Of 106 (54 CSs and 52 PSs) respondents (58% Canada, 21% Europe, 14% the United States, and 6% Asia/Africa), significant interdisciplinary differences in practices were observed. Most respondents indicated that multidisciplinary meetings were not performed (74% of CSs and 78% of PSs). For a nonradiated pelvic dead space with small perineal defect, 91% of CSs and 56% of PSs indicated that flap reconstruction was not required. For a radiated pelvic dead space with small perineal defect, only 54% of CSs and 6% of PSs indicated that there was no need for flap reconstruction. With respect to ostomy placement, 87% of CSs and 21% of PSs indicated that stoma placement through the rectus was superior. When two ostomies were required, most CSs preferred exteriorizing ostomies through bilateral recti and requesting thigh-based reconstruction. PSs favored the vertical rectus abdominis muscle (VRAM; 52%) over the gracilis (23%) and inferior gluteal artery perforator (IGAP; 23%) flaps. Among PSs, North Americans favor abdominally based flaps (VRAM 60%), while Europeans favor gluteal-based flaps (IGAP 78%). CONCLUSION: A lack of standardization continues to exist with respect to the reconstruction of pelvic defects following APR and pelvic exenteration. Geographic and interdisciplinary biases with respect to ostomy placement, flap choice, and role for pelvic obliteration continues to influence reconstructive practices. These cases should continue to be approached on a case by case basis, driven by pathology, presence of radiation, comorbidities, and the size of the pelvic and perineal defect.