Influencing factors in surgical decision-making: a qualitative analysis of colorectal surgeons' experiences of postoperative complications.

AIM: When making anastomotic decisions in rectal cancer surgery, surgeons must consider the risk of anastomotic leakage, which bears implications for the patient's quality of life, cancer recurrence and, potentially, death. The aim of this study was to investigate the views of colorectal surgeons on how their individual attributes (e.g. experience, personality traits) may influence their decision-making and experience of complications. METHOD: This qualitative study used individual interviews for data collection. Purposive sampling was used to invite certified UK-based colorectal surgeons to participate. Participants were recruited until ongoing data review indicated no new codes were generated, suggesting data sufficiency. Data were analysed thematically following Braun and Clarke's six-step framework. RESULTS: Seventeen colorectal surgeons (eight female, nine male) participated. Two key themes with relevant subthemes were identified: (1) personal attributes influencing variation in decision-making (e.g. demographics, personality) and (2) the influence of complications on decision-making. Surgeons described variation in the management of complications based upon their personal attributes, which included factors such as gender, experience and subspeciality interests. Surgeons described the detrimental impact of anastomotic leakage on their mental and physical health. Experience of anastomotic leakage influences future decision-making and is associated with changes in practice even when a technical error is not identified. CONCLUSION: Colorectal surgeons consider anastomotic leaks to be personal 'failures', which has a negative impact on surgeon welfare. Better understanding of how surgeons make difficult decisions, and how surgeons respond to and learn from complications, is necessary to identify 'personalized' methods of supporting surgeons at all career stages, which may improve patient outcomes.

The impact of a dedicated social media strategy on enhancing surgical education.

PURPOSE: Social media (SoMe) is increasingly important in surgical education and may be necessary in the current learning environment. Whilst expanding in use and applications, few studies detail the impact of SoMe on measurable outcomes. The goal of this study was to quantify the impact of a dedicated SoMe strategy on engagement metrics for surgical research. METHODS: A retrospective review of a peer-reviewed surgical journal's Twitter microblog platform (@ColorectalDis) was performed from 6/2015 to 4/2021. A formal SoMe strategy was introduced in September 2018. Data were stratified into 2 time periods: pre-intervention (6-2015 to 9-2018) and post-SoMe intervention (9-2018 to 4-2021). The main outcome was the impact of the SoMe strategy on user engagement with the Twitter platform, journal, and traditional journal metrics. Twitter Analytics and Twitonomy were used to analyse engagement. RESULTS: From conception to analysis, the microblog published 1198 original tweets, generating 5 million impressions and 231,000 engagements. Increased account activity (increased tweets published per month-5.51 vs 28.79; p < 0.01) was associated with significant engagement growth, including new monthly followers (213 vs 38; p < 0.01) and interactions with posted articles (4,096,167 vs 269,152; p < 0.01). Article downloads increased twenty-fold post-SoMe intervention (210,449 vs 10,934; p < 0.01), with significant increases in traditional journal metrics of new subscribers (+11%), article submissions (+24%), and impact factor (+0.9) (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: SoMe directly impacts traditional journal metrics in surgical research. By examining the patterns of user engagement between SoMe and journal sites, the growing beneficial impact of a structured social media strategy and SoMe as an educational tool is demonstrated.

Collaboration is key: the role of social media in advancing surgical research.

Social media has revolutionized how we design, deliver, and disseminate surgical research for the better. The rise of collaborative research groups has been a major contributor to and beneficiary of social media, leading to increased involvement from clinicians, medical students, healthcare professionals, patients, and industry. Everyone benefits from collaborative research by widening access and participation and delivering more impactful research with increasing validity of results applicable to global populations. Now more than ever, the international surgical community is engaged in the process of surgical research, including the role of interdisciplinary collaboration. Patient groups are also central to the process of collaboration. By delivering increasingly relevant research, and by asking pertinent research questions that patients value, higher-impact research is more likely to directly lead to clinical change. From an academic perspective, hierarchies have flattened, facilitating the inclusion of anyone who is interested in contributing to surgical research to be able to do so. Social media has led to a paradigm shift in how surgical research may be conducted. Diversity of thought in research is improving, and engagement in surgical research is at an all-time high. Collaboration of all stakeholders is key to #SoMe4Surgery success and is the new 'gold standard' of surgical research.

Exploring variation in surgical practice: does surgeon personality influence anastomotic decision-making?

BACKGROUND: Decision-making under uncertainty may be influenced by an individual's personality. The primary aim was to explore associations between surgeon personality traits and colorectal anastomotic decision-making. METHODS: Colorectal surgeons worldwide participated in a two-part online survey. Part 1 evaluated surgeon characteristics using the Big Five Inventory to measure personality (five domains: agreeableness; conscientiousness; extraversion; emotional stability; openness) in response to scenarios presented in Part 2 involving anastomotic decisions (i.e. rejoining the bowel with/without temporary stomas, or permanent diversion with end colostomy). Anastomotic decisions were compared using repeated-measure ANOVA. Mean scores of traits domains were compared with normative data using two-tailed t tests. RESULTS: In total, 186 surgeons participated, with 127 surgeons completing both parts of the survey (68.3 per cent). One hundred and thirty-one surgeons were male (70.4 per cent) and 144 were based in Europe (77.4 per cent). Forty-one per cent (77 surgeons) had begun independent practice within the last 5 years. Surgeon personality differed from the general population, with statistically significantly higher levels of emotional stability (3.25 versus 2.97 respectively), lower levels of agreeableness (3.03 versus 3.74), extraversion (2.81 versus 3.38) and openness (3.19 versus 3.67), and similar levels of conscientiousness (3.42 versus 3.40 (all P <0.001)). Female surgeons had significantly lower levels of openness (P <0.001) than males (3.06 versus 3.25). Personality was associated with anastomotic decision-making in specific scenarios. CONCLUSION: Colorectal surgeons have different personality traits from the general population. Certain traits seem to be associated with anastomotic decision-making but only in specific scenarios. Further exploration of the association of personality, risk-taking, and decision-making in surgery is necessary.

'Let's talk about sex': a patient-led survey on sexual function after colorectal and pelvic floor surgery.

AIM: Discussions regarding sex after colorectal and pelvic floor surgery are often overlooked by clinicians. This is the first patient designed and delivered study to explore sexual function and practices after colorectal surgery. The aim was to explore the questions about sex that matter to patients and their partners following colorectal or pelvic floor surgery through a patient and public involvement survey. The results of this work will underpin the creation of a sex patient reported outcome measure. METHODS: An anonymous online survey tool (Survey Monkey™) was disseminated via social media (Twitter, Facebook). Thematic analysis was applied to 130 free text comments posted by participants to identify key themes. RESULTS: Some 632 individuals completed the survey. Most respondents were women (80% n = 507), 49.5% (n = 312) were married and 14% (n = 87) identified as LGBT+ (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender +). Indications for surgery varied: 34% were treated for ulcerative colitis (n = 214); 31% Crohn's (n = 196); 17% (n = 109) cancer; and 17% (n = 110) for perianal fistula. For patients who had a stoma formed (85%, n = 540), over half (51%, n = 324) lived with their stoma for 1-5 years. Respondents reported substantial alterations to their preferences for sexual positions, sexual activity and body confidence following surgery. Most respondents indicated that they were not offered advice about sex by a healthcare professional. CONCLUSIONS: The survey showed a substantial impact on the mechanics of sex following colorectal surgery. Few patients were offered preoperative information regarding sex, which has implications for informed consent. This study demonstrates a clear unmet need, voiced by patients, that open dialogue is necessary preoperatively to discuss sexual (dys)function.

The influence of social media on recruitment to surgical trials.

BACKGROUND: Social media has changed the way surgeons communicate worldwide, particularly in dissemination of trial results. However, it is unclear if social media could be used in recruitment to surgical trials. This study aimed to investigate the influence of Twitter in promoting surgical recruitment in The Emergency Laparotomy and Frailty (ELF) Study. METHODS: The ELF Study was a UK-based, prospective, observational cohort that aimed to assess the influence of frailty on 90-day mortality in older adults undergoing emergency surgery. A power calculation required 500 patients to be recruited to detect a 10% change in mortality associated with frailty. A 12-week recruitment period was selected, calculated from information submitted by participating hospitals and the numbers of emergency surgeries performed in adults aged > 65 years. A Twitter handle was designed (@ELFStudy) with eye-catching logos to encourage enrolment and inform the public and clinicians involved in the study. Twitter Analytics and Twitonomy (Digonomy Pty Ltd) were used to analyse user engagement in relation to patient recruitment. RESULTS: After 90 days of data collection, 49 sites from Scotland, England and Wales recruited 952 consecutive patients undergoing emergency laparotomy, with data logged into a database created on REDCap. Target recruitment (n = 500) was achieved by week 11. A total of 591 tweets were published by @ELFStudy since its conception, making 218,136 impressions at time of writing. The number of impressions (number of times users see a particular tweet) prior to March 20th 2017 (study commencement date) was 23,335 (343.2 per tweet), compared to the recruitment period with 114,314 impressions (256.3 per tweet), ending June 20th 2017. Each additional tweet was associated with an increase in recruitment of 1.66 (95%CI 1.36 to 1.97; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The ELF Study over-recruited by nearly 100%, reaching over 200,000 people across the U.K. Branding enhanced tweet aesthetics and helped increase tweet engagement to stimulate discussion and healthy competition amongst clinicians to aid trial recruitment. Other studies may draw from the social media experiences of the ELF Study to optimise collaboration amongst researchers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study is registered online at www.clinicaltrials.gov (registration number NCT02952430 ) and has been approved by the National Health Service Research Ethics Committee.

Systematic review protocol examining the influence of surgeon personality on perioperative decision making in abdominal surgery.

INTRODUCTION: There is limited published literature exploring how the personality traits of surgeons may influence preoperative decision making, particularly in the context of visceral/abdominal surgery. Multiple validated personality scoring systems exist and have been used to describe surgeon personalities previously. The degree to which each trait is expressed by abdominal surgeons is neither currently known, nor the impact of these traits on postoperative outcomes. The protocol has been written in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols checklist. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The search strategy has been developed by a Health Scientist Librarian in collaboration with the review team. The search was conducted on 1st October 2019.Database subject headings and text words relating to 'abdominal/general surgeons', 'personality', 'postoperative outcomes' and 'decision making' formed the basis of our literature search strategy; the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo and Cochrane databases will be searched. Three reviewers will independently screen and appraise articles, with a fourth reviewer utilised if disagreements arise.A systematic narrative synthesis will be performed, with information presented in text and table format. These will summarise the findings and characteristics of any included studies. Using guidance from the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, the reviewers will describe the potential relationship and findings between studies using the narrative synthesis. Studies will only be reported if they are felt to have low or mid-levels of bias. Studies felt to display high levels of bias will be excluded. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study does not require ethical approval. The formal systematic review will be submitted for peer reviewed publication and presented at relevant conferences. The methods may inform future reviews in other surgical specialties regarding surgeon personality. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019151375.

Analysis of lesion localisation at colonoscopy: outcomes from a multi-centre U.K. study.

BACKGROUND: Colonoscopy is currently the gold standard for detection of colorectal lesions, but may be limited in anatomically localising lesions. This audit aimed to determine the accuracy of colonoscopy lesion localisation, any subsequent changes in surgical management and any potentially influencing factors. METHODS: Patients undergoing colonoscopy prior to elective curative surgery for colorectal lesion/s were included from 8 registered U.K. sites (2012-2014). Three sets of data were recorded: patient factors (age, sex, BMI, screener vs. symptomatic, previous abdominal surgery); colonoscopy factors (caecal intubation, scope guide used, colonoscopist accreditation) and imaging modality. Lesion localisation was standardised with intra-operative location taken as the gold standard. Changes to surgical management were recorded. RESULTS: 364 cases were included; majority of lesions were colonic, solitary, malignant and in symptomatic referrals. 82% patients had their lesion/s correctly located at colonoscopy. Pre-operative CT visualised lesion/s in only 73% of cases with a reduction in screening patients (64 vs. 77%; p = 0.008). 5.2% incorrectly located cases at colonoscopy underwent altered surgical management, including conversion to open. Univariate analysis found colonoscopy accreditation, scope guide use, incomplete colonoscopy and previous abdominal surgery significantly influenced lesion localisation. On multi-variate analysis, caecal intubation and scope guide use remained significant (HR 0.35, 0.20-0.60 95% CI and 0.47; 0.25-0.88, respectively). CONCLUSION: Lesion localisation at colonoscopy is incorrect in 18% of cases leading to potentially significant surgical management alterations. As part of accreditation, colonoscopists need lesion localisation training and awareness of when inaccuracies can occur.