Jehovah's witness head and neck free flap reconstruction patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Jehovah's Witnesses are members of a Christian religious denomination that rejects the transfusion of whole blood and component blood products. Given new transfusion-free strategies, Jehovah's Witness patients are undergoing free flap reconstructions with increased regularity. However, outcome data remains limited. With this study, we sought to examine post-operative outcomes in Jehovah's Witness patients undergoing free flap reconstruction of the head and neck, compare their outcomes to non-Jehovah's Witness patients, and enumerate strategies to enhance the safety of transfusion-free surgery. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was carried out on 10 patients who identified as Jehovah's Witness and 63 patients who did not. Demographic information, pre-operative laboratory values, peri-operative resuscitative interventions, and peri-operative outcome measures were compiled. Descriptive data analysis, Mann-Whitney, Chi-square tests, and multivariate analysis were used. RESULTS: Jehovah's Witness patients were significantly older than non-Jehovah's Witness patients (p = 0.03) and had significantly higher ASA scores (p = 0.009). Head and neck cancer was the primary surgical indication in both groups (p = 0.71). Jehovah's witness patients have significantly less intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.011) and lower post-operative hemoglobin (p = 0.002) compared to non-Jehovah's Witness patients. While Jehovah's Witness patients had significantly higher rates of severe anemia (p = 0.014), there was no significant difference between the two groups in other post-operative complications and readmission rates even in a multivariate analysis accounting for age and ASA score. CONCLUSIONS: Free flap microvascular reconstruction can be reliably performed on Jehovah's Witness head and neck patients without an increased risk of complication. Policies such as the use of non-blood volume expanders, albumin, Epogen, perioperative iron supplementation, cell saver and acute normovolemic hemodilution are key to ensuring good outcomes.

Open Bedside Tracheostomy: Safe and Cost Saving but Underutilized Nationally.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate open bedside tracheostomy (OBT) and compare it with open operating room (OR) tracheostomy and bedside percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) in complications and cost. To determine the tracheostomy practice patterns of academic otolaryngology programs. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study and cross-sectional study. SETTING: Public hospital and tertiary care hospital. METHODS: Otolaryngology program directors were surveyed to determine their institutions' tracheostomy practice patterns and the factors preventing the implementation of open bedside tracheostomies. A retrospective chart review was done of tracheostomies performed at our institutions from 2009 to 2019 for prolonged mechanical ventilation. Complications, length of intubation, comorbidities, body mass index, demographics, mortality rates, and decannulation rates were recorded. A cost analysis between OBT and PDT was conducted. RESULTS: Data from 802 patients were analyzed for 449 OBTs, 206 PDTs, and 147 open OR tracheostomies. Complication rates were low. PDTs were more likely to have perioperative tracheal bleeding (P = .028) and mucus plugging (P = .006). OBTs were performed on sicker patients with a higher Charlson Comorbidity Index than PDT and OR tracheostomies. The cost of OBT was less than that of PDT. The survey response rate of tracheostomy practice patterns was 46%. The otolaryngologists at the responding programs all conducted OR tracheostomies, while 52.7% did OBTs and 30.9% PDTs. CONCLUSION: OBT can be done safely in patients with multiple comorbidities and has a cost that can be less than PDT. Despite these benefits, only 50% of academic institutions routinely performed OBT.

Tracheostomy Outcomes in COVID-19 Patients in a Low Resource Setting.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 predominately affects safety net hospitals. Tracheostomies improve outcomes and decrease length of stay for COVID-19 patients. Our objectives are to determine if (1) COVID-19 tracheostomies have similar complication and mortality rates as non-COVID-19 tracheostomies and (2) to determine the effectiveness of our tracheostomy protocol at a safety net hospital. METHODS: Patients who underwent tracheostomy at Los Angeles County Hospital between August 2009 and August 2020 were included. Demographics, SARS-CoV-2 status, body mass index (BMI), Charlson Co-morbidity Index (CCI), length of intubation, complication rates, decannulation rates, and 30-day all-cause mortality versus tracheostomy related mortality rates were all collected. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients with COVID-19 and 130 non-COVID-19 patients underwent tracheostomies. Both groups were predominately male with similar BMI and CCI, though the COVID-19 patients were more likely to be Hispanic and intubated for a longer time (P = .034 and P < .0001, respectively). Both groups also had similar, low intraoperative complications at 2% to 3% and comparable long-term post-operative complications. However, COVID-19 patients had more perioperative complications within 7 days of surgery (P < .01). Specifically, they were more likely to have perioperative bleeding at their tracheostomy sites (P = .03) and long-term post-operative mucus plugging (P < .01). However, both groups had similar 30-day mortality rates. There were no incidences of COVID-19 transmission to healthcare workers. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 tracheostomies are safe for patients and healthcare workers. Careful attention should be paid to suctioning to prevent mucus plugging. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 3.

Strategies for New Skill Acquisition by Practicing Surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how practicing surgeons utilize available training methods, which methods are perceived as effective, and important barriers to using more effective methods. DESIGN: Online survey designed to characterize surgeon utilization and perception of available training methods. SETTING: Two large Midwestern academic health centers. PARTICIPANTS: 150 faculty surgeons. METHODS: Nominal values were compared using a McNemar's Test and Likert-like values were compared using a paired t-test (IBM SPSS Statistics v. 21.0; New York, NY). RESULTS: Survey response rate was 81% (122/150). 98% of surgeons reported learning a new procedure or technology after formal training. Many surgeons reported scrubbing in expert cases (78%) and self-directed study (66%), while few surgeons (6%) completed a mini-fellowship. The modalities used most commonly were scrubbing in expert cases (34%) and self-directed study (27%). Few surgeons (7%) believed self-directed study would be most effective, whereas 31% and 16% believed operating under supervision and mini-fellowships would be most effective, respectively. Surgeons believed more effective methods "would require too much time" or they had "confidence in their ability to implement safely." CONCLUSIONS: Practicing surgeons use a variety of training methods when learning new procedures and technologies, and there is disconnect between commonly used training methods and those deemed most effective. Confidence in surgeon's ability was cited as a reason for this discrepancy; and surgeons found time associated with more effective methods to be prohibitive.

Safety considerations in learning new procedures: a survey of surgeons.

BACKGROUND: There exists a tension between surgical innovation and safety. The learning curve associated with the introduction of new procedures/technologies has been associated with preventable patient harm. Surgeon's perceptions regarding the safety of methods for learning new procedures/technologies are largely uncharacterized. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A survey was designed to evaluate surgeons' perceptions related to learning new procedures/technologies. This included clinical vignettes across two domains: (1) experience with an operation (e.g., colectomy) and (2) experience with a technology (e.g., laparoscopy). This study also focuses on a surgeon's perceptions of existing credentialing/privileging requirements. Participants were faculty surgeons (n = 150) at two large Midwestern academic health centers. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 77% (116/150). 69% of respondents believed the processes of credentialing/privileging is "far too relaxed" or "too relaxed" for ensuring patient safety. Surgeons most commonly indicated a mini-fellowship is required to learn a new laparoscopic procedure. However, that requirement differed based on a surgeon's prior experience with laparoscopy. For example, to learn laparoscopic colectomy, 35% of respondents felt a surgeon with limited laparoscopic experience should complete a mini-fellowship, whereas 3% felt this was necessary if the surgeon had extensive laparoscopic experience. In the latter scenario, most respondents felt a surgeon should scrub in cases performed by an expert (38%) or perform cases under a proctor's supervision (33%) when learning laparoscopic colectomy. CONCLUSIONS: Many surgeons believe existing hospital credentialing/privileging practices may be too relaxed. Moreover, surgeons believe the "one-size-fits-all" approach for training practicing surgeons may not protect patients from unsafe introduction of new procedures/technologies.

Evaluation of Feedback Systems for the Third-Year Surgical Clerkship.

OBJECTIVE: To compare faculty-to-student feedback rates from 2 different data sets: direct observation cards (direct evidence) and end-of-clerkship questionnaires (ECQs, secondary student reporting). We as authors hypothesized that direct evidence from observation cards would yield higher rates of feedback, compared with student-reported ECQs. DESIGN: Data were gathered from 2 consecutive medical classes of the third-year surgical clerkship. Data were analyzed retrospectively. Subjects and authors were blinded during data collection and analysis. SETTING: University of Michigan Medical School (UMMS) and University of Michigan Health System (UMHS). UMHS is an academic tertiary care center, located in Ann Arbor, Michigan. PARTICIPANTS: Data were gathered from all third-year medical students completing the surgical clerkship from 2012 to 2014. Data were available for 309 students, compared to 313 students who graduated from UMMS during that time. RESULTS: Directly measured rates of feedback showed higher rates of midclerkship feedback (95.43% vs 83.57%, p < 0.05), feedback on an observed history-taking (97.62% vs 84.87%, p < 0.05), and feedback on an observed physical examination (99.67% vs 79.71%, p < 0.05), when compared with the ECQ. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that solely using ECQs to assess feedback rates may be inadequate. The use of multiple methods to assess feedback may therefore be a prudent choice for surgical clerkships.