RESUMO
Purpose: Transgender individuals have been systemically excluded from U.S. health care, creating barriers and disparities that other populations do not face. Gender-affirming surgery represents an emerging treatment modality for gender dysphoria, however, little is known about how transgender patients experience the perioperative pathway. This study sought to characterize the experiences of transgender patients seeking gender-affirming surgery and identify opportunities for improvement. Methods: A qualitative study was conducted at an academic medical center between July and December 2020. Semistructured interviews were conducted after a postoperative encounter with adult patients who had undergone gender-affirming surgery within the past year. A purposive sampling strategy was used to maximize representation across surgery types and surgeons. Recruitment continued until thematic saturation was reached. Results: All invited patients agreed to participate, yielding 36 interviews (response rate=100%). Four major themes emerged. First, gender-affirming surgery was described as a major life event, often reflecting years of personal decision making and research. Second, participants stressed the importance of surgeon investment, surgeon experience caring for transgender patients, and individualized care in developing a strong relationship with their care team. Third, self-advocacy was necessary to navigate the perioperative pathway and overcome barriers. Last, participants discussed a lack of equity and provider awareness regarding transgender health issues, including correct pronoun usage, terminology, and insurance coverage. Conclusion: Patients undergoing gender-affirming surgery encounter unique perioperative barriers to care, which would benefit from targeted interventions in the health care system. To improve the pathway, our findings support the creation of multidisciplinary gender-affirmation clinics, greater emphasis on transgender care in medical education, and insurance policy reforms aimed at promoting consistent and equitable coverage.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: To promote patient safety and build trust, plastic surgeons must use patient-centered language when discussing gender-affirming surgery. However, the existing terminology has not been evaluated from a patient perspective. This study sought to understand how gender-affirming surgery patients from 3 US geographic regions perceive common terminology. METHODS: An anonymous, 24-item electronic survey was distributed to gender-affirming surgery patients seen in Tennessee, Colorado, and California. After institutional review board exemption, the survey instrument was pretested and piloted with gender-affirming surgery patients. Internal consistency was assessed by computation of Cronbach α (0.87). RESULTS: A total of 306 participants completed the survey: 68 from a Tennessee academic center (response rate, 56%), 131 from a California private practice (response rate, 8%), and 107 from a Colorado academic center (response rate, 53%). A greater proportion of respondents felt the terms "top surgery" and "bottom surgery" were appropriate (83% and 82%, respectively) relative to "chest surgery" and "genital surgery" (41% and 30%, respectively). More respondents favored the phrase "gender-affirming surgery" than "gender-confirming surgery" (86% vs 67%). Nearly half (43%) perceived the phrase "sex reassignment surgery" as inappropriate. Most respondents (80%) preferred their surgeon ask for their pronouns. CONCLUSIONS: Optimizing communication is an actionable way for plastic surgeons to improve the healthcare experiences of gender-affirming surgery patients. "Top surgery" and "bottom surgery" are favored terms, and "gender-affirming surgery" is the preferred name for this discipline. Language preferences should be openly discussed with each patient to ensure professional communication.
Assuntos
Cirurgia de Readequação Sexual , Cirurgiões , Pessoas Transgênero , Humanos , Inquéritos e Questionários , TennesseeRESUMO
BACKGROUND: As free tissue transfer outcomes improve, institutions are examining early discharge protocols. "Early" is generally defined as between one and five days postoperatively, which correlates with the timing of most major complications and most opportunities for flap salvage. Given the trend towards early discharge, the need for healthcare cost reductions and shortage of ICU beds during a viral pandemic, we aimed to propose an evidence-based protocol to select patients for discharge within 72 h of free tissue transfer. METHODS: A retrospective review of all patients who underwent free tissue transfer at Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Tennessee, USA since the onset of the COVID-19 (2020-2021) pandemic was performed. Patients were included for review if they were discharged within 72 h of surgery. Literature relating to expedited discharge after free tissue transfer was also reviewed. RESULTS: Six patients met inclusion criteria for retrospective review. None suffered intraoperative or postoperative inpatient complications and all were discharged within 72 h postoperatively. There were no flap failures within 30 d of reconstruction. CONCLUSION: This study reviews a patient cohort undergoing free tissue transfer during the COVID-19 pandemic. These cases were reviewed for factors that may have contributed to their postoperative success after discharge within 72 hours. These data points were combined with published evidence on risks for failure after free flap reconstruction to design a protocol to select patients for early discharge. The benefits of early discharge include reducing healthcare costs, risks of inpatient hospitalization, and ICU utilization, which is of paramount importance in the midst of a global pandemic..