Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Operative Experience Among General Surgery Residents: A Multi-Institutional Study from the US ROPE Consortium.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between race/ethnicity and case volume among graduating surgical residents. BACKGROUND: Racial/ethnic minority individuals face barriers to entry and advancement in surgery; however, no large-scale investigations of the operative experience of racial/ethnic minority residents have been performed. METHODS: A multi-institutional retrospective analysis of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education case logs of categorical general surgery residents at 20 programs in the US Resident OPerative Experience Consortium database was performed. All residents graduating between 2010 and 2020 were included. The total, surgeon chief, surgeon junior, and teaching assistant case volumes were compared between racial/ethnic groups. RESULTS: The cohort included 1343 residents. There were 211 (15.7%) Asian, 65 (4.8%) Black, 73 (5.4%) Hispanic, 71 (5.3%) "Other" (Native American or Multiple Race), and 923 (68.7%) White residents. On adjusted analysis, Black residents performed 76 fewer total cases (95% CI, -109 to -43, P <0.001) and 69 fewer surgeon junior cases (-98 to -40, P <0.001) than White residents. Comparing adjusted total case volume by graduation year, both Black residents and White residents performed more cases over time; however, there was no difference in the rates of annual increase (10 versus 12 cases per year increase, respectively, P =0.769). Thus, differences in total case volume persisted over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-institutional study, Black residents graduated with lower case volume than non-minority residents throughout the previous decade. Reduced operative learning opportunities may negatively impact professional advancement. Systemic interventions are needed to promote equitable operative experience and positive culture change.

A multi-institutional study from the US ROPE consortium examining factors associated with endocrine surgery exposure for general surgery residents.

BACKGROUND: Prior analyses of general surgery resident case logs have indicated a decline in the number of endocrine procedures performed during residency. This study aimed to identify factors contributing to the endocrine operative experience of general surgery residents and compare those who matched in endocrine surgery fellowship with those who did not. METHODS: We analyzed the case log data of graduates from 18 general surgery residency programs in the US Resident Operative Experience Consortium over an 11-year period. RESULTS: Of the 1,240 residents we included, 17 (1%) matched into endocrine surgery fellowships. Those who matched treated more total endocrine cases, including more thyroid, parathyroid, and adrenal cases, than those who did not (81 vs 37, respectively, P < .01). Program-level factors associated with increased endocrine volume included endocrine-specific rotations (+10, confidence interval 8-12, P < .01), endocrine-trained faculty (+8, confidence interval 7-10, P < .01), and program co-location with otolaryngology residency (+5, confidence interval 2 -8, P < .01) or endocrine surgery fellowship (+4, confidence interval 2-6, P < .01). Factors associated with decreased endocrine volume included bottom 50th percentile in National Institute of Health funding (-10, confidence interval -12 to -8, P < .01) and endocrine-focused otolaryngologists (-3, confidence interval -4 to -1, P < .01). CONCLUSION: Several characteristics are associated with a robust endocrine experience and pursuit of an endocrine surgery fellowship. Modifiable factors include optimizing the recruitment of dedicated endocrine surgeons and the inclusion of endocrine surgery rotations in general surgery residency.

Disparities in the Operative Experience Between Female and Male General Surgery Residents: A Multi-institutional Study From the US ROPE Consortium.

OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in resident operative experience between male and female general surgery residents. BACKGROUND: Despite increasing female representation in surgery, sex and gender disparities in residency experience continue to exist. The operative volume of male and female general surgery residents has not been compared on a multi-institutional level. METHODS: Demographic characteristics and case logs were obtained for categorical general surgery graduates between 2010 and 2020 from the US Resident OPerative Experience Consortium database. Univariable, multivariable, and linear regression analyses were performed to compare differences in operative experience between male and female residents. RESULTS: There were 1343 graduates from 20 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited programs, and 476 (35%) were females. There were no differences in age, race/ethnicity, or proportion pursuing fellowship between groups. Female graduates were less likely to be high-volume residents (27% vs 36%, P < 0.01). On univariable analysis, female graduates performed fewer total cases than male graduates (1140 vs 1177, P < 0.01), largely due to a diminished surgeon junior experience (829 vs 863, P < 0.01). On adjusted multivariable analysis, female sex was negatively associated with being a high-volume resident (OR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.98, P = 0.03). Over the 11-year study period, the annual total number of cases increased significantly for both groups, but female graduates (+16 cases/year) outpaced male graduates (+13 cases/year, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Female general surgery graduates performed significantly fewer cases than male graduates. Reassuringly, this gap in operative experience may be narrowing. Further interventions are warranted to promote equitable training opportunities that support and engage female residents.

A multi-institutional study from the US ROPE Consortium examining factors associated with directly entering practice upon residency graduation.

BACKGROUND: There is concern regarding the competency of today's general surgery graduates as a large proportion defer independent practice in favor of additional fellowship training. Little is known about the graduates who directly enter general surgery practice and if their operative experiences during residency differ from graduates who pursue fellowship. METHODS: Nineteen Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited general surgery programs from the US Resident OPerative Experience Consortium were included. Demographics, career choice, and case logs from graduates between 2010 to 2020 were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 1,264 general surgery residents who graduated over the 11-year period. A total of 248 (19.6%) went directly into practice and 1,016 (80.4%) pursued fellowship. Graduates directly entering practice were more likely to be a high-volume resident (43.1% vs 30.5%, P < .01) and graduate from a high-volume program (49.2% vs 33.0%, P < .01). Direct-to-practice graduates performed 53 more cases compared with fellowship-bound graduates (1,203 vs 1,150, P < .01). On multivariable analysis, entering directly into practice was positively associated with total surgeon chief case volume (odds ratio = 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.18-1.84, P < .01) and graduating from a US medical school (odds ratio = 2.54, 95% confidence interval 1.45-4.44, P < .01) while negatively associated with completing a dedicated research experience (odds ratio = 0.31, 95% confidence interval 0.22-0.45, P < .01). CONCLUSION: This is the first multi-institutional study exploring resident operative experience and career choice. These data suggest residents who desire immediate practice can tailor their experience with less research time and increased operative volume. These data may be helpful for programs when designing their experience for residents with different career goals.

A Survey of Trauma Surgeon Perceptions of Resources for Patients With Psychiatric Comorbidities.

BACKGROUND: Psychiatric illness is an independent risk factor for trauma and recidivism and is often comorbid in the trauma population. There is no current standard for the delivery of mental health services in trauma care. The purpose of this study was to gauge trauma surgeon perceptions of needed and currently available resources for this patient population at level 1 trauma centers in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A 10-question survey was developed to capture the estimated volume of psychiatric patients admitted to level 1 trauma centers, their available psychiatric services, and perceived need for resources. It was sent to 27 trauma surgery colleagues at different level 1 trauma centers across the United States using a public survey tool. Descriptive analyses were performed. RESULTS: Twenty-two of 27 trauma surgeons responded (81% response rate). Ten centers (48%) estimated admitting 1-5 patients with preexisting serious mental illness weekly, whereas others admitted more. Eight (36%) reported not having acute situational support services available. Ten respondents (46%) did not know how many psychiatric consultants were available at their institution. Twelve surgeons (55%) reported no designated outpatient follow-up for psychiatric issues. Sixteen trauma surgeons (73%) stated that expanded psychiatric services are needed at their trauma center. CONCLUSIONS: Trauma patients frequently present with preexisting serious mental illness and many struggle with psychological sequelae of trauma. Over half of the surveyed surgeons reported no outpatient follow-up for these patients, and almost three quarters perceived the need for expansion of psychiatric services. In addition to a lack of resources, these findings highlight an overlooked gap in high-quality patient-centered trauma care.

A Postural Assessment Utilizing Machine Learning Prospectively Identifies Older Adults at a High Risk of Falling.

Introduction: Falls are the leading cause of accidental death in older adults. Each year, 28.7% of US adults over 65 years experience a fall resulting in over 300,000 hip fractures and $50 billion in medical costs. Annual fall risk assessments have become part of the standard care plan for older adults. However, the effectiveness of these assessments in identifying at-risk individuals remains limited. This study characterizes the performance of a commercially available, automated method, for assessing fall risk using machine learning. Methods: Participants (N = 209) were recruited from eight senior living facilities and from adults living in the community (five local community centers in Houston, TX) to participate in a 12-month retrospective and a 12-month prospective cohort study. Upon enrollment, each participant stood for 60 s, with eyes open, on a commercial balance measurement platform which uses force-plate technology to capture center-of-pressure (60 Hz frequency). Linear and non-linear components of the center-of-pressure were analyzed using a machine-learning algorithm resulting in a postural stability (PS) score (range 1-10). A higher PS score indicated greater stability. Participants were contacted monthly for a year to track fall events and determine fall circumstances. Reliability among repeated trials, past and future fall prediction, as well as survival analyses, were assessed. Results: Measurement reliability was found to be high (ICC(2,1) [95% CI]=0.78 [0.76-0.81]). Individuals in the high-risk range (1-3) were three times more likely to fall within a year than those in low-risk (7-10). They were also an order of magnitude more likely (12/104 vs. 1/105) to suffer a spontaneous fall i.e., a fall where no cause was self-reported. Survival analyses suggests a fall event within 9 months (median) for high risk individuals. Conclusions: We demonstrate that an easy-to-use, automated method for assessing fall risk can reliably predict falls a year in advance. Objective identification of at-risk patients will aid clinicians in providing individualized fall prevention care.

The Effect of Financial Conflict of Interest, Disclosure Status, and Relevance on Medical Research from the United States.

BACKGROUND: Financial interactions between industry and healthcare providers are reportable. Substantial discrepancies have been detected between industry and self-report of these conflicts of interest (COIs). OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to determine if authors who fail to disclose reportable COI are more likely to publish findings that are favorable to industry than authors with no COI. DESIGN: In this blinded, observational study of medical and surgical primary research articles in PubMed, 590 articles were reviewed. MAIN MEASURES: Reportable financial relationships between authors and industry were evaluated. COIs were considered to have relevance if they were associated with the product(s) mentioned by an article. Primary outcome was favorability, defined as an impression favorable to the product(s) discussed by an article and determined by 3 independent, blinded clinicians for each article. Primary analysis compared Incomplete Self-Disclosure to No COI. Two-level multivariable mixed-effects ordered logistic regression was used to assess factors associated with favorability. KEY RESULTS: A 69% discordance rate existed between industry and self-report in COI disclosure. When authors failed to disclose COI, their conclusions were more likely to favor industry partners than authors without COI (favorable ratings 73% versus 62%, RR 1.18, p = < 0.001). On univariate (any COI 74% versus no COI 62%, RR 1.11, p = < 0.001) and multivariable analyses, any COI was associated with favorability. CONCLUSIONS: All financial COIs (disclosed or undisclosed, relevant or not relevant, research or non-research) influence whether studies report findings favorable to industry sponsors.

The Impact of Financial Conflict of Interest on Surgical Research: An Observational Study of Published Manuscripts.

BACKGROUND: Substantial discrepancies exist between industry-reported and self-reported conflicts of interest (COI). Although authors with relevant, self-reported financial COI are more likely to write studies favorable to industry sponsors, it is unknown whether undisclosed COI have the same effect. We hypothesized that surgeons who fail to disclose COI are more likely to publish findings that are favorable to industry than surgeons with no COI. METHODS: PubMed was searched for articles in multiple surgical specialties. Financial COI reported by surgeons and industry were compared. COI were considered to be relevant if they were associated with the product(s) mentioned by an article. Primary outcome was favorability, which was defined as an impression favorable to the product(s) discussed by an article and was determined by 3 independent, blinded clinicians for each article. Primary analysis compared incomplete self-disclosure to no COI. Ordered logistic multivariable regression modeling was used to assess factors associated with favorability. RESULTS: Overall, 337 articles were reviewed. There was a high rate of discordance in the reporting of COI (70.3%). When surgeons failed to disclose COI, their conclusions were significantly more likely to favor industry than surgeons without COI (RR 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.4, p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, any COI (regardless of relevance, disclosure, or monetary amount) were significantly associated with favorability. CONCLUSIONS: Any financial COI (disclosed or undisclosed, relevant or not relevant) significantly influence whether studies report findings favorable to industry. More attention must be paid to improving research design, maximizing transparency in medical research, and insisting that surgeons disclose all COI, regardless of perceived relevance.

Health care: economic impact of caring for geriatric patients.

National health care expenditures constitute a continuously expanding component of the US economy. Health care resources are distributed unequally among the population, and geriatric patients are disproportionately represented. Characterizing this group of individuals that accounts for the largest percentage of US health spending may facilitate the introduction of targeted interventions in key high-impact areas. Changing demographics, an increasing incidence of chronic disease and progressive disability, rapid technological advances, and systemic market failures in the health care sector combine to drive cost. A multidisciplinary approach will become increasingly necessary to balance the delicate relationship between our constrained supply and increasing demand.