Case Bias Case Basis: Expanding Morbidity and Mortality Conference to Examine the Impact of Disparities in Surgical Care.

INTRODUCTION: Originally designed as a forum to discuss adverse patient events, Surgery Morbidity & Mortality Conference (M&M) has evolved into an integral tool within surgical education where trainees at all levels are taught to critically examine decision-making. Others have expanded the scope of subsets of M&M conferences to include additional factors that influence patient outcomes, such as social determinants of health, implicit bias and structural policies that contribute to health disparities. In this study, we implemented a disparities-based discussion into our surgical department's weekly M&M conference and examined the effect(s) on participants' understanding and perceptions of key disparities in access to surgical care. METHODS: An anonymous electronic survey was sent to attendees of the Department of Surgery's M&M conference including faculty, residents and medical students prior to implementation of the intervention. The survey queried perceptions of the presence and impact of disparities in access to surgical care and how these are addressed at the study institution. The standard presenter slide template was updated to include a "Disparities Factors" section within the "Reasons for Complication" slide. After over 1 year, a postintervention survey was sent to conference attendees that included the same questions as the initial survey, as well as new questions related to the intervention. Descriptive statistics were performed on survey results, and comparisons were made for paired pre-post items. RESULTS: Eighty conference attendees completed the pre-intervention survey, and 70 completed the postintervention survey (22 [27.5%]; 22 [31.4%] attendings, 24 [30.0%]; 21 [30.0%] residents, 34 [42.5%]; 27 [38.6%] medical students respectively). Socioeconomics and language were most commonly identified both pre- and postintervention as the most important factors contributing to disparities in care experienced by patients at the study institution. Respondents agreed disparities in access significantly impact surgical care, and there was an increase in the number of respondents who reported feeling that disparities are being addressed postintervention. A total of 69% (n = 48) of respondents thought that integrating discussion of disparities in access to surgical care into M&M improved their understanding of the role these disparities play, 66% (n = 46) felt that their own thinking or practice changed regarding patient disparities, 84% (n = 59) reported integrating these discussions of disparities into M&M has been helpful overall. CONCLUSION: The inclusion of a disparities discussion in weekly M&M conference has led to positive change at the study institution, fostering a more comprehensive and socially conscious dialogue within the Department of Surgery. Survey respondents agreed that disparities exist in access to surgical care, and that the intervention improved their perceptions of how the study institution addresses disparities. Respondents felt that the integration of a disparities discussion was overall helpful, improved their knowledge of disparities in access to surgical care, and impacted their plans to address disparities in their own practices.

A Novel Fellowship in Perioperative Administration, Quality and Informatics: A Pilot Experience for Training Surgical Leaders.

Value-based, outcome-oriented care supported with innovative technology is the future of surgery. We established a novel fellowship in Perioperative Administration, Quality, and Informatics. The aim is to equip future surgeon scholars with the requisite knowledge base and skillset to serve as institutional leaders capable of transforming surgical healthcare delivery. The model was designed as a project-based, "operations-focused" education with supplemental didactics and mentored by surgical leaders and institutional executives. We describe our initial experience, successes, and challenges such that a similar model may be replicated elsewhere.

Effects of a Surgical Receipt Program on the Supply Costs of Five General Surgery Procedures.

BACKGROUND: Surgical supplies occupy a large portion of health care expenditures but is often under the surgeon's control. We sought to assess whether an automated, surgeon-directed, cost feedback system can decrease supply expenditures for five common general surgery procedures. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An automated "surgical receipt" detailing intraoperative supply costs was generated and emailed to surgeons after each case. We compared the median cost per case for 18 mo before and after implementation of the surgical receipt. We controlled for price fluctuations by applying common per-unit prices in both periods. We also compared the incision time, case length booking accuracy, length of stay, and postoperative occurrences. RESULTS: Median costs decreased significantly for open inguinal hernia ($433.45 to $385.49, P < 0.001), laparoscopic cholecystectomy ($886.77 to $816.13, P = 0.002), and thyroidectomy ($861.21 to $825.90, P = 0.034). Median costs were unchanged for laparoscopic appendectomy and increased significantly for lumpectomy ($325.67 to $420.53, P < 0.001). There was an increase in incision-to-closure minutes for open inguinal hernia (71 to 75 min, P < 0.001) and laparoscopic cholecystectomy (75 to 96 min, P < 0.001), but a decrease in thyroidectomy (79 to 73 min, P < 0.001). There was an increase in booking accuracy for laparoscopic appendectomy (38.6% to 55.0%, P = 0.001) and thyroidectomy (32.5% to 48.1%, P = 0.001). There were no differences in postoperative occurrence rates and length of stay duration. CONCLUSIONS: An automated surgeon-directed surgical receipt may be a useful tool to decrease supply costs for certain procedures. However, curtailing surgical supply costs with surgeon-directed cost feedback alone is challenging and a multimodal approach may be necessary.

Academic Surgical Oncologists' Productivity Correlates with Gender, Grant Funding, and Institutional NCI Comprehensive Cancer Center Affiliation.

BACKGROUND: A scholar's h-index is defined as the number of h papers published, each of which has been cited at least h times. We hypothesized that the h-index strongly correlates with the academic rank of surgical oncologists. METHODS: We utilized the National Cancer Institute (NCI) website to identify NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers (CCC) and Doximity to identify the 50 highest-ranked general surgery residency programs with surgical oncology divisions. Demographic data of respective academic surgical oncologists were collected from departmental websites and Grantome. Bibliometric data were obtained from Web of Science. RESULTS: We identified 544 surgical oncologists from 64 programs. Increased h-index was associated with academic rank (p < 0.001), male gender (p < 0.001), number of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants (p < 0.001), and affiliation with an NCI CCC (p = 0.018) but not number of additional degrees (p = 0.661) or Doximity ranking (p = 0.102). H-index was a stronger predictor of academic rank (r = 0.648) than total publications (r = 0.585) or citations (r = 0.450). CONCLUSIONS: This is the first report to assess the h-index within academic surgical oncology. H-index is a bibliometric predictor of academic rank that correlates with NIH grant funding and NCI CCC affiliation. We also highlight a previously unexpected and unappreciated gender disparity in the academic productivity of US surgical oncologists. When academic rank was accounted for, female surgical oncologists had lower h-indices compared with their male colleagues. Evaluation of the etiologies of this gender disparity is needed to address barriers to academic productivity faced by female surgical oncologists as they progress through their careers.

Concomitant vascular reconstruction during pancreatectomy for malignant disease: a propensity score-adjusted, population-based trend analysis involving 10,206 patients.

OBJECTIVE: To assess trends in the frequency of concomitant vascular reconstructions (VRs) from 2000 through 2009 among patients who underwent pancreatectomy, as well as to compare the short-term outcomes between patients who underwent pancreatic resection with and without VR. DESIGN: Single-center series have been conducted to evaluate the short-term and long-term outcomes of VR during pancreatic resection. However, its effectiveness from a population-based perspective is still unknown. Unadjusted, multivariable, and propensity score-adjusted generalized linear models were performed. SETTING: Nationwide Inpatient Sample from 2000 through 2009. PATIENTS: A total of 10,206 patients were involved. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Incidence of VR during pancreatic resection, perioperative in-hospital complications, and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: Overall, 10,206 patients were included in this analysis. Of these, 412 patients (4.0%) underwent VR, with the rate increasing from 0.7% in 2000 to 6.0% in 2009 (P < .001). Patients who underwent pancreatic resection with VR were at a higher risk for intraoperative (propensity score-adjusted odds ratio, 1.94; P = .001) and postoperative (propensity score-adjusted odds ratio, 1.36; P = .008) complications, while the mortality and median length of hospital stay were similar to those of patients without VR. Among the 25% of hospitals with the highest surgical volume, patients who underwent pancreatic surgery with VR had significantly higher rates of postoperative complications and mortality than patients without VR. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of VR during pancreatic surgery is increasing in the United States. In contrast with most single-center analyses, this population-based study demonstrated that patients who underwent VR during pancreatic surgery had higher rates of adverse postoperative outcomes than their counterparts who underwent pancreatic resection only. Prospective studies incorporating long-term outcomes are warranted to further define which patients benefit from VR.

Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: an international multi-institutional analysis of prognostic factors and lymph node assessment.

PURPOSE: To identify factors associated with outcome after surgical management of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) and examine the impact of lymph node (LN) assessment on survival. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From an international multi-institutional database, 449 patients who underwent surgery for ICC between 1973 and 2010 were identified. Clinical and pathologic data were evaluated using uni- and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: Median tumor size was 6.5 cm. Most patients had a solitary tumor (73%) and no vascular invasion (69%). Median survival was 27 months, and 5-year survival was 31%. Factors associated with adverse prognosis included positive margin status (hazard ratio [HR], 2.20; P < .001), multiple lesions (HR, 1.80; P = .001), and vascular invasion (HR, 1.59; P = .015). Tumor size was not a prognostic factor (HR, 1.03; P = .23). Patients were stratified using the American Joint Committee on Cancer/International Union Against Cancer T1, T2a, and T2b categories (seventh edition) in a discrete step-wise fashion (P < .001). Lymphadenectomy was performed in 248 patients (55%); 74 of these (30%) had LN metastasis. LN metastasis was associated with worse outcome (median survival: N0, 30 months v N1, 24 months; P = .03). Although patients with no LN metastasis were able to be stratified by tumor number and vascular invasion (N0; P < .001), among patients with N1 disease, multiple tumors and vascular invasion, either alone or together, failed to discriminate patients into discrete prognostic groups (P = .34). CONCLUSION: Although tumor size provides no prognostic information, tumor number, vascular invasion, and LN metastasis were associated with survival. N1 status adversely affected overall survival and also influenced the relative effect of tumor number and vascular invasion on prognosis. Lymphadenectomy should be strongly considered for ICC, because up to 30% of patients will have LN metastasis.

Workforce projections for hepato-pancreato-biliary surgery.

BACKGROUND: We wanted to determine whether current levels of fellowship training in hepato-pancreato-biliary (HPB) surgery will be sufficient to meet demand for HPB procedures in 2020. STUDY DESIGN: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample database for 1988 through 2003 was used to construct projections for the number of HPB procedures that will be performed in the US each year through 2020. Available workforce literature was also used to generate estimates of current and future supply of HPB subspecialists. These demand and supply estimates were then used to construct sensitivity analyses of the mean number of HPB procedures per subspecialist in 2020, depending on the degree of regionalization that exists and the number of fellowship-trained subspecialists needed to train each year to meet projected demand for HPB procedures in 2020. RESULTS: An estimated 16,800 HPB procedures will be performed in 2020, representing a 25% increase during the next 15 years. We estimate that 28 fellowship-trained HPB subspecialists will enter the workforce each year. If half of all HPB procedures are performed by HPB subspecialists in 2020, then the average subspecialist will perform only 14 such procedures that year. If high-volume HPB surgery is defined as 40 procedures per year, and 50% of HPB procedures are performed by high-volume surgeons in 2020, then only 15 fellows need to be trained in HPB surgery each year to meet demand in 2020. CONCLUSIONS: Current levels of fellowship training will result in an excess of HPB subspecialists in 2020.

Regionalization of hepatic resections is associated with increasing disparities among some patient populations in use of high-volume providers.

BACKGROUND: The goal of our study was to determine the temporal trends in provider volume for liver resection procedures. STUDY DESIGN: The Nationwide Inpatient Sample database for 1988 through 2003 was used to determine temporal trends in hospital and surgeon volume of liver resection procedures. We also examined whether these trends in provider volume were associated with any changes in postoperative outcomes or in patients' access to high-volume providers. RESULTS: Regionalization of liver resection procedures to high-volume surgeons and hospitals has been occurring since 1988 and, in the most recent time period assessed, 25.8% of patients underwent hepatic resection by high-volume surgeons (> or = 17 procedures per year) and 29.9% of patients underwent resection in high-volume hospitals (> or = 45 procedures per year). Unadjusted mortality data suggest that these trends might be associated with a strengthening of the inverse relationship between hospital volume of hepatic resection and postoperative mortality and with an increasing disparity for some patient populations in use of high-volume hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Regionalization of liver resections is occurring at both the level of the individual surgeon and the hospitals where these procedures are performed. These trends in provider volume might be associated with increasing discrepancies in outcomes and patient demographics among different volume categories of hospitals.