Operating Room Supply Cost and Value of Care after Implementing a Sustainable Quality Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Variability in operating room supply cost is a modifiable cause of suboptimal resource use and low value of care (outcomes vs cost). This study describes implementation of a quality improvement intervention to decrease operating room supply costs. STUDY DESIGN: An automated electronic health record data pipeline harmonized operating room supply cost data with patient and case characteristics and outcomes. For inpatient procedures, predicted mortality and length of stay were used to calculate observed-to-expected ratios and value of care using validated equations. For commonly performed (1 or more per week) procedures, the pipeline generated figures illustrating individual surgeon performance vs peers, costs for each surgeon performing each case type, and control charts identifying out-of-control cases and surgeons with more than 90th percentile costs, which were shared with surgeons and division chiefs alongside guidance for modifying case-specific supply instructions to operating room nurses and technicians. RESULTS: Preintervention control (1,064 cases for 7 months) and postintervention (307 cases for 2 months) cohorts had similar baseline characteristics across all 16 commonly performed procedures. Median costs per case were lower in the intervention cohort ($811 [$525 to $1,367] vs controls: $1,080 [$603 to $1,574], p < 0.001), as was the incidence of out-of-control cases (19 (6.2%) vs 110 (10.3%), p = 0.03). Duration of surgery, length of stay, discharge disposition, and 30-day mortality and readmission rates were similar between cohorts. Value of care was higher in the intervention cohort (1.1 [0.1 to 1.5] vs 1.0 [0.2 to 1.4], p = 0.04). Pipeline runtime was 16:07. CONCLUSIONS: An automated, sustainable quality improvement intervention was associated with decreased operating room supply costs and increased value of care.

Persistent Acute Kidney Injury is Associated with Poor Outcomes and Increased Hospital Cost in Vascular Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI) is common after major surgery and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and cost. Additionally, there are recent studies demonstrating that time to renal recovery may have a substantial impact on clinical outcomes. We hypothesized that patients with delayed renal recovery after major vascular surgery will have increased complications, mortality, and hospital cost. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort of patients undergoing nonemergent major vascular surgery between 6/1/2014 and 10/1/2020 was analyzed. Development of postoperative AKI (defined using Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) criteria: >50% or > 0.3 mg/dl absolute increase in serum creatinine relative to reference after surgery and before discharge) was evaluated. Patients were divided into 3 groups: no AKI, rapidly reversed AKI (<48 hours), and persistent AKI (≥48 hours). Multivariable generalized linear models were used to evaluate the association between AKI groups and postoperative complications, 90-day mortality, and hospital cost. RESULTS: A total of 1,881 patients undergoing 1,980 vascular procedures were included. Thirty five percent of patients developed postoperative AKI. Patients with persistent AKI had longer intensive care unit and hospital stays, as well as more mechanical ventilation days. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, persistent AKI was a major predictor of 90-day mortality (odds ratio 4.1, 95% confidence interval 2.4-7.1). Adjusted average cost was higher for patients with any type of AKI. The incremental cost of having any AKI ranged from $3,700 to $9,100, even after adjustment for comorbidities and other postoperative complications. The adjusted average cost for patients stratified by type of AKI was higher among patients with persistent AKI compared to those with no or rapidly reversed AKI. CONCLUSIONS: Persistent AKI after vascular surgery is associated with increased complications, mortality, and cost. Strategies to prevent and aggressively treat AKI, specifically persistent AKI, in the perioperative setting are imperative to optimize care for this population.

Surgical resident experience with common bile duct exploration and assessment of performance and autonomy with formative feedback.

BACKGROUND: Common bile duct exploration (CBDE) is safe and effective for managing choledocholithiasis, but most US general surgeons have limited experience with CBDE and are uncomfortable performing this procedure in practice. Surgical trainee exposure to CBDE is limited, and their learning curve for achieving autonomous, practice-ready performance has not been previously described. This study tests the hypothesis that receipt of one or more prior CBDE operative performance assessments, combined with formative feedback, is associated with greater resident operative performance and autonomy. METHODS: Resident and attending assessments of resident operative performance and autonomy were obtained for 189 laparoscopic or open CBDEs performed at 28 institutions. Performance and autonomy were graded along validated ordinal scales. Cases in which the resident had one or more prior CBDE case evaluations (n = 48) were compared with cases in which the resident had no prior evaluations (n = 141). RESULTS: Compared with cases in which the resident had no prior CBDE case evaluations, cases with a prior evaluation had greater proportions of practice-ready or exceptional performance ratings according to both residents (27% vs. 11%, p = .009) and attendings (58% vs. 19%, p < .001) and had greater proportions of passive help or supervision only autonomy ratings according to both residents (17% vs. 4%, p = .009) and attendings (69% vs. 32%, p < .01). CONCLUSIONS: Residents with at least one prior CBDE evaluation and formative feedback demonstrated better operative performance and received greater autonomy than residents without prior evaluations, underscoring the propensity of feedback to help residents achieve autonomous, practice-ready performance for rare operations.

Prevalence and extent of industry support for program directors of surgical fellowships in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Fellowship program directors have a considerable influence on the future practice patterns of their trainees. Multiple studies have demonstrated that industry can also exert substantial influence on the practice patterns of physicians as a whole. The purpose of this study is to quantify industry support of fellowship program directors across surgical subspecialties and to assess the prevalence of this support within specific subspecialties. METHODS: Fellowship program directors for acute care, breast, burn, cardio-thoracic, critical care, colon and rectal, endocrine, hepato-pancreato-biliary, minimally invasive, plastic, oncologic, pediatric, and vascular surgery for 2017 were identified using a previously described database. The Open Payments Database for 2017 was queried and data regarding general payments, research, associated research payments, and ownership were obtained. The national mean and median payouts to nonfellowship program director surgeons were used to determine subspecialties with substantial industry support. RESULTS: Five hundred and seventy-six fellowship program directors were identified. Of these, 77% of the fellowship program directors had a presence on the Open Payments Database. The subspecialties with the most fellowship program directors receiving any industry payment, regardless of amount, included vascular (93.5%), cardio-thoracic (92.8%), minimally invasive surgery (90.5%), plastics (85.3%), and colon and rectal (81.0%). The subspecialty with the greatest mean payment was minimally invasive surgery (21,175 US dollars); the greatest median payment was vascular (1,871 US dollars). The 3 most common types of payments were for general compensation (31.4%), consulting fees (28.7%), and travel and lodging (14.7%). Vascular surgery had the greatest percentage of fellowship program directors receiving research payments (48%). The greatest amount paid to any individual fellowship program director was 382,368 US dollars. Excluding outliers, fellowship program directors received substantially more payments than those received on average by general surgeons. CONCLUSION: The majority of fellowship program directors receive some industry support. Most payments are for compensation for noncontinuing medical education related services and consulting fees. Certain specialties were more likely to have industry payments than others. Overall, only a minority of fellowship program directors received research support from industry. We advocate for transparent discussions between fellowship program directors and their trainees to help foster healthy academic-industry collaborations.

Decision analysis and reinforcement learning in surgical decision-making.

BACKGROUND: Surgical patients incur preventable harm from cognitive and judgment errors made under time constraints and uncertainty regarding patients' diagnoses and predicted response to treatment. Decision analysis and techniques of reinforcement learning theoretically can mitigate these challenges but are poorly understood and rarely used clinically. This review seeks to promote an understanding of decision analysis and reinforcement learning by describing their use in the context of surgical decision-making. METHODS: Cochrane, EMBASE, and PubMed databases were searched from their inception to June 2019. Included were 41 articles about cognitive and diagnostic errors, decision-making, decision analysis, and machine-learning. The articles were assimilated into relevant categories according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines. RESULTS: Requirements for time-consuming manual data entry and crude representations of individual patients and clinical context compromise many traditional decision-support tools. Decision analysis methods for calculating probability thresholds can inform population-based recommendations that jointly consider risks, benefits, costs, and patient values but lack precision for individual patient-centered decisions. Reinforcement learning, a machine-learning method that mimics human learning, can use a large set of patient-specific input data to identify actions yielding the greatest probability of achieving a goal. This methodology follows a sequence of events with uncertain conditions, offering potential advantages for personalized, patient-centered decision-making. Clinical application would require secure integration of multiple data sources and attention to ethical considerations regarding liability for errors and individual patient preferences. CONCLUSION: Traditional decision-support tools are ill-equipped to accommodate time constraints and uncertainty regarding diagnoses and the predicted response to treatment, both of which often impair surgical decision-making. Decision analysis and reinforcement learning have the potential to play complementary roles in delivering high-value surgical care through sound judgment and optimal decision-making.

Intelligent, Autonomous Machines in Surgery.

Surgeons perform two primary tasks: operating and engaging patients and caregivers in shared decision-making. Human dexterity and decision-making are biologically limited. Intelligent, autonomous machines have the potential to augment or replace surgeons. Rather than regarding this possibility with denial, ire, or indifference, surgeons should understand and steer these technologies. Closer examination of surgical innovations and lessons learned from the automotive industry can inform this process. Innovations in minimally invasive surgery and surgical decision-making follow classic S-shaped curves with three phases: (1) introduction of a new technology, (2) achievement of a performance advantage relative to existing standards, and (3) arrival at a performance plateau, followed by replacement with an innovation featuring greater machine autonomy and less human influence. There is currently no level I evidence demonstrating improved patient outcomes using intelligent, autonomous machines for performing operations or surgical decision-making tasks. History suggests that if such evidence emerges and if the machines are cost effective, then they will augment or replace humans, initially for simple, common, rote tasks under close human supervision and later for complex tasks with minimal human supervision. This process poses ethical challenges in assigning liability for errors, matching decisions to patient values, and displacing human workers, but may allow surgeons to spend less time gathering and analyzing data and more time interacting with patients and tending to urgent, critical-and potentially more valuable-aspects of patient care. Surgeons should steer these technologies toward optimal patient care and net social benefit using the uniquely human traits of creativity, altruism, and moral deliberation.

Gender differences among surgical fellowship program directors.

BACKGROUND: Although women are increasingly represented in American surgery, data regarding sex and academic rank of the leadership of fellowship programs are lacking. METHODS: Demographics and academic ranks for fellowship program directors were analyzed for 811 surgery fellowship programs across 14 specialties. Associations between academic rank and sex were assessed using a χ2 independence test. Correlation between subspecialty compensation and percentage of female fellowship program directors was assessed using Pearson r. RESULTS: Women represented 18% of all fellowship program directors. Eighteen percent of fellowship program directors were assistant professors (25% women vs 17% men, P = .049), 36% were associate professors (39% women vs 35% men, P = .379), and 46% were full professors (36% women vs 48% men, P = .018). The percentage of women program directors was greatest in breast surgery (65%) and least in minimally invasive surgery (6%). There was a negative correlation between subspecialty compensation and percentage of female fellowship program directors (r = -0.62, P = .04). CONCLUSION: Women are underrepresented among surgery fellowship program directors. Female fellowship program directors had lesser academic ranks compared with males. It remains unclear whether women surgeons achieve program director appointments at lesser academic ranks or if promotion among fellowship program directors is influenced by sex.