Outcomes of Complex Gastrointestinal Cancer Resection at US News & World Report Top-Ranked vs Non-Ranked Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: The US News & World Report (USNWR) annual ranking of the best hospitals for gastroenterology and gastrointestinal surgery offers direction to patients and healthcare providers, especially for recommendations on complex medical and surgical gastrointestinal (GI) conditions. The objective of this study was to examine the outcomes of complex GI cancer resections performed at USNWR top-ranked, compared to non-ranked, hospitals. STUDY DESIGN: Using the Vizient database, data for patients who underwent esophagectomy, gastrectomy, and pancreatectomy for malignancy between January and December 2018 were reviewed. Perioperative outcomes were analyzed according to USNWR rank status. Primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes include length of stay, mortality index (observed-to-expected mortality ratio), rate of serious complication, and cost. Secondary analysis was performed for outcomes of patients who developed serious complications. RESULTS: There were 3,054 complex GI cancer resections performed at 42 top-ranked hospitals vs 3,608 resections performed at 198 non-ranked hospitals. The mean annual case volume was 73 cases at top-ranked hospitals compared to 18 cases at non-ranked hospitals. Compared with non-ranked hospitals, top-ranked hospitals had lower in-hospital mortality (0.96% vs 2.26%, respectively, p < 0.001) and lower mortality index (0.71 vs 1.53, respectively). There were no significant differences in length of stay, rate of serious complications, or direct cost between groups. In patients who developed serious morbidity, top-ranked hospitals had a lower mortality compared with non-ranked hospitals (8.2% vs 16.8%, respectively, p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Within the context of complex GI cancer resection, USNWR top-ranked hospitals performed a 4-fold higher case volume and were associated with improved outcomes. Patients with complex GI-related malignancies may benefit from seeking surgical care at high-volume regional USNWR top-ranked hospitals.

The effect of transparency on the gender-based compensation gap in surgical disciplines within a large academic healthcare system.

BACKGROUND: Female representation in surgery and surgical subspecialties has increased over the last decade. Studies have shown a discrepancy in compensation in the field of surgery, and several groups have advocated for increasing transparency as a primary solution to decrease this gender salary gap in surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate differences in compensation between genders in surgical specialties within a large academic healthcare system. METHODS: Using a public compensation database from January 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016, this retrospective observational study analyzed salaries of full-time faculty surgeons within a large multi-institutional academic healthcare system. Surgeons included those who were employed for the entirety of 2016 and were full-time faculty who were then stratified according to surgical specialty and rank. The median base and median total salaries were compared between male and female surgeons with adjustment for rank and surgical specialty. RESULTS: There were 170 surgeons from eight surgical subspecialties included in the study with 29% being female (n = 50). Overall, unadjusted and adjusted median total salaries were significantly lower for female compared to male surgeons by $121,578 and $45,904, respectively. The three subspecialties with the highest compensation had a median total salary of $558,998 and had a high male to female ratio (3.7 male to 1 female), whereas the three subspecialties with the lowest compensation had a median total salary of $376,174 and had a male to female ratio of 1.5 male to 1 female. CONCLUSIONS: In a large academic healthcare system with transparent and publicly accessible salaries, the gender compensation gap in surgery persists. In conjunction with transparency, future academic institutions should consider a value-based, objective compensation plan with personal and systemic introspection of traditional gender biases, in efforts to circumvent the impact of gender on salary.

Outcomes of laparoscopic hiatal hernia repair based on surgical specialty: thoracic versus general surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Hiatal Hernia Repairs (HHR) are performed by both general surgeons (GS) and thoracic surgeons (TS). However, there are limited literature with respect to outcomes of HHR based on specialty training. The objective of this study was to compare the utilization, perioperative outcomes, and cost for HHR performed by GS versus TS. METHODS: The Vizient database was used to identify patients who underwent elective laparoscopic HHR between October 2014 and June 2018. Patients were grouped according to surgeon's specialty (GS vs. TS). Patient demographics and outcomes including in-hospital mortality were compared between groups. RESULTS: During the study period 13,764 patients underwent HHR by either GS or TS. GS performed 9930 (72%) cases while TS performed 3834 (28%) cases. There was no significant difference between GS versus TS with regard to serious morbidity (1.28% vs. 1.30%, p = 0.97) or mortality (0.10% vs. 0.21%, p = 0.19). The mortality index was 0.24 for GS versus 0.45 for TS. Compared to TS, laparoscopic HHR performed by GS was associated with a shorter LOS (2.57 days vs. 2.72 days, p < 0.001) and lower mean hospital costs ($7139 vs. $8032, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Within the context of academic centers, laparoscopic HHRs are mostly performed by GS with comparable outcome between general versus thoracic surgeons.