Exploring the complexity and spectrum of racial/ethnic disparities in colon cancer management.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality across U.S. racial/ethnic groups. Existing studies often focus on a particular race/ethnicity or single domain within the care continuum. Granular exploration of disparities among different racial/ethnic groups across the entire colon cancer care continuum is needed. We aimed to characterize differences in colon cancer outcomes by race/ethnicity across each stage of the care continuum. METHODS: We used the 2010-2017 National Cancer Database to examine differences in outcomes by race/ethnicity across six domains: clinical stage at presentation; timing of surgery; access to minimally invasive surgery; post-operative outcomes; utilization of chemotherapy; and cumulative incidence of death. Analysis was via multivariable logistic or median regression, with select demographics, hospital factors, and treatment details as covariates. RESULTS: 326,003 patients (49.6% female, 24.0% non-White, including 12.7% Black, 6.1% Hispanic/Spanish, 1.3% East Asian, 0.9% Southeast Asian, 0.4% South Asian, 0.3% AIAE, and 0.2% NHOPI) met inclusion criteria. Relative to non-Hispanic White patients: Southeast Asian (OR 1.39, p < 0.01), Hispanic/Spanish (OR 1.11 p < 0.01), and Black (OR 1.09, p < 0.01) patients had increased odds of presenting with advanced clinical stage. Southeast Asian (OR 1.37, p < 0.01), East Asian (OR 1.27, p = 0.05), Hispanic/Spanish (OR 1.05 p = 0.02), and Black (OR 1.05, p < 0.01) patients had increased odds of advanced pathologic stage. Black patients had increased odds of experiencing a surgical delay (OR 1.33, p < 0.01); receiving non-robotic surgery (OR 1.12, p < 0.01); having post-surgical complications (OR 1.29, p < 0.01); initiating chemotherapy more than 90 days post-surgery (OR 1.24, p < 0.01); and omitting chemotherapy altogether (OR 1.12, p = 0.05). Black patients had significantly higher cumulative incidence of death at every pathologic stage relative to non-Hispanic White patients when adjusting for non-modifiable patient factors (p < 0.05, all stages), but these differences were no longer statistically significant when also adjusting for modifiable factors such as insurance status and income. CONCLUSIONS: Non-White patients disproportionately experience advanced stage at presentation. Disparities for Black patients are seen across the entire colon cancer care continuum. Targeted interventions may be appropriate for some groups; however, major system-level transformation is needed to address disparities experienced by Black patients.

Making the Financial Case for Surgical Resident Well-being: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a scoping review of literature on financial implications of surgical resident well-being. BACKGROUND: Surgeon well-being affects clinical outcomes, patient experience, and health care economics. However, our understanding of the relationship between surgical resident well-being and organizational finances is limited. METHODS: Authors searched PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase with no date or language restrictions. Searches of the gray literature included hand references of articles selected for data extraction and reviewing conference abstracts from Embase. Two reviewers screened articles for eligibility based on title and abstract then reviewed eligible articles in their entirety. Data were extracted and analyzed using conventional content analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-five articles were included, 5 (20%) published between 2003 and 2010, 12 (48%) between 2011 and 2018, and 8 (32%) between 2019 and 2021. One (4%) had an aim directly related to the research question, but financial implications were not considered from the institutional perspective. All others explored factors impacting well-being or workplace sequelae of well-being, but the economics of these elements were not the primary focus. Analysis of content surrounding financial considerations of resident well-being revealed 5 categories; however, no articles provided a comprehensive business case for investing in resident well-being from the institutional perspective. CONCLUSIONS: Although the number of publications identified through the present scoping review is relatively small, the emergence of publications referencing economic issues associated with surgical resident well-being may suggest a growing recognition of this area's importance. This scoping review highlights a gap in the literature, which should be addressed to drive the system-level change needed to improve surgical resident well-being.

Assessment of Surgeon Performance of Advanced Open Surgical Skills Using a Microskills-Based Novel Curriculum.

Importance: The increase in minimally invasive surgical procedures has eroded exposure of general surgery residents to open operations. High-fidelity simulation, together with deliberate instruction, is needed for advanced open surgical skill (AOSS) development. Objective: To collect validity evidence for AOSS tools to support a shared model for instruction. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study included postresidency surgeons (PRSs) and second-year general surgery residents (R2s) at a single academic medical center who completed simulated tasks taught within the AOSS curriculum between June 1 and October 31, 2021. Exposures: The AOSS curriculum includes 6 fine-suture and needle handling tasks, including deep suture tying (with and without needles) and continuous suturing using the pitch-and-catch and push-push-pull techniques (both superficial and deep). Teaching and assessment are based on specific microskills using a 3-dimensional printed iliac fossa model. Main Outcomes and Measures: The PRS group was timed and scored (5-point Likert scale) on 10 repetitions of each task. Six months after receiving instruction on the AOSS tasks, the R2 group was similarly timed and scored. Results: The PRS group included 14 surgeons (11 male [79%]; 8 [57%] attending surgeons) who completed the simulation; the R2 group, 9 surgeons (5 female [55%]) who completed the simulation. Score and time variability were greater for the R2s compared with the PRSs for all tasks. The R2s scored lower and took longer on (1) deep pitch-and-catch suturing (69% of maximum points for a mean [SD] of 142.0 [31.7] seconds vs 77% for a mean [SD] of 95.9 [29.4] seconds) and deep push-push-pull suturing (63% of maximum points for a mean [SD] of 284.0 [72.9] seconds vs 85% for a mean [SD] of 141.4 [29.1] seconds) relative to the corresponding superficial tasks; (2) suture tying with a needle vs suture tying without a needle (74% of maximum points for a mean [SD] of 64.6 [19.8] seconds vs 90% for a mean [SD] of 54.4 [15.6] seconds); and (3) the deep push-push-pull vs pitch-and-catch techniques (63% of maximum points for a mean [SD] of 284.0 [72.9] seconds vs 69% of maximum points for a mean [SD] of 142.0 [31.7] seconds). For the PRS group, time was negatively associated with score for the 3 hardest tasks: superficial push-push-pull (ρ = 0.60; P = .02), deep pitch-and-catch (ρ = 0.73; P = .003), and deep push-push-pull (ρ = 0.81; P < .001). For the R2 group, time was negatively associated with score for the 2 easiest tasks: suture tying without a needle (ρ = 0.78; P = .01) and superficial pitch-and-catch (ρ = 0.79; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study offer validity evidence for a novel AOSS curriculum; reveal differential difficulty of tasks that can be attributed to specific microskills; and suggest that position on the surgical learning curve may dictate the association between competency and speed. Together these findings suggest specific, actionable opportunities to guide instruction of AOSS, including which microskills to focus on, when individual rehearsal vs guided instruction is more appropriate, and when to focus on speed.

Emergency general surgery utilization and disparities during COVID-19: an interrupted time-series analysis.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare general surgery emergency (GSE) volume, demographics and disease severity before and during COVID-19. BACKGROUND: Presentations to the emergency department (ED) for GSEs fell during the early COVID-19 pandemic. Barriers to accessing care may be heightened, especially for vulnerable populations, and patients delaying care raises public health concerns. METHODS: We included adult patients with ED presentations for potential GSEs at a single quaternary-care hospital from January 2018 to August 2020. To compare GSE volumes in total and by subgroup, an interrupted time-series analysis was performed using the March shelter-in-place order as the start of the COVID-19 period. Bivariate analysis was used to compare demographics and disease severity. RESULTS: 3255 patients (28/week) presented with potential GSEs before COVID-19, while 546 (23/week) presented during COVID-19. When shelter-in-place started, presentations fell by 8.7/week (31%) from the previous week (p<0.001), driven by decreases in peritonitis (ß=-2.76, p=0.017) and gallbladder disease (ß=-2.91, p=0.016). During COVID-19, patients were younger (54 vs 57, p=0.001), more often privately insured (44% vs 38%, p=0.044), and fewer required interpreters (12% vs 15%, p<0.001). Fewer patients presented with sepsis during the pandemic (15% vs 20%, p=0.009) and the average severity of illness decreased (p<0.001). Length of stay was shorter during the COVID-19 period (3.91 vs 5.50 days, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: GSE volumes and severity fell during the pandemic. Patients presenting during the pandemic were less likely to be elderly, publicly insured and have limited English proficiency, potentially exacerbating underlying health disparities and highlighting the need to improve care access for these patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.