The Advanced Certifying Exam Simulation-Pro assessment instrument: evaluating surgical trainee examsmanship in virtual oral exams.

Purpose: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many educational activities in general surgery residency have shifted to a virtual environment, including the American Board of Surgery (ABS) Certifying Exam. Virtual exams may become the new standard. In response, we developed an evaluation instrument, the ACES-Pro, to assess surgical trainee performance with a focus on examsmanship in virtual oral board examinations. The purpose of this study was two-fold: (1) to assess the utility and validity of the evaluation instrument, and (2) to characterize the unique components of strong examsmanship in the virtual setting, which has distinct challenges when compared to in-person examsmanship. Methods: We developed a 15-question evaluation instrument, the ACES-Pro, to assess oral board performance in the virtual environment. Nine attending surgeons viewed four pre-recorded oral board exam scenarios and scored examinees using this instrument. Evaluations were compared to assess for inter-rater reliability. Faculty were also surveyed about their experience using the instrument. Results: Pilot evaluators found the ACES-Pro instrument easy to use and felt it appropriately captured key professionalism metrics of oral board exam performance. We found acceptable inter-rater reliability in the domains of verbal communication, non-verbal communication, and effective use of technology (Guttmann's lambda-2 were 0.796, 0.916, and 0.739, respectively). Conclusions: The ACES-Pro instrument is an assessment with evidence for validity as understood by Kane's framework to evaluate multiple examsmanship domains in the virtual exam setting. Examinees must consider best practices for virtual examsmanship to perform well in this environment. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s44186-023-00107-7.

Perioperative outcomes of the Geriatric Assessment and Medical Preoperative Screening (GrAMPS) program pilot for older hernia patients: does chronological age predict outcomes?

BACKGROUND: The Geriatric Assessment and Medical Preoperative Screening (GrAMPS) program was an initial attempt to understand and to define the prevalence of age-related risk factors in older patients undergoing elective ventral hernia repair (VHR) or inguinal hernia repair (IHR). Preliminary analysis found significant rates of previously unrecognized objective cognitive dysfunction, multimorbidity and polypharmacy. We now examine whether chronological age as a sole risk factor can predict a patient's perioperative outcomes, and if traditional risk calculators that rely heavily on chronological age can accurately capture a patient's true risk. METHODS: This was a retrospective secondary analysis of the previously reported GrAMPS trial enrolling patients 60 years and older with a planned elective repair of a ventral or inguinal hernia. The rates of key postoperative outcomes were compared between various cohorts stratified by chronological age. Previously validated risk screening calculators [Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI), National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP)] were compared between cohorts. RESULTS: In total, 55 (78.6%) of the 70 patients enrolled in GrAMPS underwent operative intervention by May 2021, including 26 VHR and 29 IHRs. Cohorts stratified by chronological age had similar rates of key perioperative wound and age-related outcomes including readmissions, postoperative complications, non-home discharges, and length of stay. Additionally, while the commonly used risk calculators, CCI and NSQIP, consistently predicted worse outcomes for older hernia patients (stratified by both median age and age-tertiles), screening positive on these risk assessments were not actually predictive of a greater incidence of postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Chronological age does not accurately predict worse adverse postoperative complications in older hernia patients. Additionally, traditional risk screening calculators that rely heavily on age to risk stratify may not accurately capture a patient's true surgical risk. Surgeons should continue to explore nuanced patient risk assessments that more accurately capture age-related risk factors to better individualize perioperative risk.

Geriatric assessment and medical preoperative screening (GrAMPS) program for older hernia patients.

PURPOSE: The incidence of older adults undergoing inguinal and ventral hernia repairs is increasing. Older adults are disproportionately affected by age-related risk factors, which are often under-recognized and may adversely affect surgical outcomes. These age-related risk factors often termed "geriatric syndromes," include multimorbidity, frailty, cognitive impairment, depression, obesity, functional impairment, polypharmacy, and poor subjective health. The aim of this study was to identify the prevalence of age-related risk factors in older patients undergoing elective hernia repair. METHODS: Patients aged 60 years or older with a planned elective surgical repair of a ventral or inguinal hernia were prospectively enrolled in a clinic. Subjects completed several validated screening tools for geriatric syndromes. RESULTS: Seventy patients completed preoperative assessments (mean age: 68.5 years). In total, 24 (34.3%) screened positive for previously unrecognized objective cognitive impairment (Mini-Cog) and 33 (47.1%) for a subjective memory concern. Sixty patients (85.7%) met criteria for polypharmacy. Additionally, 48 (68.6%) screened positive for either pre-frailty (37, 52.9%) or frailty (11, 15.7%), and 66 (94.3%) had multimorbidity. Twenty-five (35.7%) patients self-rated their health as "poor" or "fair," and 18 (25.7%) patients endorsed some functional impairment. CONCLUSIONS: There is a high prevalence of age-related risk factors in older patients undergoing elective hernia repair. Further, these factors are often unrecognized and underappreciated despite their potential to significantly impact informed consent and shared decision making. Additional study is required to define the impact of these age-related risk factors on surgical outcomes, which will inform preoperative risk assessment and optimization through modifiable risk reduction.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Insurance Requirements for Supervised Weight Loss Prior to Bariatric Surgery.

Many insurance plans impose strict criteria mandating preoperative weight loss attempts to limit patient's access to surgery. Preoperative acute weight loss has been hypothesized to reduce perioperative risk and to identify compliant patients who may have improved long-term weight loss. In this review, the evidence from studies examining clinical and weight loss outcomes both with and without preoperative weight loss are summarized. Although preoperative weight loss may have modest impact on some factors related to perioperative conduct, the evidence does not support these programs' effectiveness at promoting long-term weight loss. Provision of weight loss surgery should not be contingent on completion of insurance-mandated weight loss goals preoperatively, and these programs may, through patient attrition, actually do more harm than good.

Reducing Operating Room Cost: Comparing Attending and Surgical Trainee Perceptions About the Implementation of Supply Receipts.

BACKGROUND: As operating room (OR) expenditures increase, faculty and surgical trainees will play a key role in curbing future costs. However, supply cost utilization varies widely among providers and, despite requirements for cost education during surgical training, little is known about trainees' comfort discussing these topics. To improve OR cost transparency, our institution began delivering real-time supply "receipts" to faculty and trainees after each surgical case. This study compares faculty and surgical trainees' perceptions about supply receipts and their effect on individual practice and cultural change. STUDY DESIGN: Faculty and surgical trainees (residents and fellows) from all adult surgical specialties at a large academic center were emailed separate surveys. RESULTS: A total of 120 faculty (30.0% response rate) and 119 trainees (35.7% response rate) completed the survey. Compared with trainees, faculty are more confident discussing OR costs (p < 0.001). Two-thirds of trainees report discussing OR costs with faculty as opposed to 77.0% of faculty who acknowledge having these conversations (p = 0.08). Both groups showed a strong commitment to reduce OR expenditures, with 87.3% of faculty and 90.0% of trainees expressing a responsibility to curb OR costs (p = 0.84). After 1 year of implementation, faculty continue to have high interest levels in supply receipts (82.4%) and many surgeons review them after each case (67.7%). In addition, 74.3% of faculty are now aware of how to lower OR costs and 52.5% have changed the OR supplies they use. Trainees, in particular, desire additional cost-reducing efforts at our institution (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Supply receipts have been well received and have led to meaningful cultural changes. However, trainees are less confident discussing these issues and desire a greater emphasis on OR cost in their curriculum.

Assessment of postoperative opioid stewardship using a novel electronic-based automated text and phone messaging platform.

BACKGROUND: Practices of opioid prescribing vary widely across general surgery providers. The goal of this study was to use a text-based platform to assess postdischarge opioid utilization. METHODS: A prospective, cohort study enrolled adult patients undergoing operations across the following 3 general surgery sections: minimally invasive surgery, colorectal, and surgical oncology. Using Epharmix, an electronic text-based platform, short message service text messages were sent to enrolled patients on postdischarge days 1 to 7, 14, 2, and 28 inquiring about the number of opioid pills taken since discharge and pain medication refills. RESULTS: A total of 253 patients enrolled and completed the intervention. Patient participation was robust, with 80% of patients responded to >50% of all text-based questions, and 64% responded to >80% of all questions. Patients undergoing bariatric surgery were prescribed the most narcotic pain medications (average milligram of morphine equivalents: 250.8), and those undergoing endocrine neck surgery the least (average milligram of morphine equivalent: 53.5). All surgical categories studied consumed ≤25% of their total prescribed milligram of morphine equivalents. Only 8 patients (3.2%) requested an opioid refill by postdischarge days 28. CONCLUSION: A text-based platform can track reliably patients' opioid usage postdischarge. Such platforms may facilitate the development of data-driven, standardized practices of opioid prescribing matched to patients' anticipated opioid usage postdischarge.

Assessment of postoperative nausea and vomiting after bariatric surgery using a validated questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is known to occur after bariatric surgery, with over two thirds of patients affected. However, variability exists in how to objectively measure PONV. OBJECTIVES: The goals of the present study were to use a validated, patient-centered scoring tool, the Rhodes Index of Nausea, Vomiting, and Retching to measure the severity of PONV after bariatric surgery, to directly compare PONV between patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), and to identify risk factors for the development of PONV after bariatric surgery. SETTING: Barnes-Jewish Hospital/Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America. METHODS: The Washington University Weight Loss Surgery team prospectively surveyed patients from January 1, 2017 to December 1, 2018 at the following 6 different timepoints: postoperative day (POD) 0, POD 1, POD 2, POD 3 to 4, the first postoperative outpatient visit (POV 1: POD 5-25), and the second postoperative visit (POV 2: POD 25-50). At each timepoint, a cumulative Rhodes score was calculated from the sum of 8 questions. The American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database was used to collect patient demographic characteristics and perioperative clinical data. RESULTS: A total of 274 patients met study criteria and completed 605 Rhodes questionnaires. Two hundred fifty Rhodes questionnaires were completed by patients after SG and 355 were completed by patients after LRYGB. Total Rhodes scores are statistically higher in LSG patients compared with patients who underwent LRYGB (LSG = 5.45 ± 6.27; LRYGB = 3.08 ± 4.19, P = .0002). Additionally, at the earlier timepoints, scores were higher among patients who underwent LSG than those who had undergone LRYGB as follows: POD 0 (LSG = 6.96 ± 6.50; LRYGB = 2.89 ± 2.90, P = .0115), POD 1 (LSG = 8.20 ± 6.76; LRYGB = 2.88 ± 3.44, P < .0001), and POD 2 (LSG = 4.05 ± 4.88; LRYGB = 2.06 ± 3.43, P = .05). On subset analysis, examining patients who either underwent an LSG or LRYGB, both procedures had a statistically significant PONV peak emerge on POV 2. Last, overall Rhodes scores were statistically higher in female patients compared with male patients (female: 4.43 ± 5.46; male: 2.35 ± 3.90, P = .021). Although the magnitude of the difference varied somewhat across POD time intervals, the difference was most pronounced at POV 2. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest study using a validated nausea and vomiting questionnaire to objectively measure PONV after bariatric surgery. The factors found to be most associated with increased PONV were LSG and female sex. Ultimately, these data can help bariatric surgery programs, including Washington University Weight Loss Surgery, identify patients who may require more intensive treatment of PONV, particularly POD 0 to 2, and help to identify patients that continue to struggle with PONV in the later surgical recovery phase.