Perceptions of Readiness for Practice After Complex General Surgical Oncology Fellowship: A Survey Study.

BACKGROUND: Surgical subspecialty training aims to meet the needs of practicing surgeons and their communities. This study investigates career preparedness of Complex General Surgical Oncology (CGSO) fellowship graduates, identifies factors associated with practice readiness, and explores potential opportunities to improve the current training model. METHODS: The Society of Surgical Oncology partnered with the National Cancer Institute to conduct a 36-question survey of CGSO fellowship graduates from 2012 to 2022. RESULTS: The overall survey response rate was 38% (221/582) with a slight male predominance (63%). Forty-six percent of respondents completed their fellowship after 2019. Factors influencing fellowship program selection include breadth of cancer case exposure (82%), mentor influence (66%), and research opportunities (38%). Overall, graduates reported preparedness for practice; however, some reported unpreparedness in research (18%) and in specific clinical areas: thoracic (43%), hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) (15%), and hepato-pancreato-biliary (15%) surgery. Regarding technical preparedness, 70% reported being "very prepared". Respondents indicated lack of preparedness in robotic (63%) and laparoscopic (33%) surgery approaches. Suggestions for training improvement included increased autonomy and case volumes, program development, and research infrastructure. Current practice patterns by graduates demonstrated discrepancies between ideal contracts and actual practice breakdowns, particularly related to the practice of general surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This study of CGSO fellowship graduates demonstrates potential gaps between trainee expectations and the realities of surgical oncology practice. Although CGSO fellowship appears to prepare surgeons for careers in surgical oncology, there may be opportunities to refine the training model to better align with the needs of practicing surgical oncologists.

Beyond the Surgical Time-Out: A National Needs Assessment of Preoperative Communication in US General Surgery Residency Programs.

OBJECTIVE: Perioperative communication is critical for procedural learning. In order to develop a periprocedural faculty development tool, we aimed to characterize the current status of preoperative communication in US General Surgery residency programs. DESIGN: After Association of Program Directors in Surgery approval, a survey was distributed to general surgery programs. Participants were asked about perioperative communication, including the frequency of preoperative briefings, defined as dedicated educational discussions prior to a procedure. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. SETTING: An anonymous electronic survey was distributed to interested programs in early 2019. PARTICIPANTS: US General Surgery trainees and attending surgeons. RESULTS: A total of 348 responses were recorded from 27 programs: 199 (57%) attending surgeons and 149 (43%) surgical trainees. Most respondents (83%) were from a university-affiliated program. Attending surgeons indicated a higher frequency of performing preoperative briefings compared to trainees (p < 0.001). Both trainees and attending surgeons were more likely to select their own group when asked who initiates a preoperative briefing. The majority of respondents (58%) agreed that discussing autonomy preoperatively improves resident autonomy for the case. In regards to the timing of preoperative briefings, most took place in/adjacent to the operating room, with only 60 participants (17%) participating in preoperative briefings the day/night prior to the operation. The most frequent topic discussed during preoperative briefings was "procedural content." Most participants selected "time constraints" as the greatest barrier to preoperative briefings and indicated that attending surgeon engagement was necessary to facilitate their use. Trainees were less likely to report engaging in immediate postoperative feedback, but more likely to report postoperative self-reflection. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative briefings are not necessarily routine and attendings and trainees differ on their perceptions related to their content and frequency. Efforts to address timing and scheduling and encourage dual-party engagement in perioperative communication are key to the development of tools to enhance this important aspect of procedural learning.

Perceptions of opioid use and prescribing habits in oncologic surgery: A survey of the society of surgical oncology membership.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to assess current perceptions surrounding opioid prescribing in surgical oncology to inform perioperative quality improvement initiatives. METHODS: After the Society of Surgical Oncology (SSO) approval, a survey was distributed to its membership. Five sample procedures were used to assess provider perceptions and prescribing habits. Data were summarized and compared by self-reported demographics. RESULTS: One hundred and seventy-five participants completed the survey: 149 (85%) faculty, 24 (14%) trainees, and 2 (1%) advanced practice providers. Most participants (76%) practiced in academic programs and 21% practiced in non-US locations. Few differences were identified based on clinical role, academic rank, or practice years. Compared with non-US providers, US providers expected higher pain scores at discharge, recommended greater opioid prescriptions, and estimated more days of opioid use for almost every procedure. More non-US providers believed discharge opioids should not be distributed to patients who are opioid-free in their last 24 inpatient hours (80% vs 50%, P = .001). All providers ranked education as "very important" for reducing opioid prescriptions. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with their international counterparts, US surgical oncology providers expected greater opioid needs and recommended higher prescription numbers. Educating providers on multimodal opioid-sparing bundles, accelerated weaning protocols, and standardized discharge prescribing habits could have a positive impact the US opioid epidemic.

Postoperative Urinary Tract Infection Quality Assessment and Improvement: The S.T.O.P. UTI Program and Its Impact on Hospitalwide CAUTI Rates.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative urinary tract infection (UTI) is a frequent complication that diminishes patient experience and incurs substantial costs. The purpose of this project was to develop a urinary tract care assessment tool that would lead to actionable quality improvement initiatives. METHODS: Multidisciplinary teams at a single institution developed the S.T.O.P. UTI algorithm to assess elements related to urinary catheter care: Sterile catheter placement, Timely catheter removal, Optimal collection bag position, and Proper urine sampling for urinalysis and culture. Based on this evaluation, a targeted intervention was applied to address deficient areas in surgical patients. UTI rates were monitored. RESULTS: The assessment revealed that best practice for sterile placement was being performed but that time to removal, optimal positioning, and proper sampling could be improved. Providers were educated on best practice for catheter removal, nurses placed a reminder note on the chart, personnel were taught about optimal catheter positioning, and nursing assistants were educated on best practices for collection of urine. From 2012 to 2015, non-risk-adjusted UTI rates in surgical patients decreased from 2.90% to 0.46% (p = 0.0003), and the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program risk-adjusted comparison improved from the 8th to the 4th decile. Simultaneously, hospitalwide catheter-associated UTI rates also decreased, from 2.24/1,000 catheter-days in 2014 to 0.70/1,000 catheter-days in 2016 (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The S.T.O.P. UTI algorithm is a tool that hospitals can use to systematically assess UTI processes. The program can identify areas for improvement specific to an institution, directing the allocation of quality improvement resources to decrease both surgical and medical UTIs.

Complex General Surgical Oncology Fellowship Applicants: Trends over Time and the Impact of Board Certification Eligibility.

BACKGROUND: Complex general surgical oncology (CGSO) fellowships recently obtained Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accreditation and board certification eligibility. We aimed to characterize the applicant pool and identify factors predictive of matching into our program. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of CGSO fellowship applications to a major cancer center from 2008 to 2018. Data were analyzed for trends over time, including a comparison of pre- versus post-American Board of Surgery (ABS) certification eligibility. RESULTS: A total of 846 applications were reviewed. Most applicants (86.2%) trained in a US residency program; 58.4% performed ≥ 1 research year during residency; 29.6% had a dual degree. Fewer applicants (34.5%) were female, a trend which did not change over time. Post-ABS, applicants were more likely to complete ≥ 1 year between residency and fellowship (20.9% versus 13.2%, p = 0.003), to be in practice at the time of application (12.2% versus 6.6%, p = 0.005), and to reapply (5.5% versus 1.0%, p < 0.001). Post-ABS applicants listed more peer-reviewed publications (8 [interquartile range (IQR) 4, 15] versus 5 [IQR 2, 10]; p < 0.001). On multivariable analysis, factors associated with matching into our program included: US allopathic medical school graduation [odds ratio (OR) 4.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.8-11.7], Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA) Honor Medical Society distinction (OR 2.7, 95% CI 1.6-4.7), dual degree (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.1-3.4), and performance of a clinical/research rotation at our institution (OR 4.9, 95% CI 2.2-10.7). CONCLUSIONS: After establishment of CGSO board certification eligibility, applicants were more likely to apply while in practice and to reapply. A number of factors, including having a dual degree and rotating at our institution, were associated with matriculation.

Educating Surgical Oncology Providers on Perioperative Opioid Use: Results of a Departmental Survey on Perceptions of Opioid Needs and Prescribing Habits.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing oncologic surgery are at risk for persistent postoperative opioid use. As a quality improvement initiative, this study sought to characterize provider perceptions regarding opioid-prescribing after oncologic procedures. METHODS: Surgical oncology attending physicians, clinical fellows, and advanced practice providers (APPs) at a high-volume cancer center were surveyed before and after educational sessions focusing on the opioid epidemic with review of departmental data. RESULTS: The pre-education response rates were 72 (70%) of 103: 22 (65%) of 34 attending physicians, 19 (90%) of 21 fellows, and 31 (65%) of 48 APPs. For five index operations (open abdominal resection, laparoscopic colectomy, wide local excision, thyroidectomy, port), the fellows answered that patients should stop receiving opioids sooner than recommended by the attending surgeons or APPs. For four of five procedures, the APPs recommended higher discharge opioid prescriptions than the attending surgeons or fellows. Almost half of the providers (n = 46, 45%) responded to both the pre- and post-education surveys. After the intervention, the providers recommended lower numbers of opioid pills and indicated that patients should be weaned from opioids sooner for all the procedures. Compared with pre-education, more providers agreed post-education that discharge opioid prescriptions should be based on a patient's last 24 h of inpatient opioid use (83 vs 91%; p = 0.006). The providers who did not attend a session showed no difference in perceptions or recommendations at the repeat assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Variation exists in perioperative opioid-prescribing among provider types, with those most involved in daily care and discharge processes generally recommending more opioids. After education, providers lowered discharge opioid recommendations and thought patients should stop receiving opioids sooner. The next steps include assessing for quantitative changes in opioid-prescribing and implementing standardized opioid prescription algorithms.