The Value of Surgical Graduate Medical Education (GME) Programs Within An Integrated Health Care System.

OBJECTIVE: Surgical graduate medical education (GME) programs add both significant cost and complexity to the mission of teaching hospitals. While expenses tied directly to surgical training programs are well tracked, overall cost-benefit accounting has not been performed. In this study, we attempt to better define the costs and benefits of maintaining surgical GME programs within a large integrated health system. DESIGN: We examined the costs, in 2018 US dollars, associated with the surgical training programs within a single health system. Total health system expenses were calculated using actual and estimated direct GME expenses (salary, benefits, supplies, overhead, and teaching expenses) as well as indirect medical education (IME) expenses. IME expenses for each training program were estimated by using both Medicare percentages and the Medicare Payment Advisor Commission study. The projected cost to replace surgical trainees with advanced practitioners or hospitalists was obtained through interviews with program directors and administrators and was validated by our system's business office. SETTING: A physician lead, integrated, rural health system consisting of 8 hospitals, a medical school and a health insurance company. PARTICIPANTS: GME surgical training programs within a single health system's department of surgery. RESULTS: Our health system's department of surgery supports 8 surgical GME programs (2 general surgery residencies along with residencies in otolaryngology, ophthalmology, oral-maxillofacial surgery, urology, pediatric dentistry, and vascular surgery), encompassing 89 trainees. Trainees work an average of 64.4 hours per week. Total health system cost per resident ranged from $249,657 to $516,783 based on specialty as well as method of calculating IME expenses. After averaging program costs and excluding IME and overhead expenses, we estimated the average annual cost per trainee to be $84,171. We projected that replacing our surgical trainees would require hiring 145 additional advanced practitioners at a cost of $166,500 each per year, or 97 hospitalists at a cost of $346,500 each per year. Excluding overhead, teaching and IME expenses, these replacements would cost the health system an estimated additional $16,651,281 or $26,119,281 per year, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical education is an integral part of our health system and ending surgical GME programs would require large expansion of human resources and significant additional fiscal capital.

Value of delayed duplex ultrasound assessment after endothermal ablation of the great saphenous vein.

OBJECTIVE: Endothermal ablation (ETA) of the great saphenous vein (GSV) is associated with a small but definite risk of endothermal heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT) extending into the common femoral vein. Follow-up duplex ultrasound imaging to detect EHIT after ETA is considered standard of care, although the exact timing of duplex ultrasound imaging to detect EHIT after ETA remains unclear. We hypothesized that an additional duplex ultrasound assessment 1 week after ETA would not identify a significant number of patients with EHIT and would significantly increase health care costs. METHODS: This was a retrospective review of consecutive ETA GSV procedures from 2007 to 2014. All patients were evaluated with duplex ultrasound imaging on postprocedure day 1, and 79% of patients underwent a second ultrasound assessment 1 week postprocedure. EHIT was considered present when proximal GSV closure progressed to level ≥4, based on a six-tier classification system. RESULTS: From January 1, 2007, until December 31, 2014, 842 patients underwent GSV ETA. Patients with EHIT were more likely to have had a prior deep venous thrombosis (DVT; P = .002) and a larger GSV (P = .006). Forty-three procedures (5.1%) were classified as having EHIT requiring anticoagulation, based on a level ≥4 proximal closure level. Of the 43 patients with EHIT, 20 (47%) were found on the initial ultrasound assessment performed 24 hours postprocedure, but 19 patients (44%) with EHIT would not have been identified with a single postoperative ultrasound scan performed 24 hours after intervention. These 19 patients had a level ≤3 closure level at the duplex ultrasound scan performed 24 hours postprocedure and progressed to EHIT on the delayed duplex ultrasound scan. Lastly, thrombotic complications in four patients (9%), representing three late DVT and one DVT/pulmonary embolism presenting to another hospital, would not have been identified regardless of the postoperative surveillance strategy. Maximum GSV diameter was the only significant predictor of progression to EHIT on multivariate analysis (P = .007). Based on 2014 United States dollars, the two-ultrasound surveillance paradigm is associated with health care charges of $31,109 per identified delayed venous thromboembolism event. CONCLUSIONS: Delayed duplex ultrasound assessment after ETA of the GSV comes with associated health care costs but does yield a significant number of patients with progression to EHIT. Better understanding of the timing, risk factors, and significance of EHIT is needed to cost-effectively care for patients after ETA for varicose veins.