Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Operative Experience Among General Surgery Residents: A Multi-Institutional Study from the US ROPE Consortium.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between race/ethnicity and case volume among graduating surgical residents. BACKGROUND: Racial/ethnic minority individuals face barriers to entry and advancement in surgery; however, no large-scale investigations of the operative experience of racial/ethnic minority residents have been performed. METHODS: A multi-institutional retrospective analysis of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education case logs of categorical general surgery residents at 20 programs in the US Resident OPerative Experience Consortium database was performed. All residents graduating between 2010 and 2020 were included. The total, surgeon chief, surgeon junior, and teaching assistant case volumes were compared between racial/ethnic groups. RESULTS: The cohort included 1343 residents. There were 211 (15.7%) Asian, 65 (4.8%) Black, 73 (5.4%) Hispanic, 71 (5.3%) "Other" (Native American or Multiple Race), and 923 (68.7%) White residents. On adjusted analysis, Black residents performed 76 fewer total cases (95% CI, -109 to -43, P <0.001) and 69 fewer surgeon junior cases (-98 to -40, P <0.001) than White residents. Comparing adjusted total case volume by graduation year, both Black residents and White residents performed more cases over time; however, there was no difference in the rates of annual increase (10 versus 12 cases per year increase, respectively, P =0.769). Thus, differences in total case volume persisted over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-institutional study, Black residents graduated with lower case volume than non-minority residents throughout the previous decade. Reduced operative learning opportunities may negatively impact professional advancement. Systemic interventions are needed to promote equitable operative experience and positive culture change.

A multi-institutional study from the US ROPE consortium examining factors associated with endocrine surgery exposure for general surgery residents.

BACKGROUND: Prior analyses of general surgery resident case logs have indicated a decline in the number of endocrine procedures performed during residency. This study aimed to identify factors contributing to the endocrine operative experience of general surgery residents and compare those who matched in endocrine surgery fellowship with those who did not. METHODS: We analyzed the case log data of graduates from 18 general surgery residency programs in the US Resident Operative Experience Consortium over an 11-year period. RESULTS: Of the 1,240 residents we included, 17 (1%) matched into endocrine surgery fellowships. Those who matched treated more total endocrine cases, including more thyroid, parathyroid, and adrenal cases, than those who did not (81 vs 37, respectively, P < .01). Program-level factors associated with increased endocrine volume included endocrine-specific rotations (+10, confidence interval 8-12, P < .01), endocrine-trained faculty (+8, confidence interval 7-10, P < .01), and program co-location with otolaryngology residency (+5, confidence interval 2 -8, P < .01) or endocrine surgery fellowship (+4, confidence interval 2-6, P < .01). Factors associated with decreased endocrine volume included bottom 50th percentile in National Institute of Health funding (-10, confidence interval -12 to -8, P < .01) and endocrine-focused otolaryngologists (-3, confidence interval -4 to -1, P < .01). CONCLUSION: Several characteristics are associated with a robust endocrine experience and pursuit of an endocrine surgery fellowship. Modifiable factors include optimizing the recruitment of dedicated endocrine surgeons and the inclusion of endocrine surgery rotations in general surgery residency.

Disparities in the Operative Experience Between Female and Male General Surgery Residents: A Multi-institutional Study From the US ROPE Consortium.

OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in resident operative experience between male and female general surgery residents. BACKGROUND: Despite increasing female representation in surgery, sex and gender disparities in residency experience continue to exist. The operative volume of male and female general surgery residents has not been compared on a multi-institutional level. METHODS: Demographic characteristics and case logs were obtained for categorical general surgery graduates between 2010 and 2020 from the US Resident OPerative Experience Consortium database. Univariable, multivariable, and linear regression analyses were performed to compare differences in operative experience between male and female residents. RESULTS: There were 1343 graduates from 20 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited programs, and 476 (35%) were females. There were no differences in age, race/ethnicity, or proportion pursuing fellowship between groups. Female graduates were less likely to be high-volume residents (27% vs 36%, P < 0.01). On univariable analysis, female graduates performed fewer total cases than male graduates (1140 vs 1177, P < 0.01), largely due to a diminished surgeon junior experience (829 vs 863, P < 0.01). On adjusted multivariable analysis, female sex was negatively associated with being a high-volume resident (OR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.98, P = 0.03). Over the 11-year study period, the annual total number of cases increased significantly for both groups, but female graduates (+16 cases/year) outpaced male graduates (+13 cases/year, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Female general surgery graduates performed significantly fewer cases than male graduates. Reassuringly, this gap in operative experience may be narrowing. Further interventions are warranted to promote equitable training opportunities that support and engage female residents.

A multi-institutional study from the US ROPE Consortium examining factors associated with directly entering practice upon residency graduation.

BACKGROUND: There is concern regarding the competency of today's general surgery graduates as a large proportion defer independent practice in favor of additional fellowship training. Little is known about the graduates who directly enter general surgery practice and if their operative experiences during residency differ from graduates who pursue fellowship. METHODS: Nineteen Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited general surgery programs from the US Resident OPerative Experience Consortium were included. Demographics, career choice, and case logs from graduates between 2010 to 2020 were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 1,264 general surgery residents who graduated over the 11-year period. A total of 248 (19.6%) went directly into practice and 1,016 (80.4%) pursued fellowship. Graduates directly entering practice were more likely to be a high-volume resident (43.1% vs 30.5%, P < .01) and graduate from a high-volume program (49.2% vs 33.0%, P < .01). Direct-to-practice graduates performed 53 more cases compared with fellowship-bound graduates (1,203 vs 1,150, P < .01). On multivariable analysis, entering directly into practice was positively associated with total surgeon chief case volume (odds ratio = 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.18-1.84, P < .01) and graduating from a US medical school (odds ratio = 2.54, 95% confidence interval 1.45-4.44, P < .01) while negatively associated with completing a dedicated research experience (odds ratio = 0.31, 95% confidence interval 0.22-0.45, P < .01). CONCLUSION: This is the first multi-institutional study exploring resident operative experience and career choice. These data suggest residents who desire immediate practice can tailor their experience with less research time and increased operative volume. These data may be helpful for programs when designing their experience for residents with different career goals.

Improved outcomes over time for adult COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome or acute respiratory failure.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19's pulmonary manifestations are broad, ranging from pneumonia with no supplemental oxygen requirements to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with acute respiratory failure (ARF). In response, new oxygenation strategies and therapeutics have been developed, but their large-scale effects on outcomes in severe COVID-19 patients remain unknown. Therefore, we aimed to examine the trends in mortality, mechanical ventilation, and cost over the first six months of the pandemic for adult COVID-19 patients in the US who developed ARDS or ARF. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The Vizient Clinical Data Base, a national database comprised of administrative, clinical, and financial data from academic medical centers, was queried for patients ≥ 18-years-old with COVID-19 and either ARDS or ARF admitted between 3/2020-8/2020. Demographics, mechanical ventilation, length of stay, total cost, mortality, and discharge status were collected. Mann-Kendall tests were used to assess for significant monotonic trends in total cost, mechanical ventilation, and mortality over time. Chi-square tests were used to compare mortality rates between March-May and June-August. 110,223 adult patients with COVID-19 ARDS or ARF were identified. Mean length of stay was 12.1±13.3 days and mean total cost was $35,991±32,496. Mechanical ventilation rates were 34.1% and in-hospital mortality was 22.5%. Mean cost trended downward over time (p = 0.02) from $55,275 (March) to $18,211 (August). Mechanical ventilation rates trended down (p<0.01) from 53.8% (March) to 20.3% (August). Overall mortality rates also decreased (p<0.01) from 28.4% (March) to 13.7% (August). Mortality rates in mechanically ventilated patients were similar over time (p = 0.45), but mortality in patients not requiring mechanical ventilation decreased from March-May compared to June-July (13.5% vs 4.6%, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study describes the outcomes of a large cohort with COVID-19 ARDS or ARF and the subsequent decrease in cost, mechanical ventilation, and mortality over the first 6 months of the pandemic in the US.

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.