The impact and prevention of systemic and diagnostic errors in surgical malpractice claims in Japan: a retrospective cohort study.

The Surgical Patient Safety System (SURPASS) has been proven to improve patient outcomes. However, few studies have evaluated the details of litigation and its prevention in terms of systemic and diagnostic errors as potentially preventable problems. The present study explored factors associated with accepted claims (surgeon-loss). We retrospectively searched the national Japanese malpractice claims database between 1961 and 2017. Using multivariable logistic regression models, we assessed the association between medical malpractice variables (systemic and diagnostic errors, facility size, time, place, and clinical outcomes) and litigation outcomes (acceptance). We evaluated whether or not the factors associated with litigation could have been prevented with the SURPASS checklist. We identified 339 malpractice claims made against general surgeons. There were 159 (56.3%) accepted claims, and the median compensation paid was 164,381 USD. In multivariable analyses, system (odds ratio, 27.2 95% confidence interval 13.8-53.5) and diagnostic errors (odds ratio 5.3, 95% confidence interval 2.7-10.5) had a significant statistical association with accepted claims. The SURPASS checklist may have prevented 7% and 10% of the accepted claims and systemic errors, respectively. It is unclear what proportion of accepted claims indicated that general surgeon loses should be prevented from performing surgery if the SURPASS checklist were used. In conclusion, systemic and diagnostic errors were associated with accepted claims. Surgical teams should adhere to the SURPASS checklist to enhance patient safety and reduce surgeon risk.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the management of surgical patients presenting in an emergency setting -Report from a tertiary referral centre.

Introduction: At the onset of the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, the publications on managing surgical emergencies were sparse. Health care personnel were facing an unprecedented problem with limited information. On this background, we have reviewed the operational challenges faced and the protocols followed by us while managing emergency surgical patients. The clinical presentations, RT-PCR testing rates, trend of COVID-19 positivity in emergency surgical patients and its comparison to the general population, swab positivity among screen positive and negative patients, grade of COVID-19 affection, the outcomes in emergency surgical patients, and COVID-19 affection in treating personnel is studied. Patients and Methods: A protocol for triaging patients at presentation into screen positive or negative for COVID-19 was instituted. A proforma for all admitted patients over the period of March 2020 to August 2020 was maintained. A retrospective review of this data was carried out after Institutional Ethics Committee permission. Results: A total of 222 patients presented to the surgical emergency, of which 110 required admission. Of the admitted patients, 28 were COVID-19 positive. The positivity amongst admitted and operated patients increased to 50% and 66.67%, respectively in August. The difference in mortality rate amongst the operated COVID-19 positive (11.1%) and negative (14.28%) patients was nonsignificant. None of the treating doctors had to be quarantined during this period. Conclusions: The number of COVID-19 positive patients rose serially over the study period. The outcome was not affected by the COVID-19 status in mild cases. A high rate of COVID-19 positivity was seen in patients requiring emergency surgery. Universal precautions ensured delivering treatment to emergency patients in standard time. Testing should continue for all as screening alone is not effective as the virus spreads into the population. Proper protocols helped us to protect the health care workers.

Colorectal cancer screening behaviors of general surgeons and first-degree family members: a survey-based study.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates are low in the general population and among health care providers. The aim of this study was to evaluate the CRC screening practices of general surgeons who provide specialized diagnostic testing and CRC treatment and to examine the CRC screening behaviors of their first-degree family members. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among general surgeons who attended the 21st National Surgical Congress in Turkey held from April 11th to 15th, 2018. The survey included items on demographics, screening-related attitude, CRC screening options, barriers to CRC screening, and surgeons' annual volumes of CRC cases. RESULTS: A total of 530 respondents completed the survey. Almost one-third of the responding surgeons (29.4%, n = 156) were aged over 50 years, among whom approximately half (47.1%, n = 74) reported having undergone CRC screening and preferring a colonoscopy as the screening modality (78.4%). Among general surgeons aged 50 years and older, high-volume surgeons (≥25 CRC cases per year) were more likely to undergo screening compared with low-volume surgeons (< 25 CRC cases per year). The respondents aged below 50 years reported that 56.1% (n = 210) of their first-degree relatives were up-to-date with CRC screening, mostly with colonoscopy. Compared to low-volume surgeons aged below 50 years, high-volume surgeons' first-degree relatives were more likely to be up-to-date with CRC screening. CONCLUSION: The survey results demonstrated that routine screening for CRC among surgeons and/or their first-degree relatives is currently not performed at the desired level. However, high-volume surgeons are more likely to participate in routine screening.

General surgeon management of complex hepatopancreatobiliary trauma at a level I trauma center.

BACKGROUND: The impact of general surgeons (GS) taking trauma call on patient outcomes has been debated. Complex hepatopancreatobiliary (HPB) injuries present a particular challenge and often require specialized care. We predicted no difference in the initial management or outcomes of complex HPB trauma between GS and trauma/critical care (TCC) specialists. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who underwent operative intervention for complex HPB trauma from 2008 to 2015 at an ACS-verified level I trauma center was performed. Chart review was used to obtain variables pertaining to demographics, clinical presentation, operative management, and outcomes. Patients were grouped according to whether their index operation was performed by a GS or TCC provider and compared. RESULTS: 180 patients met inclusion criteria. The GS (n = 43) and TCC (n = 137) cohorts had comparable patient demographics and clinical presentations. Most injuries were hepatic (73.3% GS versus 72.6% TCC) and TCC treated more pancreas injuries (15.3% versus GS 13.3%; P = 0.914). No significant differences were found in HPB-directed interventions at the initial operation (41.9% GS versus 56.2% TCC; P = 0.100), damage control laparotomy with temporary abdominal closure (69.8% versus 69.3%; P = 0.861), LOS, septic complications or 30-day mortality (13.9% versus 10.2%; P = 0.497). TCC were more likely to place an intraabdominal drain than GS (52.6% versus 34.9%; P = 0.043). CONCLUSIONS: We found no significant differences between GS and TCC specialists in initial operative management or clinical outcomes of complex HPB trauma. The frequent and proper use of damage control laparotomy likely contribute to these findings.

Perspectives on Referring for Rectal Cancer Surgery: a Survey Study of Gastroenterologist and General Surgeons in Iowa.

PURPOSE: To understand referral practices for rectal cancer surgical care and to secondarily determine differences in referral practices by two main hypothesized drivers of referral: the rurality of the community endoscopists' practice and their affiliation with a colorectal surgeon. METHODS: Community gastroenterologists and general surgeons in Iowa completed a mailed questionnaire on practice demographics, volume, and referral practices for rectal cancer patients. Rurality was operationalized with RUCA codes. RESULTS: Twenty-two of 53 gastroenterologists (42%) and 120 of 188 general surgeons (64%) (total 144/241, 60%) in Iowa responded. Most performed colonoscopies, including 22 gastroenterologists (100%) and 96 general surgeons (80%). Regular referral of rectal cancer patients to colorectal surgeons was reported for 57% of urban physicians affiliated with a colorectal surgeon, 33% of urban physicians not affiliated with a colorectal surgeon, and 57% and 72% of physicians in large and small rural areas, respectively, who were not affiliated with a colorectal surgeon. High surgeon volume, high hospital volume, and colorectal surgeon specialty were important factors in the referral decisions for over half the physicians. 69% of diagnosing urban general surgeons reported performing rectal cancer surgery about half the time or more, while 85% of small rural and 60% of large rural diagnosing general surgeons reported never or rarely performing rectal cancer surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Diagnosing physicians have variable rectal cancer referral practices, including consistency in referred to surgeon and prioritization of volume and specialization. Prioritizing specialized or high-volume rectal cancer surgical care would require changing existing referring patterns.

Prevention and control strategies of general surgeons under COVID-19 pandemic.

The novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and the disease caused by it, COVID-19, have spread to virtually all countries worldwide within just a few months. The economic and sanitary impact has been enormous. In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic. How to effectively prevent and control SARS-CoV-2 transmission while providing care to surgical patients during the pandemic is a crucial topic. In order to minimize the risk of cross-infection between patients and physicians, many hospitals have taken measures to limit outpatient services, elective hospitalizations, and the number of operations. Based on the prevention and control measures stipulated by major medical institutions in China, this overview provides recommendations for surgeons from three aspects: outpatient treatment, ward management and perioperative protection. Telemedicine should be encouraged as a means of social distancing. Outpatient examination should be selected. Reasonable spatial arrangement and effective environmental disinfection are important for ward management. Patient selection for surgery and timing of operations should be carefully discussed within multi-disciplinary teams. Appropriate personal protective equipment should be worn adapted to the situational risk. On December 31, 2019, China reported to the WHO Country Office a pneumonia of unknown cause detected in Wuhan [1], [3]. Subsequently, the disease later named COVID-19 affected a substantial proportion of the population in Wuhan and spread to other areas of China. Relying on a nationwide shutdown and mandatory quarantine, China has effectively curtailed the domestic outbreak. However, due to the high transmissibility of SARS-Cov-2 and the mobility of people, COVID-19 spread to the rest of the world. Many hospitals worldwide were faced with confirmed and suspected SARS-Cov-2 infections, putting a huge strain on the safety of patients and employees. Consequently, surgical patients who seek medical care during the COVID-19 pandemic present significant challenges. This paper summarizes medical care and infection prevention and control in general surgery patients during the COVID-19, pandemic in the light of the current situation in China. It provides reference for surgeons and decision makers in health care in other countries suffering from the COVID-19 pandemic.