The Association Between Remote Work During the First Wave of the Pandemic and Faculty Perceptions of Their Productivity and Career Trajectory: A Cross Sectional Survey.

INTRODUCTION: Early in the pandemic, studies documented that there are gendered differences in many factors related to working during the pandemic, especially for caregivers. This study aimed to focus on the effects of remote work, rather than the pandemic in general, on perceptions of productivity and career trajectory in research and education faculty at an academic health center. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed and distributed to all faculty in the Department of Medicine. We obtained demographic information and asked respondents to report the effect that remote work had on their research or teaching productivity. Those who reported a decrease in productivity were asked to choose a degree of impact. We also asked about the level of concern for the effect remote work would have on their career trajectory in research and teaching and about the impact of remote work on academic wellness. RESULTS: We received responses from 51.4% of 479 faculty. A little less than half were females, and most were subspecialists. More than half (60.6%) were responsible for providing care to children, parents, or others. Nearly one-quarter of respondents (22.8%) reported a negative effect of remote work on teaching productivity, which was more pronounced in senior faculty versus junior faculty (28.6% vs 16.5%, P = 0.03). Few faculty (7.4%) were concerned about their career trajectory in teaching; however, those who provided care at home were significantly more likely to be concerned (10.7% vs 2.1%, P = 0.01). Over half of respondents (56.6%) reported a negative effect of remote work on research productivity; this was significantly higher for tenure faculty than clinician educators (71.9% vs 50.7%, P = 0.01). Almost half of respondents (39.6%) were concerned about their career trajectory in research, and this concern was significantly higher in specialists than in generalists (42.9% vs 15.8%, P = 0.02) and in clinician educators versus clinicians (39.7% vs 0.0%, P = 0.007). A small number of faculty (11.5%) reported a negative impact of remote work on their academic wellness; this impact was higher in specialists than in generalists (13.2% vs 3.7%, P = 0.05). There were no significant differences in any areas of concern for males versus females or in those with or without leadership roles. CONCLUSIONS: In this single-center study during the first wave of the pandemic, faculty perceived reduced productivity in teaching, research, and academic wellness. Our study found that remote work concerns were overall more evenly distributed across gender and those responsible for caregiving than had been reported previously; however, caregivers were more concerned about their career trajectory in teaching than noncaregivers. The lack of significant differences may have been due to several factors: remote work allowed flexibility when caregiving arrangements were disrupted; remote work was required of all faculty, mitigating concerns that caregivers were singled out; and institutional support offset some of the challenges. Further studies are needed to determine whether social or operational interventions in academic health centers can reduce the negative perception of remote working on academic productivity.

Endoscopic ultrasound fine-needle aspiration characteristics of primary adenocarcinoma versus other malignant neoplasms of the pancreas.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with fine-needle aspiration (FNA) is often used to assist in the evaluation of pancreatic lesions and may help to diagnose benign versus malignant neoplasms. However, there is a paucity of literature regarding comparative EUS characteristics of various malignant pancreatic neoplasms (primary and metastatic). OBJECTIVE: To compare and characterize primary pancreatic adenocarcinoma versus other malignant neoplasms, hereafter referred to as nonprimary pancreatic adenocarcinoma (NPPA), diagnosed by EUS-guided FNA. METHODS: The present study was a retrospective analysis of a prospectively maintained database. The setting was a tertiary care, academic medical centre. Patients referred for suspected pancreatic neoplasms were evaluated. Based on EUS-FNA characteristics, primary pancreatic adenocarcinoma was differentiated from other malignant neoplasms. The subset of other neoplasms was defined as malignant lesions that were 'NPPAs' (ie, predominantly solid or solid/cystic based on EUS appearance and primary malignant lesions or metastatic lesions to the pancreas). Pancreatic masses that were benign cystic lesions (pseudocyst, simple cyst, serous cystadenoma) and focal inflammatory lesions (acute, chronic and autoimmune pancreatitis) were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 230 patients were evaluated using EUS-FNA for suspected pancreatic mass lesions. Thirty-eight patients were excluded because they were diagnosed with inflammatory lesions or had purely benign cysts. One hundred ninety-two patients had confirmed malignant pancreatic neoplasms (ie, pancreatic adenocarcinoma [n=144], NPPA [n=48]). When comparing adenocarcinoma with NPPA lesions, there was no significant difference in mean age (P=0.0675), sex (P=0.3595) or average lesion size (P=0.3801). On average, four FNA passes were necessary to establish a cytological diagnosis in both lesion subtypes (P=0.396). Adenocarcinomas were more likely to be located in the pancreatic head (P=0.0198), whereas masses in the tail were more likely to be NPPAs (P=0.0006). Adenocarcinomas were also more likely to exhibit vascular invasion (OR 4.37; P=0.0011), malignant lymphadenopathy (P=0.0006), pancreatic duct dilation (OR 2.4; P=0.022) and common bile duct dilation (OR 2.87; P=0.039). CONCLUSIONS: Adenocarcinoma was more likely to be present in the head of the pancreas, have lymph node and vascular involvement, as well as evidence of pancreatic duct and common bile duct obstruction. Of all malignant pancreatic lesions analyzed by EUS-FNA, 25% were NPPA, suggesting that FNA is crucial in establishing a diagnosis and may be helpful in preoperative planning.

EUS and ERCP complication rates are not increased in elderly patients.

BACKGROUND: Further studies evaluating the safety of advanced endoscopic procedures in elderly patients are needed. AIM: To evaluate the safety of endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) and endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) in the elderly. METHODS: The study population, consisting of 1,000 patients who underwent ERCP or EUS, was divided into two cohorts. The elderly cohort consisted of patients ≥ 75 years old. The nonelderly cohort consisted of patients <75 years old. The data collected included demographic information, type of procedure completed, procedure medication used, and endoscopic intervention performed. Complications included any event which occurred during the procedure or up to 1 month post procedure. RESULTS: A total of 600 ERCPs and 400 EUS were included. The mean age of the elderly cohort was 80 years (range 75-95 years, n = 184) versus 54 years (range 13-74 years, n = 816) for the nonelderly cohort. The ERCP complication rate was 10.0% in the elderly versus 10.6% (P = 1.0) for the nonelderly. The EUS complication rate was 4.8% in the elderly versus 3.1% in the nonelderly (P = 0.49). The overall complication rates were identical at 7.6% (P = 1.0). Sedation doses were lower for the elderly cohort (P < 0.001). There was a higher rate of procedure bleeding in the elderly cohort (P = 0.016). CONCLUSION: Advanced age is not a contraindication for advanced endoscopic procedures. There is no significant increase in the rate of overall procedure-related complications seen with either ERCP or EUS in elderly patients; however, elderly patients have a higher risk of bleeding. Less procedure-related sedation medication is required for elderly patients.

Predictors of malignancy and recommended follow-up in patients with negative endoscopic ultrasound-guided fine-needle aspiration of suspected pancreatic lesions.

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) with fine-needle aspiration (FNA) can characterize and diagnose pancreatic lesions as malignant, but cannot definitively rule out the presence of malignancy. Outcome data regarding the length of follow-up in patients with negative or nondiagnostic EUS-FNA of pancreatic lesions are not well-established. OBJECTIVE: To determine the long-term outcome and provide follow-up guidance for patients with negative EUS-FNA diagnosis of suspected pancreatic lesions based on imaging predictors. METHODS: A retrospective review of patients undergoing EUS-FNA for suspected pancreatic lesions, but with negative or nondiagnostic FNA results was conducted at a tertiary care referral medical centre. Patient demographics, EUS imaging characteristics and follow-up data were examined. RESULTS: Seventeen of 55 patients (30.9%) with negative/nondiagnostic FNA were subsequently diagnosed with pancreatic malignancy. The risk of cancer was significantly higher for patients who had associated lymph nodes on EUS (P<0.001) and vascular involvement on EUS (P=0.001). The mean time to diagnosis in the group with falsenegative EUS-FNA diagnosis was 66 days. The true-negative EUSFNA patients were followed for a mean of 403 days after negative EUS-FNA results without the development of malignancy. CONCLUSION: For patients undergoing EUS-FNA for a suspected pancreatic lesion, a negative or nondiagnostic FNA does not provide conclusive evidence for the absence of cancer. Patients for whom vascular invasion and lymphadenopathy are detected on EUS are more likely to have a true malignant lesion and should be followed closely. When a patient has been monitored for six months or more with no cancer being diagnosed, there appears to be much less chance that a pancreatic malignancy is present.