Disparities in Access, Quality, and Clinical Outcome for Latino Californians with Colon Cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare access, quality, and clinical outcomes between Latino and non-Latino White Californians with colon cancer. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Racial and ethnic disparities in cancer care remain understudied, particularly among patients who identify as Latino. Exploring potential mechanisms, including differential utilization of high-volume hospitals, is an essential first step to designing evidence-based policy solutions. METHODS: We identified all adults diagnosed with colon cancer between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2020 from a statewide cancer registry linked to hospital administrative records. We compared survival, access (stage at diagnosis, receipt of surgical care, treatment at a high-volume hospital), and quality of care (receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy, adequacy of lymph node resection) between patients who identified as Latino and as non-Latino White. RESULTS: 75,543 patients met inclusion criteria, including 16,071 patients who identified as Latino (21.3%). Latino patients were significantly less likely to undergo definitive surgical resection (marginal difference [MD] -0.72 percentage points, 95% CI -1.19,-0.26), have an operation in a timely fashion (MD -3.24 percentage points, 95% CI -4.16,-2.32), or have an adequate lymphadenectomy (MD -2.85 percentage points, 95% CI -3.59,-2.12) even after adjustment for clinical and sociodemographic factors. Latino patients treated at high-volume hospitals were significantly less likely to die and more likely to meet access and quality metrics. CONCLUSIONS: Latino colon cancer patients experienced delays, segregation, and lower receipt of recommended care. Hospital-level colectomy volume appears to be strongly associated with access, quality, and survival--especially for patients who identify as Latino--suggesting that directing at-risk cancer patients to high-volume hospitals may improve health equity.

Transforming the Future of Surgeon-Scientists.

OBJECTIVE: To create a blueprint for surgical department leaders, academic institutions, and funding agencies to optimally support surgeon-scientists. BACKGROUND: Scientific contributions by surgeons have been transformative across many medical disciplines. Surgeon-scientists provide a distinct approach and mindset toward key scientific questions. However, lack of institutional support, pressure for increased clinical productivity, and growing administrative burden are major challenges for the surgeon-scientist, as is the time-consuming nature of surgical training and practice. METHODS: An American Surgical Association Research Sustainability Task Force was created to outline a blueprint for sustainable science in surgery. Leaders from top NIH-sponsored departments of surgery engaged in video and in-person meetings between January and April 2023. A strength, weakness, opportunities, threats analysis was performed, and workgroups focused on the roles of surgeons, the department and institutions, and funding agencies. RESULTS: Taskforce recommendations: (1) SURGEONS: Growth mindset : identifying research focus, long-term planning, patience/tenacity, team science, collaborations with disparate experts; Skill set : align skills and research, fill critical skill gaps, develop team leadership skills; DEPARTMENT OF SURGERY (DOS): (2) MENTORSHIP: Chair : mentor-mentee matching/regular meetings/accountability, review of junior faculty progress, mentorship training requirement, recognition of mentorship (eg, relative value unit equivalent, awards; Mentor: dedicated time, relevant scientific expertise, extramural funding, experience and/or trained as mentor, trusted advisor; Mentee : enthusiastic/eager, proactive, open to feedback, clear about goals; (3) FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY: diversification of research portfolio, identification of matching funding sources, departmental resource awards (eg, T-/P-grants), leveraging of institutional resources, negotiation of formalized/formulaic funds flow investment from academic medical center toward science, philanthropy; (4) STRUCTURAL/STRATEGIC SUPPORT: Structural: grants administrative support, biostats/bioinformatics support, clinical trial and research support, regulatory support, shared departmental laboratory space/equipment; Strategic: hiring diverse surgeon-scientist/scientists faculty across DOS, strategic faculty retention/ recruitment, philanthropy, career development support, progress tracking, grant writing support, DOS-wide research meetings, regular DOS strategic research planning; (5) COMMUNITY AND CULTURE: Community: right mix of faculty, connection surgeon with broad scientific community; Culture: building research infrastructure, financial support for research, projecting importance of research (awards, grand rounds, shoutouts); (6) THE ROLE OF INSTITUTIONS: Foundation: research space co-location, flexible start-up packages, courses/mock study section, awards, diverse institutional mentorship teams; Nurture: institutional infrastructure, funding (eg, endowed chairs), promotion friendly toward surgeon-scientists, surgeon-scientists in institutional leadership positions; Expectations: RVU target relief, salary gap funding, competitive starting salaries, longitudinal salary strategy; (7) THE ROLE OF FUNDING AGENCIES: change surgeon research training paradigm, offer alternate awards to K-awards, increasing salary cap to reflect market reality, time extension for surgeon early-stage investigator status, surgeon representation on study section, focused award strategies for professional societies/foundations. CONCLUSIONS: Authentic recommitment from surgeon leaders with intentional and ambitious actions from institutions, corporations, funders, and society is essential in order to reap the essential benefits of surgeon-scientists toward advancements of science.

Standardization of Colon Resection for Cancer: An Overview of the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer Standard 5.6.

The purpose of this editorial is to review the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer Standard 5.6, which pertains to curative intent colon resections performed for cancer. We first provide a broad overview of the Operative Standard, followed by the underlying rationale, technical components, and documentation requirements.

A Qualitative Study of Emergency Medicaid Programs From the Perspective of Hospital Stakeholders.

INTRODUCTION: Uninsured patients often have poor clinical outcomes associated with lower access to care. Hospital Presumptive Eligibility (HPE) provides up to 60-d emergency Medicaid coverage for uninsured, low-income patients. After obtaining 60-d HPE, patients must file for ongoing Medicaid to sustain coverage; however, navigating HPE approval is complex. We conducted a qualitative study to understand (1) stakeholder perspectives on the application process and workflow and (2) facilitators and barriers to HPE approval to understand process improvement opportunities. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews between September-December 2021 with key stakeholders (social workers, financial counselors, case managers, and private third-party vendor representatives) involved in HPE coverage determination, screening, approval, and Medicaid sustainment at our institution. We performed a team-based thematic analysis to elicit factors influencing HPE screening and approval, and recommendations for process improvement. RESULTS: Study participants described the HPE application and Medicaid approval processes. Patient-level barriers included information disclosure and immigration status, inability to contact patients or next-of-kin, and knowledge gaps about insurance acquisition and sustainment. System-level barriers included technical challenges with the state HPE application portal, inadequate staffing for patient screening, and short emergency department stays that limited opportunities to initiate HPE. Stakeholders proposed improvements in education, patient outreach, and logistics. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study reveals the process of HPE approval and outlines barriers within HPE and Medicaid processing from the perspective of direct hospital stakeholders. We identified opportunities at the patient, hospital, and policy levels that could improve successful HPE application and approval rates.

The primary care provider (PCP)-cancer specialist relationship: A systematic review and mixed-methods meta-synthesis.

Although they are critical to models of coordinated care, the relationship and communication between primary care providers (PCPs) and cancer specialists throughout the cancer continuum are poorly understood. By using predefined search terms, the authors conducted a systematic review of the literature in 3 databases to examine the relationship and communication between PCPs and cancer specialists. Among 301 articles identified, 35 met all inclusion criteria and were reviewed in-depth. Findings from qualitative, quantitative, and disaggregated mixed-methods studies were integrated using meta-synthesis. Six themes were identified and incorporated into a preliminary conceptual model of the PCP-cancer specialist relationship: 1) poor and delayed communication between PCPs and cancer specialists, 2) cancer specialists' endorsement of a specialist-based model of care, 3) PCPs' belief that they play an important role in the cancer continuum, 4) PCPs' willingness to participate in the cancer continuum, 5) cancer specialists' and PCPs' uncertainty regarding the PCP's oncology knowledge/experience, and 6) discrepancies between PCPs and cancer specialists regarding roles. These data indicate a pervasive need for improved communication, delineation, and coordination of responsibilities between PCPs and cancer specialists. Future interventions aimed at these deficiencies may improve patient and physician satisfaction and cancer care coordination. CA Cancer J Clin 2017;67:156-169. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Impact of a coaching program on resident perceptions of communication confidence and feedback quality.

BACKGROUND: While communication is an essential skill for providing effective medical care, it is infrequently taught or directly assessed, limiting targeted feedback and behavior change. We sought to evaluate the impact of a multi-departmental longitudinal residency communication coaching program. We hypothesized that program implementation would result in improved confidence in residents' communication skills and higher-quality faculty feedback. METHODS: The program was implemented over a 3-year period (2019-2022) for surgery and neurology residents at a single institution. Trained faculty coaches met with assigned residents for coaching sessions. Each session included an observed clinical encounter, self-reflection, feedback, and goal setting. Eligible residents completed baseline and follow-up surveys regarding their perceptions of feedback and communication. Quantitative responses were analyzed using paired t-tests; qualitative responses were analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: The baseline and follow-up survey response rates were 90.0% (126/140) and 50.5% (46/91), respectively. In a paired analysis of 40 respondents, residents reported greater confidence in their ability to communicate with patients (inpatient: 3.7 vs. 4.3, p < 0.001; outpatient: 3.5 vs. 4.2, p < 0.001), self-reflect (3.3 vs. 4.3, p < 0.001), and set goals (3.6 vs. 4.3, p < 0.001), as measured on a 5-point scale. Residents also reported greater usefulness of faculty feedback (3.3 vs. 4.2, p = 0.001). The content analysis revealed helpful elements of the program, challenges, and opportunities for improvement. Receiving mentorship, among others, was indicated as a core program strength, whereas solving session coordination and scheduling issues, as well as lowering the coach-resident ratio, were suggested as some of the improvement areas. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that direct observation of communication in clinical encounters by trained faculty coaches can facilitate long-term trainee growth across multiple core competencies. Future studies should evaluate the impact on patient outcomes and workplace-based assessments.

Evaluating Emergency Medicaid Program Policy Changes During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Trauma patients are twice as likely to be uninsured as the general population, which can lead to limited access to postinjury resources and higher mortality. The Hospital Presumptive Eligibility (HPE) program offers emergency Medicaid for eligible patients at presentation. The HPE program underwent several changes during the COVID-19 pandemic; we quantify the program's success during this time and seek to understand features associated with HPE approval. METHODS: A mixed methods study at a Level I trauma center using explanatory sequential design, including: 1) a retrospective cohort analysis (2015-2021) comparing HPE approval before and after COVID-19 policy changes; and 2) semistructured interviews with key stakeholders. RESULTS: 589 patients listed as self-pay or Medicaid presented after March 16, 2020, when COVID-19 policies were first implemented. Of these, 409 (69%) patients were already enrolled in Medicaid at hospitalization. Among those uninsured at arrival, 160 (89%) were screened and 98 (61%) were approved for HPE. This marks a significant improvement in the prepandemic HPE approval rate (48%). In adjusted logistic regression analyses, the COVID-19 period was associated with an increased likelihood of HPE approval (versus prepandemic: aOR, 1.64; P = 0.005). Qualitative interviews suggest that mechanisms include state-based expansion in HPE eligibility and improvements in remote approval such as telephone/video conferencing. CONCLUSIONS: The HPE program experienced an overall increased approval rate and adapted to policy changes during the pandemic, enabling more patients' access to health insurance. Ensuring that these beneficial changes remain a part of our health policy is an important aspect of improving access to health insurance for our patients.

Decision Making and Cost in Healthcare: The Patient Perspective.

Unsustainable spending and unsatisfactory outcomes have prompted a reanalysis of healthcare policy towards value. Several strategies have been proposed as part of this effort including cost sharing plans to shift costs to patients and gain-sharing models to shift risk to health systems. The patient perspective is rarely elicited in policy formation despite efforts to increase patient-centered care. We conducted a prospective study of 118 patients presenting to hand clinic to assess patient perspective of who should constrain treatment options (patient, physician, insurance company, hospital) and be responsible for costs in scenarios of clinical equipoise. We found that patients believed that insurance companies and hospitals should not constrain which treatment options are available to a patient and that physicians and patients should together influence the availability of treatment options. Patients were willing to cost share with insurance companies when choosing more expensive treatments or in the setting of non-life-threatening diseases. In addressing rising healthcare costs, patient perspectives can inform policies designed to increase value. Asking patients to cost share when choosing a more expensive treatment option in the setting of clinical equipoise could be a strategy for health systems to increase value. Level of Evidence: III (Journal of Surgical Orthopaedic Advances 32(1):023-027, 2023).

Financial Burden of Traumatic Injury Amongst the Privately Insured.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the overall financial burden associated with traumatic injury amongst patients with private insurance and assess the effect of high deductible plans on out-of-pocket costs (OOPCs). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Traumatic injury can be a source of unexpected financial burden for households. However, the effect of increasing participation in higher cost-sharing private health insurance plans remains unknown. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort observational study, using the Clinformatics Data Mart Database, a nationwide single-payer administrative claims database to identify US adults who required emergency department services or hospital admission for single traumatic injury from 2008 to 2018. A 2-part model using a logistic regression and a generalized linear model with gamma distribution and log link was used to evaluate 12-month OOPCs after traumatic injury. Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate the likelihood of catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) after injury. RESULTS: Of 426,945 included patients, 53% were male, 71% were white, and median age was 42 years. Patients faced monthly OOPC of $660 at the time of their injury. High deductible plan enrollment was associated with an increase of $1703 in 12-month OOPC after trauma, compared to those covered by traditional health plans. In addition to high deductible health plan enrollment, worsening injury severity and longer hospital stays were also associated with increased 12-month OOPC after trauma. Non-white minorities paid less 12-month OOPC after trauma compared to non-Hispanic white patients, but also used fewer services. Overall, the incidence of CHE was 5%; however high-deductible health plan enrollees faced a 13% chance of CHE. CONCLUSIONS: Privately insured trauma patients face substantial OOPCs at the time of their injuries. High-deductible health plans are associated with increased financial vulnerability after trauma.

Integrated Single-cell and Plasma Proteomic Modeling to Predict Surgical Site Complications: A Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether single-cell and plasma proteomic elements of the host's immune response to surgery accurately identify patients who develop a surgical site complication (SSC) after major abdominal surgery. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: SSCs may occur in up to 25% of patients undergoing bowel resection, resulting in significant morbidity and economic burden. However, the accurate prediction of SSCs remains clinically challenging. Leveraging high-content proteomic technologies to comprehensively profile patients' immune response to surgery is a promising approach to identify predictive biological factors of SSCs. METHODS: Forty-one patients undergoing non-cancer bowel resection were prospectively enrolled. Blood samples collected before surgery and on postoperative day one (POD1) were analyzed using a combination of single-cell mass cytometry and plasma proteomics. The primary outcome was the occurrence of an SSC, including surgical site infection, anastomotic leak, or wound dehiscence within 30 days of surgery. RESULTS: A multiomic model integrating the single-cell and plasma proteomic data collected on POD1 accurately differentiated patients with (n = 11) and without (n = 30) an SSC [area under the curve (AUC) = 0.86]. Model features included coregulated proinflammatory (eg, IL-6- and MyD88- signaling responses in myeloid cells) and immunosuppressive (eg, JAK/STAT signaling responses in M-MDSCs and Tregs) events preceding an SSC. Importantly, analysis of the immunological data obtained before surgery also yielded a model accurately predicting SSCs (AUC = 0.82). CONCLUSIONS: The multiomic analysis of patients' immune response after surgery and immune state before surgery revealed systemic immune signatures preceding the development of SSCs. Our results suggest that integrating immunological data in perioperative risk assessment paradigms is a plausible strategy to guide individualized clinical care.

Technical Standards for Cancer Surgery: Improving Patient Care through Synoptic Operative Reporting.

The Operative Standards for Cancer Surgery manuals define critical elements of optimal cancer surgery based on data and expert opinion. These key aspects of commonly performed cancer operations define technical standards that can be used as a quality assurance tool for practicing surgical oncologists and as an educational tool for trainees. This article provides background on these operative standards and their subsequent integration into synoptic operative report templates. With the goal of codifying the most important aspects of surgical oncology care to elevate and harmonize cancer care, the American College of Surgeons Cancer Programs has developed comprehensive synoptic operative reports. Synoptic operative reports are structured so that key data elements are recorded in a standardized format with prespecified terminology. In contrast to the narrative or structured operative reports frequently used by surgeons, these synoptic operative reports improve semantic clarity, provide uniform fields for abstraction, and facilitate passive data collection and real-time analytics while delivering key information for downstream multidisciplinary patient care. In this way, the synoptic operative report is a key component of a comprehensive effort to elevate the quality of cancer care nationally.

A dyadic survey study of partner engagement in and patient receipt of guideline-recommended colorectal cancer surveillance.

BACKGROUND: We investigated whether partner (spouse or intimate partner) engagement in colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance is associated with patient receipt of surveillance. METHODS: From 2019 to 2020 we surveyed Stage III CRC survivors diagnosed 2014-2018 at an academic cancer center, a community oncology practice and the Georgia SEER registry, and their partners. Partner engagement was measured across 3 domains: Informed about; Involved in; and Aware of patient preferences around surveillance. We evaluated bivariate associations between domains of partner engagement and independent partner variables. Analysis of variance and multivariable logistic regression were used to compare domains of engagement with patient-reported receipt of surveillance. RESULTS: 501 patients responded (51% response rate); 428 had partners. 311 partners responded (73% response rate). Partners were engaged across all domains. Engagement varied by sociodemographics. Greater partner involvement was associated with decreased odds of receipt of composite surveillance (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48-0.93) and trended towards significance for decreased odds of receipt of endoscopy (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.34-1.03) and CEA (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55-1.04). Greater partner awareness was associated with increased odds of patients' receipt of endoscopy (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.15-4.12) and trended towards significance for increased odds of receipt of composite surveillance (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.91-2.04). CONCLUSION: Partners are engaged (informed, involved, and aware) in CRC surveillance. Future research to develop dyadic interventions that capitalize on the positive aspects of partner engagement may help partners effectively engage in surveillance to improve patient care.

Motivations and Barriers Toward Implementation of a Rectal Cancer Synoptic Operative Report: A Process Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The use of synoptic reporting has been shown to improve documentation of critical information and provide added value related to data access and extraction, data reliability, relevant detail, and completeness of information. Surgeon acceptance and adoption of synoptic reports has lagged behind other specialties. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the process of implementing a synoptic operative report. DESIGN: This study was a mixed-methods process evaluation including surveys and qualitative interviews. SETTINGS: This study focused on colorectal surgery practices across the United States. PATIENTS: Twenty-eight board-certified colorectal surgeons were included. INTERVENTIONS: The synoptic operative report for rectal cancer was implemented. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Acceptability, feasibility, and usability were measured by Likert-type survey questions and followed up with individual interviews to elicit experiences with implementation as well as motivations and barriers to use. RESULTS: Among all study participants, 28 surgeons completed the electronic survey (76% response rate) and 21 (57%) completed the telephone interview. Mean usability was 4.14 (range, 1-5; SE, 0.15), mean feasibility was 3.90 (SE, 0.15), and acceptability was 3.98 (SE, 0.18). Participants indicated that substantial administrative and technical support were necessary but not always available for implementation, and many were frustrated by the need to change their workflow. LIMITATIONS: Most surgeon participants were male, white, had >12 years in practice, and used Epic electronic medical record systems. Therefore, they may not represent the perspectives of all US colon and rectal surgeons. In addition, as the synoptic operative report is implemented more broadly across the United States, it will be important to consider variations in the process by electronic medical record system. CONCLUSIONS: The synoptic operative report for rectal cancer was easy to implement and incorporate into workflow, in general, but surgeons remained concerned about additional burden without immediate and tangible value. Despite recognizing benefits, many participants indicated they only implemented the synoptic operative report because it was mandated by the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B735MOTIVACIONES Y BARRERAS HACIA LA IMPLEMENTACIÓN DE UN INFORME OPERATIVO SINÓPTICO DE CÁNCER RECTAL: UNA EVALUACIÓN DEL PROCESOANTECEDENTES:Se ha demostrado que el uso de informes sinópticos mejora la documentación de información crítica y proporciona un valor agregado relacionado con el acceso y extracción de datos, la confiabilidad de los datos, los detalles relevantes y la integridad de la información. La aceptación y adopción de informes sinópticos por parte de los cirujanos se ha quedado rezagada con respecto a otras especialidades.OBJETIVO:Evaluar el proceso de implementación de un informe operativo sinóptico.DISEÑO:Evaluación de procesos de métodos mixtos que incluyen encuestas y entrevistas cualitativas.AJUSTES:Prácticas de cirugía colorrectal en los Estados Unidos.PACIENTES:Veintiocho cirujanos colorrectales certificados por la junta.INTERVENCIONES:Implementación del informe operatorio sinóptico de cáncer de recto.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Aceptabilidad, viabilidad y usabilidad medidas por preguntas de encuestas tipo Likert y seguidas con entrevistas individuales para obtener experiencias con la implementación, así como motivaciones y barreras para el uso.RESULTADOS:Entre todos los participantes del estudio, 28 cirujanos completaron la encuesta electrónica (tasa de respuesta del 76%) y 21 (57%) completaron la entrevista telefónica. La usabilidad media fue 4,14 (rango = 1-5, error estándar (EE) = 0,15), la factibilidad media fue 3,90 (EE = 0,15) y la aceptabilidad fue 3,98 (EE = 0,18). Los participantes indicaron que se necesitaba un apoyo administrativo y técnico sustancial, pero que no siempre estaba disponible para la implementación y muchos se sintieron frustrados por la necesidad de cambiar su flujo de trabajo.LIMITACIONES:La mayoría de los cirujanos participantes eran hombres, blancos, tenían >12 años en la práctica y usaban sistemas de registros médicos electrónicos de Epic. Por lo tanto, es posible que no representen las perspectivas de todos los cirujanos de colon y recto de EE. UU. Además, a medida que el informe operativo sinóptico se implemente de manera más amplia en los EE. UU., Será importante considerar las variaciones en el proceso por sistema EMR.CONCLUSIONES:El informe quirúrgico sinóptico para el cáncer de recto fue en general fácil de implementar e incorporar en el flujo de trabajo, pero los cirujanos seguían preocupados por la carga adicional sin valor inmediato y tangible. A pesar de reconocer los beneficios, muchos participantes indicaron que solo implementaron el informe operativo sinóptico porque era un mandato del Programa Nacional de Acreditación para el Cáncer de Recto. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B735 (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo).

Patient Perspectives on Recovery and Information Needs After Surgery: A Qualitative Study of Veterans.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about patients' postoperative emotional and social functioning and preferences for recovery settings. This qualitative study explores patients' perspectives on factors influencing postoperative recovery, including the proportion of time recovering at home (home time) and unmet information needs. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted between September and December 2020 with veteran patients aged 65 y or older who underwent surgery at a single hospital. A purposeful sampling strategy was used to identify patients with a broad representation of major operations and various amounts of home time. One-hour interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and anonymized for analysis. A rigorous team-based in-depth thematic analysis was performed. Validation techniques to enhance the quality and credibility of the study included triangulation, independent coding, and search for disconfirming evidence. RESULTS: Twelve patients were interviewed (11 [91.7%] males; mean (standard deviation) age, 72.3 [4.8] y). Five factors that influenced the recovery process emerged: (1) professional support services, (2) informal caregiver support, (3) environment for recovery, (4) individual traits, and (5) physical and functional impairments. The analysis also elucidated four unmet information needs regarding recovery: (1) personalized and detailed information, (2) anticipated recovery time, (3) possible complications, and (4) comprehensive information about discharge location options. CONCLUSIONS: The study demonstrated that patients recovering from surgery require wide-ranging levels of support to meet their unique needs and preferences. Patients value easy-to-understand and personalized information about recovery from providers. These findings may be helpful to develop strategies that better support patients in their postoperative recovery and post-acute care transition pathways.

Impact of the Affordable Care Act Insurance Marketplaces on Out-of-Pocket Spending Among Surgical Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between the introduction of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) Health Insurance Marketplaces ("Marketplaces") and financial protection for patients undergoing surgery. BACKGROUND: The ACA established Marketplaces through which individuals could purchase subsidized insurance coverage. However, the effect of these Marketplaces on surgical patients' healthcare spending remains largely unknown. METHODS: We analyzed a nationally representative sample of adults aged 19-64 who underwent surgery in 2010-2017, using the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey. Low-income patients eligible for cost-sharing and premium subsidies in the Marketplaces [income 139%-250% federal poverty level (FPL)] and middle-income patients eligible only for premium subsidies (251%-400% FPL) were compared to high-income controls ineligible for subsidies (>400% FPL) using a quasi-experimental difference-in-differences approach. We evaluated 3 main outcomes: (1) out-of-pocket spending, (2) premium contributions, and (3) likelihood of experiencing catastrophic expenditures, defined as out-of-pocket plus premium spending exceeding 19.5% of family income. RESULTS: Our sample included 5450 patients undergoing surgery, representing approximately 69 million US adults. Among low-income patients, Marketplace implementation was associated with $601 lower [95% confidence interval (CI): -$1169 to -$33; P = 0.04) out-of-pocket spending; $968 lower (95% CI: -$1652 to -$285; P = 0.006) premium spending; and 34.6% lower probability (absolute change: -8.3 percentage points; 95% CI: -14.9 to -1.7; P = 0.01) of catastrophic expenditures. We found no evidence that health expenditures changed for middle-income surgical patients. CONCLUSIONS: The ACA's insurance Marketplaces were associated with improved financial protection among low-income surgical patients eligible for both cost-sharing and premium subsidies, but not in middle-income patients eligible for only premium subsidies.

Local and Visiting Physician Perspectives on Short Term Surgical Missions in Guatemala: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the impact of short-term surgical missions (STMs) on medical practice in Guatemala as perceived by Guatemalan and foreign physicians. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: STMs send physicians from high-income countries to low and middle-income countries to address unmet surgical needs. Although participation among foreign surgeons has grown, little is known of the impact on the practice of foreign or local physicians. METHODS: Using snowball sampling, we interviewed 22 local Guatemalan and 13 visiting foreign physicians regarding their perceptions of the impact of Guatemalan STMs. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, iteratively coded, and analyzed to identify emergent themes. Findings were validated through triangulation and searching for disconfirming evidence. RESULTS: We identified 2 overarching domains. First, the delivery of surgical care by both Guatemalan and foreign physicians was affected by practice in the STM setting. Differences from usual practice manifested as occasionally inappropriate utilization of skills, management of postoperative complications, the practice of perioperative care versus "pure surgery," and the effect on patient-physician communication and trust. Second, both groups noted professional and financial implications of participation in the STM. CONCLUSIONS: While Guatemalan physicians reported a net benefit of STMs on their careers, they perceived STMs as an imperfect solution to unmet surgical needs. They described missed opportunities for developing local capacity, for example through education and optimal resource planning. Foreign physicians described costs that were manageable and high personal satisfaction with STM work. STMs could enhance their impact by strengthening working relationships with local physicians and prioritizing sustainable educational efforts.

The Patient Perspective on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Following Elective Hand Surgery: A Convergent Mixed-Methods Analysis.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have traditionally been used for research purposes, but are now being used to evaluate outcomes from the patient's perspective and inform ongoing management and quality of care. We used quantitative and qualitative approaches to evaluate the short-version Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand (QuickDASH) and the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) with regard to patient preference and measurement of patient goals and their responsiveness after treatment. METHODS: Patients 18 years or older undergoing elective hand surgery received the QuickDASH and PSFS questionnaires before and at 6 weeks after surgery. Two additional questions intended to elicit patients' preferences regarding the QuickDASH and PSFS were included. Responsiveness was measured by change in pre- to postoperative score. We analyzed patients' responses to the 2 additional questions to identify themes in PROM preferences. Results from the quantitative and qualitative analyses were combined into a convergent mixed-methods (eg, quantitative and qualitative) analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-eight patients completed preoperative questionnaires; 25 (66%) completed postoperative questionnaires. Seventeen patients (77%) preferred the PSFS, 3 (14%) had no preference, 2 (9%) preferred the QuickDASH. The average change from pre- to postoperative QuickDASH was -10 (SD, 20), and that of the PSFS was -27 (SD, 26). Ten patients (40%) reported QuickDASH score changes above the minimal clinically importance difference (MCID), 17 patients (68%) reported PSFS score changes above the MCID. Content analysis revealed 4 themes in preference for a PROM: instrument simplicity (ease of instrument understanding and completion), personalized assessment (individualization and relevance), goal directed (having measurable aims or objectives), distinct items (concrete or specific instrument items or functions). CONCLUSIONS: Most patients felt the PSFS better measured their goals because it is a simple, personalized instrument with distinct domains. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Whereas standardized PROMs may better compare across populations, physicians, or conditions, employing PROMs that address patient-specific goals may better assess aspects of care most important to patients. A combination of these 2 types of PROMs can be used to assess outcomes and inform quality of care.

Epidemiology, Pathophysiology, and Treatment of Diverticulitis.

Diverticulitis is a prevalent gastrointestinal disorder that is associated with significant morbidity and health care costs. Approximately 20% of patients with incident diverticulitis have at least 1 recurrence. Complications of diverticulitis, such as abdominal sepsis, are less likely to occur with subsequent events. Several risk factors, many of which are modifiable, have been identified including obesity, diet, and physical inactivity. Diet and lifestyle factors could affect risk of diverticulitis through their effects on the intestinal microbiome and inflammation. Preliminary studies have found that the composition and function of the gut microbiome differ between individuals with vs without diverticulitis. Genetic factors, as well as alterations in colonic neuromusculature, can also contribute to the development of diverticulitis. Less-aggressive and more-nuanced treatment strategies have been developed. Two multicenter, randomized trials of patients with uncomplicated diverticulitis found that antibiotics did not speed recovery or prevent subsequent complications. Elective surgical resection is no longer recommended solely based on number of recurrent events or young patient age and might not be necessary for some patients with diverticulitis complicated by abscess. Randomized trials of hemodynamically stable patients who require urgent surgery for acute, complicated diverticulitis that has not improved with antibiotics provide evidence to support primary anastomosis vs sigmoid colectomy with end colostomy. Despite these advances, more research is needed to increase our understanding of the pathogenesis of diverticulitis and to clarify treatment algorithms.

Implementation of a Synoptic Operative Report for Rectal Cancer: A Mixed-Methods Study.

BACKGROUND: The National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer is a collaborative effort to improve the quality of rectal cancer care, including multidisciplinary assessment, treatment planning, and documentation using synoptic radiology, pathology, and operative reports. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to examine the implementation and use of a synoptic operative report for rectal cancer. DESIGN: This was a convergent mixed-methods implementation study of electronic medical record data, surveys, and qualitative interviews. SETTINGS: The study was conducted at US medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: Colorectal surgeons were included. INTERVENTION: After development, the synoptic operative report was iteratively revised and ultimately approved by the American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons Executive Council and the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer and then implemented into participants' institutional electronic medical record systems. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in fidelity to documentation of 19 critical items after implementation of synoptic reports and in-depth details and perspectives about the synoptic operative report were measured. RESULTS: Thirty-seven surgeons from 14 institutions submitted preimplementation operative reports (n = 180); 32 of 37 surgeons submitted postimplementation reports (n = 118). The operation type, approach, and formation of a stoma were present in >70% of preimplementation reports; however, the location of the tumor, the type of reconstruction, and the distal margin were reported in <50%. Each item was present in ≥89% of postimplementation reports. Twenty eight of 37 participants completed the survey, and 21 of 37 participants completed qualitative interviews. Emergent themes included concerns for additional burden and time constraints using the synoptic report themselves, as well as errors or absent information in traditional narrative operative reports of other surgeons. LIMITATIONS: The study was limited by its sample size, cross-sectional nature, specialized centers, and inclusion of colorectal surgeons only. CONCLUSIONS: Although fidelity to the 19 items substantially increased after implementation of the synoptic report, reactions to the synoptic report varied among surgeons. Many indicated concerns that it would hinder workflow or add extra time burden. Others felt the synoptic report could indirectly improve rectal cancer quality of care and provide useful data for quality improvement and research. More work is needed to update and improve the synoptic operative report and streamline the workflow. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B100. IMPLEMENTACIÓN DE UN INFORME OPERATIVO SINÓPTICO PARA EL CÁNCER DE RECTO: UN ESTUDIO UTILIZANDO MÉTODOS MIXTOS: El Programa Nacional de Acreditación para el Cáncer Rectal es una iniciativa de colaboración para mejorar la calidad de la atención del cáncer rectal, utilizando evaluación multidisciplinaria, planificación del tratamiento y documentación mediante radiología sinóptica, patología e informes quirúrgicos.Examinar la implementación y el uso de un informe operativo sinóptico para el cáncer de recto.Estudio de implementación de métodos mixtos convergentes de datos de registros médicos electrónicos, encuestas y entrevistas cualitativas.Centros médicos de los Estados Unidos.Cirujanos colorrectales.Después de su formulación, el informe operativo sinóptico fue revisado de forma iterativa y finalmente aprobado por el Consejo Ejecutivo de la Sociedad Americana de Cirujanos de Colon y Rectal y el Programa Nacional de Acreditación para el Cáncer Rectal. Posteriormente, se implementó en los sistemas de registros médicos electrónicos institucionales de los participantes.Cambios en la precisión de documentación de 19 ítems críticos después de la implementación de informes sinópticos; Revisión de detalles y perspectivas en a profundidad sobre el informe operativo sinóptico.Treinta y siete cirujanos de 14 instituciones presentaron informes operativos previos a la implementación (n = 180); 32/37 cirujanos presentaron informes posteriores a la implementación (n = 118). El tipo de operación, el enfoque y la formación de un estoma estuvieron presentes en > 70% de los informes previos a la implementación; sin embargo, la ubicación del tumor, el tipo de reconstrucción y el margen distal se informaron en <50%. Cada ítem estuvo presente en > 89% de los informes posteriores a la implementación. 28/37 participantes completaron la encuesta y 21/37 participantes completaron entrevistas cualitativas. Los temas emergentes incluyeron preocupaciones por la carga adicional y las limitaciones de tiempo usando el informe sinóptico en sí, y errores o información ausente en los informes operativos narrativos tradicionales de otros cirujanos.Tamaño de la muestra, estudio transversal, centros especializados, cirujanos colorrectales solamente.Aunque la fidelidad a los 19 ítems aumentó sustancialmente después de la implementación del informe sinóptico, las reacciones al informe sinóptico variaron entre los cirujanos. Muchos indicaron preocupaciones de que obstaculizaría el flujo de trabajo o agregaría una carga de tiempo adicional. Otros consideraron que el informe sinóptico podría mejorar indirectamente la calidad de la atención del cáncer de recto y proporcionar datos útiles para la mejora de la calidad y la investigación. Se necesita más trabajo para actualizar y mejorar el informe operativo sinóptico y agilizar el flujo de trabajo. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B100. (Traducción-Dr. Adrian E. Ortega).

Oncologic and Perioperative Outcomes of Laparoscopic, Open, and Robotic Approaches for Rectal Cancer Resection: A Multicenter, Propensity Score-Weighted Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Minimally invasive approaches have been shown to reduce surgical site complications without compromising oncologic outcomes. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this study is to evaluate the rates of successful oncologic resection and postoperative outcomes among laparoscopic, open, and robotic approaches to rectal cancer resection. DESIGN: This is a multicenter, quasiexperimental cohort study using propensity score weighting. SETTINGS: Interventions were performed in hospitals participating in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. PATIENTS: Adult patients who underwent rectal cancer resection in 2016 were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite variable indicating successful oncologic resection, defined as negative distal and radial margins with at least 12 lymph nodes evaluated. RESULTS: Among 1028 rectal cancer resections, 206 (20%) were approached laparoscopically, 192 (18.7%) were approached robotically, and 630 (61.3%) were open. After propensity score weighting, there were no significant sociodemographic or preoperative clinical differences among subcohorts. Compared to the laparoscopic approach, open and robotic approaches were associated with a decreased likelihood of successful oncologic resection (ORadj = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.43-0.94 and ORadj = 0.60; 95% CI, 0.37-0.97), and the open approach was associated with an increased likelihood of surgical site complications (ORadj = 2.53; 95% CI, 1.61-3.959). Compared to the laparoscopic approach, the open approach was associated with longer length of stay (6.8 vs 8.6 days, p = 0.002). LIMITATIONS: This was an observational cohort study using a preexisting clinical data set. Despite adjusted propensity score methodology, unmeasured confounding may contribute to our findings. CONCLUSIONS: Resections that were approached laparoscopically were more likely to achieve oncologic success. Minimally invasive approaches did not lengthen operative times and provided benefits of reduced surgical site complications and decreased postoperative length of stay. Further studies are needed to clarify clinical outcomes and factors that influence the choice of approach. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B70. RESULTADOS ONCOLÓGICOS Y PERIOPERATORIOS DE LOS ABORDAJES LAPAROSCÓPICOS, ABIERTOS Y ROBÓTICOS PARA LA RESECCIÓN DEL CÁNCER RECTAL: UN ESTUDIO DE COHORTE MULTICÉNTRICO Y PONDERADO DEL PUNTAJE DE PROPENSIÓN: Se ha demostrado que los enfoques mínimamente invasivos reducen las complicaciones del sitio quirúrgico sin comprometer los resultados oncológicos.El objetivo principal de este estudio es evaluar las tasas de resección oncológica exitosa y los resultados postoperatorios entre los abordajes laparoscópico, abierto y robótico para la resección del cáncer rectal.Este es un estudio de cohorte cuasi-experimental multicéntrico que utiliza la ponderación de puntaje de propensión.Las intervenciones se realizaron en hospitales que participan en el Programa Nacional de Mejora de la Calidad Quirúrgica del Colegio Americano de Cirujanos.Se incluyeron pacientes adultos que se sometieron a resección de cáncer rectal en 2016.El resultado primario fue una variable compuesta que indicaba una resección oncológica exitosa, definida como márgenes negativos distales y radiales con al menos 12 ganglios linfáticos evaluados.Entre 1,028 resecciones de cáncer rectal, 206 (20%) fueron abordadas por vía laparoscópica, 192 (18.7%) robóticamente y 630 (61.3%) abiertas. Después de ponderar el puntaje de propensión, no hubo diferencias sociodemográficas o clínicas preoperatorias significativas entre las subcohortes. En comparación con el abordaje laparoscópico, los abordajes abiertos y robóticos se asociaron con una menor probabilidad de resección oncológica exitosa (ORadj = 0.64; IC 95%, 0.43-0.94 y ORadj = 0.60; IC 95%, 0.37-0.97), y el abordaje abierto se asoció con una mayor probabilidad de complicaciones del sitio quirúrgico (ORadj = 2.53; IC 95%, 1.61-3.959). En comparación con el abordaje laparoscópico, el abordaje abierto se asoció con una estadía más prolongada (6.8 frente a 8.6 días, p = 0.002).Este fue un estudio de cohorte observacional que utilizó un conjunto de datos clínicos preexistentes. A pesar de la metodología de puntuación de propensión ajustada, la confusión no medida puede contribuir a nuestros hallazgos.Las resecciones que se abordaron por vía laparoscópica tuvieron más probabilidades de lograr el éxito oncológico. Los enfoques mínimamente invasivos no alargaron los tiempos quirúrgicos y proporcionaron beneficios de la reducción de las complicaciones del sitio quirúrgico y la disminución de la duración de la estadía postoperatoria. Se necesitan más estudios para aclarar los resultados clínicos y los factores que influyen en la elección del enfoque. Vea video resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B70.