Bridging the Gap: A Qualitative Assessment of General Surgery Resident Confidence and Knowledge Deficits in Managing Surgical Endocrinopathy.

BACKGROUND: Most thyroid and parathyroid surgeries are performed by nonfellowship trained, low-volume surgeons with associated higher complication rates. Furthermore, the average number of endocrine procedures performed by general surgery residents is decreasing. While previous studies have documented a lack of general surgery resident confidence in performing these procedures, the specific knowledge gaps in endocrine surgery remain unexplored. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with surgical residents (clinical PGY3-PGY5) at a high-volume academic center with an endocrine surgery fellowship to discuss their experience, knowledge, and deficits managing patients with surgical thyroid and parathyroid disease. Interviews were audio-recorded, de-identified, and transcribed verbatim. Content analysis was used to identify areas of confidence and knowledge deficits in all phases of care. RESULTS: Overall, 14 trainees participated in the study (50% women, mean PGY: 3.8). Preoperatively, residents were confident with thyroid nodule and primary hyperparathyroidism work-up, but less comfortable with rare conditions. Residents were uncomfortable using ultrasound to identify suspicious lymph nodes or abnormal parathyroid glands. Residents perceived knowledge deficits in the multidisciplinary care and work-up of patients with advanced thyroid cancer. Intraoperatively, most residents were confident performing thyroidectomy and focused parathyroidectomy, but less comfortable performing 4-gland explorations or neck dissections. Several had concern with independently identifying and protecting the recurrent laryngeal nerve or locating parathyroid glands in the setting of negative localization. Residents noted a lack of autonomy in both thyroidectomy and parathyroidectomy. Postoperatively, residents felt confident in the acute management of patients, but identified deficits in long-term management of patients with thyroid cancer or chronic complications. CONCLUSIONS: Despite confidence in managing "bread and butter" cervical endocrine surgery in all phases of care, residents perceive a lack of meaningful autonomy intraoperatively. Further educational endeavors may be required to ensure graduating residents are "practice ready" for straightforward cases they may encounter in practice as a general surgeon. A lack of exposure to complex endocrinopathy even at a high-volume center suggests that comprehensive endocrine surgery fellowship remains critical.

Is Everyone Beating Around the Bush?: A Qualitative Study Examining the Status of Shared Decision-Making Between Veterans Affairs Providers and Surgical Patients in the ICU.

Objective: We sought to determine if and how providers use elements of shared decision-making (SDM) in the care of surgical patients in the intensive care unit (ICU). Background: SDM is the gold standard for decision-making in the ICU. However, it is unknown if this communication style is used in caring for critically ill surgical patients. Methods: Qualitative interviews were conducted with providers who provide ICU-level care to surgical patients in Veterans Affairs hospitals. Interviews were designed to examine end-of-life care among veterans who have undergone surgery and require ICU-level care. Results: Forty-eight providers across 14 Veterans Affairs hospitals were interviewed. These participants were diverse with respect to age, race, and sex. Participant dialogue was deductively mapped into 8 established SDM components: describing treatment options; determining roles in the decision-making process; fostering partnerships; health care professional preferences; learning about the patient; patient preferences; supporting the decision-making process; and tailoring the information. Within these components, participants shared preferred tools and tactics used to satisfy a given SDM component. Participants also noted numerous barriers to achieving SDM among surgical patients. Conclusions: Providers use elements of SDM when caring for critically ill surgical patients. Additionally, this work identifies facilitators that can be leveraged and barriers that can be addressed to facilitate better communication and decision-making through SDM. These findings are of value for future interventions that seek to enhance SDM among surgical patients both in the ICU and in other settings.

Patient adherence to an oral rehydration solution intervention to prevent dehydration following ileostomy creation: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing surgery for ileostomy creation frequently experience postoperative dehydration and subsequent renal injury. The use of oral rehydration solutions (ORS) has been shown to prevent dehydration, but compliance may be variable. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 17 patients who received a postoperative hydration kit and dehydration education to assess barriers and facilitators to compliance with ORS kit instructions. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis revealed five themes affecting patient adherence to the ORS intervention: (1) patient's perception of the effectiveness of the ORS solution, (2) existing co-morbidities, (3) kit quality and taste of the ORS product, (4) quality of the dehydration education, and (5) social support. CONCLUSIONS: Given that patient adherence can greatly affect the success of an ORS intervention, the design of future ORS interventions should emphasize the educational component, the "patient friendliness" of the ORS kit, and ways that social supports can be leveraged to increase adherence.

Guiding Principles for Writing About Immigrants and Immigrant Health.

This perspective identifies harmful phrasing and frames in current clinician and researcher work relating to immigrant health and provides equity-centered alternatives. Recommendations are organized within two broad categories, one focused on shifting terminology toward more humanizing language and the second focused on changing frames around immigration discourse. With regards to shifting terminology, this includes: 1) avoiding language that conflates immigrants with criminality (i.e., "illegal"); 2) using person-first language (i.e., "person applying for asylum" or "detained person" rather than "asylum-seeker" or "detainee"); 3) avoiding comparisons to "native" populations to mean non-foreign-born populations, as this contributes to the erasure of Native Americans and indigenous people; 4) avoiding hyperbolic and stigmatizing "crisis" language about immigrants; and 5) understanding inherent limitations of terms like "refugee," "asylum seeker," "undocumented" that are legal not clinical terms. With regards to challenging dominant frames, recommendations include: 6) avoiding problematization of certain borders compared to others (i.e., U.S.-Mexico versus U.S.- Canada border) that contributes to selectively subjecting people to heightened surveillance; 7) recognizing the heterogeneity among immigrants, such as varying reasons for migration along a continuum of agency, ranging from voluntary to involuntary; 8) avoiding setting up a refugee vs. migrant dichotomy, such that only the former is worthy of sympathy; and 9) representing mistrust among immigrants as justified, instead shifting focus to clinicians, researchers, and healthcare systems who must build or rebuild trustworthiness. Ensuring inclusive and humanizing language use and frames is one critical dimension of striving for immigrant health equity.