How to Support a Surgeon Scientist: Lessons from National Institutes of Health K-Award Recipients.

BACKGROUND: Success in academic surgery is challenging and research cannot survive without funding. NIH K-awards are designed to mentor junior investigators to achieve independence. As a result we aimed to study K awardees in departments of surgery and learn from their experience. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Utilizing the NIH RePORTer database and filtering by department of surgery, clinically active surgeons receiving a K-award between 2008 and 2018 were asked to complete an online survey. Qualitative data from two open-ended questions were coded independently using standard qualitative methods by three researchers. Using grounded theory, major themes emerged from the codes. RESULTS: Of the 144 academic surgeons identified, 89 (62%) completed the survey. The average age was 39 ± 3 when the K-award was granted. Most identified as white (69%). Men (70%) were more likely to be married (P = 0.02) and have children (P = 0.05). To identify intention to pursue R01 funding, surgeons having a K-award for 5 y or more were analyzed (n = 45). Most either intended to (11%) or had already applied (80%) of which 36% were successful. Men were more likely to apply (P = 0.05). Major themes to succeed include protected time, mentorship, and support from leadership. Common barriers to overcome include balancing time, pressures to be clinically productive, and funding. CONCLUSIONS: The demographics and career trajectory of NIH K-awarded surgeons is described. The lack of underrepresented minorities receiving grants is concerning. Most recipients required more than one application attempt and plan to or have applied for R01 funding. The major themes were very similar; a supportive environment and time available for research are the most crucial factors to succeed as an academic surgeon.

Ending student mistreatment: early successes and continuing challenges.

Problem: Student mistreatment represents an ongoing challenge for US medical schools. Students experiencing mistreatment may become marginalized and cynical, and they have higher rates of burnout, depression and substance use disorders. Although numerous attempts to eliminate mistreatment have been proposed, best practices remain elusive. We formed a unique student-faculty collaboration (the Ending Mistreatment Task Force) that allowed all voices to be heard and enabled identification of five interventions to reduce mistreatment.Intervention: The EMTF developed and implemented five key interventions: 1) a shared mistreatment definition; 2) measures to increase faculty accountability, including adding professionalism expectations to faculty members' contracts and performance reviews; 3) a Professionalism Office to respond promptly to students' reports of mistreatment and provide feedback to faculty; 4) tools to help teachers provide authentic learning environments for students, while addressing generational misunderstandings; and 5) student-produced videos, helping faculty understand the impact of mistreatment as seen through students' eyes.Context: These interventions occurred at one medical school where mistreatment reports were consistently above national averages.Impact: Over 6 years, the interventions helped reduce the rate of student-reported mistreatment by 36% compared with a 4% decline across all US medical schools.Lessons: The collaborations between students and faculty helped each party identify unexpected misunderstandings and challenges. We learned that students want hard questions, although faculty are often afraid to challenge students for fear of offending them or being reported. We clarified differences between mistreatment and sub-optimal learning environments and openly discussed the pervasive opinion that 'some' mistreatment is important for learning. We also identified ongoing challenges, including the need to solicit residents' perspectives regarding mistreatment and develop proper responses to disrespectful comments directed at patients, family and colleagues. The collaboration reinforced students' and faculty members' shared commitment to upholding a respectful learning and clinical care environment and ending mistreatment.

Risk and Protective Factors Associated with Surgical Infections among Spine Patients.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to identify patient-specific and procedure-specific risk and protective factors associated with post-operative surgical site infections (SSIs) among surgical spine patients. METHODS: CINAHL, PubMed, Ovid, Medline, and EBSCO databases were searched for articles within the past 10 years (January 2003-March 2015). The keywords and combinations used in the search included: Spine surgery, post-operative infection, risk factors, orthopedic infections. The search resulted in 842 articles of which 29 met inclusion criteria. This systematic review adheres to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. RESULTS: Evidence about patient-specific and procedure-specific factors associated with increased risk of post-operative SSIs among patients undergoing orthopedic spinal surgery is inconclusive. Gender (male), age, body mass index, cigarette smoking, diabetes mellitus, a history of infection and alcohol abuse were identified as common patient-specific risk factors. Blood transfusion, implantation, and steroid use were found to increase SSIs in certain studies and associated with no significant difference in other studies. Protective factors include the implementation of pre-operative elements to reduce infection; protocols addressing patient-related factors (smoking, weight, glucose) and operation-related factors (antibiotic prophylaxis, prosthetics, length of operation, and pre-operative cultures); incision drains placed intra-operatively; anterior approach; laminar-flow operating theater, and skin antisepsis using chlorhexidine. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions focusing on minimizing patient-specific risk factors and operation-specific risk factors and optimizing patient-specific protective factors and operation-specific protective factors are most effective in minimizing the likelihood of a post-operative infection among patients undergoing orthopedic spinal surgical procedures. The studies reviewed provide conflicting evidence relative to risk and protective factors.