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.

Positive margin rates for colorectal cancer vary significantly by hospital in Michigan: Can we achieve a 0 % positive margin rate?

Background: High quality surgical care for colorectal cancer (CRC) includes obtaining a negative surgical margin. The Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC) is a statewide consortium of hospitals dedicated to quality improvement; a subset of MSQC hospitals abstract quality of care measures for CRC surgery, including positive margin rate. The purpose of this study was to determine whether positive margin rates vary significantly by hospital, and whether positive margin rates should be a target for quality improvement. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of patients who underwent CRC resection from 2016 to 2020. The primary outcome was the presence of a positive margin. Univariate and multivariable analyses were performed to test the association of positive margins with patient, hospital, and tumor characteristics. Results: The cohort consisted of 4211 patients from 42 hospitals (85 % colon cancer and 15 % rectal cancer). The crude positive margin rate was 6.15 % (95 % CI 4.6-7.4 %); this ranged from 0 % to 22 % at individual hospitals. In multivariable analysis, factors independently associated with positive margins included male sex, underweight BMI, metastatic cancer, rectal cancer (vs. colon), T4 T-stage, N1c/N2 N-stage, and open surgical approach. After adjusting for these factors, there remained significant variation by hospital, with 8 hospitals being statistically-significant outliers. Conclusions: Positive margins rates for CRC vary by hospital in Michigan, even after rigorous adjustment for case-mix. Furthermore, several hospitals achieved near-zero positive margin rates, suggesting opportunities for quality improvement through the identification of best practices among CRC surgery centers.

To feel or not to feel: a scoping review and mixed-methods meta-synthesis of moral distress among surgeons.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing concern about the prevalence and impact of moral distress among healthcare workers. While this body of literature is growing, research specifically examining sources of moral distress among surgeons remains sparse. The unique attributes of the surgeon-patient relationship and the context of surgery may expose surgeons to sources of distress that are distinct from other healthcare providers. To date, a summative assessment of moral distress among surgeons does not exist. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of studies focused on moral distress among surgeons. Using guidelines established by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), relevant articles were identified in EBSCOhost PsycINFO, Elsevier EMBASE, Ovid MEDLINE, and Wiley Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials Library from January 1, 2009 to September 29, 2022. Detailed data abstraction was performed on a predetermined instrument and compared across studies. A mixed-methods meta-synthesis was employed for data analysis, and both deductive and inductive methodology was used in our thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 1,003 abstracts were screened, and 26 articles (19 quantitative and 7 qualitative) were included for full-text review. Of these, 10 focused only on surgeons. Our analysis revealed numerous definitions of moral distress and 25 instruments used to understand the sources of distress. Moral distress among surgeons is complex and influenced by factors at multiple levels, The most frequent sources originate at the individual and interpersonal levels. However, the environmental, community and policy levels also noted sources of distress. CONCLUSIONS: The reviewed articles identified several common themes and sources of moral distress among surgeons. We also found that research investigating sources of moral distress among surgeons is relatively sparse and confounded by various definitions of moral distress, multiple measurement tools, and frequently conflated terms of moral distress, moral injury, and burnout. This summative assessment presents a model of moral distress delineating these distinct terms, which may be applied to other professions at risk for moral distress.

Racial variation in baseline characteristics and wait times among patients undergoing bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: Although bariatric surgery is the most effective treatment for obesity and weight-related comorbid diseases, utilization rates are disproportionately low among non-white patients. We sought to understand if variation in baseline characteristics or access to care exists between white and non-white patients. METHODS: Using a statewide bariatric-specific data registry, we evaluated all patients who underwent bariatric surgery between 2006 and 2020 and completed a preoperative baseline questionnaire, which included a question about self-identification of race. Patient characteristics, co-morbidities, and time from initial preoperative clinic evaluation to date of surgery were compared among racial groups. RESULTS: A total of 73,141 patients met inclusion criteria with 18,741 (25.5%) self-identified as non-white. These included Black/African American (n = 11,904), Hispanic (n = 3448), Asian (n = 121), Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander (n = 41), Middle Eastern (n = 164), Multiple (n = 2047) and other (n = 608). Non-white males were the least represented group, accounting for only 4% of all bariatric cases performed. Non-white patients were more likely to be younger (43.0 years vs. 46.6 years, p < 0.0001), disabled (16% vs. 11.4%, p < 0.0001) and have Medicaid (8.4% vs. 3.8%, p < 0.0001) when compared to white patients, despite having higher rates of college education (78.0% vs. 76.6, p < 0.0001). In addition, median time from initial evaluation to surgery was also longer among non-white patients (157 days vs. 127 days, p < 0.0001), despite having higher rates of patients with a body mass index above 50 kg/m2 (39.0% vs. 33.2%, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Non-white patients undergoing bariatric surgery represent an extremely diverse group of patients with more socioeconomic disadvantages and longer wait times when compared to white patients despite presenting with higher rates of severe obesity. Current guidelines and referral patterns for bariatric surgery may not be equitable and need further examination when considering the management of obesity within diverse populations to reduce disparities in care-of which non-white males are particularly at risk.

Use of Argatroban in Donor Lung Procurement: A Case Report.

BACKGROUND Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) is an immunological response to heparin exposure that predisposes patients to hypercoagulable reactions with subsequent heparin administration. Traditionally, heparin is the standard anticoagulant used during organ procurement to prevent clot formation in grafts. This creates a problem in donors or recipients that develop HIT as they are at risk of developing life-threatening coagulopathy. This raises the question of how to use alternative anticoagulation therapies, such as argatroban, that provide rapid-onset prophylaxis by reversibly inhibiting thrombin. Additionally, there are few studies that have assessed how recipients of multiorgan donors treated with argatroban do post-operatively. CASE REPORT In this report, we discuss the procurement protocol and hospital course of a lung transplant recipient who received a graft treated with argatroban due to a HIT-positive liver recipient. The post-operative course for our patient was uneventful, with improved lung function and no complications attributable to argatroban use. Further, none of the 4 other recipients who received organs from the same donor experienced graft dysfunctions secondary to coagulopathy, including the HIT-positive liver recipient. CONCLUSIONS The ultimate success of grafts without thromboembolic complications suggests the use of argatroban in multiorgan procurement in the setting of a HIT-positive recipient is safe and effective. This case report highlights an alternative to the traditional process of organ procurement with heparin, in which patients at risk of coagulopathies secondary to HIT are able to receive organs when traditional protocols would otherwise be prohibitive.

Individualized cost-effectiveness analysis of patient-centered care: a case series of hospitalized patient preferences departing from practice-based guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: To develop cases of preference-sensitive care and analyze the individualized cost-effectiveness of respecting patient preference compared to guidelines. METHODS: Four cases were analyzed comparing patient preference to guidelines: (a) high-risk cancer patient preferring to forgo colonoscopy; (b) decubitus patient preferring to forgo air-fluidized bed use; (c) anemic patient preferring to forgo transfusion; (d) end-of-life patient requesting all resuscitative measures. Decision trees were modeled to analyze cost-effectiveness of alternative treatments that respect preference compared to guidelines in USD per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) at a $100,000/QALY willingness-to-pay threshold from patient, provider and societal perspectives. RESULTS: Forgoing colonoscopy dominates colonoscopy from patient, provider, and societal perspectives. Forgoing transfusion and air-fluidized bed are cost-effective from all three perspectives. Palliative care is cost-effective from provider and societal perspectives, but not from the patient perspective. CONCLUSION: Prioritizing incorporation of patient preferences within guidelines holds good value and should be prioritized when developing new guidelines.

Voluntary organ donation system adapted to Chinese cultural values and social reality.

Organ donation and transplant systems have unique characteristics based on the local culture and socioeconomic context. China's transplant and organ donation systems developed without regulatory oversight until 2006 when regulation and policy were developed and then implemented over the next several years. Most recently, the pilot project of establishing a voluntary citizen-based deceased donor program was established. The pilot program addressed the legal, financial, and cultural barriers to organ donation in China. The pilot program has evolved into a national program. Significantly, it established a uniquely Chinese donor classification system. The Chinese donor classification system recognizes donation after brain death (category I), donation after circulatory death (category II), and donation after brain death followed by circulatory death (category III). Through August 2014, the system has identified 2326 donors and provided 6416 organs that have been allocated though a transparent organ allocation system. The estimated number of donors in 2014 is 1147. As China's attitudes toward organ donation have matured and evolved and as China, as a nation, is taking its place on the world stage, it is recognizing that its past practice of using organs from executed prisoners is not sustainable. It is time to recognize that the efforts to regulate transplantation and provide voluntary citizen-based deceased organ donation have been successful and that China should use this system to provide organs for all transplants in every province and hospital in China. At the national organ transplant congress on October 30, 2014, the Chairman of the China's national organ donation and transplantation committee, Jeifu Huang required all hospitals to stop using organs from executed prisoners immediately and the civilian organ donation will be sole source for organ transplant in China starting January 2015.

A pilot programme of organ donation after cardiac death in China.

China's aims are to develop an ethical and sustainable organ transplantation system for the Chinese people and to be accepted as a responsible member of the international transplantation community. In 2007, China implemented the Regulation on Human Organ Transplantation, which was the first step towards the establishment of a voluntary organ donation system. Although progress has been made, several ethical and legal issues associated with transplantation in China remain, including the use of organs from executed prisoners, organ scarcity, the illegal organ trade, and transplantation tourism. In this Health Policy article we outline the standards used to define cardiac death in China and a legal and procedural framework for an organ donation system based on voluntary donation after cardiac death that adheres to both China's social and cultural principles and international transplantation standards.