Postoperative opioid protocol: A 5-year resident-led effort to standardize prescribing patterns.

OBJECTIVES: The combined impact of variable surgeon prescribing preferences and low resident prescribing comfort level can lead to significant disparity in opioid prescribing patterns. We report an update on the expanded scope of this now 5-year, resident led initiative to standardize postoperative prescription practices within the Department of Otolaryngology. METHODS: With Institutional Review Board approval, performed a retrospective review of 12 months before (July 2016 - June 2017) and 48 months after (July 2019-June 2021) implementation of the Expanded Postoperative Analgesia Protocol. The Pre-Protocol and Expanded Protocol cohorts were compared using ANOVA, chi-squared and Fisher Exact tests, with ANCOVA and binary logistic regression for covariate analysis. Cost impact was calculated using average medication spending data for 2018-2019. RESULTS: 470 patients were included in the Pre-Protocol cohort (54 % male, mean age 35 years) and 679 in the Expanded Protocol cohort (63 % male, mean age 36 years). The protocol was effectively implemented as reflected in the reduction of combination opioid medications from 429 (91.3 %) to 26 (3.8 %) (87 % reduction, 95 % CI 86 % to 89 %, p < .001). The protocol resulted in a 66 % reduction in average morphine milligram equivalents per patient (333 mg to 114 mg, mean reduction 219 mg, 95 % CI 206 mg to 232 mg, p < .001), a 68 % reduction in medication refills (refill rate 20 % to 6 %; 14 % reduction, 95 % CI 12 % to 16 %, p < .001) and a 74 % reduction in cost of postoperative medications ($93.82 to $24.64 per patient). CONCLUSION: Through purposeful standardization, this 5-year resident led effort resulted in sustained changes to departmental wide prescribing practices yielding reduced variability, reduced cost, improved opioid management and superior pain control for postoperative patients.

Postoperative Analgesia Protocol: A Resident-Led Effort to Standardize Opioid Prescribing Patterns.

OBJECTIVES: The combined impact of variable surgeon prescribing preferences and low resident prescribing comfort level can lead to significant disparity in opioid prescribing patterns for the same surgery in the same academic surgical practice. We report the results of a resident led initiative to standardize postoperative prescription practices within the Department of Otolaryngology at a single tertiary-care academic hospital in order to reduce overall opioid distribution. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Following approval by the Institutional Review Board, performed a retrospective review of 12 months before (July 2016-June 2017) and after (July 2017-June 2018) implementation of the Postoperative Analgesia Protocol, which included all adults undergoing tonsillectomy, septoplasty, thyroidectomy, parathyroidectomy, tympanoplasty, middle ear exploration, stapedectomy, and ossicular chain reconstruction. RESULTS: Seven hundred and thirty eight procedures met inclusion criteria. Following implementation, total morphine milligram equivalents decreased by 26% (P < .0001). The number of patients requiring opioid refills decreased by 49%, and morphine milligram equivalents received as refills decreased by 16% (P < .001). Thyroid and parathyroid surgery had the greatest reduction in morphine milligram equivalents prescribed (84%, P < .001), followed by septoplasty (30%, P = .001) and tonsillectomy (18%, P < .001). The number of patients receiving refills of opioid medications decreased for all procedures (tonsillectomy 54%; septoplasty 67%; thyroid/parathyroid surgery 80%, middle ear surgery 100%). CONCLUSIONS: While every patient and surgery must be treated individually, this study demonstrates that a resident led standardization of pain control regimes can result in significant reductions in total quantity of opioids prescribed. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: IV Laryngoscope, 131:982-988, 2021.

Residents as Mentors: The Development of Resident Mentorship Milestones.

BACKGROUND: Mentorship of residents by more senior colleagues has been identified as important for stress management and creating an ideal learning environment. OBJECTIVE: We set out to define the attributes of an ideal resident mentor and explore ways to develop these attributes during residency training. METHODS: A 28-member, multi-specialty counsel of residents and fellows used 2 phases of a small group exercise. In the first phase, the group developed desirable attributes of resident mentors and explored means of developing these attributes. In the second phase, the group identified trends in the results, and in a second small group exercise with participants at a major national conference, refined these trends into Resident Mentorship Milestones. RESULTS: The exercises identified 3 common themes: availability, competence, and support of the mentee. We defined milestones for mentorship in each of these areas. CONCLUSIONS: The Resident Mentorship Milestones, developed by a national panel of residents, describe 3 key dimensions of mentorship: availability, defined as making time for mentorship; competence for and success in mentoring; and support of the mentee. These milestones may serve as a novel tool to develop and assess successful resident mentorship models.

Sleep-Disordered Breathing in the Active-Duty Military Population and Its Civilian Care Cost.

A 5-year review of an active-duty service member population found increased costs, prevalence, and incidence of sleep-disordered breathing.

Promotion of Wellness and Mental Health Awareness Among Physicians in Training: Perspective of a National, Multispecialty Panel of Residents and Fellows.

BACKGROUND: Physicians in training are at high risk for depression, and physicians in practice have a substantially elevated risk of suicide compared to the general population. The graduate medical education community is currently mobilizing efforts to improve resident wellness. OBJECTIVE: We sought to provide a trainee perspective on current resources to support resident wellness and resources that need to be developed to ensure an optimal learning environment. METHODS: The ACGME Council of Review Committee Residents, a 29-member multispecialty group of residents and fellows, conducted an appreciative inquiry exercise to (1) identify existing resources to address resident wellness; (2) envision the ideal learning environment to promote wellness; and (3) determine how the existing infrastructure could be modified to approach the ideal. The information was aggregated to identify consensus themes from group discussion. RESULTS: National policy on resident wellness should (1) increase awareness of the stress of residency and destigmatize depression in trainees; (2) develop systems to identify and treat depression in trainees in a confidential way to reduce barriers to accessing help; (3) enhance mentoring by senior peers and faculty; (4) promote a supportive culture; and (5) encourage additional study of the problem to deepen our understanding of the issue. CONCLUSIONS: A multispecialty, national panel of trainees identified actionable goals to broaden efforts in programs and sponsoring institutions to promote resident wellness and mental health awareness. Engagement of all stakeholders within the graduate medical education community will be critical to developing a comprehensive solution to this important issue.

Evaluation of Surgical Dexterity During the Interview Day: Another Factor for Consideration.

BACKGROUND: Manual dexterity and visual spatial ability are not routinely used to evaluate candidates for surgical residency training as part of the application interview. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the acceptability and feasibility of evaluating the manual dexterity and visual spatial ability of applicants for general surgery and otolaryngology residency, and evaluated the relationship between this information and routinely considered application factors. METHODS: During the 2012 interview season, medical students applying to our institution's general surgery and otolaryngology residency programs underwent a battery of tests relevant to surgical dexterity. Five tests shown to be related to the surgeons' dexterity or visual spatial skills were administered during the course of their in-person interview day. The results from these tests were compared with data collected as part of the current application process. RESULTS: A total of 64 students were enrolled, and 58 had data that could be analyzed. Regression analysis using the enter method was performed for each of the tests, and for the composite scores. None of the values were significant as defined by P≤.05. Neither the scatterplots of the data nor Pearson r showed a correlation between the highest performers on the surgical dexterity composite score and individuals' highest scores on the dimensions used in the current process to assess applicants. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of 1 or more evaluations of visual spatial skills and psychomotor aptitude can be done during a standard interview day, is acceptable to applicants, and may provide information that is different from the usual components of the application.

Alternate list matriculants: outcome data from those medical students admitted from the alternate list.

BACKGROUND: Medical schools are increasing class size to meet future health care needs for our nation. This may lead to more students being accepted from an alternate list (vs. primary acceptances). Given these trends, performance outcomes were compared for alternate list matriculants and primary acceptances. Our hypothesis was that those students accepted from an alternate list would perform equally to the primary acceptances on these outcomes. METHOD: We compared medical school performance of students who received a primary recommendation of "accept" and compared them to those who received a recommendation of "alternate" over a 10-year period. Given the small sample size of this alternate list group (N = 23), descriptive statistics are reported. RESULTS: No consistent differences between alternate and primary acceptance matriculants in terms of cumulative medical school grade point average, United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 scores and USMLE Step 2 Clinical Knowledge scores were found. Only three alternates (13.0%) were presented to student promotion committee compared to 17.2% for matriculants who were primary acceptances. Three alternates were required to repeat a year (average percentage of 8.7%) compared to 5.6% of matriculants who were primary acceptances. CONCLUSIONS: This observational study provides some reassurance that as long as the qualifications of the applicant pool remain adequate, admissions policies that provide for alternate list acceptances may not produce poorer performing students, at least by our current outcome measures.