Association between anaesthesia-surgery team sex diversity and major morbidity.

BACKGROUND: Team diversity is recognized not only as an equity issue but also a catalyst for improved performance through diversity in knowledge and practices. However, team diversity data in healthcare are limited and it is not known whether it may affect outcomes in surgery. This study examined the association between anaesthesia-surgery team sex diversity and postoperative outcomes. METHODS: This was a population-based retrospective cohort study of adults undergoing major inpatient procedures between 2009 and 2019. The exposure was the hospital percentage of female anaesthetists and surgeons in the year of surgery. The outcome was 90-day major morbidity. Restricted cubic splines were used to identify a clinically meaningful dichotomization of team sex diversity, with over 35% female anaesthetists and surgeons representing higher diversity. The association with outcomes was examined using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Of 709 899 index operations performed at 88 hospitals, 90-day major morbidity occurred in 14.4%. The median proportion of female anaesthetists and surgeons was 28 (interquartile range 25-31)% per hospital per year. Care in hospitals with higher sex diversity (over 35% female) was associated with reduced odds of 90-day major morbidity (OR 0.97, 95% c.i. 0.95 to 0.99; P = 0.02) after adjustment. The magnitude of this association was greater for patients treated by female anaesthetists (OR 0.92, 0.88 to 0.97; P = 0.002) and female surgeons (OR 0.83, 0.76 to 0.90; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Care in hospitals with greater anaesthesia-surgery team sex diversity was associated with better postoperative outcomes. Care in a hospital reaching a critical mass with over 35% female anaesthetists and surgeons, representing higher team sex-diversity, was associated with a 3% lower odds of 90-day major morbidity.

Unmasking imposter syndrome: individual responsibility or repercussions of systemic oppression?

In contemporary and popular discourse, imposter syndrome is frequently outlined as an individual problem that can be overcome. Rather than the locus of responsibility being placed on the individual, we posit that neoliberal academic institutions contribute to imposter syndrome by (de)legitimising certain forms of knowledge.

Association Between Anesthesiologist Sex and Patients' Postoperative Outcomes: A Population-based Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of anesthesiologist sex on postoperative outcomes. BACKGROUND: Differences in patient postoperative outcomes exist, depending on whether the primary surgeon is male or female, with better outcomes seen among patients treated by female surgeons. Whether the intraoperative anesthesiologist's sex is associated with differential postoperative patient outcomes is unknown. METHODS: We performed a population-based, retrospective cohort study among adult patients undergoing one of 25 common elective or emergent surgical procedures from 2007 to 2019 in Ontario, Canada. We assessed the association between the sex of the intraoperative anesthesiologist and the primary end point of the adverse postoperative outcome, defined as death, readmission, or complication within 30 days after surgery, using generalized estimating equations. RESULTS: Among 1,165,711 patients treated by 3006 surgeons and 1477 anesthesiologists, 311,822 (26.7%) received care from a female anesthesiologist and 853,889 (73.3%) from a male anesthesiologist. Overall, 10.8% of patients experienced one or more adverse postoperative outcomes, of whom 1.1% died. Multivariable adjusted rates of the composite primary end point were higher among patients treated by male anesthesiologists (10.6%) compared with female anesthesiologists (10.4%; adjusted odds ratio 1.02, 95% CI: 1.00-1.05, P =0.048). CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated a significant association between sex of the intraoperative anesthesiologist and patient short-term outcomes after surgery in a large cohort study. This study supports the growing literature of improved patient outcomes among female practitioners. The underlying mechanisms of why outcomes differ between male and female physicians remain elusive and require further in-depth study.

Relinquishing control? Supervisor co-regulation may disrupt students' self-regulated learning during simulation-based training.

When uncertain, medical trainees often seek to co-regulate their learning with supervisors and peers. Evidence suggests they may enact self-regulated learning (SRL) strategies differently when engaged in self- versus co-regulated learning (Co-RL). We compared the impacts of SRL and Co-RL on trainees' acquisition, retention, and preparation for future learning (PFL) of cardiac auscultation skills during simulation-based training. In our two-arm, prospective, non-inferiority trial, we randomly assigned first- and second-year medical students to the SRL (N = 16) or Co-RL conditions (N = 16). Across two learning sessions separated by two-weeks, participants practiced and were assessed in diagnosing simulated cardiac murmurs. We examined diagnostic accuracy and learning trace data across sessions, and conducted semi-structured interviews to explore participants' understandings of their underlying choices and learning strategies. SRL participants' outcomes were non-inferior to Co-RL participants on the immediate post-test and retention test, but not on the PFL assessment (i.e., inconclusive). Analyzing interview transcripts (N = 31) generated three themes: perceived utility of initial learning supports for future learning; SRL strategies and sequencing of murmurs; and perceived control over learning across sessions. Co-RL participants regularly described relinquishing control of learning to supervisors and regaining it when on their own. For some trainees, Co-RL seemed to interfere with their situated and future SRL. We posit that transient clinical training sessions, typical in simulation-based and workplace-based settings, may not allow the ideal processes of Co-RL to unfold between supervisor and trainee. Future research must examine how supervisors and trainees can share accountability to develop the shared mental models that underlie effective Co-RL.

Peri-Operative Wearables in Elder Recover after Surgery (POWERS) study: a protocol for a multicentre, prospective cohort study to evaluate perioperative activity with postoperative disability in older adults after non-cardiac surgery.

INTRODUCTION: The ageing population has led to an increasing proportion of surgical patients with greater frailty and comorbidity. Complications and mortality within 30 days of a surgical procedure are often used to evaluate success in the perioperative period however these measures can potentially underestimate a substantial level of morbidity associated with surgery. Personal wearable technologies are now readily available and can offer detailed information on activity intensity, sedentary behaviour and sleeping patterns. These devices may provide important information perioperatively by acting as a non-invasive, and cost-efficient means to risk stratify patients. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The Peri-Operative Wearables in Elder Recover After Surgery (POWERS) study is a multicentre observational study of 200 older adults (≥65 years) having major elective non-cardiac surgery. The objectives are to characterise the association between preoperative and postoperative activity monitor measurements with postoperative disability and recovery, as well as characterise trajectories of activity and sleep in the perioperative period. Activity will be monitored with the ActiGraph GT3X device and measured for 7-day increments, preoperatively, and at 1 week, 1 month and 3 months postoperatively. Disability will be assessed using the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 assessed at 1 week, 1 month and 3 months postoperatively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The POWERS study received research ethics board approval at all participating sites on 1 August 2019 (REB # 19-121 (CTO 1849)). Renewal was granted on 19 May 2022.

Outcomes of COVID-19 manuscripts submitted to the Canadian Journal of Anesthesia: a retrospective audit of author gender and person of colour status.

PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the representation of women and persons of colour (POC) authors of COVID-19 manuscripts submitted to, accepted in, and rejected from the Journal and to evaluate trends in their representation during the pandemic. METHODS: All COVID-19 manuscripts submitted to the Journal between 1 February 2020 and 30 April 2021 were included. Manuscript data were retrieved from Editorial Manager, and gender and POC status were obtained through: 1) e-mail communication with corresponding authors; 2) e-mail queries to other coauthors; 3) NamSor software, and 4) Internet searches. The data were described using percentages and summary statistics. A two-sample test of proportions was used for comparisons and trends were analyzed with linear regression. RESULTS: We identified 314 manuscripts (1,555 authors), 95 (461 authors) of which were accepted for publication. Of all authors, 515 (33%) were women, and women were the lead and senior authors of 101 (32%) and 69 (23%) manuscripts, respectively. There were no differences in women's representation as authors between accepted and rejected manuscripts. Overall, 923/1,555 (59%) authors were identified as POC, with a significantly lower proportion of POC authors among accepted vs rejected manuscripts (41%, 188/461 vs 67%, 735/1,094; difference, -26%; 95% CI, -32 to -21; P < 0.001). We did not observe significant trends in the proportion of women and POC authors over the study period. CONCLUSION: The proportion of women authors of COVID-19 manuscripts was lower than men's representation. Further research is required to determine the factors that account for the higher proportion of POC authors across rejected manuscripts.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Nous avions pour objectif d'évaluer la représentation des femmes et des personnes de couleur ayant rédigé des manuscrits portant sur la COVID-19 soumis, acceptés et rejetés au Journal et d'évaluer les tendances concernant leur représentation pendant la pandémie. MéTHODE: Tous les manuscrits portant sur la COVID-19 soumis au Journal entre le 1er février 2020 et le 30 avril 2021 ont été inclus. Les données des manuscrits ont été extraites de la plateforme de gestion des manuscrits Editorial Manager, et le sexe et le statut de personne de couleur ont été obtenus par : 1) la communication par courrier électronique avec les auteurs et autrices correspondant·es; 2) des requêtes par courrier électronique envoyées à d'autres coautrices et coauteurs; 3) le logiciel NamSor, et 4) des recherches sur Internet. Les données ont été décrites à l'aide de pourcentages et de statistiques sommaires. Un test de proportions à deux échantillons a été utilisé pour les comparaisons et les tendances ont été analysées par régression linéaire. RéSULTATS: Nous avons identifié 314 manuscrits (1555 auteurs et autrices), dont 95 (461 autrices et auteurs) ont été acceptés pour publication. Parmi tou·tes les auteurs/autrices, 515 (33 %) étaient des femmes, et les femmes étaient les autrices principales et senior de 101 (32 %) et 69 (23 %) manuscrits, respectivement. Il n'y avait aucune différence dans la représentation des femmes en tant qu'autrices entre les manuscrits acceptés et rejetés. Dans l'ensemble, 923/1555 (59 %) auteurs et autrices ont été identifié·es comme étant des personnes de couleur, avec une proportion significativement plus faible d'autrices et d'auteurs de couleur parmi les manuscrits acceptés vs rejetés (41 %, 188/461 vs 67 %, 735/1094; différence, -26 %; IC 95 %, -32 à -21; P < 0,001). Nous n'avons pas observé de tendances significatives dans la proportion d'auteurs et d'autrices femmes et de couleur au cours de la période à l'étude. CONCLUSION: La proportion de femmes autrices de manuscrits sur la COVID-19 était inférieure à celle des hommes. D'autres recherches sont nécessaires pour déterminer les facteurs qui expliquent la plus grande proportion d'autrices et d'auteurs de couleur parmi les manuscrits rejetés.

Queer(ing) medical spaces: queer theory as a framework for transformative social change in anesthesiology and critical care medicine.

Queer theory is a disruptive lens that can be adopted by researchers, educators, clinicians, and administrators to effect transformative social change. It offers opportunities for anesthesiologists, critical care physicians, and medical practitioners to more broadly understand what it means to think queerly and how queering anesthesiology and critical care medicine spaces improves workplace culture and patient outcomes. This article grapples with the cis-heteronormative medical gaze and queer people's apprehensions of violence in medical settings to offer new ways of thinking about structural changes needed in medicine, medical language, and the dehumanizing application of medical modes of care. Using a series of clinical vignettes, this article outlines the historical context underlying queer peoples' distrust of medicine, a primer in queer theory, and an understanding of how to begin to "queer" medical spaces using this critical framework.

RéSUMé: La théorie queer est une lentille perturbatrice qui peut être adoptée par la communauté de la recherche et de l'éducation, les personnes en clinique et les directions d'établissement pour apporter des changements sociaux transformateurs. Elle offre aux anesthésiologistes, aux intensivistes et aux médecins l'occasion de comprendre plus globalement ce que signifie le fait de penser de manière queer et comment la 'queer-icisation' des espaces d'anesthésiologie et de médecine de soins intensifs améliore la culture du milieu de travail et les devenirs des patient·es. Cet article s'attaque au regard médical cis- et hétéronormatif et aux appréhensions des personnes queer face à la violence dans les milieux médicaux afin de proposer de nouvelles façons de penser les changements structurels nécessaires en médecine, le langage médical et l'application déshumanisante des modes de soins médicaux. À l'aide d'une série de vignettes cliniques, cet article décrit le contexte historique sous-jacent à la méfiance des personnes queer à l'égard du monde médical. Il propose également une introduction à la théorie queer et une interprétation de la façon de commencer à rendre plus queer les espaces médicaux en utilisant ce cadre critique.

Variation in Anesthesiology Provider-Volume for Complex Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery: A Population-Based Study.

OBJECTIVE: Examine between-hospital and between-anesthesiologist variation in anesthesiology provider-volume (PV) and delivery of high-volume anesthesiology care. BACKGROUND: Better outcomes for anesthesiologists with higher PV of complex gastrointestinal cancer surgery have been reported. The factors linking anesthesiology practice and organization to volume are unknown. METHODS: We identified patients undergoing elective esophagectomy, hepatectomy, and pancreatectomy using linked administrative health data sets (2007-2018). Anesthesiology PV was the annual number of procedures done by the primary anesthesiologist in the 2 years before the index surgery. High-volume anesthesiology was PV>6 procedures/year. Funnel plots to described variation in anesthesiology PV and delivery of high-volume care. Hierarchical regression models examined between-anesthesiologist and between-hospital variation in delivery of high-volume care use with variance partition coefficients (VPCs) and median odds ratios (MORs). RESULTS: Among 7893 patients cared for at 17 hospitals, funnel plots showed variation in anesthesiology PV (median ranging from 1.5, interquartile range: 1-2 to 11.5, interquartile range: 8-16) and delivery of HV care (ranging from 0% to 87%) across hospitals. After adjustment, 32% (VPC 0.32) and 16% (VPC: 0.16) of the variation were attributable to between-anesthesiologist and between-hospital differences, respectively. This translated to an anesthesiologist MOR of 4.81 (95% CI, 3.27-10.3) and hospital MOR of 3.04 (95% CI, 2.14-7.77). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variation in anesthesiology PV and delivery of high-volume anesthesiology care existed across hospitals. The anesthesiologist and the hospital were key determinants of the variation in high-volume anesthesiology care delivery. This suggests that targeting anesthesiology structures of care could reduce variation and improve delivery of high-volume anesthesiology care.

Association Between Familiarity of the Surgeon-Anesthesiologist Dyad and Postoperative Patient Outcomes for Complex Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery.

Importance: The surgeon-anesthesiologist teamwork and relationship is crucial to good patient outcomes. Familiarity among work team members is associated with enhanced success in multiple fields but rarely studied in the operating room. Objective: To examine the association between surgeon-anesthesiologist dyad familiarity-as the number of times working together-with short-term postoperative outcomes for complex gastrointestinal cancer surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based retrospective cohort study based in Ontario, Canada, included adults undergoing esophagectomy, pancreatectomy, and hepatectomy for cancer from 2007 through 2018. The data were analyzed January 1, 2007, through December 21, 2018. Exposures: Dyad familiarity captured as the annual volume of procedures of interest done by the surgeon-anesthesiologist dyad in the 4 years before the index surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: Ninety-day major morbidity (any Clavien-Dindo grade 3 to 5). The association between exposure and outcome was examined using multivariable logistic regression. Results: Seven thousand eight hundred ninety-three patients with a median age of 65 years (66.3% men) were included. They were cared for by 737 anesthesiologists and 163 surgeons who were also included. The median surgeon-anesthesiologist dyad volume was 1 (range, 0-12.2) procedures per year. Ninety-day major morbidity occurred in 43.0% of patients. There was a linear association between dyad volume and 90-day major morbidity. After adjustment, the annual dyad volume was independently associated with lower odds of 90-day major morbidity, with an odds ratio of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92-0.98; P = .01) for each incremental procedure per year, per dyad. The results did not change when examining 30-day major morbidity. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults undergoing complex gastrointestinal cancer surgery, increasing familiarity of the surgeon-anesthesiologist dyad was associated with improved short-term patient outcomes. For each additional time that a unique surgeon-anesthesiologist dyad worked together, the odds of 90-day major morbidity decreased by 5%. These findings support organizing perioperative care to increase the familiarity of surgeon-anesthesiologist dyads.

Patient reported symptoms and adverse outcomes seen in Canada's first vaginoplasty postoperative care clinic.

IMPORTANCE: Vaginoplasty is a relatively common gender-affirming surgery with approximately 200 Ontarians seeking this surgery annually. Although Ontario now offers vaginoplasty in province, the capacity is not meeting demand; the majority of trans and gender-diverse patients continue to seek vaginoplasty out of province. Out-of-province surgery presents a barrier to accessing postsurgical follow-up care leaving most patients to seek support from their primary care providers or providers with little experience in gender-affirming surgery. OBJECTIVE: To provide an account of the common postoperative care needs and neovaginal concerns of Ontarians who underwent penile inversion vaginoplasty out of province and presented for care at a gender-affirming surgery postoperative care clinic. DESIGN, SETTINGS, AND PARTICIPANTS: A retrospective chart review of the first 80 patients presenting to a gender-affirming surgery postoperative care clinic who had undergone vaginoplasty at an outside surgical center was performed. Descriptive analyses were performed for all variables. RESULTS: The sample consisted of 80 individuals with the mean age of 39 years (19-73). Most patients had surgery at another surgical center in Canada (76.3%). Many patients (22.5%) accessed care in the first 3 months after surgery, with the majority (55%) seeking care within the first perioperative year. Most patients (61.3%) were seen for more than one visit and presented with more than two symptoms or concerns. Common patient-reported symptoms during clinical visit included pain (53.8%), dilation concerns (46.3%), and surgical site/vaginal bleeding (42.5%). Sexual function concerns were also common (33.8%) with anorgasmia (11.3%) and dyspareunia (11.3%) being the most frequent complications. The most common adverse outcomes identified by health care providers included hypergranulation (38.8%), urinary dysfunction (18.8%), and wound healing issues (12.5%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Findings from chart review offer valuable insights into the postoperative needs and neovaginal concerns of Ontarians who have had vaginoplasty out of province. This study demonstrates the need for routine postoperative care in patients undergoing vaginoplasty. Patients experience numerous symptoms and concerns that often correlate with clinical findings and require multiple follow-up appointments. Health care providers may benefit from further education on the more common nonsurgical issues identified in this study.

The Association Between Hospital High-volume Anesthesiology Care and Patient Outcomes for Complex Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery: A Population-based Study.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association of between hospital rates of high-volume anesthesiology care and of postoperative major morbidity. BACKGROUND: Individual anesthesiology volume has been associated with individual patient outcomes for complex gastrointestinal cancer surgery. However, whether hospital-level anesthesiology care, where changes can be made, influences the outcomes of patients cared at this hospital is unknown. METHODS: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of adults undergoing esophagectomy, pancreatectomy, or hepatectomy for cancer from 2007 to 2018. The exposure was hospital-level adjusted rate of high-volume anesthesiology care. The outcome was hospital-level adjusted rate of 90-day major morbidity (Clavien-Dindo grade 3-5). Scatterplots visualized the relationship between each hospital's adjusted rates of high-volume anesthesiology and major morbidity. Analyses at the hospital-year level examined the association with multivariable Poisson regression. RESULTS: For 7893 patients at 17 hospitals, the rates of high-volume anesthesiology varied from 0% to 87.6%, and of major morbidity from 38.2% to 45.4%. The scatter plot revealed a weak inverse relationship between hospital rates of high-volume anesthesiology and of major morbidity (Pearson: -0.23). The adjusted hospital rate of high-volume anesthesiology was independently associated with the adjusted hospital rate of major morbidity (rate ratio: 0.96; 95% CI, 0.95-0.98; P <0.001 for each 10% increase in the high-volume rate). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals that provided high-volume anesthesiology care to a higher proportion of patients were associated with lower rates of 90-day major morbidity. For each additional 10% patients receiving care by a high-volume anesthesiologist at a given hospital, there was an associated reduction of 4% in that hospital's rate of major morbidity.

Sex differences in patient journeys to diagnosis, referral, and surgical treatment of trigeminal neuralgia: implications for equitable care.

OBJECTIVE: Trigeminal neuralgia (TN) is an orofacial pain disorder that is more prevalent in females than males. Although an increasing number of studies point to sex differences in chronic pain, how sex impacts TN patients' journeys to care has not been previously addressed. This study sought to investigate sex differences in patients' journeys to diagnosis, referral, and treatment of TN within a large national context. METHODS: Patients with classic TN (n = 100; 50 females and 50 males) were randomly selected through chart reviews at the largest surgical treatment center for TN in Canada for a cross-sectional study. Statistical tests, including Welch's t-test, the chi-square test, Pearson's correlations, and analyses of covariance, were conducted with Python. RESULTS: Key discrepancies between sexes in access to care were identified. Females had a significantly longer referral time interval (average 53.2 months vs 20.4 months, median 27.5 months vs 11.0 months, p = 0.018) and total time interval (average 121.1 months vs 67.8 months, median 78.0 months vs 45.2 months, p = 0.018) than males, despite reporting higher pain intensity at referral. Although medically intolerant patients had a significantly shorter referral time interval than medically tolerant patients (average 13.0 months vs 41.0 months, median 6.0 months vs 17.0 months, p < 0.001), medically tolerant females had a significantly longer referral time interval than medically tolerant males (average 59.9 months vs 21.7 months, median 30.0 months vs 12.0 months, p = 0.017). No statistically significant differences were detected between the sexes for diagnostic time interval (average 63.3 months vs 43.0 months, median 24.0 months vs 24.0 months, p = 0.263) or treatment time interval (average 4.6 months vs 4.7 months, median 4.0 months vs 3.0 months, p = 0.986). CONCLUSIONS: Critical sex differences in patients' journeys to TN surgical treatment were identified, with females enduring considerably longer referral timelines and expressing significantly greater pain intensity than males at referral. Taken together, our findings suggest the presence of unconscious bias and discrimination against females and highlight the need for expediting TN treatment referral for female TN patients.

Organizations in science and medicine must hold each other accountable for discriminatory practices.

Many organizations persist in working with others that engage in known, remediable structural discrimination. We name this practice interorganizational structural discrimination (ISD) and argue it is a pivotal contributor to inequities in science and medicine. We urge organizations to leverage their relationships and demand progress from collaborators.

Support for health care workers and psychological distress: thinking about now and beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. / Soutien aux travailleurs de la santé et détresse psychologique : réflexion sur la situation actuelle et la période suivant la pandémie de COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: This study explores the relationship between emotional support, perceived risk and mental health outcomes among health care workers, who face high rates of burnout and mental distress since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: A cross-sectional, multicentred online survey of health care workers in the Greater Toronto Area, Ontario, Canada, during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic evaluated coping strategies, confidence in infection control, impact of previous work during the 2003 SARS outbreak and emotional support. Mental health outcomes were assessed using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale, the Impact of Event Scale - Revised and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9). RESULTS: Of 3852 participants, 8.2% sought professional mental health services while 77.3% received emotional support from family, 74.0% from friends and 70.3% from colleagues. Those who felt unsupported in their work had higher odds ratios of experiencing moderate and severe symptoms of anxiety (odds ratio [OR] = 2.23; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.84-2.69), PTSD (OR = 1.88; 95% CI: 1.58-2.25) and depression (OR = 1.88; 95% CI: 1.57-2.25). Nearly 40% were afraid of telling family about the risks they were exposed to at work. Those who were able to share this information demonstrated lower risk of anxiety (OR = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.48-0.69), PTSD (OR = 0.48; 95% CI: 0.41-0.56) and depression (OR = 0.55; 95% CI: 0.47-0.65). CONCLUSION: Informal sources of support, including family, friends and colleagues, play an important role in mitigating distress and should be encouraged and utilized more by health care workers.

Standing out or fitting in: A latent projective content analysis of discrimination of women and 2SLGBTQ+ anesthesiologists and providers.

INTRODUCTION: Discrimination toward sex and gender minority anesthesiologists and anesthesia trainees exists. Potential reasons for this discrimination are unclear and incompletely characterized. This study sought to better understand what discrimination looks like for sex and gender minorities in anesthesiology and the culture within anesthesiology that allows this discrimination to occur. MATERIALS AND METHODS: With institutional research ethics board approval and informed consent, we performed a qualitative analysis of free-text responses from a previously-published internet-based cross-sectional survey distributed to Canadian anesthesiology residents, fellows, and staff. The purpose of this survey was to characterize intersections between respondent gender or sexuality with experiences of discrimination in the workplace. Separate analysis of qualitative and quantitative components of this survey was planned a priori, and the quantitative component was published elsewhere. Free-text responses were independently coded by two researchers and subsequently synthesized into emerging themes using latent projective content analysis sensitized by Butler's theory of performativity. RESULTS: Out of 490 free-text responses from 171 respondents [140 (81.9%) identifying as heterosexual], two themes emerged: i) fitting in: performativity reinforcing the status quo, and ii) standing out: performativity as a means of disruptive social change. Power structures were observed to favour individuals who "fit in" with the normative performances of gender and/or sexuality. DISCUSSION: Our study illuminates how individuals whose performances of gender and sexuality "fit in" with those expected normative performances reinforce a workplace culture that advantages them, whereas individuals whose performances of gender and sexuality "stand out" disproportionately experience discrimination. The dismantling of bias and discrimination in the anesthesiology workplace requires individuals (a) who are empowered within their workplace because they "fit in" with the majority; (b) who recognize discrimination toward communities of their peers and/or colleagues; and (c) who actively choose to "stand out".

Protocol for a scoping review on transition-related surgery procedures, outcome measures and access to care.

INTRODUCTION: Transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals often identify with a gender different to the one assigned at birth. Transition is a term used to describe the process TGD individuals take to live as their true gender. Surgery can be a very important aspect of care for members of TGD communities. Transition-related surgery (TRS) refers to many different types of surgeries completed to meet a TGD individual's gender-related goals. While various systematic reviews have attempted to synthesise the existing peer-reviewed literature around aspects of TRS, there are few scoping reviews in this area. Our scoping review aims to address this gap through providing an up-to-date overview of the TRS literature in order to provide an overarching view of the topic. METHOD AND ANALYSIS: This review will follow the methods outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology for scoping reviews and will be reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. A search of nine scientific databases resulted in 20 062 potential articles. After removing duplicates, articles will be screened for inclusion using Covidence. Data extraction and synthesis will be carried out using NVivo and reviewed by team members. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this study is a scoping review of the existing literature, no ethics review is required. The findings from this review will be disseminated through multiple pathways including open access publication, submission to conferences, social media and Listservs. The findings of the study will also be readily available to clinicians, organizations, interest groups, and policy-makers.