The quality of screening colonoscopy in rural and underserved areas.

BACKGROUND: Screening colonoscopy effectiveness depends on procedure quality; however, knowledge about colonoscopy quality in rural and underserved areas is limited. This study aimed to describe the characteristics and quality of colonoscopy and to examine predictors of colonoscopy quality at rural and underserved hospitals. METHODS: Adults undergoing colonoscopy from April 2017 to March 2019 at rural or underserved hospitals across the Illinois Surgical Quality Improvement Collaborative were prospectively identified. The primary outcome was colorectal adenoma detection, and secondary outcomes included bowel preparation adequacy, cecum photodocumentation, and withdrawal time. Performance was benchmarked against multisociety guidelines, and multivariable logistic regression was used to examine patient, physician, and procedure characteristics associated with adenoma detection. RESULTS: In total, 4217 colonoscopy procedures were performed at 8 hospitals, including 1865 screening examinations performed by 19 surgeons, 9 gastroenterologists, and 2 family practitioners. Physician screening volume ranged from 2 to 218 procedures (median 50; IQR 23-74). Adenoma detection occurred in 26.6% of screening procedures (target: ≥ 25%), 90.7% had adequate bowel preparation (target: ≥ 85%), 93.1% had cecum photodocumentation (target: ≥ 95%), and mean withdrawal time was 8.1 min (target: ≥ 6). Physician specialty was associated with adenoma detection (gastroenterologists: 36.9% vs. surgeons: 22.5%; OR 2.30, 95% CI 1.40-3.77), but adequate bowel preparation (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.76-1.73) and cecum photodocumentation (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.91-2.69) were not. CONCLUSION: Colonoscopies performed at rural and underserved hospitals meet many quality metrics; however, quality varied widely. As physicians are scarce in rural and underserved areas, individualized interventions to improve colonoscopy quality are needed.

US Rural Surgeons Leading During COVID-19: Where Are They Now?

Rural surgeons from disparate areas of the United States report on the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in their communities as the virus has spread across the country. The pandemic has brought significant changes to the professional, economic, and social lives of the individual surgeons and their communities.

US Rural Surgeon Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Leadership in a Time of Crisis.

Nine surgeons from rural and remote communities in the United States share early experiences preparing for the COVID-19 pandemic. Relating experiences remarkably different from health care providers in urban areas in America most affected by the first stages of the outbreak, they tell the challenges of organizing resources in facilities already struggling with poverty-stricken communities far from established health care resources and supplies. From Alaska to Appalachia and the Navajo Nation to the rural midwest, they show the leadership and professionalism that exemplify rural surgery.

Is the American College of Surgeons Online Communities a safe and useful venue to ask for surgical advice?

BACKGROUND: Many surgeons rely on the American College of Surgeons (ACS) Community Forums for advice on managing complex patients. Our objective was to assess the safety and usefulness of advice provided on the most popular surgical forum. METHODS: Overall, 120 consecutive, deidentified clinical threads were extracted from the General Surgery community in reverse chronological order. Three groups of three surgeons (mixed academic and community perspectives) evaluated the 120 threads for unsafe or dangerous posts. Positive and negative controls for safe and unsafe answers were included in 20 threads, and reviewers were blinded to their presence. Reviewers were free to access all online and professional resources. RESULTS: There were 855 unique responses (median 7, 2-15 responses per thread) to the 120 clinical threads/scenarios. The review teams correctly identified all positive and negative controls for safety. While 58(43.3%) of threads contained unsafe advice, the majority (33, 56.9%) were corrected. Reviewers felt that a there was a standard of care response for 62/120 of the threads of which 50 (80.6%) were provided by the responses. Of the 855 responses, 107 (12.5%) were considered unsafe/dangerous. CONCLUSION: The ACS Community Forums are generally a safe and useful resource for surgeons seeking advice for challenging cases. While unsafe or dangerous advice is not uncommon, other surgeons typically correct it. When utilizing the forums, advice should be taken as a congregate, and any single recommendation should be approached with healthy skepticism. However, social media such as the ACS Forums is self-regulating and can be an appropriate method for surgeons to communicate challenging problems.