Blue Ribbon Committee I Review: Findings and Impact.

OBJECTIVE: Review the subsequent impact of recommendations made by the 2004 American Surgical Association Blue Ribbon Committee (BRC I) Report on Surgical Education. BACKGROUND: Current leaders of the American College of Surgeons and the American Surgical Association convened an expert panel to review the impact of the BRC I report and make recommendations for future improvements in surgical education. METHODS: BRC I members reviewed the 2004 recommendations in light of the current status of surgical education. RESULTS: Some of the recommendations of BRC I have gained traction and have been implemented. There is a well-organized national curriculum and numerous educational offerings. There has been greater emphasis on preparing faculty to teach and there are ample opportunities for professional advancement as an educator. The number of residents has grown, although not at a pace to meet the country's needs either by total number or geographic distribution. The number of women in the profession has increased. There is greater awareness and attention to resident (and faculty) well-being. The anticipated radical change in the educational scheme has not been adopted. Training in surgical research still depends on the resources and interests of individual programs. Financing student and graduate medical education remains a challenge. CONCLUSIONS: The medical landscape has changed considerably since BRC I published its findings in 2005. A contemporary assessment of surgical education and training is needed to meet the future needs of the profession and our patients.

The impact of COVID-19 on patients diagnosed with melanoma, breast, and colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted healthcare resource allocation and utilization of preventative medical services. It is unknown if there is resultant stage migration of melanoma, breast, and colorectal cancer when comparing extended time periods before and after the pandemic onset. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of melanoma, breast, and colorectal cancer patients was completed. Clinical and pathological staging was compared utilizing 12 and 22-month timeframes before and after the pandemic outbreak. RESULTS: Between the 22-month pre- and post-COVID-19 groups, breast cancer clinical stage T2 significantly increased, and pathological stage 2 decreased. Colorectal cancer clinical stage T1 decreased, stage T4 increased, and stage 0 decreased in the 22-month groups. In the 12-month groups, melanoma clinical stage T1 increased, and colorectal cancer clinical stage N2 increased. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluating extended timeframes beyond the immediate pre- and post-COVID-19 period revealed significant increases in clinical staging of breast and colorectal cancer, suggesting advanced disease is becoming more evident as time progresses.

International Delphi Expert Consensus on Safe Return to Surgical and Endoscopic Practice: From the Coronavirus Global Surgical Collaborative.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this work is to formulate recommendations based on global expert consensus to guide the surgical community on the safe resumption of surgical and endoscopic activities. BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused marked disruptions in the delivery of surgical care worldwide. A thoughtful, structured approach to resuming surgical services is necessary as the impact of COVID-19 becomes better controlled. The Coronavirus Global Surgical Collaborative sought to formulate, through rigorous scientific methodology, consensus-based recommendations in collaboration with a multidisciplinary group of international experts and policymakers. METHODS: Recommendations were developed following a Delphi process. Domain topics were formulated and subsequently subdivided into questions pertinent to different aspects of surgical care in the COVID-19 crisis. Forty-four experts from 15 countries across 4 continents drafted statements based on the specific questions. Anonymous Delphi voting on the statements was performed in 2 rounds, as well as in a telepresence meeting. RESULTS: One hundred statements were formulated across 10 domains. The statements addressed terminology, impact on procedural services, patient/staff safety, managing a backlog of surgeries, methods to restart and sustain surgical services, education, and research. Eighty-three of the statements were approved during the first round of Delphi voting, and 11 during the second round. A final telepresence meeting and discussion yielded acceptance of 5 other statements. CONCLUSIONS: The Delphi process resulted in 99 recommendations. These consensus statements provide expert guidance, based on scientific methodology, for the safe resumption of surgical activities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Better Patient Care At High-Quality Hospitals May Save Medicare Money And Bolster Episode-Based Payment Models.

US policy makers are making efforts to simultaneously improve the quality of and reduce spending on health care through alternative payment models such as bundled payment. Bundled payment models are predicated on the theory that aligning financial incentives for all providers across an episode of care will lower health care spending while improving quality. Whether this is true remains unknown. Using national Medicare fee-for-service claims for the period 2011-12 and data on hospital quality, we evaluated how thirty- and ninety-day episode-based spending were related to two validated measures of surgical quality-patient satisfaction and surgical mortality. We found that patients who had major surgery at high-quality hospitals cost Medicare less than those who had surgery at low-quality institutions, for both thirty- and ninety-day periods. The difference in Medicare spending between low- and high-quality hospitals was driven primarily by postacute care, which accounted for 59.5 percent of the difference in thirty-day episode spending, and readmissions, which accounted for 19.9 percent. These findings suggest that efforts to achieve value through bundled payment should focus on improving care at low-quality hospitals and reducing unnecessary use of postacute care.

Hospital-level Variation in Secondary Complications After Surgery.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether hospital rates of secondary complications could serve as a performance benchmark and examine associations with mortality. BACKGROUND: Failure to rescue (death after postoperative complication) is a challenging target for quality improvement. Secondary complications (complications after a first or "index" complication) are intermediate outcomes in the rescue process that may provide specific improvement targets and give us insight into how rescue fails. METHODS: We used American College of Surgeons' National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data (2008-2012) to define hospital rates of secondary complications after 5 common index complications: pneumonia, surgical site infection (SSI), urinary tract infection, transfusion/bleed events, and acute myocardial infarction (MI). Hospitals were divided into quintiles on the basis of risk- and reliability-adjusted rates of secondary complications, and these rates were compared along with mortality. RESULTS: A total of 524,860 patients were identified undergoing one of the 62 elective, inpatient operations. After index pneumonia, secondary complication rates varied from 57.99% in the highest quintile to 22.93% in the lowest [adjusted odds ratio (OR), 4.64; confidence interval (CI), 3.95-5.45). Wide variation was seen after index SSI (58.98% vs 14.81%; OR, 8.53; CI, 7.41-9.83), urinary tract infection (38.41% vs 8.60%; OR, 7.81; CI, 6.48-9.40), transfusion/bleeding events (27.14% vs 12.88%; OR, 2.54; CI, 2.31-2.81), and acute MI (64.45% vs 23.86%, OR, 6.87; CI, 5.20-9.07). Hospitals in the highest quintile had significantly greater mortality after index pneumonia (10.41% vs 6.20%; OR, 2.17; CI, 1.6-2.94), index MI (18.25% vs 9.65%; OR, 2.67; CI, 1.80-3.94), and index SSI (2.75% vs 0.82%; OR, 3.93; CI, 2.26-6.81). CONCLUSIONS: Hospital-level rates of secondary complications (failure to arrest complications) vary widely, are associated with mortality, and may be useful for quality improvement and benchmarking.

Can 360-Degree Reviews Help Surgeons? Evaluation of Multisource Feedback for Surgeons in a Multi-Institutional Quality Improvement Project.

BACKGROUND: Medical organizations have increased interest in identifying and improving behaviors that threaten team performance and patient safety. Three hundred and sixty degree evaluations of surgeons were performed at 8 academically affiliated hospitals with a common Code of Excellence. We evaluate participant perceptions and make recommendations for future use. STUDY DESIGN: Three hundred and eighty-five surgeons in a variety of specialties underwent 360-degree evaluations, with a median of 29 reviewers each (interquartile range 23 to 36). Beginning 6 months after evaluation, surgeons, department heads, and reviewers completed follow-up surveys evaluating accuracy of feedback, willingness to participate in repeat evaluations, and behavior change. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 31% for surgeons (118 of 385), 59% for department heads (10 of 17), and 36% for reviewers (1,042 of 2,928). Eighty-seven percent of surgeons (95% CI, 75%-94%) agreed that reviewers provided accurate feedback. Similarly, 80% of department heads believed the feedback accurately reflected performance of surgeons within their department. Sixty percent of surgeon respondents (95% CI, 49%-75%) reported making changes to their practice based on feedback received. Seventy percent of reviewers (95% CI, 69%-74%) believed the evaluation process was valuable, with 82% (95% CI, 79%-84%) willing to participate in future 360-degree reviews. Thirty-two percent of reviewers (95% CI, 29%-35%) reported perceiving behavior change in surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: Three hundred and sixty degree evaluations can provide a practical, systematic, and subjectively accurate assessment of surgeon performance without undue reviewer burden. The process was found to result in beneficial behavior change, according to surgeons and their coworkers.

Survey of the American College of Surgeons scholarship recipients: a story of generating academic leaders.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this survey was to provide a review of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) scholarship activity. STUDY DESIGN: The domestic ACS scholarship recipient survey was electronically transmitted twice to awardees from 1987 to 2007 (n=253). Themes of the survey included type of practice, activities during scholarship period, success of peer review funding, and the role of mentors. All survey responses were evaluated using SPSS version 20. RESULTS: There were 123 total responses, with 108 separate respondents (94, 1 award; 13, 2 awards; 1, 3 awards). The group averaged 11.8 years in clinical practice, with the majority (90.2%) having an academic appointment. Seventy-seven percent of respondents were on a tenure track, and almost three-quarters (72.4%) of the respondents hold a major leadership position. In terms of research, 67.5% of respondents have received extramural funding; 10.6% have received patents. The average number of publications related to their funded research is 19.2 (range 0 to 180). Most respondents perform peer review of research (73.2%), learned about the peer review process during their funding period (82.1%), and mentor medical students (88.6%). The average number of students currently mentored is 6.4; the average total trainees mentored is 13. Despite the significant research responsibilities of respondents, they still spend more time performing clinical care (49.2%) than research (30.4%). CONCLUSIONS: The ACS scholarship has a significant impact on the recipient's academic career, even in the setting of increasing clinical burdens. This program also appears to tangentially identify surgeons who become leaders in academic surgery.

Training surgical residents for a career in academic global surgery: a novel training model.

Academic global surgery is a nascent field focused on improving surgical care in resource-poor settings through a broad-based scholarship agenda. Although there is increasing momentum to expand training opportunities in low-resource settings among academic surgical programs, most focus solely on establishing short-term elective rotations rather than fostering research or career development. Given the complex nature of surgical care delivery and programmatic capacity building in the resource-poor settings, many challenges remain before global surgery is accepted as an academic discipline and an established career path. Brigham and Women's Hospital has established a specialized global surgery track within the general surgery residency program to develop academic leaders in this growing area of need and opportunity. Here we describe our experience with the design and development of the program followed by practical applications and lessons learned from our early experiences.