SAGES guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis.

BACKGROUND: Appendicitis is an extremely common disease with a variety of medical and surgical treatment approaches. A multidisciplinary expert panel was convened to develop evidence-based recommendations to support clinicians and patients in decisions regarding the diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted from 2010 to 2022 to answer 8 key questions relating to the diagnosis of appendicitis, operative or nonoperative management, and specific technical and post-operative issues for appendectomy. The results of this systematic review were then presented to a panel of adult and pediatric surgeons. Evidence-based recommendations were formulated using the GRADE methodology by subject experts. RESULTS: Conditional recommendations were made in favor of uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis being managed operatively, either delayed (>12h) or immediate operation (<12h), either suction and lavage or suction alone, no routine drain placement, treatment with short-term antibiotics postoperatively for complicated appendicitis, and complicated appendicitis previously treated nonoperatively undergoing interval appendectomy. A conditional recommendation signals that the benefits of adhering to a recommendation probably outweigh the harms although it does also indicate uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: These recommendations should provide guidance with regard to current controversies in appendicitis. The panel also highlighted future research opportunities where the evidence base can be strengthened.

Leveraging learning systems to improve quality and patient safety in allergen immunotherapy.

Adverse events occur in all fields of medicine, including allergy-immunology, in which allergen immunotherapy medical errors can cause significant harm. Although difficult to experience, such errors constitute opportunities for improvement. Identifying system vulnerabilities can allow resolution of latent errors before they become active problems. We review key aspects and frameworks of the medical error response, acknowledging the fundamental responsibility of clinical teams to learn from harm. Adverse event response comprises 4 major phases: (1) event recognition and reporting, (2) investigation (for which root cause analysis can be helpful), (3) improvement (inclusive of the plan-do-study-act cycle), and (4) communication and resolution. Throughout the process, clinician wellness must be maintained. Adverse event prevention should be prioritized, and a human factors engineering approach can be useful. Quality improvement tools and approaches complement one another and together offer a meaningful avenue for error recovery and prevention.

Diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The optimal diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis remains controversial. This systematic review details the evidence and current best practices for the evaluation and management of uncomplicated and complicated appendicitis in adults and children. METHODS: Eight questions regarding the diagnosis and management of appendicitis were formulated. PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane and clinicaltrials.gov/NLM were queried for articles published from 2010 to 2022 with key words related to at least one question. Randomized and non-randomized studies were included. Two reviewers screened each publication for eligibility and then extracted data from eligible studies. Random effects meta-analyses were performed on all quantitative data. The quality of randomized and non-randomized studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 or Newcastle Ottawa Scale, respectively. RESULTS: 2792 studies were screened and 261 were included. Most had a high risk of bias. Computerized tomography scan yielded the highest sensitivity (> 80%) and specificity (> 93%) in the adult population, although high variability existed. In adults with uncomplicated appendicitis, non-operative management resulted in higher odds of readmission (OR 6.10) and need for operation (OR 20.09), but less time to return to work/school (SMD - 1.78). In pediatric patients with uncomplicated appendicitis, non-operative management also resulted in higher odds of need for operation (OR 38.31). In adult patients with complicated appendicitis, there were higher odds of need for operation following antibiotic treatment only (OR 29.00), while pediatric patients had higher odds of abscess formation (OR 2.23). In pediatric patients undergoing appendectomy for complicated appendicitis, higher risk of reoperation at any time point was observed in patients who had drains placed at the time of operation (RR 2.04). CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates the diagnosis and treatment of appendicitis remains nuanced. A personalized approach and appropriate patient selection remain key to treatment success. Further research on controversies in treatment would be useful for optimal management.

A Multicenter Observational Study Comparing Virtual with In-Person Morning Reports during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVES: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted how educational conferences were delivered, leaving programs to choose between in-person and virtual morning report formats. The objective of our study was to describe morning reports during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the use of virtual formats, attendance, leadership, and content. METHODS: A prospective observational study of morning reports was conducted at 13 Internal Medicine residency programs between September 1, 2020 and March 30, 2021, including a follow-up survey of current morning report format in January 2023. RESULTS: In total, 257 reports were observed; 74% used virtual formats, including single hospital, multiple hospital, and a hybrid format with both in-person and virtual participants. Compared with in-person reports, virtual reports had more participants, with increased numbers of learners (median 21 vs 7; P < 0.001) and attendings (median 4 vs 2; P < 0.001), and they were more likely to involve medical students (83% vs 40%; P < 0.001), interns (99% vs 53%; P < 0.001), and program directors (68% vs 32%; P < 0.001). Attendings were less likely to lead virtual reports (3% vs 28%, P < 0.001). Virtual reports also were more likely to be case based (88% vs 69%; P < 0.001) and to use digital presentation slides (91% vs 36%; P < 0.001). There was a marked increase in the number of slides (median 20 vs 0; P < 0.001). As of January 2023, all 13 programs had returned to in-person reports, with only 1 program offering an option to participate virtually. CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, virtual morning report formats predominated. Compared with traditional in-person reports, virtual report increased attendance, favored resident leadership, and approached a similar range of patient diagnoses with a greater number of case-based presentations and slides. In spite of these characteristics, all programs returned to an in-person format for morning report as pandemic restrictions waned.

What internal medicine attendings talk about at morning report: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Morning report is a core educational activity in internal medicine resident education. Attending physicians regularly participate in morning report and influence the learning environment, though no previous study has described the contribution of attending physicians to this conference. This study aims to describe attending comments at internal medicine morning reports. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, observational study of morning reports conducted at 13 internal medicine residency programs between September 1, 2020, and March 30, 2021. Each attending comment was described including its duration, whether the comment was teaching or non-teaching, teaching topic, and field of practice of the commenter. We also recorded morning report-related variables including number of learners, report format, program director participation, and whether report was scripted (facilitator has advance knowledge of the case). A regression model was developed to describe variables associated with the number of attending comments per report. RESULTS: There were 2,344 attending comments during 250 conferences. The median number of attendings present was 3 (IQR, 2-5). The number of comments per report ranged across different sites from 3.9 to 16.8 with a mean of 9.4 comments/report (SD, 7.4). 66% of comments were shorter than one minute in duration and 73% were categorized as teaching by observers. The most common subjects of teaching comments were differential diagnosis, management, and testing. Report duration, number of general internists, unscripted reports, and in-person format were associated with significantly increased number of attending comments. CONCLUSIONS: Attending comments in morning report were generally brief, focused on clinical teaching, and covered a wide range of topics. There were substantial differences between programs in terms of the number of comments and their duration which likely affects the local learning environment. Morning report stakeholders that are interested in increasing attending involvement in morning report should consider employing in-person and unscripted reports. Additional studies are needed to explore best practice models of attending participation in morning report.

Outcomes of light and midweight synthetic mesh use in clean-contaminated and contaminated ventral incisional hernia repair: an ACHQC comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Use of macroporous synthetic mesh in contaminated ventral hernia repair has become more frequent. The objective of this study is to compare the outcomes of ventral incisional hernia repair with permanent synthetic mesh in contaminated fields to those in a clean field. METHODS: The Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative registry, a prospectively updated longitudinal hernia-specific national database, was retrospectively queried for adults who underwent open ventral incisional hernia repair using light or medium-weight synthetic mesh and classified as clean (CDC Class I) or contaminated (CDC Class II/III). Univariate analysis was used to compare demographic information, hernia characteristics, and operative details. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated using multivariable logistic regression for the primary outcome of 30-day surgical site infection (SSI) and secondary outcomes of 30-day surgical site occurrence (SSO), SSO requiring procedural intervention (SSO-PI), and clinical recurrence at one year. RESULTS: 7219 cases met criteria for inclusion; 13.2% of these were contaminated. 83.4% of patients had follow-up data at 30 days and 20.8% at 1 year. The adjusted OR for 30-day SSI in contaminated fields compared to clean was 2.603 (95% CI 1.959-3.459). OR for 30-day SSO was 1.275 (95% CI 1.017-1.600) and 2.355 (95%CI 1.817-3.053) for 30-day SSO-PI. OR for recurrence at one year was 1.489 (95%CI 0.892-2.487). Contaminated cases had higher rates of mesh infection (3.9% vs 0.8%, p < 0.001) and mesh removal (7.3 vs 2.5%, p < 0.001) at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: After adjusting for baseline differences, patients undergoing ventral incisional hernia repair using light or midweight synthetic mesh in contaminated fields have higher odds of 30-day SSI, SSO, and SSO-PI than those performed in clean wounds. The odds of recurrence did not statistically differ and further studies with long-term outcomes are needed to better evaluate the best treatment options for this patient population.

Evaluation of Treatment Differences Between Men and Women Undergoing Ventral Hernia Repair: An Analysis of the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative.

BACKGROUND: Sex is emerging as an important clinical variable associated with surgical outcomes and decision making. However, its relevance in regard to baseline and treatment differences in primary and incisional ventral hernia repair remains unclear. STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study using the Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative database to identify elective umbilical, epigastric, or incisional hernia repairs. Propensity matching was performed to investigate confounder-adjusted treatment differences between men and women. Treatments of interest included surgical approach (minimally invasive or open), mesh use, mesh type, mesh position, anesthesia type, myofascial release, fascial closure, and fixation use. RESULTS: A total of 8,489 umbilical, 1,801 epigastric, and 16,626 incisional hernia repairs were identified. Women undergoing primary ventral hernia repair were younger (umbilical 46.4 vs 54 years, epigastric 48.7 vs 52.7 years), with lower BMI (umbilical 30.4 vs 31.5, epigastric 29.2 vs 31.1), and less likely diabetic (umbilical 9.9% vs 11.4%, epigastric 6.8% vs 8.8%). Women undergoing incisional hernia repair were also younger (mean 57.5 vs 59.1 years), but with higher BMI (33.1 vs 31.5), and more likely diabetic (21.4% vs 19.1%). Propensity-matched analysis included 3,644 umbilical, 1,232 epigastric, and 12,480 incisional hernias. Women with incisional hernia were less likely to undergo an open repair (60.2% vs 63.4%, p < 0.001) and have mesh used (93.8% vs 94.8%, p = 0.02). In umbilical and incisional hernia repairs, women had higher rates of intraperitoneal mesh placement and men had higher rates of preperitoneal and retro-muscular mesh placement. CONCLUSIONS: Small but statistically significant treatment differences in operative approach, mesh use, and mesh position exist between men and women undergoing ventral hernia repair. It remains unknown whether these treatment differences result in differing clinical outcomes.

A Comparative Study of Scripted versus Unscripted Morning Reports: Results from a Prospective Multicenter Study.

OBJECTIVES: Morning report is one of the central activities of internal medicine residency education. The two most common morning report formats are scripted reports, which use preselected cases with prepared didactics, and unscripted reports in which a case is discussed without preparation. No previous study has compared these two formats. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study of morning report conducted at 10 academic medical centers across the United States. RESULTS: A total of 198 case-based morning reports were observed. Of these, 169 (85%) were scripted and 29 (15%) were unscripted. Scripted reports were more likely to present a case with a known final diagnosis (89% vs 76%, P = 0.04), use electronic slides (76% vs 52%, P = 0.01), involve more than 15 slides (55% vs 3%, P < 0.001), and reference the medical literature (61% vs 34%, P = 0.02), including professional guidelines (32% vs 10%, P = 0.02) and original research (25% vs 0%, P = 0.001). Scripted reports also consumed more time in prepared didactics (8.0 vs 0 minutes, P < 0.001). Unscripted reports consumed more time in case history (10.0 vs 7.0 minutes, P < 0.001), physical examination (3.0 vs 2.0 minutes, P = 0.06), and differential diagnosis (10.0 vs 7.0 minutes, P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Most contemporary morning reports are scripted. Compared with traditional unscripted reports, scripted reports are more likely to involve a case with a known diagnosis, use extensive electronic presentation slides, and consume more time in didactics, while unscripted reports consume more time in the early diagnostic process, including history, physical examination, and differential diagnosis. Residency programs interested in emphasizing these aspects of medical education should encourage unscripted morning reports.

Complex Surgical Management of Radiation-Associated Left Retroperitoneal Sarcoma.

Radiation-associated sarcomas (RASs) are rare entities that tend to have an aggressive course and poor prognosis. Criteria for diagnosis of radiation-associated sarcoma include therapeutic radiation preceding the development of sarcoma, sarcoma arising within or near the irradiated field, and tumor histology that is distinct from the primary tumor necessitating radiation. Despite their relatively uncommon occurrence, RASs are a well-established complication of radiation therapy. We present the complex, multidisciplinary surgical management of a patient with multi-compartmental radiation-associated sarcoma of the left retroperitoneum occurring nearly 25 years after undergoing whole trunk radiation for Hodgkin's lymphoma.

Research Opportunities in Autonomic Neural Mechanisms of Cardiopulmonary Regulation: A Report From the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institutes of Health Office of the Director Workshop.

This virtual workshop was convened by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, in partnership with the Office of Strategic Coordination of the Office of the National Institutes of Health Director, and held September 2 to 3, 2020. The intent was to assemble a multidisciplinary group of experts in basic, translational, and clinical research in neuroscience and cardiopulmonary disorders to identify knowledge gaps, guide future research efforts, and foster multidisciplinary collaborations pertaining to autonomic neural mechanisms of cardiopulmonary regulation. The group critically evaluated the current state of knowledge of the roles that the autonomic nervous system plays in regulation of cardiopulmonary function in health and in pathophysiology of arrhythmias, heart failure, sleep and circadian dysfunction, and breathing disorders. Opportunities to leverage the Common Fund's SPARC (Stimulating Peripheral Activity to Relieve Conditions) program were characterized as related to nonpharmacologic neuromodulation and device-based therapies. Common themes discussed include knowledge gaps, research priorities, and approaches to develop novel predictive markers of autonomic dysfunction. Approaches to precisely target neural pathophysiological mechanisms to herald new therapies for arrhythmias, heart failure, sleep and circadian rhythm physiology, and breathing disorders were also detailed.

Internal Medicine Residents' Perceptions of Virtual Morning Report: a Multicenter Survey.

IMPORTANCE: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted graduate medical education, compelling training programs to abruptly transition to virtual educational formats despite minimal experience or proficiency. We surveyed residents from a national sample of internal medicine (IM) residency programs to describe their experiences with the transition to virtual morning report (MR), a highly valued core educational conference. OBJECTIVE: Assess resident views about virtual MR content and teaching strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Anonymous, web-based survey. PARTICIPANTS: Residents from 14 academically affiliated IM residency programs. MAIN MEASURES: The 25-item survey on virtual MR included questions on demographics; frequency and reason for attending; opinions on who should attend and teach; how the virtual format affects the learning environment; how virtual MR compares to in-person MR with regard to participation, engagement, and overall education; and whether virtual MR should continue after in-person conferences can safely resume. The survey included a combination of Likert-style, multiple option, and open-ended questions. RESULTS: Six hundred fifteen residents (35%) completed the survey, with a balanced sample of interns (39%), second-year (31%), and third-year (30%) residents. When comparing their overall assessment of in-person and virtual MR formats, 42% of residents preferred in-person, 18% preferred virtual, and 40% felt they were equivalent. Most respondents endorsed better peer-engagement, camaraderie, and group participation with in-person MR. Chat boxes, video participation, audience response systems, and smart boards/tablets enhanced respondents' educational experience during virtual MR. Most respondents (72%) felt that the option of virtual MR should continue when it is safe to resume in-person conferences. CONCLUSIONS: Virtual MR was a valued alternative to traditional in-person MR during the COVID-19 pandemic. Residents feel that the virtual platform offers unique educational benefits independent of and in conjunction with in-person conferences. Residents support the integration of a virtual platform into the delivery of MR in the future.

Healing Through History: a qualitative evaluation of a social medicine consultation curriculum for internal medicine residents.

BACKGROUND: Social context guides care; stories sustain meaning; neither is routinely prioritized in residency training. Healing Through History (HTH) is a social medicine consultation curriculum integrating social determinants of health narrative into clinical care for medically and socially complex patients. The curriculum is part of an internal medicine (IM) residency outpatient clinical rotation at a Veterans Health Administration hospital. Our aim was to explore how in-depth social medicine consultations may impact resident clinical practice and foster meaning in work. METHODS: From 2017 to 2019, 49 categorical and preliminary residents in their first year of IM training were given two half-day sessions to identify and interview a patient; develop a co-produced social medicine narrative; review it with patient and faculty; and share it in the electronic health record (EHR). Medical anthropologists conducted separate 90-min focus groups of first- and second-year IM residents in 2019, 1-15 months from the experience. RESULTS: 46 (94%) completed HTH consultations, of which 40 (87%) were approved by patients and published in the EHR. 12 (46%) categorical IM residents participated in focus groups; 6 PGY1, and 6 PGY2. Qualitative analysis yielded 3 themes: patient connection, insight, and clinical impact; clinical skill development; and structural barriers to the practice of social medicine. CONCLUSIONS: HTH offers a model for teaching co-production through social and narrative medicine consultation in complex clinical care, while fostering meaning in work. Integration throughout training may further enhance impact.

Internal Medicine Residents' Perceptions of Morning Report: a Multicenter Survey.

BACKGROUND: Residents rate morning report (MR) as an essential educational activity. Little contemporary evidence exists to guide medical educators on the optimal content or most effective delivery strategies, particularly in the era of resident duty-hour limitations and shifts towards learner-centric pedagogy in graduate medical education. OBJECTIVE: Assess resident views about MR content and teaching strategies. DESIGN: Anonymous, online survey. PARTICIPANTS: Internal medicine residents from 10 VA-affiliated residency programs. MAIN MEASURES: The 20-item survey included questions on demographics; frequency and reason for attending; opinions on who should attend, who should teach, and how to prioritize the teaching; and respondents' comfort level with participating in MR. The survey included a combination of Likert-style and multiple-choice questions with the option for multiple responses. KEY RESULTS: A total of 497 residents (46%) completed the survey, with a balanced sample of R1s (33%), R2s (35%), and R3s (31%). Self-reported MR attendance was high (31% always attend; 39% attend > 50% of the time), with clinical duties being the primary barrier to attendance (85%). Most respondents felt that medical students (89%), R1 (96%), and R2/R3s (96%) should attend MR; there was less consensus regarding including attendings (61%) or fellows (34%). Top-rated educational topics included demonstration of clinical reasoning (82%), evidence-based medicine (77%), and disease pathophysiology (53%). Respondents valued time spent on diagnostic work-up (94%), management (93%), and differential building (90%). Overall, 82% endorsed feeling comfortable speaking; fewer R1s reported comfort (76%) compared with R2s (87%) or R3s (83%, p = 0.018). Most (81%) endorsed that MR was an inclusive learning environment (81%), with no differences by level of training. CONCLUSIONS: MR remains a highly regarded, well-attended educational conference. Residents value high-quality cases that emphasize clinical reasoning, diagnosis, and management. A supportive, engaging learning environment with expert input and concise, evidence-based teaching is desired.

A Multicenter VA Study of the Format and Content of Internal Medicine Morning Report.

BACKGROUND: There are more than five hundred internal medicine residency programs in the USA, involving 27,000 residents. Morning report is a central educational activity in resident education, but no recent studies describe its format or content. OBJECTIVE: To describe the format and content of internal medicine morning reports. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Prospective observational study of morning reports occurring between September 1, 2018, and April 30, 2019, in ten different VA academic medical centers in the USA. MAIN MEASURES: Report format, number and type of learner, number and background of attending, frequency of learner participation, and the type of media used. Content areas including quality and safety, high-value care, social determinants of health, evidence-based medicine, ethics, and bedside teaching. For case-based reports, the duration of different aspects of the case was recorded, the ultimate diagnosis when known, and if the case was scripted or unscripted. RESULTS: A total of 225 morning reports were observed. Reports were predominantly case-based, moderated by a chief resident, utilized digital presentation slides, and involved a range of learners including medicine residents, medical students, and non-physician learners. The most common attending physician present was a hospitalist. Reports typically involved a single case, which the chief resident reviewed prior to report and prepared a teaching presentation using digital presentation slides. One-half of cases were categorized as either rare or life-threatening. The most common category of diagnosis was medication side effects. Quality and safety, high-value care, social determinants of health, and evidence-based medicine were commonly discussed. Medical ethics was rarely addressed. CONCLUSIONS: Although a wide range of formats and content were described, internal medicine morning report most commonly involves a single case that is prepared ahead of time by the chief resident, uses digital presentation slides, and emphasizes history, differential diagnosis, didactics, and rare or life-threatening diseases.

Defining surgical outcomes and quality of life in massive ventral hernia repair: an international multicenter prospective study.

BACKGROUND: Our goal was to set criteria for massive ventral hernia and to compare surgical outcomes and quality of life after ventral hernia repair (VHR). METHODS: The International Hernia Mesh Registry was queried for patients undergoing VHR from 2007 to 2013. Defect was categorized as massive if the width or length was greater than 15 cm or area greater than 150 cm(2). Massive VHR was compared to regular VHR. RESULTS: A total of 878 patients underwent VHR: 436 open, 442 laparoscopic with 13 deaths (1.5%) and 45 hernia recurrences (5.1%). Of those, 158 patients (18%) met criteria for massive VHR. Massive VHR patients had longer length of stay (LOS) and operative time and more hematomas, wound infections, wound complications, and pneumonias (P < .05). On multivariate analysis, LOS was longer, and early postoperative pain and activity limitation were greater in massive VHRs (P < .01). Massive VHR in the laparoscopic approach resulted in greater long-term mesh sensation (P < .01). CONCLUSIONS: VHR in massive hernias have increased rates of complications and longer LOS.

Complications of bariatric surgery: the acute care surgeon's experience.

BACKGROUND: Complications of bariatric surgeries are common, can occur throughout the patient's lifetime, and can be life-threatening. We examined bariatric surgical complications presenting to our acute care surgery service. METHODS: Records were reviewed from January 2007 to June 2013 for patients presenting with a complication after bariatric surgery. RESULTS: Laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass was the most common index operation (n = 20), followed by open Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (n = 6), laparoscopic gastric band (n = 4), and vertical banded gastroplasty (n = 3). Diagnoses included internal hernia (n = 10), small bowel obstruction (n = 5), lap band restriction (n = 4), biliary disease (n = 3), upper GI bleeding or ulcer (n = 3), ischemic bowel (n = 2), marginal ulcer (n = 2), gastric outlet obstruction (n = 2), perforated ulcer (n = 2), intussusception (n = 1), and incarcerated ventral hernia (n = 1). Operations were required in 91% of the patients. Laparoscopic outcomes were similar to open; however, open cases were more emergent (23.5% vs 69.2%) and had longer hospital length of stay (4.8 ± 3.5 vs 11.0 ± 10.3 days, P < .05). All patients survived. CONCLUSIONS: The acute care surgeon will encounter complications of bariatric surgery. Internal hernias or obstructive etiologies are the most common presentations and often require emergent or urgent surgery.

Impact of implementing an electronic health record on surgical resident work flow, duty hours, and operative experience.

Our objective was to assess the effect of implementing an electronic health record (EHR) on surgical resident work flow, duty hours, and operative experience at a large teaching hospital. In May 2012, an EHR was put into effect at our institution replacing paper documentation and orders. Resident time to complete patient documentation, average duty hours, and operative experience before EHR and afterward (at 1, 4, 6, 8, and 24 weeks) were surveyed. We obtained 100 per cent response rate from 15 surgical residents at all time intervals. The average time spent documenting before EHR was 9 ± 2 minutes per patient document and at Weeks 1, 4, 6, 8, and 24 after EHR implementation was 22 ± 10, 15 ± 7, 15 ± 7, 14 ± 8, and 12 ± 4 minutes, respectively. Repeated measures analysis of variance demonstrated a difference among the means (P < 0.0001). Discharge summary and operative note remained significantly longer to complete at Week 24 compared with paper documentation (P < 0.05). Average resident work hours and operative cases per week before EHR were 77 ± 5 hours and 12 ± 5 cases, respectively, which were similar at all time points after EHR implementation (P > 0.05). At 24 weeks after EHR, 74 per cent of residents felt their risk of performing a medical error using electronic documentation and order entry was higher compared with paper charting and orders. Transition to EHR led to a significant doubling in resident time spent performing documentation for each patient. It improved over 6 months after implementation but never reached the pre-EHR baseline for operative notes and discharge summaries. Average resident work hours and case logs remained similar during this transition.