Experience of a single academic institution with the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer and the resulting improvement in care.

AIM: The American College of Surgeons Committee on Cancer developed the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer (NAPRC) to reduce variations in rectal cancer care, standardize clinical practice and encourage multidisciplinary approaches. The aim of this study was to analyse if accreditation achieved a higher quality of care at one hospital. METHOD: The University of California Davis Medical Center was accredited in 2019. A retrospective review of rectal adenocarcinoma patients was performed between the years 2013 and 2018. Patients presenting from 2013 to 2015 were discussed at a gastrointestinal tumour board while patients in 2018 had an accredited rectal cancer tumour board. Patients from 2016 to 2017 were excluded as the programme was still developing. Compliance to the NAPRC standards was compared between the cohorts. RESULTS: One hundred and thirty patients were evaluated, 88 (68%) in the prerectal tumour board cohort and 42 (32%) in the rectal tumour board cohort. The prerectal tumour board cohort often failed to meet attendance standards. All patients in the rectal tumour board cohort met all criteria. Similarly, clinical service compliance improved in the rectal tumour board cohort for 13 metrics, 10 of which were statistically significant. Although a high proportion of patients in both groups experienced quality surgery, i.e. complete total mesorectal excision and negative margins, the lack of complete pathological reporting in the prerectal tumour board cohort limited analysis. CONCLUSION: Multidisciplinary rectal cancer tumour boards are associated with improved compliance with recommended care by the NAPRC. Patients discussed at a rectal cancer tumour board were more likely to receive appropriate staging, coordinated care and have better clinical documentation.

Patient and provider perspectives to utilization of telemedicine in surgery.

Objectives: Determine patient and provider perspectives on widespread rapid telemedicine implementation, understand the key components of a surgical telemedicine visit and identify factors that affect future telemedicine use. Summary of background data: Compared to other specialties, the field of surgery heretofore has had limited adoption of telemedicine. During the COVID-19 pandemic Healthcare, including the surgical specialties, saw new widespread use of telemedicine. Methods: We conducted a prospective cohort study during the COVID-19 California stay-at-home and physical distancing executive orders. Utilization data were collected from clinics and compared to usage data during the same time 1 year later. All patients and providers who participated in a telemedicine visit during the study period were asked to complete a survey after each encounter and the surveys were analyzed for trends in opinions on future use by stakeholders. Results: Over the 10-week period, the median percentage of telemedicine visits per clinic was 33% (17%-51%) which peaked 3 weeks into implementation. One hundred and ninety-one patients (48% women) with a median age of 64 years (IQR 53-73) completed the patient survey. Patients were first-time participants in telemedicine in 41% (n = 79) of visits. Fifty-seven percent (n = 45) of first-time users preferred that future visits be in-person versus 31% of prior users (p = 0.007). The median travel time from home to the clinic was 40 min (IQR = 20-90). Patients with longer travel times were not more likely to use telemedicine in the future (61% with longer travel vs. 53% shorter, p = 0.11). From the 148 provider responses, 90% of the visits providers were able to create a definitive plan with the telemedicine visit. A physical exam was determined not to be needed in 45% of the visits. An attempt at any physical exam was not performed in 84% of routine follow-up or new-patient visits, compared to 53% of post-op visits (p = 0.001). Conclusion: Telemedicine is a viable ambulatory visit option for surgical specialists and their patients. During rapid telemedicine deployment, travel distance did not correlate with increased use of telemedicine, and in-person visits are still preferred. However, nearly half of all visits did not need a physical exam, which favors telemedicine use.

Racial Health Disparities Research in Cardiothoracic Surgery Under-represented in Major Meetings.

INTRODUCTION: Black/African Americans and Latinos face significant health disparities and systemic inequities. Heart and lung disease are leading factors affecting morbidity and mortality in these groups. Given this disparity, we sought to determine how often this topic is presented at the most relevant United States annual cardiothoracic surgery meetings. METHODS: Specialty-specific annual meeting abstract books were queried between 2015 and 2021. We included the Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Western Thoracic Surgical Association, and the Southern Thoracic Surgical Association. Scientific abstract titles and content were searched for the following keywords and phrases: "racial health disparities," "race," "racism," "racial bias," "institutional racism," and "health disparities". If an abstract included a keyword or phrase, it was counted as a racial health disparity abstract. We calculated the proportion of racial health disparity abstracts and abstracts published as manuscripts in the meeting-associated journals. RESULTS: A total of 3664 abstracts were presented between 2015 and 2021. Of those, 0.90% (33/3664) abstracts presented contained at least one of the keywords or phrases. Of these abstracts, the percentage that went on to publication represented 0.38% (14/3664) of the total number of abstracts presented. CONCLUSIONS: Abstracts on racial health disparities in cardiothoracic surgery represent a very small fraction of total meeting peer-reviewed content. There is a significant gap in research to identify and develop best practice strategies to address these disparities and mitigate structural racism within the care of underserved patients with cardiothoracic diseases.

Engagement and Effectiveness of a Smoking Cessation Quitline Intervention in a Thoracic Surgery Clinic.

Importance: Smoking quitline programs effectively promote smoking cessation in outpatient primary care settings. Objective: To examine the factors associated with smoking quitline engagement and smoking cessation among patients undergoing thoracic surgery who consented to a quitline electronic referral. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study was conducted from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2018, among 111 active smoking patients referred to the quitline from a thoracic surgery outpatient clinic visit. Patients were divided into operative and nonoperative cohorts. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were engagement rates in the quitline program and successful smoking cessation. Secondary outcomes were self-reported point prevalence abstinence at 1 month and 6 months after the smoking quit date. Results: Of 111 patients (62 men; mean [SD] age, 61.8 [11.2] years) who had a quitline referral, 58 (52%) underwent surgery, and 32 of these 58 patients (55%) participated in the program. Of the 53 nonoperative patients (48%), 24 (45%) participated in the program. In the operative cohort, there was no difference in the smoking cessation rate between quitline participants and nonparticipants (21 of 32 [66%] vs 16 of 6 [62%]; P = .79) or in point prevalence abstinence at 1 month (23 of 32 [72%] vs 14 of 25 [56%]; P = .27) or 6 months (14 of 28 [50%] vs 6 of 18 [33%]; P = .36). Similarly, in the nonoperative cohort, there was no difference in the smoking cessation rate between quitline participants and nonparticipants (8 of 24 [33%] vs 11 of 29 [38%]; P = .78) or in point prevalence abstinence at 1 month (7 of 24 [29%] vs 8 of 27 [30%]; P = .99) or 6 months (6 of 23 [26%] vs 6 of 25 [24%]; P = .99). Regardless of quitline participation, operative patients had a 1.8-fold higher proportion of successful smoking cessation compared with nonoperative patients (37 of 58 [64%] vs 19 of 53 [36%]; P = .004) as well as a 2.2-fold higher proportion of 1-month point prevalence abstinence (37 of 57 [65%] vs 15 of 51 [29%]; P < .001) and a 1.8-fold higher proportion of 6-month point prevalence abstinence (20 of 45 [44%] vs 12 of 48 [25%]; P = .05). Having surgery doubled the odds of smoking cessation (odds ratio, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.06-5.64; P = .04) and quitline engagement tripled the odds of remaining smoke free at 6 months (odds ratio, 3.57; 95% CI, 1.03-12.38; P = .04). Conclusions and Relevance: Patients undergoing thoracic surgery were nearly twice as likely to quit smoking as those who did not have an operation, and smoking quitline participation further augmented point prevalence abstinence. Improved smoking cessation rates, even among nonoperative patients, were associated with appropriate outpatient counseling and intervention.