Development and Validation of a Novel Literature-Based Method to Identify Disparity-Sensitive Surgical Quality Metrics.

BACKGROUND: Disparity in surgical care impedes the delivery of uniformly high-quality care. Metrics that quantify disparity in care can help identify areas for needed intervention. A literature-based Disparity-Sensitive Score (DSS) system for surgical care was adapted by the Metrics for Equitable Access and Care in Surgery (MEASUR) group. The alignment between the MEASUR DSS and Delphi ratings of an expert advisory panel (EAP) regarding the disparity sensitivity of surgical quality metrics was assessed. STUDY DESIGN: Using DSS criteria MEASUR co-investigators scored 534 surgical metrics which were subsequently rated by the EAP. All scores were converted to a 9-point scale. Agreement between the new measurement technique (ie DSS) and an established subjective technique (ie importance and validity ratings) were assessed using the Bland-Altman method, adjusting for the linear relationship between the paired difference and the paired average. The limit of agreement (LOA) was set at 1.96 SD (95%). RESULTS: The percentage of DSS scores inside the LOA was 96.8% (LOA, 0.02 points) for the importance rating and 94.6% (LOA, 1.5 points) for the validity rating. In comparison, 94.4% of the 2 subjective EAP ratings were inside the LOA (0.7 points). CONCLUSIONS: Applying the MEASUR DSS criteria using available literature allowed for identification of disparity-sensitive surgical metrics. The results suggest that this literature-based method of selecting quality metrics may be comparable to more complex consensus-based Delphi methods. In fields with robust literature, literature-based composite scores may be used to select quality metrics rather than assembling consensus panels.

Disparity-Sensitive Measures in Surgical Care: A Delphi Panel Consensus.

BACKGROUND: In the US, disparities in surgical care impede the delivery of uniformly high-quality care to all patients. There is a lack of disparity-sensitive measures related to surgical care. The American College of Surgeons Metrics for Equitable Access and Care in Surgery group, through research and expert consensus, aimed to identify disparity-sensitive measures in surgical care. STUDY DESIGN: An environmental scan, systematic literature review, and subspecialty society surveys were conducted to identify potential disparity-sensitive surgical measures. A modified Delphi process was conducted where panelists rated measures on both importance and validity. In addition, a novel literature-based disparity-sensitive scoring process was used. RESULTS: We identified 841 potential disparity-sensitive surgical measures. From these, our Delphi and literature-based approaches yielded a consensus list of 125 candidate disparity-sensitive measures. These measures were rated as both valid and important and were supported by the existing literature. CONCLUSION: There are profound disparities in surgical care within the US healthcare system. A multidisciplinary Delphi panel identified 125 potential disparity-sensitive surgical measures that could be used to track health disparities, evaluate the impact of focused interventions, and reduce healthcare inequity.

Political Campaign Contributions of Surgeons in the United States Throughout the 2020 Election Cycle.

Importance: Political engagement by the physician workforce is necessary to ensure continued representation of their interests in health care legislation. Limited data are available pertaining to the political involvement of US surgeons. Objective: To analyze the magnitude and distribution of political donations made by all US surgeons throughout the 2020 election cycle. Design, Setting, and Participants: Partisan and geographical differences in surgeon contributions by aggregating data (January 1 through December 31, 2020) from the US Federal Election Commission database were analyzed. Contributions were labeled as Republican, Democrat, or independent depending on the committee they were designated to. Main Outcomes and Measures: Differences in contributions to Republicans, Democrats, and independent candidates for all US surgeons and for subgroups. Results: For the 2020 election year, a total of 53 944 donations were made by surgeons in the United States, amounting to $9 223 350.68. Among all surgical specialties, the top 5 highest number of contributions were made from orthopedic surgeons (n = 15 081), ophthalmic surgeons (n = 14 836), neurological surgeons (n = 7481), urologists (n = 4544), and plastic surgeons (n = 4060). Of these donations, 59.46% (n = 32 107) were made to the Republican party ($5 420 326), 30.83% (n = 16 644) were made to the Democratic party ($1 612 775), and 9.71% (n = 5243) were made to nonpartisan (ie, independent) organizations ($2 190 250). Overall, pediatric surgeons reported the lowest mean contribution amount of $59.43, whereas thoracic surgeons reported the highest mean contribution amount of $225.19. Conclusions and Relevance: Health care legislation has an immense impact on how medicine is practiced and utilized. This analysis reveals a high degree of political activity of surgeons across different specialties and geographic regions.

Experiences of LGBTQ+ Residents in US General Surgery Training Programs.

Importance: Previous studies have shown high rates of mistreatment among US general surgery residents, leading to poor well-being. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and other sexual and gender minority (LGBTQ+) residents represent a high-risk group for mistreatment; however, their experience in general surgery programs is largely unexplored. Objective: To determine the national prevalence of mistreatment and poor well-being for LGBTQ+ surgery residents compared with their non-LGBTQ+ peers. Design, Setting, and Participants: A voluntary, anonymous survey adapting validated survey instruments was administered to all clinically active general surgery residents training in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited general surgery programs following the 2019 American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination. Main Outcomes and Measures: Self-reported mistreatment, sources of mistreatment, perceptions of learning environment, career satisfaction, burnout, thoughts of attrition, and suicidality. The associations between LGBTQ+ status and (1) mistreatment, (2) burnout, (3) thoughts of attrition, and (4) suicidality were examined using multivariable regression models, accounting for interactions between gender and LGBTQ+ identity. Results: A total of 6956 clinically active residents completed the survey (85.6% response rate). Of 6381 respondents included in this analysis, 305 respondents (4.8%) identified as LGBTQ+ and 6076 (95.2%) as non-LGBTQ+. Discrimination was reported among 161 LGBTQ+ respondents (59.2%) vs 2187 non-LGBTQ+ respondents (42.3%; P < .001); sexual harassment, 131 (47.5%) vs 1551 (29.3%; P < .001); and bullying, 220 (74.8%) vs 3730 (66.9%; P = .005); attending surgeons were the most common overall source. Compared with non-LGBTQ+ men, LGBTQ+ residents were more likely to report discrimination (men: odds ratio [OR], 2.57; 95% CI, 1.78-3.72; women: OR, 25.30; 95% CI, 16.51-38.79), sexual harassment (men: OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.39-2.99; women: OR, 5.72; 95% CI, 4.09-8.01), and bullying (men: OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.07-2.12; women: OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.37-2.91). LGBTQ+ residents reported similar perceptions of the learning environment, career satisfaction, and burnout (OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 0.97-1.52) but had more frequent considerations of leaving their program (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.52-2.74) and suicide (OR, 1.95; 95% CI, 1.26-3.04). This increased risk of suicidality was eliminated after adjusting for mistreatment (OR, 1.47; 95% CI, 0.90-2.39). Conclusions and Relevance: Mistreatment is a common experience for LGBTQ+ surgery residents, with attending surgeons being the most common overall source. Increased suicidality among LGBTQ+ surgery residents is associated with this mistreatment. Multifaceted interventions are necessary to develop safer and more inclusive learning environments.

Experiences of Gender Discrimination and Sexual Harassment Among Residents in General Surgery Programs Across the US.

Importance: Mistreatment is a common experience among surgical residents and is associated with burnout. Women have been found to experience mistreatment at higher rates than men. Further characterization of surgical residents' experiences with gender discrimination and sexual harassment may inform solutions. Objective: To describe the types, sources, and factors associated with (1) discrimination based on gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation and (2) sexual harassment experienced by residents in general surgery programs across the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional national survey study was conducted after the 2019 American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination (ABSITE). The survey asked respondents about their experiences with gender discrimination and sexual harassment during the academic year starting July 1, 2018, through the testing date in January 2019. All clinical residents enrolled in general surgery programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education were eligible. Exposures: Specific types, sources, and factors associated with gender-based discrimination and sexual harassment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcome was the prevalence of gender discrimination and sexual harassment. Secondary outcomes included sources of discrimination and harassment and associated individual- and program-level factors using gender-stratified multivariable logistic regression models. Results: The survey was administered to 8129 eligible residents; 6956 responded (85.6% response rate)from 301 general surgery programs. Of those, 6764 residents had gender data available (3968 [58.7%] were male and 2796 [41.3%] were female individuals). In total, 1878 of 2352 female residents (79.8%) vs 562 of 3288 male residents (17.1%) reported experiencing gender discrimination (P < .001), and 1026 of 2415 female residents (42.5%) vs 721 of 3360 male residents (21.5%) reported experiencing sexual harassment (P < .001). The most common type of gender discrimination was being mistaken for a nonphysician (1943 of 5640 residents [34.5%] overall; 1813 of 2352 female residents [77.1%]; 130 of 3288 male residents [4.0%]), with patients and/or families as the most frequent source. The most common form of sexual harassment was crude, demeaning, or explicit comments (1557 of 5775 residents [27.0%] overall; 901 of 2415 female residents [37.3%]; 656 of 3360 male residents [19.5%]); among female residents, the most common source of this harassment was patients and/or families, and among male residents, the most common source was coresidents and/or fellows. Among female residents, gender discrimination was associated with pregnancy (odds ratio [OR], 1.93; 95% CI, 1.03-3.62) and higher ABSITE scores (highest vs lowest quartile: OR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.14-2.43); among male residents, gender discrimination was associated with parenthood (OR, 1.72; 95% CI, 1.31-2.27) and lower ABSITE scores (highest vs lowest quartile: OR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.43-0.76). Senior residents were more likely to report experiencing sexual harassment than interns (postgraduate years 4 and 5 vs postgraduate year 1: OR, 1.77 [95% CI, 1.40-2.24] among female residents; 1.31 [95% CI, 1.01-1.70] among male residents). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, gender discrimination and sexual harassment were common experiences among surgical residents and were frequently reported by women. These phenomena warrant multifaceted context-specific strategies for improvement.

Evidence Review for the American College of Surgeons Quality Verification Part II: Processes for Reliable Quality Improvement.

After decades of experience supporting surgical quality and safety by the American College of Surgeons, the American College of Surgeons Quality Verification Program was developed to help hospitals improve surgical quality, safety, and reliability. This review is the second of a 3-part review aiming to synthesize the evidence supporting the main principles of the American College of Surgeons Quality Verification Program. Evidence was systematically reviewed for 5 principles: case review, peer review, credentialing and privileging, data for surveillance, and continuous quality improvement using data. MEDLINE was searched for articles published from inception to January 2019 and 2 reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion in a hierarchical fashion, extracted data, and summarized results in a narrative fashion. A total of 9,098 studies across the 5 principles were identified. After exclusion criteria, a total of 184 studies in systematic reviews and primary studies were included for assessment. The identified literature supports the importance of standardized processes and systems to identify problems and improve quality of care.

NIH Funding for Surgeon-Scientists in the US: What Is the Current Status?

BACKGROUND: Recent literature suggests that the future of surgeon-scientists in the US has been threatened for the past several decades. However, we documented an overall increase in NIH funding for surgeon-scientists, as well as the number of NIH-funded surgeons, from 2010 to 2020. STUDY DESIGN: NIH-funded principal investigators (PIs) were identified for June 2010 and June 2020 using the NIH internal data platform iSearch Grants (version 2.4). Biographical sketches were searched for key terms to identify surgeon-scientists. Grant research types and total grant costs were collected. American Association of Medical Colleges data were used to determine total surgeon and physician populations. Bivariate chi-square analyses were performed using population totals and were corroborated using z-tests of population proportions using JMP (version 13.0.0). A 2-tailed p value <0.05 was considered significant. RESULTS: In June of 2020, a total of 1,031 surgeon-scientists held $872,456,710 in NIH funding. The percentage of funded surgeons significantly increased from 2010 (0.5%) to 2020 (0.7%) (p < 0.05), and the percentage of funded other physicians significantly decreased from 2.2% in 2010 to 1.6% in 2020 (p < 0.05). All surgeons sustained R grant funding at both time points (58% in 2020 and 60% in 2010), and specifically maintained basic science-focused R grants (73% in 2020 and 78% in 2010). CONCLUSIONS: Our study found surgeon-scientists are increasing in number and NIH funding and are becoming more diverse in their research efforts, while maintaining a focus on basic science.

Association of Surgical Resident Wellness With Medical Errors and Patient Outcomes.

OBJECTIVES: The aims of this study were to: (1) measure the prevalence of self-reported medical error among general surgery trainees, (2) assess the association between general surgery resident wellness (ie, burnout and poor psychiatric well-being) and self-reported medical error, and (3) examine the association between program-level wellness and objectively measured patient outcomes. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Poor wellness is prevalent among surgical trainees but the impact on medical error and objective patient outcomes (eg, morbidity or mortality) is unclear as existing studies are limited to physician and patient self-report of events and errors, small cohorts, or examine few outcomes. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was administered immediately following the January 2017 American Board of Surgery In-training Examination to clinically active general surgery residents to assess resident wellness and self-reported error. Postoperative patient outcomes were ascertained using a validated national clinical data registry. Associations were examined using multivariable logistic regression models. RESULTS: Over a 6-month period, 22.5% of residents reported committing a near miss medical error, and 6.9% reported committing a harmful medical error. Residents were more likely to report a harmful medical error if they reported frequent burnout symptoms [odds ratio 2.71 (95% confidence interval 2.16-3.41)] or poor psychiatric well-being [odds ratio 2.36 (95% confidence interval 1.92-2.90)]. However, there were no significant associations between program-level resident wellness and any of the independently, objectively measured postoperative American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality improvement Program outcomes examined. CONCLUSIONS: Although surgical residents with poor wellness were more likely to self-report a harmful medical error, there was not a higher rate of objectively reported outcomes for surgical patients treated at hospitals with higher rates of burnout or poor psychiatric well-being.

Evidence Review for the American College of Surgeons Quality Verification Part I: Building Quality and Safety Resources and Infrastructure.

Decades of quality program development by the American College of Surgeons (ACS) have identified the key components of a successful program for optimal surgical care and quality improvement. These key principles have been developed into a verification program-the ACS Quality Verification Program-to guide hospitals to improve surgical quality, safety, and reliability across all surgical specialties. The aim of this review was to synthesize the evidence supporting the first 4 of 12 ACS Quality Verification Program core principles of building quality and safety resources and infrastructure. MEDLINE was searched for articles published from inception to January 2019 for studies describing principles of leadership commitment to surgical quality and safety, a surgical quality officer, a surgical quality committee, and a culture of safety and high reliability. Two reviewers independently screened studies for inclusion in a hierarchical fashion, extracted data, and summarized results in a narrative fashion. A total of 5,332 studies across the 4 principles were identified. After exclusion criteria, a total of 477 studies in systematic reviews and primary studies were included for assessment. Despite heterogeneous study design and lack of randomized controlled trials, the available literature supports the importance of committed top-level hospital leadership, mid-level leadership, and committee dedicated to surgical quality and culture of safety and high reliability. In conclusion, adequate resources and infrastructure integral to the ACS Quality Verification Program are critical to achieving safe and high-quality surgical outcomes.

The American College of Surgeons Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic (Part III): Leadership in a Time of Crisis.

The response of the American College of Surgeons (ACS) to the COVID-19 pandemic was vigorous and effective because it had mature programs in surgical quality and health policy and advocacy, the legacy of decades of work by its officers and leaders and its current executive director, David Hoyt. Hoyt had the foresight to institute a digital communications platform upon which the College collected data for its clinical programs and conducted many of its meetings. Through internet portals, online communities, and social media it broadcasted news and information to the membership. When the global COVID-19 pandemic struck, the College was able to quickly mobilize its leaders and scientific experts to disseminate credible information, recommend protocols to maintain patient and provider safety in operating room environments, provide a rational scheme of prioritization of urgent surgical operations, and a sensible means of resumption of normal surgical practice. As the financial impact of the outbreak on surgical practice became apparent, the ACS represented the interests of surgeons in the White House, Capitol, federal agencies, and governors' mansions and statehouses. In an interview by Steven Wexner, a member of the ACS Board of Regents, Hoyt described the response of the ACS to an unprecedented threat to the surgical care of patients in the country and the world. His story demonstrates the legacy of credibility and professionalism built by decades of principled leadership of generations of officers and Regents of the College, and his own example of effective leadership in crisis.

Post Hepatectomy Liver Failure Risk Calculator for Preoperative and Early Postoperative Period Following Major Hepatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Post hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) is associated with significant perioperative morbidity and mortality. A tool to identify patients at risk for PHLF may allow for earlier intervention to mitigate its severity and help clinicians when counseling patients. Our objective was to develop a PHLF risk calculator. STUDY DESIGN: Patients who underwent hepatectomy for any indication from 2014 to 2017 were identified from ACS NSQIP. A multivariable logistic regression model was developed that included preoperative and intraoperative variables. Model fit was assessed for discrimination using the C-statistic, and calibration using Hosmer and Lemeshow (HL) Chi square. Validation of the calculator was performed utilizing tenfold cross validation. RESULTS: Among 15,636 hepatectomy patients analyzed, the overall incidence of clinically significant PHLF was 2.8%. Preoperative patient factors associated with increased PHLF were male gender, preoperative ascites within 30 days of surgery, higher ASA class, preoperative total bilirubin greater than 1.2 mg/dl, and AST greater than 40 units/l. Disease related factors associated with PHLF included histology, and use of neoadjuvant therapy. Intraoperative factors associated with PHLF were extent of resection, open surgical approach, abnormal liver texture, and biliary reconstruction. The calculator's C-statistic was 0.83 and the HL Chi square was 10.9 (p = 0.21) demonstrating excellent discrimination and calibration. On tenfold cross validation, the mean test group C-statistic was 0.82 and the HL p value was 0.26. CONCLUSION: We present a multi-institutional preoperative and early postoperative PHLF risk calculator, which demonstrated excellent discrimination and calibration. This tool can be used to help identify high-risk patients to facilitate earlier interventions.

Executive Summary: Collected Papers of the American College of Surgeons Metabolic Surgery Symposium.

On August 9-10, 2017, the American College of Surgeons hosted a symposium on metabolic surgery, with 12 follow-on papers published serially in the Bulletin of the College. The current synopsis outlines the varied contents of these papers, often in the original words of their authors, who are cited within their topic sections. Topics covered include the following: history and definition of metabolic surgery, bariatric surgery, international bariatric surgery, mechanisms of metabolic surgery, diabetes and the metabolic syndrome, frontiers of metabolic surgery, institutional collaborations, accreditations and quality initiatives, professional training, the role of the National Institutes of Health, and advocacy. Based on these insights, an enthusiastic affirmation for the future of metabolic surgery is warranted.