Quality and safety interventions in surgery.

Medical errors resulting in treatment-related harm have been a challenge for many years, with particularly severe consequences in surgery. Efforts to improve safety should focus on system-based changes to response and rescue pathways, and will require further research and adequate engagement by clinical staff.

Consensus recommendations on how to assess the quality of surgical interventions.

Postoperative complications represent a major public health burden worldwide. Without standardized, clinically relevant and universally applied endpoints, the evaluation of surgical interventions remains ill-defined and inconsistent, opening the door for biased interpretations and hampering patient-centered health care delivery. We conducted a Jury-based consensus conference incorporating the perspectives of different stakeholders, who based their recommendations on the work of nine panels of experts. The recommendations cover the selection of postoperative outcomes from the perspective of patients and other stakeholders, comparison and interpretation of outcomes, consideration of cultural and demographic factors, and strategies to deal with unwarranted outcomes. With the recommendations developed exclusively by the Jury, we provide a framework for surgical outcome assessment and quality improvement after medical interventions, that integrates the main stakeholders' perspectives.

Surgical counting: design of implementation and maintenance of a standardized evidence-based procedure.

OBJECTIVES: to report the implementation and maintenance of an evidence-based Standard Operating Procedure for surgical counting performed at a teaching hospital. METHODS: a report of a project to implement evidence for surgical counting, carried out at a university hospital in December 2017, and the subsequent cycles for better performance of the implemented organizational document and maintenance of better results until March 2022. RESULTS: the report is divided into implementation project presentation and four other cycles after implementation, related to maintenance of improvements. It was possible to prepare a Standard Operating Procedure for Surgical Count, train the nursing team, carry out educational intervention for surgical teams. FINAL CONSIDERATIONS: there was an improvement in complying with the standardized procedure at the first moment and worsening in the period related to the pandemic. New efforts began again, including a self-instructive online course combined with first-time strategies.

Peer evaluation and feedback for invasive medical procedures: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is significant variability in the performance and outcomes of invasive medical procedures such as percutaneous coronary intervention, endoscopy, and bronchoscopy. Peer evaluation is a common mechanism for assessment of clinician performance and care quality, and may be ideally suited for the evaluation of medical procedures. We therefore sought to perform a systematic review to identify and characterize peer evaluation tools for practicing clinicians, assess evidence supporting the validity of peer evaluation, and describe best practices of peer evaluation programs across multiple invasive medical procedures. METHODS: A systematic search of Medline and Embase (through September 7, 2021) was conducted to identify studies of peer evaluation and feedback relating to procedures in the field of internal medicine and related subspecialties. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed. Data were extracted on peer evaluation methods, feedback structures, and the validity and reproducibility of peer evaluations, including inter-observer agreement and associations with other quality measures when available. RESULTS: Of 2,135 retrieved references, 32 studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, 21 were from the field of gastroenterology, 5 from cardiology, 3 from pulmonology, and 3 from interventional radiology. Overall, 22 studies described the development or testing of peer scoring systems and 18 reported inter-observer agreement, which was good or excellent in all but 2 studies. Only 4 studies, all from gastroenterology, tested the association of scoring systems with other quality measures, and no studies tested the impact of peer evaluation on patient outcomes. Best practices included standardized scoring systems, prospective criteria for case selection, and collaborative and non-judgmental review. CONCLUSIONS: Peer evaluation of invasive medical procedures is feasible and generally demonstrates good or excellent inter-observer agreement when performed with structured tools. Our review identifies common elements of successful interventions across specialties. However, there is limited evidence that peer-evaluated performance is linked to other quality measures or that feedback to clinicians improves patient care or outcomes. Additional research is needed to develop and test peer evaluation and feedback interventions.

For the People and the Profession.

In 1982 Dean Warren delivered the presidential address "Not for the Profession… For the People" in which he identified substandard surgical residency programs graduating residents who were unable to pass American Board of Surgery exams. Drs. Warren and Shires as members of the independent ACGME began to close the substandard programs in order to improve surgical care for average Americans i.e. "for the people". By 2003 these changes dramatically reduced the failure rate for the ABS exams and trained good surgeons who could operate independently however the residents were on duty for every other or every third night. In 2003 the ACGME mandated duty hour restrictions in order improve resident wellness and improve the training environment for the profession. However, work hour restrictions reduced the time surgical residents spent in the hospital environment primarily when residents had more autonomy and had exposure to emergency cases which degraded readiness for independent practice. Surgical educators in the 2 decades after the work hour restrictions have improved techniques of training so graduates could not only pass the board exams but also be prepared for independent practice. Surgical residency training has improved by both the changes implemented by the independent ACGME in 1981 and by the work hour restrictions mandated in 2003. Five recommendations are made to ensure that Dr Warren's culture of excellence in surgical training continues in an environment that enhances wellbeing of the trainee i.e. "For the People and the Profession".

Improving Surgical Quality for Patients With Mental Illnesses: A Narrative Review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify disparities in care for surgical patients with preexisting mental health diagnoses. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Mental illness affects approximately 6.7 million Canadians. For them, stigma, comorbid disorders, and sequelae of psychiatric diagnoses can be barriers to equitable health care. The goal of this review is to define inequities in surgical care for patients with preexisting mental illness. METHODS: We searched OVID Medline, Pubmed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane review files using a combination of search terms using a PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) model focusing on surgical care for patients with mental illness. RESULTS: The literature on mental illness in surgical patients focused primarily on preoperative and postoperative disparities in surgical care between patients with and without a diagnosis of mental illness. Preoperatively, patients were 7.5% to 40% less likely to be deemed surgical candidates, were less likely to receive testing, and were more likely to present at later stages of their disease or have delayed surgical care. Similar themes arose in the postoperative period: patients with mental illness were more likely to require ICU admission, were up to 3 times more likely to have a prolonged length of hospital stay, had a 14% to 270% increased likelihood of having postoperative complications, and had significantly higher health care costs. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical patients with preexisting psychiatric diagnoses have a propensity for worse perioperative outcomes compared to patients without reported mental illness. Taking a thorough psychiatric history can potentially help surgical teams address disparities in access to care as well as anticipate and prevent adverse outcomes.

The Quality of Operative Performance Narrative Feedback: A Retrospective Data Comparison Between End of Rotation Evaluations and Workplace-based Assessments.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the quality of operative performance feedback using evaluation tools commonly used by general surgery residency training programs. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The majority of surgical training programs administer an evaluation through which faculty members may rate and comment on trainee operative performance at the end of the rotation (EOR). Many programs have also implemented the system for improving and measuring procedural learning (SIMPL), a workplace-based assessment tool with which faculty can rate and comment on a trainee's operative performance immediately after a case. It is unknown how the quality of narrative operative performance feedback delivered with these tools compares. METHODS: The authors collected EOR evaluations and SIMPL narrative comments on trainees' operative performance from 3 university-based surgery training programs during the 2016-2017 academic year. Two surgeon raters categorized comments relating to operative skills as being specific or general and as encouraging and/or corrective. Comments were then classified as effective, mediocre, ineffective, or irrelevant. The frequencies with which comments were rated as effective were compared using Chi-square analysis. RESULTS: The authors analyzed a total of 600 comments. 10.7% of EOR and 58.3% of SIMPL operative performance evaluation comments were deemed effective (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Evaluators give significantly higher quality operative performance feedback when using workplace-based assessment tools rather than EOR evaluations.

A Review of PROM Implementation in Surgical Practice.

OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the current state of PROM implementation and collection in routine surgical practice through a review of the literature. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly relevant in the delivery of high quality, individualized patient care. For surgeons, PROMs can provide valuable insight into changes in patient quality of life before and after surgical interventions. Despite consensus within the surgical community regarding the promise of PROMs, little is known about their real-world implementation. METHODS: The literature search was conducted in MEDLINE and Embase for studies published after 2012. We conducted a scoping review to synthesize the current state of implementation of PROs across all sizes and types of surgical practices. Studies were included if they met the following inclusion criteria: (1) patients ≥18 years 2) routine surgical practice, (3) use of a validated PRO instrument in the peri-operative period to report on general or disease-specific health-related quality of life, (4) primary or secondary outcome was implementation. Two independent reviewers screened 1524 titles and abstracts. FINDINGS: 16 studies were identified that reported on the implementation of PROMs for surgical patients. Sample size ranged from 41 patients in a single-center pilot study to 1324 patients in a study across 17 institutions. PROs were collected pre-operatively in 3 studies, post-operatively in 10, and at unspecified times in 4. The most commonly reported implementation outcomes were fidelity (12) and feasibility (11). Less than half of studies analyzed nonrespondents. All studies concluded that collection of PROMs was successful based on outcomes measured. CONCLUSIONS: The identified studies suggest that implementation metrics including minimum standards of collection pre- and postintervention, reporting for response rates in the context of patient eligibility and analysis of respondents and nonrespondents, in addition to transparency regarding the resources utilized and cost, can facilitate adoption of PROMs in clinical care and accountability for surgical outcomes.

Validity Evidence for Procedure-specific Competence Assessment Tools in General Surgery: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to provide a focused and detailed assessment of the validity evidence supporting procedure-specific operative assessment tools in general surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Competency-based assessment tools should be supported by robust validity evidence to be used reliably for evaluation of operative skills. The contemporary framework of validity relies on five sources of evidence: content, response process, internal structure, relation to other variables, and consequences. METHODS: A systematic search of 8 databases was conducted for studies containing procedure-specific operative assessment tools in general surgery. The validity evidence supporting each tool was assessed and scored in alignment with the contemporary framework of validity. Methodological rigour of studies was assessed with the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument. The educational utility of each tool was assessed with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education framework. RESULTS: There were 28 studies meeting inclusion criteria and 23 unique tools were assessed. Scores for validity evidence varied widely between tools, ranging from 3 - 14 (maximum 15). Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument scores assessing the quality of study methodology were also variable (8.5-15.5, maximum 16.5). Direct reporting of educational utility criteria was limited. CONCLUSIONS: This study has identified a small group of procedure-specific operative assessment tools in general surgery. Many of these tools have limited validity evidence and have not been studied sufficiently to be used reliably in high-stakes summative assessments. As general surgery transitions to competency-based training, a more robust library of operative assessment tools will be required to support resident education and evaluation.

BJS commission on surgery and perioperative care post-COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic by the WHO on 11 March 2020 and global surgical practice was compromised. This Commission aimed to document and reflect on the changes seen in the surgical environment during the pandemic, by reviewing colleagues' experiences and published evidence. METHODS: In late 2020, BJS contacted colleagues across the global surgical community and asked them to describe how severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) had affected their practice. In addition to this, the Commission undertook a literature review on the impact of COVID-19 on surgery and perioperative care. A thematic analysis was performed to identify the issues most frequently encountered by the correspondents, as well as the solutions and ideas suggested to address them. RESULTS: BJS received communications for this Commission from leading clinicians and academics across a variety of surgical specialties in every inhabited continent. The responses from all over the world provided insights into multiple facets of surgical practice from a governmental level to individual clinical practice and training. CONCLUSION: The COVID-19 pandemic has uncovered a variety of problems in healthcare systems, including negative impacts on surgical practice. Global surgical multidisciplinary teams are working collaboratively to address research questions about the future of surgery in the post-COVID-19 era. The COVID-19 pandemic is severely damaging surgical training. The establishment of a multidisciplinary ethics committee should be encouraged at all surgical oncology centres. Innovative leadership and collaboration is vital in the post-COVID-19 era.

Novel method to link surgical trainee performance data to patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: A significant roadblock in surgical education research has been the inability to compare trainee performance to the outcomes of those surgeons after they enter independent practice. We describe the feasibility of an innovative method to link trainee performance data with patient outcomes. METHODS: We extracted surgeon NPI numbers from Medicare claims data for common general surgery procedures between 2007 and 2017. Next, American Board of Surgery (ABS) trainee performance data was cross-referenced with additional resources to supplement NPI data. The patient and trainee datasets were linked using NPI number and a linkage rate was calculated. RESULTS: We identified 12,952 unique surgeons in the Medicare file. Medicare surgeons were matched with ABS records by NPI number, with 96.2% (n = 12,460) of surgeons linked successfully. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated a novel process to link patient outcomes to trainee performance. This innovation can enable future research investigating the relationship between surgical trainee performance and patient outcomes in independent practice.

Impact of the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist Relative to Its Design and Intended Use: A Systematic Review and Meta-Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to identify what parts of the World Health Organization Surgical Safety Checklist (WHO SSC) are working, what can be done to make it more effective, and to determine if it achieved its intended effect relative to its design and intended use. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a qualitative thematic analysis and meta-meta-analyses of findings in WHO SSC systematic reviews following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. RESULTS: Twenty systematic reviews were included for qualitative thematic analysis. Narrative information was coded in 4 primary areas with a focus on impact of the WHO SSC. Four themes-Clinical Outcomes, Process Measures, Team Dynamics and Communication, and Safety Culture-pertained directly to the aims or purposes behind the development of the SSC. The other 2 themes-Efficiency and Workload involved in using the checklist and Checklist Impact on Institutional Practices-are associated with SSC use, but were not focal areas considered during its development. Included in the 20 systematic reviews were 24 unique observational cohort studies that reported pre-post data on a total of 18 clinical outcomes. Mortality, morbidity, surgical site infection, pneumonia, unplanned return to the operating room, urinary tract infection, blood loss requiring transfusion, unplanned intubation, and sepsis favored the use of the WHO SSC. Deep vein thrombosis was the only postoperative outcome assessed that did not favor use of the WHO SSC. CONCLUSIONS: The WHO SSC positively impacts the things it was explicitly designed to address and does not positively impact things it was not explicitly designed for.

Establishing the shadowline: the border between legally acceptable and unacceptable standards of surgical practice.

INTRODUCTION: Our study investigated how the standard of surgical care is assessed within the English and Welsh litigation process. The 'shadowline' represents the dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable standards of care. Our hypothesis was that different assessors risk adopting materially different interpretations regarding the acceptable standard of care. Any variation in the interpretation of where the shadowline falls will create uncertainty and unfairness to surgeons and patients alike. METHODS: We summarised the legal literature and suggested the factors affecting the assessment of surgical standards. We illustrated our findings on distribution curves. RESULTS: There was a risk that the shape of the curve and the location of the shadowline may vary according to the assessor. Importantly, a gap may have developed between the legal and clinical shadowlines in respect of the consenting process. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: We suggested how a gap between the surgical and legal shadow lines could be narrowed. Clinical governance, balanced literature and realistic expert assessments were all part of the solution.