Patients' experiences receiving cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study

Background: In response to COVID-19, Quebec repurposed surgical care infrastructure and delayed many elective cancer surgeries. However, postponing cancer surgery is known to cause anxiety and distress. Methods: A qualitative study was conducted to understand patients experiences receiving surgical cancer treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients who underwent general surgery for cancer at the McGill University Health Centre between March 2020 and January 2021 were invited to one-to-one interviews. Patients were purposefully selected for maximum variation using quota sampling (i.e., targeting delay status, pandemic phase, cancer site, and clinical/ demographic characteristics) until interviews produced no new information (i.e., thematic saturation). Interviews were conducted using a semistructured guide, audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed independently by 2 researchers. Data were managed using MAXQDA2020 and analyzed according to inductive thematic analysis. Results: Interviews were conducted with 20 patients (mean age 64 yr;10 males;cancer sites: 8 breast, 4 skin, 4 hepato-pancreato-biliary, 2 colorectal, and 2 gastroesophageal). Surgery was delayed for 14 patients: 8 by the hospital, 4 by the patient, and 2 owing to a positive COVID-19 test. Thematic analysis revealed that patients considered their susceptibility to infection, hospital safety measures, and burden on health care resources when determining willingness to undergo surgery. Patients weighed these risks against the urgency of their health condition and recommendations of their provider. Changes to the hospital environment (e.g., COVID-19 preventative measures) and deviations from expected treatment (e.g., alternative treatments, remote consultations, rescheduled care) caused diverse psychological responses, ranging from increased satisfaction to severe distress. Patients employed coping strategies (e.g., reframing care interruptions, communicating with clinicians, information seeking) to mitigate distress. Conclusion: Changes in care during the pandemic elicited diverse psychological responses from patients undergoing cancer surgery. Patient coping was facilitated by open, consistent communication with clinicians, emphasizing the importance of patient-centred discussions regarding surgical delays within and beyond the pandemic.

Rethinking how health care professionals cope with stress: A process model for COVID-19 and beyond.

ISSUE: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, there was evidence of challenges surrounding the psychological well-being of health care professionals (HCPs). HCPs already frayed psychological ability to cope risks being further compromised by COVID-19-related stresses. CRITICAL THEORETICAL ANALYSIS: Most research on stress, psychological distress, and coping among HCPs is done in a piecemeal manner without a theoretical model connecting these different but related phenomena. This critical advancement article aims to apply and extend Wheaton and Montazer's model of stressors, stress, and distress to the literature on HCPs, generally, and COVID-19, specifically, to summarize past and guide future research on HCPs' mental health, resilience, and coping. Our model describes how different sources of support buffer the effect of stressors on stress and how coping strategies moderate the effect of stress on psychological distress. ADVANCE: We extended the model by (a) distinguishing context from the support in HCPs' environment; (b) distinguishing adaptive from maladaptive coping strategies and their relationships with antecedents and outcomes; (c) describing the adverse impacts that psychological distress has on patients, HCPs, and health services; and (d) describing how such outcomes can become stressors, in turn, further contributing to HCPs' stress in a vicious cycle. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Our model provides a broader perspective of HCPs' work-related mental health and helps guide the creation, implementation, and evaluation of different sources of support and promote adaptive coping strategies. This model helps HCPs, researchers, and health services managers better understand and respond to the well-being crisis HCPs are facing, especially during the pandemic.

Reciprocal peer coaching for practice improvement in surgery: a pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Peer coaching has been associated with much higher rates of practice changes and new skill implementation compared to common used modalities but bilateral peer coaching structures where seniority is not a requirement to coach have not been studied. The purpose of this study was to implement and evaluate a reciprocal peer coaching pilot program for practicing surgeons to inform future coaching program design. METHODS: A multicenter reciprocal peer surgical coaching program was designed according to the framework developed from previous studies by our group. The coach-coachee matching process was voluntary and autonomous. All participants received basic coaching skills training. Pairs were instructed to complete two coaching sessions, alternating between the coach or coachee role for each session. Data were collected through questionnaires and structured interviews. RESULTS: Twenty-two participants enrolled in the pilot study and completed the coach training (88% enrollment rate). During the first wave of COVID-19, 12 participants withdrew. Of the five pairs that completed the program, three pairs were composed of general surgeons, one of orthopedic surgeons, and one ophthalmologic surgeon. Three sessions were conducted live in the OR, five virtually, and one involved an in-person discussion. Overall satisfaction with the program was high and all participants expectations were met. Participants were significantly more likely to predict "routinely" asking for feedback from their partner after study completion (6, 66%) compared to pre-intervention (p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: This pilot study supports the feasibility of a peer coaching model for surgeons in practice that emphasized reciprocity and participant autonomy. These key elements should be considered when designing future coaching programs.

Development of a simulation curriculum to teach and assess advanced laparoscopic suturing skills using telesimulation: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Telesimulation helps overcome limitations in time and local expertise by eliminating the need for the learner and educator to be physically co-located, especially important during COVID-19. We investigated whether teaching advanced laparoscopic suturing (ALS) through telesimulation is feasible, effective, and leads to improved suturing in the operating room (OR). METHODS: In this prospective feasibility study, three previously developed 3D-printed ALS tasks were used: needle handling (NH), suturing under tension (UT), and continuous suturing (CS). General surgery residents (PGY4-5) underwent 1-month of telesimulation training, during which an expert educator at one site remotely trained residents at the other site over 2-3 teaching sessions. Trainees were assessed in the three tasks and in the OR at three time points: baseline(A1), control period(A2), and post-intervention(A3) and completed questionnaires regarding educational value and usability of telesimulation. Paired t-test was used to compare scores between the three assessment points. RESULTS: Six residents were included. Scores for UT improved significantly post-intervention A3(568 ± 60) when compared to baseline A1(416 ± 133) (p < 0.019). Similarly, scores for CS improved significantly post-intervention A3(756 ± 113) vs. baseline A1(539 ± 211) (p < 0.02). For intraoperative assessments, scores improved significantly post-intervention A3(21 ± 3) when compared to both A1(17 ± 4) (p < 0.018) and A2(18 ± 4) (p < 0.0008). All residents agreed that tasks were relevant to practice, helped improve technical competence, and adequately measured suturing skill. All residents found telesimulation easy to use, had strong educational value, and want the system to be incorporated into their training. CONCLUSION: The use of telesimulation for remotely training residents using ALS tasks was feasible and effective. Residents found value in training using the tasks and telesimulation system, and improved ALS skills in the OR. As the pandemic has caused a major structural shift in resident education, telesimulation can be an effective alternative to on-site simulation programs. Future research should focus on how telesimulation can be effectively incorporated into training programs.

Nurses' and Physicians' Distress, Burnout, and Coping Strategies During COVID-19: Stress and Impact on Perceived Performance and Intentions to Quit.

INTRODUCTION: Health care providers (HCPs) have experienced more stress and burnout during COVID-19 than before. We compared sources and levels of stress, distress, and approaches to coping between nurses and physicians, and examined whether coping strategies helped mitigate the negative impact of stress and intentions to quit. METHODS: Using a cross-sectional study design, burnout was measured with the Maslach Burnout Inventory. Psychological distress was measured using the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale. A self-reported survey was used to evaluate stressors, impact on perceived performance, and intentions to quit. The data were analyzed using t-tests and linear regression models. RESULTS: Responses of 119 HCPs were analyzed. Findings suggest that (1) compared to physicians, nurses experienced a higher level of distress and burnout, and used more maladaptive coping strategies. (2) Both nurses and physicians experienced more distress and burnout during COVID-19 than before. (3) Adaptive coping strategies moderated the negative impact of stress on work performance (4) Adaptive coping strategies moderated the negative effect of stress on burnout, which in turn reduced intentions to quit. Stress negatively impacted work performance and burnout only for those with low, but not high, levels of adaptive coping strategies. DISCUSSION: The current findings of HCPs' challenges, risks, and protective factors provide valuable information (1) on COVID-19's impact on HCPs, (2) to guide the distribution of institutional supportive efforts and recommend adaptive coping strategies, and (3) to inform medical education, such as resilience training, focusing on adaptive coping approaches.

Evaluations of Healthcare Providers' Perceived Support From Personal, Hospital, and System Resources: Implications for Well-Being and Management in Healthcare in Montreal, Quebec, During COVID-19.

Increased stressful experiences are pervasive among healthcare providers (HCPs) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Identifying resources that help mitigate stress is critical to maintaining HCPs' well-being. However, to our knowledge, no instrument has systematically examined how different levels of resources help HCPs cope with stress during COVID-19. This cross-sectional study involved 119 HCPs (64 nurses and 55 physicians) and evaluated the perceived availability, utilization, and helpfulness of a list of personal, hospital, and healthcare system resources. Participants also reported on their level of burnout, psychological distress, and intentions to quit. Results revealed that HCPs perceived the most useful personal resource to be family support; the most useful hospital resources were a safe environment, personal protective equipment, and support from colleagues; the most useful system resources were job protection, and clear communication and information about COVID. Moreover, HCPs who perceived having more available hospital resources also reported lower levels of psychological distress symptoms, burnout, and intentions to quit. Finally, although training and counseling services were perceived as useful to reduce stress, training was not perceived as widely available, and counseling services, though reported as being available, were underutilized. This instrument helps identify resources that support HCPs, providing implications for healthcare management.

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.

The COVID-19 reset: lessons from the pandemic on Burnout and the Practice of Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Burnout among physicians is an increasing concern, and surgeons are not immune to this threat. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has caused dramatic changes to surgeon workflow, often leading to redeployment to other clinical areas, slowdown and shutdown of elective surgery practices, and an uncertain future of surgical practice in the post-pandemic setting. Paradoxically, for many surgeons who had to prepare for but not immediately care for a major surge, the crisis did allow for reflective opportunities and a resetting of priorities that could serve to mitigate chronic patterns contributory to Burnout. METHODS: SAGES Reimagining the Practice of Surgery task force convened a webinar to discuss lessons learned from the COVID pandemic that may address burnout. RESULTS: Burnout is multifactorial and may vary in cause among different generation/experience groups. Those that report burnout symptoms often complain of lacking purpose or meaning in their work. Although many mechanisms to address Burnout are from a defensive standpoint-including coping mechanisms, problem solving, and identification of a physician having wellness difficulties-offensive mechanisms such as pursuing purpose and meaning and finding joy in one's work can serve as reset points that promote thriving and fulfillment. Understanding what motivates physicians will help physician leaders to develop and sustain effective teams. Reinvigorating the surgical workforce around themes of meaning and joy in the service rendered via our surgical skills may diminish Burnout through generative and aspirational strategies, as opposed to merely reactive ones. Fostering an educational environment free of discriminatory or demeaning behavior may produce a new workforce conducive to enhanced and resilient wellbeing at the start of careers. CONCLUSION: Surgeon wellness and self-care must be considered an important factor in the future of all healthcare delivery systems, a need reaffirmed by the COVID-19 pandemic.

SAGES and EAES recommendations for minimally invasive surgery during COVID-19 pandemic.

The unprecedented pandemic of COVID-19 has impacted many lives and affects the whole healthcare systems globally. In addition to the considerable workload challenges, surgeons are faced with a number of uncertainties regarding their own safety, practice, and overall patient care. This guide has been drafted at short notice to advise on specific issues related to surgical service provision and the safety of minimally invasive surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although laparoscopy can theoretically lead to aerosolization of blood borne viruses, there is no evidence available to confirm this is the case with COVID-19. The ultimate decision on the approach should be made after considering the proven benefits of laparoscopic techniques versus the potential theoretical risks of aerosolization. Nevertheless, erring on the side of safety would warrant treating the coronavirus as exhibiting similar aerosolization properties and all members of the OR staff should use personal protective equipment (PPE) in all surgical procedures during the pandemic regardless of known or suspected COVID status. Pneumoperitoneum should be safely evacuated via a filtration system before closure, trocar removal, specimen extraction, or conversion to open. All emergent endoscopic procedures performed during the pandemic should be considered as high risk and PPE must be used by all endoscopy staff.