Establishing the Essential Role of Household Extenders for Surgeon Wellbeing.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the association between a change in household support during the Covid-19 pandemic and surgeon stress. BACKGROUND: The hours and unpredictability of surgical practice often necessitate the employment of household extenders (eg, child caregivers) to maintain a safe home environment for surgeons and their families. The Covid-19 pandemic destabilized these relationships and provided an opportunity to reflect on the role that household extenders play in a surgical household. METHODS: A multi-institutional telephone survey of surgeons practicing at five geographically diverse academic institutions was conducted (May 15, 2020-June 5, 2020). Surgeons were classified by change in household extenders (HE) during the pandemic (decrease, increase, no change, or none). The primary outcome was self-reported surgeon stress level. Multivariable linear regression was used to examine the relationship between change in HE and surgeon stress, adjusting for training and relationship status, the presence of pets and children in the household, and study site. RESULTS: The majority (182, 54.3%) of surgeons employed HE before the pandemic; 121 (36.1%) reported a decrease in HE during the pandemic, 9 (2.7%) reported an increase, and 52 (15.5%) reported no change. Stress scores varied significantly by change in HE group (P = 0.016). After controlling for potential confounders, having an increase in HE was associated with a higher stress score (+1.55 points) than having no decrease in HE (P = 0.033), and having a decrease in HE was associated with a higher stress score (+0.96 points) than having no decrease (P = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Household extenders play a vital and complex role in enabling the healthcare workforce to care of the population. Surgeons who experienced a change in household extenders reported the highest stress levels. We suggest that health systems should proactively support surgeons by supporting the household extender workforce.

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on opioid overdose and other adverse events in the USA and Canada: a systematic review.

IMPORTANCE: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted healthcare beyond COVID-19 infections. A better understanding of how COVID-19 worsened the opioid crisis has potential to inform future response efforts. OBJECTIVE: To summarize changes from the COVID-19 pandemic on outcomes regarding opioid use and misuse in the USA and Canada. EVIDENCE REVIEW: We searched MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL for peer-reviewed articles published between March 2020 and December 2021 that examined outcomes relevant to patients with opioid use, misuse, and opioid use disorder by comparing the period before vs after COVID-19 onset in the USA and Canada. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, assessed methodological quality and bias via Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and synthesized results. FINDINGS: Among 20 included studies, 13 (65%) analyzed service utilization, 6 (30%) analyzed urine drug testing results, and 2 (10%) analyzed naloxone dispensation. Opioid-related emergency medicine utilization increased in most studies (85%, 11/13) for both service calls (17% to 61%) and emergency department visits (42% to 122%). Urine drug testing positivity results increased in all studies (100%, 6/6) for fentanyl (34% to 138%), most (80%, 4/5) studies for heroin (-12% to 62%), and most (75%, 3/4) studies for oxycodone (0% to 44%). Naloxone dispensation was unchanged and decreased in one study each. INTERPRETATION: Significant increases in surrogate measures of the opioid crisis coincided with the onset of COVID-19. These findings serve as a call to action to redouble prevention, treatment, and harm reduction efforts for the opioid crisis as the pandemic evolves. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021236464.

Opioid and benzodiazepine prescribing after COVID-19 hospitalization.

Opioid and benzodiazepine prescribing after COVID-19 hospitalization is not well understood. We aimed to characterize opioid and benzodiazepine prescribing among naïve patients hospitalized for COVID and to identify the risk factors associated with a new prescription at discharge. In this retrospective study of patients across 39 Michigan hospitals from March to November 2020, we identified 857 opioid- and benzodiazepine-naïve patients admitted with COVID-19 not requiring mechanical ventilation. Of these, 22% received opioids, 13% received benzodiazepines, and 6% received both during the hospitalization. At discharge, 8% received an opioid prescription, and 3% received a benzodiazepine prescription. After multivariable adjustment, receipt of an opioid or benzodiazepine prescription at discharge was associated with the length of inpatient opioid or benzodiazepine exposure. These findings suggest that hospitalization represents a risk of opioid or benzodiazepine initiation among naïve patients, and judicious prescribing should be considered to prevent opioid-related harms.

Longitudinal evaluation of the surgical workforce experience during the Covid-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: An updated examination of the surgeon experience during the Covid-19 pandemic is lacking. This study sought to describe how surgeon stress levels and sources of stress evolved over the pandemic. METHODS: An electronic survey was administered to surgeons at four academic hospitals at 6-months and 12-months following an initial telephone survey. The primary outcome was stress level and secondary outcomes were the individual stressors. Thematic analysis was applied to free text responses. RESULTS: A total of 103 and 53 responses were received at 6-months and 12-months, respectively. The mean overall stress level was 5.35 (SD 1.89) at 6-months and 4.83 (SD 2.19) at 12-months. Mean number of stressors declined from 3.77 (SD 2.39) to 2.06 (SD 1.60, P < 0.001), though the "finances" stressor increased frequency (27.2% to 34.0%). Similar qualitative themes were identified, however codes for financial and capacity challenges were more prominent at 12-months. CONCLUSIONS: The surgical workforce continues to report elevated levels of stress, though the sources of this stress have changed. Targeted interventions are imperative to protect surgeons from long-term psychological and financial harm.

Overcoming COVID-19: Strategies to Mitigate the Perpetuated Gender Achievement Gap.

Sex inequity in academic achievement was well documented before the COVID-19 pandemic, and evolving data suggest that women in academic surgery are disproportionately disadvantaged by the pandemic. This perspective piece reviews currently accepted solutions to the sex achievement gap, with their associated shortcomings. We also propose innovative strategies to overcoming barriers to sex equity in academic medicine that broadly fall into three categories: strategies to mitigate inequitable caregiving responsibilities, strategies to reduce cognitive load, and strategies to value uncompensated, impactful work. These approaches address inequities at the system-level, as opposed to the individual-level, lifting the burden of changing the system from women.

The Relationship Between Surgeon Gender and Stress During the Covid-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between surgeon gender and stress during the Covid-19 pandemic. BACKGROUND: Although female surgeons face difficulties integrating work and home in the best of times, the Covid-19 pandemic has presented new challenges. The implications for the female surgical workforce are unknown. METHODS: This cross-sectional, multi-center telephone survey study of surgeons was conducted across 5 academic institutions (May 15-June 5, 2020). The primary outcome was maximum stress level, measured using the validated Stress Numerical Rating Scale-11. Mixed-effects generalized linear models were used to estimate the relationship between surgeon stress level and gender. RESULTS: Of 529 surgeons contacted, 337 surgeons responded and 335 surveys were complete (response rate 63.7%). The majority of female respondents were housestaff (58.1%), and the majority of male respondents were faculty (56.8%) (P = 0.008). A greater proportion of male surgeons (50.3%) than female surgeons (36.8%) had children ≤18 years (P = 0.015). The mean maximum stress level for female surgeons was 7.51 (SD 1.49) and for male surgeons was 6.71 (SD 2.15) (P < 0.001). After adjusting for the presence of children and training status, female gender was associated with a significantly higher maximum stress level (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings that women experienced more stress than men during the Covid-19 pandemic, regardless of parental status, suggest that there is more to the gendered differences in the stress experience of the pandemic than the added demands of childcare. Deliberate interventions are needed to promote and support the female surgical workforce during the pandemic.

Exploring the Experience of the Surgical Workforce During the Covid-19 Pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on the stress levels and experience of academic surgeons by training status (eg, housestaff or faculty). BACKGROUND: Covid-19 has uniquely challenged and changed the United States healthcare system. A better understanding of the surgeon experience is necessary to inform proactive workforce management and support. METHODS: A multi-institutional, cross-sectional telephone survey of surgeons was conducted across 5 academic medical centers from May 15 to June 5, 2020. The exposure of interest was training status. The primary outcome was maximum stress level, measured using the validated Stress Numerical Rating Scale-11 (range 0-10). RESULTS: A total of 335 surveys were completed (49.3% housestaff, 50.7% faculty; response rate 63.7%). The mean maximum stress level of faculty was 7.21 (SD 1.81) and of housestaff was 6.86 (SD 2.06) (P = 0.102). Mean stress levels at the time of the survey trended lower amongst housestaff (4.17, SD 1.89) than faculty (4.56, SD 2.15) (P = 0.076). More housestaff (63.6%) than faculty (40.0%) reported exposure to individuals with Covid-19 (P < 0.001). Subjects reported inadequate personal protective equipment in approximately a third of professional exposures, with no difference by training status (P = 0.557). CONCLUSIONS: During the early months of the Covid-19 pandemic, the personal and professional experiences of housestaff and faculty differed, in part due to a difference in exposure as well as non-work-related stressors. Workforce safety, including adequate personal protective equipment, expanded benefits (eg, emergency childcare), and deliberate staffing models may help to alleviate the stress associated with disease resurgence or future disasters.

Patient and provider perspectives of a new prenatal care model introduced in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials document the safety and efficacy of reduced frequency prenatal visit schedules and virtual visits, but real-world data are lacking. Our institution created a prenatal care delivery model incorporating these alternative approaches to continue safely providing prenatal care during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate institutional-level adoption and patient and provider experiences with the coronavirus disease 2019 prenatal care model. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a single-site evaluation of a coronavirus disease 2019 prenatal care model incorporating a reduced frequency visit schedule and virtual visits deployed at a suburban academic institution on March 20, 2020. We used electronic health record data to evaluate institution-level model adoption, defined as changes in overall visit frequency and proportion of virtual visits in the 3 months before and after implementation. To evaluate the patient and provider experience with the coronavirus disease 2019 model, we conducted an online survey of all pregnant patients (>20 weeks' gestation) and providers in May 2020. Of note, 3 domains of care experience were evaluated: (1) access, (2) quality and safety, and (3) satisfaction. Quantitative data were analyzed with basic descriptive statistics. Free-text responses coded by the 3 survey domains elucidated drivers of positive and negative care experiences. RESULTS: After the coronavirus disease 2019 model adoption, average weekly prenatal visit volume fell by 16.1%, from 898 to 761 weekly visits; the average weekly proportion of prenatal visits conducted virtually increased from 10.8% (97 of 898) to 43.3% (330 of 761); and the average visit no-show rate remained stable (preimplementation, 4.3%; postimplementation, 4.2%). Of those eligible, 74.8% of providers (77 of 103) and 15.0% of patients (253 of 1690) participated in the surveys. Patient respondents were largely white (180 of 253; 71.1%) and privately insured (199 of 253; 78.7%), reflecting the study site population. The rates of chronic conditions and pregnancy complications also differed from national prevalence. Provider respondents were predominantly white (44 of 66; 66.7%) and female (50 of 66; 75.8%). Most patients and almost all providers reported that virtual visits improved access to care (patients, 174 of 253 [68.8%]; providers, 74 of 77 [96.1%]). More than half of respondents (patients, 124 of 253 [53.3%]; providers, 41 of 77 [62.1%]) believed that virtual visits were safe. Nearly all believed that home blood pressure cuffs were important for virtual visits (patients, 213 of 231 [92.2%]; providers, 63 of 66 [95.5%]). Most reported satisfaction with the coronavirus disease 2019 model (patients, 196 of 253 [77.5%]; providers, 64 of 77 [83.1%]). In free-text responses, drivers of positive care experiences were similar for patients and providers and included perceived improved access to care through decreased barriers (eg, transportation, childcare), perceived high quality of virtual visits for low-risk patients and increased safety during the pandemic, and improved satisfaction through better patient counseling. Perceived drivers of negative care experience were also similar for patients and providers, but less common. These included concerns that unequal access to virtual visits could deepen existing maternity care inequities, concerns that the lack of home devices (eg, blood pressure cuffs) would affect care quality and safety, and dissatisfaction with poor patient-provider continuity and inadequate expectation setting for the virtual visit experience. CONCLUSION: Reduced visit schedules and virtual visits were rapidly integrated into real-world care, with positive experiences for many patients and providers. Future research is needed to understand the health outcomes and care experience associated with alternative approaches to prenatal care delivery across more diverse patient populations outside of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic to inform broader health policy decisions.