Surgeons' Perceptions Toward Providing Care for Diverse Patients: The Need for Cultural Dexterity Training.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to understand the experiences of surgical residents and faculty with treating culturally diverse patients, and identify recommendations for establishing and implementing structured cultural competency training. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Cultural competency training for medical professionals could reduce healthcare disparities, yet is currently not a standard part of surgical residency training. Few studies have explored the perspectives of surgical residents and faculty on the skills needed to provide cross-cultural care. STUDY DESIGN: A purposeful sample of surgical residents and faculty from 4 academic institutions was recruited for semistructured qualitative interviews. We developed an in-depth interview guide and performed interviews to thematic saturation. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using grounded theory methodology. RESULTS: We interviewed 16 attending surgeons and 15 surgical residents. Participant demographics were: male (51.6%), White (58.1%), Black (9.7%), Asian (22.5%), and Hispanic (9.7%). Four main themes emerged from the data: 1) aspects of culture that can inform patient care; 2) specific cultural challenges related to surgical care, including informed consent, pain management, difficult diagnoses and refusal of treatment, emergency situations, and end-of-life issues; 3) need for culturally competent care in surgery to navigate cultural differences; 4) perceived challenges and facilitators to incorporating cultural competency into the current training paradigm. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons identified the need to provide better cross-cultural care and proposed tenets for training. Based on these findings, we suggest the development and dissemination of a cultural dexterity training program that will provide surgeons with specific knowledge and skills to care for patients from diverse sociocultural backgrounds.

Effect of an equal-access military health system on racial disparities in colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening are frequently attributed to variations in insurance status. The objective of this study was to ascertain whether universal insurance would lead to more equitable utilization of CRC screening for black patients in comparison with white patients. METHODS: Claims data from TRICARE (insurance coverage for active, reserve, and retired members of the US Armed Services and their dependents) for 2007-2010 were queried for adults aged 50 years in 2007, and they were followed forward in time for 4 years (ages, 50-53 years) to identify their first lower endoscopy and/or fecal occult blood test (FOBT). Variations in CRC screening were compared with descriptive statistics and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Among the 24,944 patients studied, 69.2% were white, 20.3% were black, 4.9% were Asian, and 5.6% were other. Overall, 54.0% received any screening: 83.7% received endoscopy, and 16.3% received FOBT alone. Compared with whites, black patients had higher screening rates (56.5%) and had 20% higher risk-adjusted odds of being screened (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.11-1.29). Asian patients had a likelihood of screening similar to that of white patients (odds ratio [OR], 1.06; 95% CI, 0.92-1.23). Females (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.10-1.33), active-duty personnel (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.06-1.25), and officers (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.18-1.37) were also more likely to be screened. CONCLUSION: Within an equal-access, universal health care system, black patients had higher rates of CRC screening in comparison with prior reports and even in comparison with white patients within the population. These findings highlight the need to understand and develop meaningful approaches for promoting more equitable access to preventative care. Moreover, equal-access, universal health insurance for both the military and civilian populations can be presumed to improve access for underserved minorities.

The Cost of Complications Following Major Resection of Malignant Neoplasia.

BACKGROUND: Rising healthcare costs have led to increased focus on the need to achieve a higher "value of care." As value-maximization efforts expand to include more complex surgical patients, evidence to support meaningful implementation of complication-based initiatives is lacking. The objective of this study was to compare incremental costs of complications following major gastrointestinal (GI) resections for organ-specific malignant neoplasia using nationally representative data. METHODS: National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample data, 2001-2014, were queried for adult (≥ 18 years) patients undergoing major resections for malignant neoplasia. Based on system-based complications considered relevant to the long-term treatment of GI disease, stratified differences in risk-adjusted incremental hospital costs and complication probabilities were compared. Differences in surgical outcomes and costs over time were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 293,967 patients were included, weighted to represent 1,408,117 patients nationwide. One fourth (26.1%; 95% CI, 25.7-26.4%) experienced ≥ 1 pre-discharge complication (range, 45.3% esophagectomy to 24.0% rectal resection). Resultant annual risk-adjusted incremental hospital costs totaled $540 million nationwide (19.5% of the overall cost of care and an average of $20,900 per patient). Costs varied substantially with both cancer/resection type and complication group, ranging from $76.7 million for colectomies with infectious complications to $0.2 million for rectal resections with urinary complications. For each resection type, infectious ($154.7 million), GI ($85.5 million), and pulmonary ($77.9 million) complications were among the most significant drivers of increased hospital cost. CONCLUSIONS: Quantifying and comparing the impact of complications on an indication-specific level in more complex patients offers an important step toward allowing providers/payers to meaningfully prioritize the design of novel and adaptation of existing value-maximization approaches.

Differences in rural and urban outcomes: a national inspection of emergency general surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: About 19% of the United States population lives in rural areas and is served by only 10% of the physician workforce. If this misdistribution represents a shortage of available surgeons, it is possible that outcomes for rural patients may suffer. The objective of this study was to explore differences in outcomes for emergency general surgery (EGS) conditions between rural and urban hospitals using a nationally representative sample. METHODS: Data from the 2007-2011 National Inpatient Sample were queried for adult patients (≥18 years) with a primary diagnosis consistent with an EGS condition, as defined by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma. Urban and rural patients were matched on patient-level factors using coarsened exact matching. Differences in outcomes including mortality, morbidity, length of stay (LOS), and total cost of hospital care were assessed using multivariable regression models. Analogous counterfactual models were used to further examine hypothetical outcomes, assuming that all patients had been treated at urban centers. RESULTS: A total of 3,749,265 patients were admitted with an EGS condition during the study period. Of 3259 hospitals analyzed, 40.2% (n = 1310) were rural; they treated 14.6% of patients. Relative to urban centers, EGS patients treated at rural centers had higher odds of in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21-1.28) and lower odds of major complications (OR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.96-0.99). Rural patients had 0.51 d (95% CI: 0.50-0.53) shorter LOS and $744 (95% CI: 712-774) higher cost of hospitalization compared to urban patients. In counterfactual models overall odds of death decreased by 0.05%, whereas the overall odds of complications increased by 0.02%. Overall difference in LOS and total costs were comparable with absolute differences of 0.08 d and $98, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the statistically significant difference in mortality and cost of care at rural versus urban hospitals, the magnitude of absolute differences is sufficiently small to indicate limited clinical importance. Large urban centers are designed to manage complex cases, but our results suggest that for cases appropriate to treat in rural hospitals, equivalent outcomes are found. These findings will inform future work on rural outcomes and provide impetus for regionalization of care for complex EGS presentations.

Intraoperative cholangiography during cholecystectomy among hospitalized medicare beneficiaries with non-neoplastic biliary disease.

BACKGROUND: Prior studies of Medicare beneficiaries with both neoplastic and non-neoplastic indications for cholecystectomy demonstrated a reduced risk of common bile duct (CBD) injury when intraoperative cholangiography (IOC) was used. We sought to determine the association between IOC and CBD injury during inpatient cholecystectomy for non-neoplastic biliary disease and compare survival among those with or without CBD injury. METHODS: Retrospective study of patients ≥66 who underwent inpatient cholecystectomy (2005-2010) for gallstones, cholecystitis, cholangitis, or gallbladder obstruction. The association between IOC and CBD injury was analyzed using multivariable logistic regression and survival after cholecystectomy was analyzed using multivariable Cox regression. RESULTS: Among 472,367 patients who underwent cholecystectomy, 0.3% had a CBD injury. IOC was associated with increased CBD injury (adjusted OR 1.41[1.27-1.57]). CBD injury was associated with increased hazards of death (adjusted HR 1.37[1.25-1.51]). CONCLUSIONS: IOC in patients with non-neoplastic biliary disease was associated with increased odds of CBD injury. This likely reflects its selective use in patients at higher risk of CBD injury or as a confirmatory test when an injury is suspected.

"Taking over somebody's life": Experiences of surrogate decision-makers in the surgical intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Impaired capacity of patients necessitates the use of surrogates to make decisions on behalf of patients. Little is known about surrogate decision-making in the surgical intensive care unit, where the decline to critical illness is often unexpected. We sought to explore surrogate experiences with decision-making in the surgical intensive care unit. METHODS: This qualitative study was performed at 2 surgical intensive care units at a single, tertiary, academic hospital Surrogate decision-makers who had made a major medical decision for a patient in the surgical intensive care unit were identified and enrolled prospectively. Semistructured telephone interviews following an interview guide were conducted within 90 days after hospitalization until thematic saturation. Recordings were transcribed, coded inductively, and analyzed utilizing an interpretive phenomenologic approach. RESULTS: A major theme that emerged from interviews (N = 19) centered on how participants perceived the surrogate role, which is best characterized by 2 archetypes: (1) Preferences Advocates, who focused on patients' values; and (2) Clinical Facilitators, who focused on patients' medical conditions. The primary archetype of each surrogate influenced how they defined their role and approached decisions. Preferences Advocates framed decisions in the context of patients' values, whereas Clinical Facilitators emphasized the importance of clinical information. CONCLUSION: The experiences of surrogates in the surgical intensive care unit are related to their understanding of what it means to be a surrogate and how they fulfill this role. Future work is needed to identify and manage the informational needs of surrogate decision-makers.

Utility of the "Surprise" Question in Predicting Survival among Older Patients with Acute Surgical Conditions.

BACKGROUND: The surprise question is a validated tool for identifying patients with increased risk of death within one year who could, therefore, benefit from palliative care. However, its utility in surgery is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether the surprise question predicted 12-month mortality in older emergency general surgery patients. DESIGN: This was a prospective cohort study. SETTING/SUBJECTS: Emergency general surgery attendings and surgical residents in or beyond their third year of training at a single tertiary care academic hospital from January to July 2014. MEASUREMENTS: Surgeons responded to the surprise question within 72 hours of evaluating patients, ≥65 years, hospitalized with an acute surgical condition. Patient data, including demographic and clinical characteristics, were extracted from the medical record. Mortality within 12 months of initial evaluation was determined by using Social Security death data. RESULTS: Ten attending surgeons and 18 surgical residents provided 163 responses to the surprise question for 119 patients: 60% of responses were "No, I would not be surprised" and 40% were "Yes, I would be surprised." A "No" response was associated with increased odds of death within 12 months in binary logistic regression (OR 4.8 [95% CI 2.1-11.1]). CONCLUSIONS: The surprise question is a valuable tool for identifying older patients with higher risk of death, and it may be a useful screening criterion for older emergency general surgery patients who would benefit from palliative care evaluation.

Bariatric surgery outcomes in black patients with super morbid obesity: a 1-year postoperative review.

BACKGROUND: Super morbid obesity (body mass index [BMI] > 50 kg/m2) is associated with significant comorbidities and is disparagingly prevalent among the black population. There is paucity of data regarding bariatric surgery outcomes among super morbid obese (SMO) blacks. Our aim is to evaluate the reduction in weight and resolution of comorbidities after bariatric surgery among SMO black patients at an urban academic institution. METHODS: A retrospective review of SMO black patients who underwent bariatric surgery from August 2008 to June 2013 at Howard University Hospital. Outcomes of interest include weight loss, improvement or resolution of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and hyperlipidemia at 12 months. RESULTS: Eighty-seven patients met our inclusion criteria. Mean preoperative weight and BMI were 347.2 lbs and 56.8 kg/m2, respectively. At 12 months, mean weight and BMI were 245.3 lbs and 40.1 kg/m2, respectively. There was also significant improvement or resolution of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and hyperlipidemia. CONCLUSIONS: Bariatric surgery may result in significant weight loss and improvement or resolution of comorbidities in SMO black patients.

Educating the surgeon-scientist: A qualitative study evaluating challenges and barriers toward becoming an academically successful surgeon.

BACKGROUND: The advancement of surgical science relies on educating new generations of surgeon-scientists. Career development awards (K Awards) from the National Institutes of Health, often considered a marker of early academic success, are one way physician-scientists may foster skills through a mentored research experience. This study aimed to develop a conceptual framework to understand institutional support and other factors leading to a K Award. METHODS: A national, qualitative study was conducted with academic surgeons. Participants included 15 K Awardees and 12 surgery department Chairs. Purposive sampling ensured a diverse range of experiences. Semistructured, in-depth telephone interviews were conducted. Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim, and 2 reviewers analyzed the transcripts using Grounded Theory methodology. RESULTS: Participants described individual and institutional factors contributing to success. K Awardees cited personal factors such as perseverance and team leadership skills. Chairs described the K Awardee as an institutional "investment" requiring protected time for research, financial support, and mentorship. Both K Awardees and Chairs identified a number of challenges unique to the surgeon-scientist, including financial strains and competing clinical demands. CONCLUSION: Institutional support for surgeons pursuing K Awards is a complex investment with significant initial costs to the department. Chairs act as stewards of institutional resources and support those surgeon-scientists most likely to be successful. Although the K Award pathway is one way to develop surgeon-scientists, financial burdens and challenges may limit its usefulness. These findings, however, may better prepare young surgeons to develop career plans and identify new mechanisms for academic productivity.

Prioritizing qualitative research in surgery: A synthesis and analysis of publication trends.

BACKGROUND: Over the past 2 decades, researchers have recognized the value of qualitative research. Little has been done to characterize its application to surgery. We describe characteristics and overall prevalence of qualitative surgical research. METHODS: We searched PubMed and CINAHL using "surgery" and 7 qualitative methodology terms. Four researchers extracted information; a fifth researcher reviewed 10% of abstracts for inter-rater reliability. RESULTS: A total of 3,112 articles were reviewed. Removing duplicates, 28% were relevant (N = 878; κ = 0.70). Common qualitative methodologies included phenomenology (34.3%) and grounded theory (30.2%). Interviews were the most common data collection method (81.9%) of patients (64%) within surgical oncology (15.4%). Postdischarge was the most commonly studied topic (30.8%). Overall, 41% of studies were published in nursing journals, while 8% were published in surgical journals. More than half of studies were published since 2011. CONCLUSION: Results suggest qualitative surgical research is gaining popularity. Most is published in nonsurgical journals, however, utilizing only 2 methodologies (phenomenology, grounded theory). The surgical journals that have published qualitative research had study topics restricted to a handful of surgical specialties. Additional surgical qualitative research should take advantage of a greater variety of approaches to provide insight into rare phenomena and social context.

Setting a National Agenda for Surgical Disparities Research: Recommendations From the National Institutes of Health and American College of Surgeons Summit.

Health care disparities (differential access, care, and outcomes owing to factors such as race/ethnicity) are widely established. Compared with other groups, African American individuals have an increased mortality risk across multiple surgical procedures. Gender, sexual orientation, age, and geographic disparities are also well documented. Further research is needed to mitigate these inequities. To do so, the American College of Surgeons and the National Institutes of Health-National Institute of Minority Health and Disparities convened a research summit to develop a national surgical disparities research agenda and funding priorities. Sixty leading researchers and clinicians gathered in May 2015 for a 2-day summit. First, literature on surgical disparities was presented within 5 themes: (1) clinician, (2) patient, (3) systemic/access, (4) clinical quality, and (5) postoperative care and rehabilitation-related factors. These themes were identified via an exhaustive preconference literature review and guided the summit and its interactive consensus-building exercises. After individual thematic presentations, attendees contributed research priorities for each theme. Suggestions were collated, refined, and prioritized during the latter half of the summit. Breakout sessions yielded 3 to 5 top research priorities by theme. Overall priorities, regardless of theme, included improving patient-clinician communication, fostering engagement and community outreach by using technology, improving care at facilities with a higher proportion of minority patients, evaluating the longer-term effect of acute intervention and rehabilitation support, and improving patient centeredness by identifying expectations for recovery. The National Institutes of Health and American College of Surgeons Summit on Surgical Disparities Research succeeded in identifying a comprehensive research agenda. Future research and funding priorities should prioritize patients' care perspectives, workforce diversification and training, and systematic evaluation of health technologies to reduce surgical disparities.

Race and socioeconomic disparities in national stoma reversal rates.

BACKGROUND: Many temporary stomas are never reversed leading to significantly worse quality of life. Recent evidence suggests a lower rate of reversal among minority patients. Our study aimed to elucidate disparities in national stoma closure rates by race, medical insurance status, and household income. METHODS: Five years of data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample (2008 to 2012) was used to identify the annual rates of stoma formation and annual rates of stoma closure. Stomas labeled as "permanent" or those created secondary to colorectal cancers were excluded. Temporary stoma closure rates were calculated, and differences were tested with the chi-square test. Separate analyses were performed by race/ethnicity, insurance status, and household income. Nationally representative estimates were calculated using discharge-level weights. RESULTS: The 5-year average annual rate of temporary stoma creation was 76,551 per year (46% colostomies and 54% ileostomies). The annual rate of stoma reversal was 50,155 per year that equated to an annual reversal rate of 65.5%. Reversal rates were higher among white patients compared with black patients (67% vs 56%, P < .001) and among privately insured patients compared with uninsured patients (88% vs 63%, P < .001). Reversal rates increased as the household income increased from 61% in the lowest income quartile to 72% in the highest quartile (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Stark disparities exist in national rates of stoma closure. Stoma closure is associated with race, insurance, and income status. This study highlights the lack of access to surgical health care among patients of minority race and low-income status.

From understanding to action: interventions for surgical disparities.

BACKGROUND: Health care disparities are a well-documented phenomenon. Despite the development and implementation of multiple interventions, disparities in surgery have proven persistent. Thought to arise from a combination of patient, provider, and system-level factors, the objective of this study was to identify what is currently known about factors that influence surgical disparities and elucidate possible interventions to address them across four intervention-based themes: (1) condition-specific targeted interventions; (2) increased reliance on quantitative factors; (3) doctor-patient communication; and (4) cultural humility. DATA SOURCES: Articles were abstracted from PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library using controlled keyword vocabulary. CONCLUSIONS: There are various forms of interventions to address surgical disparities, spanning knowledge from disparate fields. Promising efforts have emerged towards the successful alleviation of disparities. In order to move the field of surgery from understanding of disparities towards actions to mitigate them, continued development of meaningful quality improvement initiatives are needed.

Evaluation of the Perceived Association Between Resident Turnover and the Outcomes of Patients Who Undergo Emergency General Surgery: Questioning the July Phenomenon.

IMPORTANCE: The influx of new surgical residents and interns at the beginning of the academic year is assumed to be associated with poor outcomes. Referred to as the July phenomenon, this occurrence has been anecdotally associated with increases in the frequency of medical errors due to intern inexperience. Studies in various surgical specialties provide conflicting results. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether an association between the July phenomenon and outcomes exists among a nationally representative sample of patients who underwent emergency general surgery (EGS). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective analysis of data from the 2007-2011 Nationwide Inpatient Sample. Data on adult patients (≥16 years of age) presenting to teaching hospitals with a principal diagnosis of an EGS condition, as defined by the American Association for the Surgery of Trauma, were retrospectively analyzed. The patients who were included in our study were dichotomized into early (July-August) vs late (September-June) management. The original analyses were conducted in March 2015. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Risk-adjusted multivariable regression based on calculated propensity scores was assessed for associations with differences in in-hospital mortality, complications, length of stay, and total hospital cost. RESULTS: A total of 1,433,528 patients who underwent EGS were included, weighted to represent 7,095,045 patients from 581 teaching hospitals nationwide; 17.6% were managed early. Relative to patients managed later, early patients had marginally lower risk-adjusted odds of mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.96 [95% CI, 0.92-0.99]), complications (OR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.96-0.99]), and developing a secondary EGS condition (OR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.97-0.98]). Length of stay and total hospital cost were comparable between the 2 groups (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Contrary to expectations, the EGS patients who were managed early fared equally well, if not better, than the EGS patients who were managed later. Potentially attributable to increased manpower and/or hypervigilance on the part of supervising senior residents or attending physicians, the results suggest that concerns among EGS patients related to the July phenomenon are unfounded.

Racial disparities in surgical outcomes: Does the level of resident surgeon play a role?

BACKGROUND: Despite recognition of racial/ethnic surgical disparities, few studies have considered the role of surgical residents. This study aimed to elucidate whether disparities in postoperative outcomes are associated with the presence/level of surgical residents involved in procedures. METHODS: Patients who were classified as having laparoscopic cholecystectomy, laparoscopic appendectomy, and open hernia repair in the 2005-2010 American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database were compared by level of provider (junior residents postgraduate year 1-2, senior residents, attending alone) for differences in patient demographics, clinical case-mix, and postoperative outcome information by the use of descriptive statistics and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 196,770 patients met inclusion criteria. Attendings performed 43.0% of operations alone (senior residents 37.5%, junior residents 20.1%), They operated on 44.1% white, 30.1% black, and 43.9% Hispanic patients compared with 35.5%, 48.7%, and 41.3% and 20.4%, 21.3%, and 14.8% for senior and junior residents, respectively. Compared with attendings alone, senior residents were more likely to operate on black patients (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.02, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.95-2.09) and have major (OR 1.13, 95% CI 1.06-1.21) and minor complications (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.11-1.31). Junior residents also were more likely to operate on black patients but did not experience significantly worse outcomes. CONCLUSION: Greater risk-adjusted odds of complications among patients treated by senior residents need to be carefully weighed given the group's higher likelihood of operating on minority patients.