Feeding Jejunostomy Tube Placed during Esophagectomy: Is There an Effect on Postoperative Outcomes?

BACKGROUND: Feeding jejunostomy (FJ) tubes are routinely placed during esophagectomy. However, their effect on immediate postoperative outcomes in this patient population is not clear. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of FJ tube placement during esophagectomy on postoperative morbidity and mortality. METHODS: The National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database was used to evaluate the effect of FJ tube placement during esophagectomy on 30-day postoperative morbidity and mortality rates. A propensity score-matched cohort was used to compare postoperative outcomes of patients with and without FJ tubes. RESULTS: An FJ tube was placed in 45% of 2059 patients undergoing esophagectomy. The anastomotic leak rate was 13.5%. Patients with FJ tubes were more likely to have preoperative radiation therapy (59.6% vs 54.9%, p = 0.041), transhiatal esophagectomy (21.5% vs 19.2%, p = 0.012), a malignant diagnosis (93.2% vs 90.4%), and longer operative time (393 min vs 348 min, p < 0.001). In a case-matched cohort, mortality (2% vs 2.4%, p = 0.618) and severe morbidity (38.2% vs 34.6%, p = 0.128) were comparable between patients with and without FJ tubes. FJ tube placement was associated with higher overall morbidity (46% vs 38.6%, p = 0.002), superficial wound infection (6.3% vs 2.9%, p = 0.001), and return to the operating room (16.7% vs 12.5%, p = 0.016). In a subgroup of patients with anastomotic leak, FJ was associated with shorter hospital stay (20.1 days vs 24.3 days, p = 0.046). CONCLUSION: These mixed findings support selective rather than routine FJ tube placement during esophagectomy.

Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Core Competencies at a Community Teaching Hospital: Is There a Gap in Awareness?

CONTEXT: Reports evaluating faculty knowledge of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) core competencies in community hospitals without a dedicated residency program are uncommon. OBJECTIVE: Faculty evaluation regarding knowledge of ACGME core competencies before a residency program is started. DESIGN: Physicians at the Kaiser Permanente Fontana Medical Center (N = 480) were surveyed for their knowledge of ACGME core competencies before starting new residency programs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Knowledge of ACGME core competencies. RESULTS: Fifty percent of physicians responded to the survey, and 172 (71%) of respondents were involved in teaching residents. Of physicians who taught residents and had complete responses (N = 164), 65 (39.7%) were unsure of their knowledge of the core competencies. However, most stated that they provided direct teaching to residents related to the knowledge, skills, and attitudes stated in each of the 6 competencies as follows: medical knowledge (96.3%), patient care (95.7%), professionalism (90.7%), interpersonal and communication skills (86.3%), practice-based learning (85.9%), and system-based practice (79.6%). Physician specialty, years in practice (1-10 vs > 10), and number of rotations taught per year (1-6 vs 7-12) were not associated with knowledge of the competencies (p > 0.05); however, full-time faculty (teaching 10-12 rotations per year) were more likely to provide competency-based teaching. CONCLUSION: Objective assessment of faculty awareness of ACGME core competencies is essential when starting a residency program. Discrepancy between knowledge of the competencies and acclaimed provision of competency-based teaching emphasizes the need for standardized teaching methods that incorporate the values of these competencies.