Adapting the World Health Organization's Surgical Safety Checklist to High-Income Settings: A Hybrid Effectiveness-Implementation Trial Protocol.

Objectives: The proposed study aims to assess users' perceptions of a surgical safety checklist (SSC) reimplementation toolkit and its impact on SSC attitudes and operating room (OR) culture, meaningful checklist use, measures of surgical safety, and OR efficiency at 3 different hospital sites. Background: The High-Performance Checklist toolkit (toolkit) assists surgical teams in modifying and implementing or reimplementing the World Health Organization's SSC. Through the explore, prepare, implement, and sustain implementation framework, the toolkit provides a process and set of tools to facilitate surgical teams' modification, implementation, training on, and evaluation of the SSC. Methods: A pre-post intervention design will be used to assess the impact of the modified SSC on surgical processes, team culture, patient experience, and safety. This mixed-methods study includes quantitative and qualitative data derived from surveys, semi-structured interviews, patient focus groups, and SSC performance observations. Additionally, patient outcome and OR efficiency data will be collected from the study sites' health surveillance systems. Data analysis: Statistical data will be analyzed using Statistical Product and Service Solutions, while qualitative data will be analyzed thematically using NVivo. Furthermore, interview data will be analyzed using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance implementation frameworks. Setting: The toolkit will be introduced at 3 diverse surgical sites in Alberta, Canada: an urban hospital, university hospital, and small regional hospital. Anticipated impact: We anticipate the results of this study will optimize SSC usage at the participating surgical sites, help shape and refine the toolkit, and improve its usability and application at future sites.

Going beyond compliance: A qualitative study of the practice of surgical safety checklist.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) is a tool designed to enhance team communication and patient safety. When used properly, the SSC acts as a layer of defence against never events. In this study, we performed secondary qualitative analysis of operating theatres (OT) SSC observational notes to examine how the SSC was used after an intensive SSC re-implementation effort and drew on relevant theories to shed light on the observed patterns of behaviours. We aimed to go beyond assessing checklist compliance and to understand potential sociopsychological mechanisms of the variations in SSC practices. METHODS: Direct observation notes of 109 surgical procedures across 13 surgical disciplines were made by two trained nurses in the OT of a large tertiary hospital in Singapore from February to April 2022, three months after SSC re-implementation. Only notes relevant to the use of SSC were extracted and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. Data were coded following an inductive process to identify themes or patterns of SSC practices. These patterns were subsequently interpreted against a relevant theory to appreciate the potential sociopsychological forces behind them. RESULTS: Two broad types of SSC practices and their respective sub-themes were identified. Type 1 (vs. Type 2) SSC practices are characterized by patience and thoroughness (vs. hurriedness and omission) in carrying out the SSC process, dedication and attention (vs. delegation and distraction) to the SSC safety checks, and frequent (vs. absence of) safety voices during the conduct of SSC. These patterns were conceptualized as safety-seeking action vs. ritualistic action using Merton's social deviance theory. CONCLUSION: Ritualistic practice of the SSC can undermine surgical safety by creating conditions conducive to never events. To fully realize the SSC's potential as an essential tool for communication and safety, a concerted effort is needed to balance thoroughness with efficiency. Additionally, fostering a culture of collaboration and collegiality is crucial to reinforce and enhance the culture of surgical safety.

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Operative Experience Among General Surgery Residents: A Multi-Institutional Study from the US ROPE Consortium.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relationship between race/ethnicity and case volume among graduating surgical residents. BACKGROUND: Racial/ethnic minority individuals face barriers to entry and advancement in surgery; however, no large-scale investigations of the operative experience of racial/ethnic minority residents have been performed. METHODS: A multi-institutional retrospective analysis of the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education case logs of categorical general surgery residents at 20 programs in the US Resident OPerative Experience Consortium database was performed. All residents graduating between 2010 and 2020 were included. The total, surgeon chief, surgeon junior, and teaching assistant case volumes were compared between racial/ethnic groups. RESULTS: The cohort included 1343 residents. There were 211 (15.7%) Asian, 65 (4.8%) Black, 73 (5.4%) Hispanic, 71 (5.3%) "Other" (Native American or Multiple Race), and 923 (68.7%) White residents. On adjusted analysis, Black residents performed 76 fewer total cases (95% CI, -109 to -43, P <0.001) and 69 fewer surgeon junior cases (-98 to -40, P <0.001) than White residents. Comparing adjusted total case volume by graduation year, both Black residents and White residents performed more cases over time; however, there was no difference in the rates of annual increase (10 versus 12 cases per year increase, respectively, P =0.769). Thus, differences in total case volume persisted over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: In this multi-institutional study, Black residents graduated with lower case volume than non-minority residents throughout the previous decade. Reduced operative learning opportunities may negatively impact professional advancement. Systemic interventions are needed to promote equitable operative experience and positive culture change.

Transforming Team Performance Through Reimplementation of the Surgical Safety Checklist.

Importance: Patient safety interventions, like the World Health Organization Surgical Safety Checklist, require effective implementation strategies to achieve meaningful results. Institutions with underperforming checklists require evidence-based guidance for reimplementing these practices to maximize their impact on patient safety. Objective: To assess the ability of a comprehensive system of safety checklist reimplementation to change behavior, enhance safety culture, and improve outcomes for surgical patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective type 2 hybrid implementation-effectiveness study took place at 2 large academic referral centers in Singapore. All operations performed at either hospital were eligible for observation. Surveys were distributed to all operating room staff. Intervention: The study team developed a comprehensive surgical safety checklist reimplementation package based on the Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, Sustainment framework. Best practices from implementation science and human factors engineering were combined to redesign the checklist. The revised instrument was reimplemented in November 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: Implementation outcomes included penetration and fidelity. The primary effectiveness outcome was team performance, assessed by trained observers using the Oxford Non-Technical Skills (NOTECH) system before and after reimplementation. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture was used to assess safety culture and observers tracked device-related interruptions (DRIs). Patient safety events, near-miss events, 30-day mortality, and serious complications were tracked for exploratory analyses. Results: Observers captured 252 cases (161 baseline and 91 end point). Penetration of the checklist was excellent at both time points, but there were significant improvements in all measures of fidelity after reimplementation. Mean NOTECHS scores increased from 37.1 to 42.4 points (4.3 point adjusted increase; 95% CI, 2.9-5.7; P < .001). DRIs decreased by 86.5% (95% CI, -22.1% to -97.8%; P = .03). Significant improvements were noted in 9 of 12 composite areas on culture of safety surveys. Exploratory analyses suggested reductions in patient safety events, mortality, and serious complications. Conclusions and Relevance: Comprehensive reimplementation of an established checklist intervention can meaningfully improve team behavior, safety culture, patient safety, and patient outcomes. Future efforts will expand the reach of this system by testing a structured guidebook coupled with light-touch implementation guidance in a variety of settings.

CheckPOINT: a simple tool to measure Surgical Safety Checklist implementation fidelity.

INTRODUCTION: The WHO Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) is a communication tool that improves teamwork and patient outcomes. SSC effectiveness is dependent on implementation fidelity. Administrative audits fail to capture most aspects of SSC implementation fidelity (ie, team communication and engagement). Existing research tools assess behaviours during checklist performance, but were not designed for routine quality assurance and improvement. We aimed to create a simple tool to assess SSC implementation fidelity, and to test its reliability using video simulations, and usability in clinical practice. METHODS: The Checklist Performance Observation for Improvement (CheckPOINT) tool underwent two rounds of face validity testing with surgical safety experts, clinicians and quality improvement specialists. Four categories were developed: checklist adherence, communication effectiveness, attitude and engagement. We created a 90 min training programme, and four trained raters independently scored 37 video simulations using the tool. We calculated intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) to assess inter-rater reliability (ICC>0.75 indicating excellent reliability). We then trained two observers, who tested the tool in the operating room. We interviewed the observers to determine tool usability. RESULTS: The CheckPOINT tool had excellent inter-rater reliability across SSC phases. The ICC was 0.83 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.98) for the sign-in, 0.77 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.92) for the time-out and 0.79 (95% CI 0.59 to 0.99) for the sign-out. During field testing, observers reported CheckPOINT was easy to use. In 98 operating room observations, the total median (IQR) score was 25 (23-28), checklist adherence was 7 (6-7), communication effectiveness was 6 (6-7), attitude was 6 (6-7) and engagement was 6 (5-7). CONCLUSIONS: CheckPOINT is a simple and reliable tool to assess SSC implementation fidelity and identify areas of focus for improvement efforts. Although CheckPOINT would benefit from further testing, it offers a low-resource alternative to existing research tools and captures elements of adherence and team behaviours.

Remote Assessment of Real-World Surgical Safety Checklist Performance Using the OR Black Box: A Multi-Institutional Evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Large-scale evaluation of surgical safety checklist performance has been limited by the need for direct observation. The operating room (OR) Black Box is a multichannel surgical data capture platform that may allow for the holistic evaluation of checklist performance at scale. STUDY DESIGN: In this retrospective cohort study, data from 7 North American academic medical centers using the OR Black Box were collected between August 2020 and January 2022. All cases captured during this period were analyzed. Measures of checklist compliance, team engagement, and quality of checklist content review were investigated. RESULTS: Data from 7,243 surgical procedures were evaluated. A time-out was performed during most surgical procedures (98.4%, n = 7,127), whereas a debrief was performed during 62.3% (n = 4,510) of procedures. The mean percentage of OR staff who paused and participated during the time-out and debrief was 75.5% (SD 25.1%) and 54.6% (SD 36.4%), respectively. A team introduction (performed 42.6% of the time) was associated with more prompts completed (31.3% vs 18.7%, p < 0.001), a higher engagement score (0.90 vs 0.86, p < 0.001), and a higher percentage of team members who ceased other activities (80.3% vs 72%, p < 0.001) during the time-out. CONCLUSIONS: Remote assessment using OR Black Box data provides useful insight into surgical safety checklist performance. Many items included in the time-out and debrief were not routinely discussed. Completion of a team introduction was associated with improved time-out performance. There is potential to use OR Black Box metrics to improve intraoperative process measures.

Implementation of a New Surgeon Onboarding Program in an Academic-affiliated Community Hospital.

Best practices in onboarding are well-established, but surgeons frequently receive suboptimal introductions to new practice settings. At the same time, increasing regionalization of surgical programs and strategic alignments between academic and community hospitals have increased the demand for surgeons to practice at multiple sites with variable resources and institutional cultures. In response to this growing problem, we developed and implemented a surgeon onboarding program in an academic-affiliated community hospital. This pilot demonstrated excellent process adherence, user satisfaction, and significant improvements in preparedness to practice. We therefore conclude that robust onboarding is feasible and can be readily implemented by a local team to promote safe transitions in practice settings for surgeons.

Defining re-implementation.

BACKGROUND: The first attempt to implement a new tool or practice does not always lead to the desired outcome. Re-implementation, which we define as the systematic process of reintroducing an intervention in the same environment, often with some degree of modification, offers another chance at implementation with the opportunity to address failures, modify, and ultimately achieve the desired outcomes. This article proposes a definition and taxonomy for re-implementation informed by case examples in the literature. MAIN BODY: We conducted a scoping review of the literature for cases that describe re-implementation in concept or practice. We used an iterative process to identify our search terms, pilot testing synonyms or phrases related to re-implementation. We searched PubMed and CINAHL, including articles that described implementing an intervention in the same environment where it had already been implemented. We excluded articles that were policy-focused or described incremental changes as part of a rapid learning cycle, efforts to spread, or a stalled implementation. We assessed for commonalities among cases and conducted a thematic analysis on the circumstance in which re-implementation occurred. A total of 15 articles representing 11 distinct cases met our inclusion criteria. We identified three types of circumstances where re-implementation occurs: (1) failed implementation, where the intervention is appropriate, but the implementation process is ineffective, failing to result in the intended changes; (2) flawed intervention, where modifications to the intervention itself are required either because the tool or process is ineffective or requires tailoring to the needs and/or context of the setting where it is used; and (3) unsustained intervention, where the initially successful implementation of an intervention fails to be sustained. These three circumstances often co-exist; however, there are unique considerations and strategies for each type that can be applied to re-implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Re-implementation occurs in implementation practice but has not been consistently labeled or described in the literature. Defining and describing re-implementation offers a framework for implementation practitioners embarking on a re-implementation effort and a starting point for further research to bridge the gap between practice and science into this unexplored part of implementation.

Disparities in the Operative Experience Between Female and Male General Surgery Residents: A Multi-institutional Study From the US ROPE Consortium.

OBJECTIVE: To examine differences in resident operative experience between male and female general surgery residents. BACKGROUND: Despite increasing female representation in surgery, sex and gender disparities in residency experience continue to exist. The operative volume of male and female general surgery residents has not been compared on a multi-institutional level. METHODS: Demographic characteristics and case logs were obtained for categorical general surgery graduates between 2010 and 2020 from the US Resident OPerative Experience Consortium database. Univariable, multivariable, and linear regression analyses were performed to compare differences in operative experience between male and female residents. RESULTS: There were 1343 graduates from 20 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited programs, and 476 (35%) were females. There were no differences in age, race/ethnicity, or proportion pursuing fellowship between groups. Female graduates were less likely to be high-volume residents (27% vs 36%, P < 0.01). On univariable analysis, female graduates performed fewer total cases than male graduates (1140 vs 1177, P < 0.01), largely due to a diminished surgeon junior experience (829 vs 863, P < 0.01). On adjusted multivariable analysis, female sex was negatively associated with being a high-volume resident (OR = 0.74, 95% CI: 0.56 to 0.98, P = 0.03). Over the 11-year study period, the annual total number of cases increased significantly for both groups, but female graduates (+16 cases/year) outpaced male graduates (+13 cases/year, P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Female general surgery graduates performed significantly fewer cases than male graduates. Reassuringly, this gap in operative experience may be narrowing. Further interventions are warranted to promote equitable training opportunities that support and engage female residents.

Implementation of a Device Briefing Tool reduces interruptions in surgery: A nonrandomized controlled pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Interruptions in operative flow are known to increase team stress and errors in the operating room. Device-related interruptions are an increasing area of focus for surgical safety, but common safety processes such as the Surgical Safety Checklist do not adequately address surgical devices. We assessed the impact of the Device Briefing Tool, a communication instrument for surgical teams, on device-related interruptions in a large academic referral center in Singapore. METHODS: The Device Briefing Tool was implemented in 4 general surgery departments, with 4 additional departments serving as a comparator group. Trained observers evaluated device-related interruption incidence in live operations at baseline and after implementation. Changes in device-related interruption frequency were assessed in each group using Poisson regression, with and without adjustment for surgical department and device complexity. Subgroup analyses assessed the impact of the Device Briefing Tool by device type. RESULTS: A total of 210 operations were evaluated by observers. In the Device Briefing Tool group, there were 38.6 and 27.2 device-related interruptions per 100 cases at baseline and after Device Briefing Tool implementation, respectively (difference -23%, P = .0047, adjusted difference -28%, P = .0013). Device-related interruption frequency in the comparator group remained stable across study periods. Point estimates indicated reductions in device-related interruptions for all device types, reaching statistical significance for circular staplers (-26%, P = .0049). CONCLUSION: Implementation of the Device Briefing Tool was associated with a 28% reduction in device-related interruptions. Proactive approaches to improving surgical device safety are crucial in the technology-driven landscape of modern surgical care. Future efforts will assess formal integration of the Device Briefing Tool into institution-wide surgical safety processes.

Impact of hospital characteristics on best-practice adherence for gallstone pancreatitis: a nationwide analysis.

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend cholecystectomy during the index admission for gallstone pancreatitis, and a growing body of evidence indicates that patients benefit from cholecystectomy within the first 48 h of admission. We examined the impact of hospital characteristics on adherence to these data-driven practices. METHODS: We queried the National Inpatient Sample for patients admitted for gallstone pancreatitis between October 2015 and December 2018. Patients who underwent same-admission cholecystectomy were identified by procedure codes. Cholecystectomies within the first two days were classified as early cholecystectomies. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the association between hospital characteristics and adherence to these practices. RESULTS: Of 163,390 admissions for gallstone pancreatitis, only 90,790 (55.6%) underwent cholecystectomy before discharge. Mean time from admission to cholecystectomy was 2.9 days; 27.0% of patients (44,005) underwent early cholecystectomy. Odds of same-admission cholecystectomy were highest in large hospitals (OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.13-1.28), urban teaching centers (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.21-1.46), and the South (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.57-1.83). Odds of early cholecystectomy did not vary with hospital size, urban-rural status, or teaching status but were highest in the West (OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.80-2.18). CONCLUSION: Best-practice adherence for cholecystectomy in gallstone pancreatitis remains low despite an abundance of evidence and clinical practice guidelines. Active interventions are needed to improve delivery of surgical care for this patient population. Implementation efforts should focus on small hospitals, rural areas, and health systems in the Northeast region.

Trends in Surgeon Burnout in the US and Canada: Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Burnout among surgeons is increasingly recognized as a crisis. However, little is known about changes in burnout prevalence over time. We evaluated temporal trends in burnout among surgeons and surgical trainees of all specialties in the US and Canada. STUDY DESIGN: We systematically reviewed MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO for studies assessing surgeon burnout from January 1981 through September 2021. Changes in dichotomized Maslach Burnout Inventory scores and mean subscale scores over time were assessed using multivariable random-effects meta-regression. RESULTS: Of 3,575 studies screened, 103 studies representing 63,587 individuals met inclusion criteria. Publication dates ranged from 1996 through 2021. Overall, 41% of surgeons met criteria for burnout. Trainees were more affected than attending surgeons (46% vs 36%, p = 0.012). Prevalence remained stable over the study period (-4.8% per decade, 95% CI -13.2% to 3.5%). Mean scores for emotional exhaustion declined and depersonalization declined over time (-4.1 per decade, 95% CI -7.4 to -0.8 and -1.4 per decade, 95% CI -3.0 to -0.2). Personal accomplishment scores remained unchanged. A high degree of heterogeneity was noted in all analyses despite adjustment for training status, specialty, practice setting, and study quality. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to popular perceptions, we found no evidence of rising surgeon burnout in published literature. Rather, emotional exhaustion and depersonalization may be decreasing. Nonetheless, burnout levels remain unacceptably high, indicating a need for meaningful interventions across training levels and specialties. Future research should be deliberately designed to support longitudinal integration through prospective meta-regression to facilitate monitoring of trends in surgeon burnout.

Creating a high-performance surgical safety checklist: A multimodal evaluation plan to reinvigorate the checklist.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: The WHO Surgical Safety Checklist is a communication tool designed to improve surgical safety processes and enhance teamwork. It has been widely adopted since its introduction over ten years ago. As surgical safety needs evolve, organizations should periodically review and update their checklists. A holistic evaluation of the checklist in the context of an organization is the first step to making informed updates. In this article, we describe a comprehensive but feasible strategy for checklist evaluation which we developed and implemented as part of a surgical safety initiative in a high-performing center. METHODS: A three-part evaluation plan was developed and carried out by a multidisciplinary team. The evaluation included assessment of 1. Quality of care through a review of surgical safety events; 2. Safety culture through a validated survey and informal feedback; and 3. Checklist performance through direct observations and a staff survey. To prepare for re-implementation the current institutional checklist was critically evaluated and a context assessment survey was administered to surgical staff. RESULTS: The evaluation revealed challenges in communication and teamwork, with surgical staff often perceived to be working in silos. The quality of care assessment indicated room for improvement in safety processes. Deficiencies in the safety culture measures of communication and feedback shed light on an overall lack of engagement with the checklist. Checklist performance demonstrated good adherence to the items on the checklist but limited engagement by the surgical team and minimal communication between subteams. These findings informed our revisions to the checklist and its implementation processes. CONCLUSIONS: We developed and implemented a comprehensive, scalable approach to checklist evaluation which directly informed improvements to the checklist that were tailored to the organization's current context. Organizations can apply this framework to breathe new life into their checklist and transform their safety culture.

Utility of a Device Briefing Tool to Improve Surgical Safety.

INTRODUCTION: Clear communication around surgical device use is crucial to patient safety. We evaluated the utility of the Device Briefing Tool (DBT) as an adjunct to the Surgical Safety Checklist. METHODS: A nonrandomized, controlled pilot of the DBT was conducted with surgical teams at an academic referral center. Intervention departments used the DBT in all cases involving a surgical device for 10 wk. Utility, relative advantage, and implementation effectiveness were evaluated via surveys. Trained observers assessed adherence and team performance using the Oxford NOTECHS system. RESULTS: Of 113 individuals surveyed, 91 responded. Most respondents rated the DBT as moderately to extremely useful. Utility was greatest for complex devices (89%) and new devices (88%). Advantages included insight into the team's familiarity with devices (70%) and improved teamwork and communication (68%). Users found it unrealistic to review all device instructional materials (54%). Free text responses suggested that the DBT heightened awareness of deficiencies in device familiarity and training but lacked a clear mechanism to correct them. DBT adherence was 82%. NOTECHS scores in intervention departments improved over the course of the study but did not significantly differ from comparator departments. CONCLUSIONS: The DBT was rated highly by both surgeons and nurses. Adherence was high and we found no evidence of "checklist fatigue." Centers interested in implementing the DBT should focus on devices that are complex or new to any surgical team member. Guidance for correcting deficiencies identified by the DBT will be provided in future iterations of the tool.

A multi-institutional study from the US ROPE Consortium examining factors associated with directly entering practice upon residency graduation.

BACKGROUND: There is concern regarding the competency of today's general surgery graduates as a large proportion defer independent practice in favor of additional fellowship training. Little is known about the graduates who directly enter general surgery practice and if their operative experiences during residency differ from graduates who pursue fellowship. METHODS: Nineteen Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited general surgery programs from the US Resident OPerative Experience Consortium were included. Demographics, career choice, and case logs from graduates between 2010 to 2020 were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 1,264 general surgery residents who graduated over the 11-year period. A total of 248 (19.6%) went directly into practice and 1,016 (80.4%) pursued fellowship. Graduates directly entering practice were more likely to be a high-volume resident (43.1% vs 30.5%, P < .01) and graduate from a high-volume program (49.2% vs 33.0%, P < .01). Direct-to-practice graduates performed 53 more cases compared with fellowship-bound graduates (1,203 vs 1,150, P < .01). On multivariable analysis, entering directly into practice was positively associated with total surgeon chief case volume (odds ratio = 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.18-1.84, P < .01) and graduating from a US medical school (odds ratio = 2.54, 95% confidence interval 1.45-4.44, P < .01) while negatively associated with completing a dedicated research experience (odds ratio = 0.31, 95% confidence interval 0.22-0.45, P < .01). CONCLUSION: This is the first multi-institutional study exploring resident operative experience and career choice. These data suggest residents who desire immediate practice can tailor their experience with less research time and increased operative volume. These data may be helpful for programs when designing their experience for residents with different career goals.

Frequency of Device-Related Interruptions Using a Scalable Assessment Tool.

BACKGROUND: Surgical devices are implicated in approximately 15% of intraoperative interruptions and 25% of errors. Device-related interruptions (DRIs) are therefore an important target for surgical quality improvement, but scalable measurement methodologies are lacking. The researchers therefore developed, pilot tested, and refined a simple tool for assessing intraoperative DRIs. METHODS: Five DRI categories achieved face validity with frontline providers and surgical safety experts: improper/challenging assembly, device failure, loss of sterility, disconnection, and absent/wrong device. A data collection tool was created based on these categories as well as a free-text section to capture emergent DRI categories. After a brief training session, the tool was pilot tested by observers at a large academic referral center. RESULTS: In a sample of 210 operations, observers noted 66 DRIs across 39 cases. DRIs were most common in colorectal (38.0 per 100 cases), gynecologic (33.3 per 100 cases), and hepatopancreatobiliary surgery (32.1 per 100 cases). Device failure accounted for 30.3% of observed DRIs. Three emergent categories were identified: user unfamiliarity with the device (15.2%), video display malfunction (4.5%), and physical breakage of the device (1.5%). CONCLUSION: Measurement of DRIs by novice observers is a feasible and scalable approach to support quality improvement efforts focusing on surgical devices. This approach could provide actionable insights to improve device safety, such as informing educational and training programs, optimizing surgical tray composition, and improving the physical layout of the operating room.

Gender and Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Operative Volumes of Graduating General Surgery Residents.

INTRODUCTION: Gender disparities in resident operative experience have been described; however, their etiology is poorly understood, and racial/ethnic disparities have not been explored. This study investigated the relationship between gender, race/ethnicity, and surgery resident case volumes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of graduating general surgery resident case logs (2010-2020) at an academic medical center was performed. Self-reported gender and race/ethnicity data were collected from program records. Residents were categorized as underrepresented in medicine (URM) (Black, Hispanic, Native American) or non-URM (White, Asian). Associations between gender and URM status and major, chief, and teaching assistant (TA) mean case volumes were analyzed using t-tests. RESULTS: The cohort included 80 residents: 39 female (48.8%) and 17 URM (21.3%). Compared to male residents, female residents performed fewer TA cases (33 versus 47, P < 0.001). Compared to non-URM residents, URM residents graduated with fewer major (948 versus 1043, P = 0.008) and TA cases (32 versus 42, P = 0.038). Male URM residents performed fewer TA cases than male non-URM residents (32 versus 50, P = 0.031). Subanalysis stratified by graduation year demonstrated that from 2010 to 2015, female residents performed fewer chief (218 versus 248, P = 0.039) and TA cases (29 versus 50, P = 0.001) than male residents. However, from 2016 to 2020, when gender parity was achieved, no significant associations were observed between gender and case volumes. CONCLUSIONS: Female and URM residents perform fewer TA and major cases than male non-URM residents, which may contribute to reduced operative autonomy, confidence, and entrustment. Prioritizing gender and URM parity may help decrease case volume gaps among underrepresented residents.