Determining the Association Between Insurance Type and Myofascial Release in Large Ventral Hernias.

INTRODUCTION: Abdominal wall reconstruction (AWR) utilizes advanced myofascial releases to perform complex ventral hernia repair (VHR). The relationship between the performance of AWR and disparities in insurance type is unknown. METHODS: The Abdominal Core Health Quality Collaborative was queried for adults who had undergone an elective VHR between 2013 and 2020 with a hernia size ≥10 cm. Patients with missing insurance data were excluded. Comparison groups were divided by insurance type: favorable (private, Medicare, Veteran's Administration, Tricare) or unfavorable (Medicaid and self-pay). Propensity score matching compared the cumulative incidence of AWR between the favorable and unfavorable insurance comparison groups. RESULTS: In total, 26,447 subjects met inclusion criteria. The majority (89%, n = 23,617) had favorable insurance, while (11%, n = 2830) had unfavorable insurance. After propensity score matching, 2821 patients with unfavorable insurance were matched to 7875 patients with favorable insurance. The rate of AWR with external oblique release or transversus abdominis release was significantly higher (23%, n = 655) among the unfavorable insurance group compared to those with favorable insurance (21%, n = 1651; P = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence that patients with unfavorable insurance may undergo AWR with external oblique or transversus abdominis release at a greater rate than similar patients with favorable insurance. Understanding the mechanisms contributing to this difference and evaluating the financial implications of these trends represent important directions for future research in elective VHR.

Is Hospital Occupancy Rate Associated With Postoperative Outcomes Among Patients Undergoing Hepatopancreatic Surgery?

OBJECTIVE: To define the association between hospital occupancy rate and postoperative outcomes among patients undergoing hepatopancreatic (HP) resection. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Previous studies have sought to identify hospital-level characteristics associated with optimal surgical outcomes and decreased expenditures. The present study utilized a novel hospital quality metric coined "occupancy rate" based on publicly available data to assess differences in postoperative outcomes among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing HP procedures. METHODS: Medicare beneficiaries who underwent an elective HP surgery between 2013 and 2017 were identified. Occupancy rate was calculated and hospitals were categorized into quartiles. Multivariable logistic regression was utilized to assess the association between occupancy rate and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Among 33,866 patients, the majority underwent a pancreatic resection (58.5%; n = 19,827), were male (88.4%; n = 7,488), or white (88.4%; n = 29,950); median age was 72 years [interquartile range (IQR): 68-77] and median Charleston Comorbidity Index was 3 (IQR 2-8). Hospitals were categorized into quartiles based on hospital occupancy rate (cutoffs: 48.1%, 59.4%, 68.2%). Most patients underwent an HP operation at a hospital with an above average occupancy rate (n = 20,865, 61.6%), whereas only a small subset of patients had an HP procedure at a low occupancy rate hospital (n = 1,218, 3.6%). On multivariable analysis, low hospital occupancy rate was associated with increased odds of a complication [(OR) 1.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18-1.55) and 30-day mortality (OR 1.58, 95% CI 1.27-1.97). Even among only high-volume HP hospitals, patients operated on at hospitals that had a low occupancy rate were at markedly higher risk of complications (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.03-1.97), as well as 30 day morality (OR 2.20, 95% CI 1.27-3.83). CONCLUSIONS: Among Medicare beneficiaries undergoing an elective HP resection, more than 1 in 4 hospitals performing HP surgeries utilized less than half of their beds on average. There was a monotonic relationship between hospital occupancy rate and the odds ofexperiencing a complication, as well as 30-day mortality, independent of other hospital level characteristics including procedural volume.

The role of religion and spirituality in cancer care: An umbrella review of the literature.

Although some studies have suggested a strong relationship between religion and spirituality (R&S) and patient outcomes in cancer care, other data have been mixed or even noted adverse effects associated with R&S in the healthcare setting. We sought to perform an umbrella review to systematically appraise and synthesize the current body of literature on the role of patient R&S in cancer care. A systematic search of the literature was conducted that focused on "cancer" (neoplasm, malignant neoplasm, malignancy), "spirituality" (beliefs, divine), and "religion" (specific practices like Christianity, faith, faith healing, prayer, Theology). A total of 41 review articles published from 1995 to 2019 were included: 8 systematic reviews, 6 meta-analyses, 4 systematic reviews and meta-analysis, and 23 other general reviews. The number of studies included in each review ranged from 7 to 148, while 10 studies did not indicate sample size. Most articles did not focus on a specific cancer diagnosis (n = 36), stage of cancer (n = 32), or patient population (n = 34). Many articles noted that R&S had a positive impact on cancer care, yet some reviews reported inconclusive or negative results. Marked variation in methodological approaches to studying R&S among cancer patients, including operational definitions and measurement, were identified. Resolving these issues will be an important step to understanding how patients seek to have R&S integrated into their patient-centered cancer care experience.

In-house intensivist presence does not affect mortality in select emergency general surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to assess the relationship between availability of round-the-clock (RTC) in-house intensivists and patient outcomes in people who underwent surgery for a life-threatening emergency general surgery (LT-EGS) disease such as necrotizing soft-tissue infection, ischemic enteritis, perforated viscus, and toxic colitis. METHODS: Data on hospital-level critical care structures and processes from a 2015 survey of 2,811 US hospitals were linked to patient-level data from 17 State Inpatient Databases. Patients who were admitted with a primary diagnosis code for an LT-EGS disease of interest and underwent surgery on date of admission were included in analyses. RESULTS: We identified 3,620 unique LT-EGS admissions at 368 hospitals. At 66% (n = 243) of hospitals, 83.5% (n = 3,021) of patients were treated at hospitals with RTC intensivist-led care. These facilities were more likely to have in-house respiratory therapists and protocols to ensure availability of blood products or adherence to Surviving Sepsis Guidelines. When accounting for other key factors including overnight surgeon availability, perioperative staffing, and annual emergency general surgery case volume, not having a protocol to ensure adherence to Surviving Sepsis Guidelines (adjusted odds ratio, 2.10; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-3.94) was associated with increased odds of mortality. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that focused treatment of sepsis along with surgical source control, rather than RTC intensivist presence, is key feature of optimizing EGS patient outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, level III.

Provision of supportive spiritual care for hepatopancreatic cancer patients: an unmet need?

BACKGROUND: Among patients with a serious cancer diagnosis, like hepatopancreatic (HP) cancer, spiritual distress needs to be addressed, as these psychosocial-spiritual symptoms are often more burdensome than some physical symptoms. The objective of the current study was to characterize supportive spiritual care utilization among patients with HP cancers. METHODS: Patients with HP cancer were identified from the electronic medical record at a large comprehensive cancer center; data on patients with breast/prostate cancer (non-HP) were collected for comparison. Associations between patient characteristics and receipt of supportive spiritual care were evaluated within the overall sample and end-of-life subsample. RESULTS: Among 8,961 individuals (nHP=1,419, nnon-HP =7,542), 51.7% of HP patients utilized supportive spiritual care versus 19.8% of non-HP patients (p<0.001). Younger age and religious identity were associated with receiving spiritual care (p<0.001). HP patients had higher odds of receiving spiritual care versus non-HP patients (OR 2.41, 95%CI: 2.10, 2.78). Within the end-of-life subsample, HP patients more frequently received spiritual care to "accept their illness" (39.5% vs. 22.5%, p<0.001), while non-HP patients needed support to "define their purpose in life" (13.1% vs. 4.5%, p=0.001). DISCUSSION: Supportive spiritual care was important to a large subset of HP patients and should be integrated into their care.

Machine learning predicts unpredicted deaths with high accuracy following hepatopancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Machine learning to predict morbidity and mortality-especially in a population traditionally considered low risk-has not been previously examined. We sought to characterize the incidence of death among patients with a low estimated morbidity and mortality risk based on the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) estimated probability (EP), as well as develop a machine learning model to identify individuals at risk for "unpredicted death" (UD) among patients undergoing hepatopancreatic (HP) procedures. METHODS: The NSQIP database was used to identify patients who underwent elective HP surgery between 2012-2017. The risk of morbidity and mortality was stratified into three tiers (low, intermediate, or high estimated) using a k-means clustering method with bin sorting. A machine learning classification tree and multivariable regression analyses were used to predict 30-day mortality with a 10-fold cross validation. C statistics were used to compare model performance. RESULTS: Among 63,507 patients who underwent an HP procedure, median patient age was 63 (IQR: 54-71) years. Patients underwent either pancreatectomy (n=38,209, 60.2%) or hepatic resection (n=25,298, 39.8%). Patients were stratified into three tiers of predicted morbidity and mortality risk based on the NSQIP EP: low (n=36,923, 58.1%), intermediate (n=23,609, 37.2%) and high risk (n=2,975, 4.7%). Among 36,923 patients with low estimated risk of morbidity and mortality, 237 patients (0.6%) experienced a UD. According to the classification tree analysis, age was the most important factor to predict UD (importance 16.9) followed by preoperative albumin level (importance: 10.8), disseminated cancer (importance: 6.5), preoperative platelet count (importance: 6.5), and sex (importance 5.9). Among patients deemed to be low risk, the c-statistic for the machine learning derived prediction model was 0.807 compared with an AUC of only 0.662 for the NSQIP EP. CONCLUSIONS: A prognostic model derived using machine learning methodology performed better than the NSQIP EP in predicting 30-day UD among low risk patients undergoing HP surgery.

Hepatopancreatic Surgery in the Rural United States: Variation in Outcomes at Critical Access Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Sixty million Americans live in rural America, with roughly 17.5% of the rural population being 65 y or older. Outcomes and costs of Medicare beneficiaries undergoing hepatopancreatic surgery at critical access hospitals (CAHs) are not known. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Medicare files were used to identify patients who underwent hepatopancreatic resection. Outcomes were compared (CAHs versus non-CAHs). RESULTS: Patients undergoing hepatopancreatic surgery at non-CAHs versus CAHs had a similar comorbidity score (4 versus 5, P = 0.53). After adjusting for patient-level factors and procedure-specific volume, there was no difference in complication rate (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52-1.24). The median cost of hospitalization was roughly $4000 less at CAHs than that at non-CAHs (P < 0.001). However, compared with patients undergoing surgery at non-CAHs, beneficiaries operated at CAHs had more than two times the odds of dying within 30 (aOR 2.45, 95% CI 1.42-4.2) and 90 d (aOR 2.28, 95% CI 1.4-3.71). CONCLUSIONS: Only a small subset of Medicare beneficiaries underwent hepatic or pancreatic resection at a CAH. Despite similar complication rate, Medicare beneficiaries undergoing surgery at a CAH had more than two times the odds of dying within 30 and 90 d after surgery.

Resection of Primary Gastrointestinal Neuroendocrine Tumor Among Patients with Non-Resected Metastases Is Associated with Improved Survival: A SEER-Medicare Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to analyze whether primary tumor resection (PTR) among patients with stage IV gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumor (GI-NET) and unresected metastases was associated with improved outcomes. METHODS: Patients diagnosed with stage IV GI-NETs were identified in the linked SEER-Medicare database from 2004 to 2015. Overall survival (OS) of patients who did versus did not undergo PTR was examined using bivariate and multivariable cox regression analysis as well as propensity score matching (PSM). RESULTS: Among 2219 patients with metastatic GI-NETs, 632 (28.5%) underwent PTR, whereas 1587 (71.5%) did not. The majority of individuals had a NET in the pancreas (n = 969, 43.6%); the most common site of metastatic disease was the liver (n = 1064, 47.9%). Patients with stage IV small intestinal NETs most frequently underwent PTR (62.6%) followed by individuals with colon NETs (56.5%). After adjusting for all competing factors, PTR remained independently associated with improved OS (HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.56-0.76). Following PSM (n = 236 per group), patients who underwent PTR had improved OS (median OS: 1.3 years vs 0.8 years, p = 0.016). While PTR of NETs originating from stomach, small intestine, colon, and pancreas was associated with improved OS, PTR of rectal NET did not yield a survival benefit. CONCLUSION: Primary GI-NET resection was associated with a survival benefit among individuals presenting with metastatic GI-NET with unresected metastases. Resection of primary GI-NET among patients with stage IV disease and unresected metastases should only be performed in selected cases following multi-disciplinary evaluation.

Importance of Radiologists in Optimizing Outcomes for Older Americans with Acute Abdomen.

BACKGROUND: Patients presenting with acute abdominal pain often undergo a computed tomography (CT) scan as part of their diagnostic workup. We investigated the relationship between availability, timeliness, and interpretation of CT imaging and outcomes for life-threatening intra-abdominal diseases or "acute abdomen," in older Americans. METHODS: Data from a 2015 national survey of 2811 hospitals regarding emergency general surgery structures and processes (60.1% overall response, n = 1690) were linked to 2015 Medicare inpatient claims data. We identified beneficiaries aged ≥65 admitted emergently with a confirmatory acute abdomen diagnosis code and operative intervention on the same calendar date. Multivariable regression models adjusted for significant covariates determined odds of complications and mortality based on CT resources. RESULTS: We identified 9125 patients with acute abdomen treated at 1253 hospitals, of which 78% had ≥64-slice CT scanners and 85% had 24/7 CT technicians. Overnight CT reads were provided by in-house radiologists at 14% of hospitals and by teleradiologists at 66%. Patients were predominantly 65-74 y old (43%), white (88%), females (60%), and with ≥3 comorbidities (67%) and 8.6% died. STAT radiology reads by a board-certified radiologist rarely/never available in 2 h was associated with increased odds of systemic complication and mortality (adjusted odds ratio 2.6 [1.3-5.4] and 2.3 [1.1-4.8], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Delays obtaining results are associated with adverse outcomes in older patients with acute abdomen. This may be due to delays in surgical consultation and time to source control while waiting for imaging results. Processes to ensure timely interpretation of CT scans in patients with abdominal pain may improve outcomes in high-risk patients.

Hospital Location and Socioeconomic Disadvantage of Emergency General Surgery Patients.

BACKGROUND: Emergency general surgery (EGS) patients are more socioeconomically vulnerable than elective counterparts. We hypothesized that a hospital's neighborhood disadvantage is associated with vulnerability of its EGS patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Area deprivation index (ADI), a neighborhood-level measure of disadvantage, and key characteristics of 724 hospitals in 14 states were linked to patient-level data in State Inpatient Databases. Hospital and EGS patient characteristics were compared across hospital ADI quartiles (least disadvantaged [ADI 1-25] "affluent," minimally disadvantaged [ADI 26-50] "min-da", moderately disadvantaged [ADI 51-75] "mod-da", and most disadvantaged [ADI 76-100] "impoverished") using chi2 tests and multivariable regression. RESULTS: Higher disadvantage hospitals are more often nonteaching (affluent = 38.9%, min-da = 53.5%, mod-da = 72.1%, and impoverished = 67.6%), nonaffiliated with medical schools (50%, 72.4%, 81.8%, and 78.8%), and in rural areas (3.3%, 9.2%, 31.2%, and 27.9%). EGS patients at higher disadvantage hospitals are more likely to be older (43.9%, 48.6%, 49.1%, and 46.6%), have >3 comorbidities (17.0%, 19.0%, 18.4%, and 19.3%), live in low-income areas (21.4%, 23.6%, 32.2%, and 42.5%), and experience complications (23.2%, 23.7%, 24.0%, and 25.2%). Rates of uninsurance/underinsurance were highest at affluent and impoverished hospitals (18.0, 16.4%, 17.7%, and 19.2%). Higher disadvantage hospitals serve fewer minorities (32.6%, 21.3%, 20.7%, and 24.0%), except in rural areas (2.9%, 6.7%, 6.5%, and 15.5%). In multivariable analyses, the impoverished hospital ADI quartile did not predict odds of serving as a safety-net or predominantly minority-serving hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Hospitals in impoverished areas disproportionately serve underserved EGS patient populations but are less likely to have robust resources for EGS care or train future EGS surgeons. These findings have implications for measures to improve equity in EGS outcomes.

County-level Social Vulnerability is Associated With Worse Surgical Outcomes Especially Among Minority Patients.

OBJECTIVE: We sought to characterize the association between patient county-level vulnerability with postoperative outcomes. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Although the impact of demographic-, clinical- and hospital-level factors on outcomes following surgery have been examined, little is known about the effect of a patient's community of residence on surgical outcomes. METHODS: Individuals who underwent colon resection, coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), lung resection, or lower extremity joint replacement (LEJR) were identified in the 2016 to 2017 Medicare database, which was merged with Center for Disease Control social vulnerability index (SVI) dataset at the beneficiary level of residence. Logistic regression models were utilized to estimate the probability of postoperative complications, mortality, readmission, and expenditures. RESULTS: Among 299,583 Medicare beneficiary beneficiaries who underwent a colectomy (n = 88,778, 29.6%), CABG (n = 109,564, 36.6%), lung resection (n = 30,401, 10.1%), or LEJR (n = 70,840, 23.6%).Mean SVI score was 50.2 (standard deviation: (25.2); minority patients were more likely to reside in highly vulnerable communities (low SVI: n = 3531, 5.8% vs high SVI: n = 7895, 13.3%; P < 0.001). After controlling for competing risk factors, the risk-adjusted probability of a serious complication among patients from a high versus low SVI county was 10% to 20% higher following colectomy [odds ratio (OR) 1.1 95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.1-1.2] or CABG (OR 1.2 95%CI 1.1-1.3), yet there no association of SVI with risk of serious complications following lung resection (OR 1.2 95%CI 1.0-1.3) or LEJR (OR 1.0 95%CI 0.93-1.2). The risk-adjusted probability of 30-day mortality was incrementally higher among patients from high SVI counties following colectomy (OR 1.1 95%CI 1.1-1.3), CABG (OR 1.4, 95%CI 1.2-1.5), and lung resection (OR 1.4 (95%CI 1.1-1.8), yet not LEJR (OR 0.95 95%CI 0.72-1.2). Black/minority patients undergoing a colectomy, CABG, or lung resection who lived in highly socially vulnerable counties had an estimate 28% to 68% increased odds of a serious complication and a 58% to 60% increased odds of 30-day mortality compared with a Black/minority patient from a low socially vulnerable county, as well as a markedly higher risk than White patients (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Patients residing in vulnerable communities characterized by a high SVI generally had worse postoperative outcomes. The impact of social vulnerability was most pronounced among Black/minority patients, rather than White individuals. Efforts to ensure equitable surgical outcomes need to focus on both patient-level, as well as community-specific factors.

A mixed-methods approach to comparing perceptions of cancer patients' and cancer care providers' religious and spiritual beliefs, behaviours, and attitudes.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the perceptions of cancer patients' and cancer care providers' religious and spiritual (R&S) beliefs, behaviours, and attitudes. METHODS: A concurrent, nested, quantitative dominant, mixed-methods design was utilised. Data were collected from patient and provider groups via online survey. Analyses include chi-square tests of independence and independent t-tests for quantitative data and content analysis for qualitative data. RESULTS: The final analytic cohort for the study included 576 participants (npatients  = 236, nproviders  = 340) with an average age of 47.4 years (SD = 15.0). Over half of participants were partnered (n = 386, 70.1%), female (n = 317, 57.3%) and had an advanced degree (n = 284, 51.2%). The most common diagnosis for patients was breast cancer (n = 103, 43.2%). The most common provider role was nurse (n = 220; 64.7%), while a smaller subset included physicians (n = 61; 17.9%) and "other" providers (n = 59; 17.4%). There was no difference between patients and providers in relation to R&S identity (p = 0.49) or behaviour (p = 0.28). Providers more frequently indicated that patients should receive R&S resources in the hospital (n = 281, 89.7% vs. n = 111, 49.6%, p < 0.001). For resource type, patients most frequently endorsed written resources (n = 93, 83.8%) while providers endorsed relational resources (n = 281, 97.9%). CONCLUSION: Aligning patient and provider expectations of spiritual care will contribute to provision of optimal patient-centred cancer care.

Wide variation in inpatient opioid utilization following hepatopancreatic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Inpatient opioid utilization following major surgery remains relatively unknown. We sought to characterize inpatient opioid consumption following hepatopancreatic surgery and determine factors associated with the variability in opioid utilization. METHODS: Adult patients who underwent hepatopancreatic surgery at a single institution were identified. Multimodal pain management strategies assessed included opioids (oral morphine equivalents, OME), acetaminophen, ibuprofen and ketorolac. RESULTS: Among 2,054 patients, the median total OME utilized was 465 (129-815) during a patient's hospitalization following hepatopancreatic surgery. The interquartile range for total OMEs administered following hepatopancreatic surgery was as high as 940 OMEs (125 oxycodone-5mg pills) following a pancreaticoduodenectomy versus 520 OMEs (69 oxycodone-5mg pills) following a hemi-hepatectomy. Despite relatively high use of acetaminophen post-operatively (n = 1,588, 77.0%), multimodal pain control with acetaminophen and ibuprofen was infrequent (n = 175, 8.5%). Furthermore, individuals with high opioid utilization used on average 147 OMEs (20 oxycodone-5mg pills) the day before discharge versus 44 OME (6 oxycodone-5mg pills) among patients with expected opioid utilization. CONCLUSIONS: Marked variability in inpatient opioid consumption following hepatopancreatic surgery was noted. Future work is necessary to decrease the variability in inpatient opioid prescribing practices to promote the safe and effective management of pain.

Do Religious/Spiritual Preferences and Needs of Cancer Patients Vary Based on Clinical- and Treatment-Level Factors?

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study is to characterize the religion and spiritual (R&S) needs of patients who undergo cancer-directed surgery. In addition, we seek to examine how R&S needs vary based on R&S identity and clinical and surgical treatment characteristics. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was administered to potential participants who were recruited through outpatient clinics and online. Respondent desires for R&S resources and engagement with the healthcare team  around R&S topics were assessed. RESULTS: Among 383 potential participants who were identified, 236 respondents were included in the analytic cohort. Mean age was 58.8 (SD 12.10) years, and most participants were female (75.8%) and White/Caucasian (94.1%). The majority (78.4%) identified as currently cancer free. Commonly treated malignancies included breast (43.2%), male reproductive (8.9%), skin (8.5%), and gastrointestinal (GI) (7.2%). Two-thirds of the respondents indicated a desire to have R&S incorporated into their cancer treatment (63.3%). Patients who identified as highly/moderately religious reported wanting R&S more often (highly religious: 95.2% versus moderately religious: 71.4% vs. nonreligious but spiritual: 4.5%). On multivariable analysis, patients who believed their health would improve in the future were more likely to report wanting R&S service (OR 2.2, 95% CI 1.0-4.7) as well as wanting to engage their healthcare providers on R&S topics (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.2-4.7). In contrast, perception of current or future health status was not associated with patient desire for the actual surgeon/doctor him/herself to be involved in R&S activities (OR 1.83, 95% CI 0.97-3.45). CONCLUSIONS: Two-thirds of patients undergoing cancer-directed surgery expressed a desire to have R&S incorporated into their cancer treatment. Incorporating R&S into cancer treatment can help a subset of patients throughout their cancer experience.

Comparing Surgeon Approaches to Patient-Centered Cancer Care Using Vignette Methodology.

BACKGROUND: We sought to characterize surgeon perceptions of patient attachment-related behaviors relative to patient-centered approaches during treatment decision-making within the clinical encounter. METHODS: An online survey including clinical vignettes was sent to board-certified surgeons to assess their approach to patient-centered treatment decision-making. Within these vignettes, patient behaviors associated with attachment styles (secure vs 3 insecure subtypes: avoidant, anxious, and fearful) were fixed and patient factors (age, race, occupation, and gender) were randomized. Analysis included repeated measures mixed-effects linear regression. RESULTS: Among the 208 respondents, the majority were male (65.4%) and White/Caucasian (84.5%) with an average age of 51.6 years (SD = 9.9). Most surgeons had been in practice for more than 10 years (66.8%) and treated adult patients (77.4%). Surgical specializations included breast (27.2%), HPB (35.0%), and broad-based/general (21.8%). Patient race, age, and gender did not impact surgeons' patient-centered approach to treatment decision-making (all ps > 0.05). However, when the "patient" had a white collar occupation and were securely attached, surgeons reported a greater likeliness to spend equal time presenting all treatment options (p = 0.02 and p < 0.001, respectively) and believe the patient wanted an active role in decision-making (p = 0.01 and p < 0.001, respectively). Surgeons reported being least likely to agree with a patient's treatment decision (p < 0.001) and an increased likelihood of being directive (p = 0.002) when patients exhibited behaviors associated with avoidant attachment. CONCLUSION: Attachment-related behaviors were associated with differences in surgeon approaches to patient-centered decision-making. Attachment styles may offer a framework for providers to understand patient behaviors and needs, thereby providing insight on how to tailor their approach and provide optimal patient-centered care.

The beliefs of cancer care providers regarding the role of religion and spirituality within the clinical encounter.

PURPOSE: To characterize cancer care provider perceptions of the role of religion and spirituality (R&S) within the clinical encounter. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was administered to healthcare professionals (defined as someone who is authorized to diagnose and/or treat physical or mental health disorders) currently employed at The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center. Beliefs around the role of R&S within the clinical encounter were assessed using four adapted subscales/dimensions (D1-D4) from the Religion and Spirituality in Medicine: Physicians' Perspectives measure: God actively intervenes in patient health (D1), R&S is beneficial for patient mental health (D2), provider inquires about (D3) and discusses (D4) R&S in the clinical encounter. Logistic (D1) and linear (D2-D4) regression were performed using SAS v9.4 to determine the relationship between provider type and each subscale while controlling for gender, race, relationship status, education, and R&S identity. RESULTS: Among 340 participants, most participants were female (82.1%) or Caucasian (82.6%) and the median age was 35 years (IQR 31-48). Providers included physicians (17.9%), nurses (64.7%), and "other" (17.4%). Most participants identified as religious (57.5%), followed by spiritual (30.2%) and neither religious nor spiritual (12.3%). Nurses and other providers were more likely than physicians to believe that God intervenes in patient health (physician 41.7% vs. nurse 61.8% vs. other 60.3%; p = 0.02). All providers were equally as likely to believe that R&S is beneficial for patient mental health and to discuss R&S with patients within the clinical encounter (both p > 0.05). In contrast, nurses more frequently reported inquiring about R&S (median 1.7; IQR 0.9-2.0) compared with physicians (median 1.0; IQR 0.9-2.0) or other providers (median 1.4; IQR 1.0-2.1) (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: There were differences between providers in beliefs regarding the role of R&S in the clinical cancer encounter. Of note, nurses and other provider types were more likely than physicians to inquire about R&S with patients. Understanding variations in these beliefs will help determine how to best incorporate R&S support for patients during their cancer care.

Utilization of High-Volume Hospitals for High-Risk Cancer Surgery in California Following Medicaid Expansion.

INTRODUCTION: A primary goal of the recent state and federal health reform is to increase access to care through expanded insurance coverage. We sought to evaluate the effect of Medicaid expansion (ME) on four high-risk cancer operations in California. METHODS: The California Office of Statewide Health Planning database was used to identify patients who underwent either lung, esophageal, pancreas, or rectal resection for cancer between 2012 and 2016. To include only patients eligible for Medicaid and not Medicare, patients > 65 years were excluded. Trends in insurance coverage rates and utilization of high-volume hospitals were evaluated relative to the pre-policy (2012-2013) versus the post-policy (2014-2016) period. RESULTS: Overall 10,569 individuals (esophageal: 5.6%; lung: 38%; pancreas: 14.1%; rectal: 42.3%) underwent a cancer operation. Following ME, Medicaid coverage increased from 12.4 to 20.2% (p < 0.001). There were no differences in age, sex, and race of Medicare beneficiaries pre- versus post-policy implementation (all p > 0.05). Of note, following ME, there was an increase in probability of utilization of high-volume hospitals for lung (47.6% vs. 56.3%), rectal (74.0% vs. 77.7%), and pancreas (60.2% vs. 68.5%) (p < 0.05 for all) cancer operations. Overall probability of surgery at a high-volume center after expansion increased by 5.8% among Medicaid beneficiaries versus other patients in the same time period. ME was not associated, however, with improvement in clinical outcomes such as complications, in-hospital mortality, or readmission (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: ME was associated with an increase in Medicaid coverage, which resulted in more beneficiaries undergoing cancer operations at high-volume hospitals. While ME was associated with increased access to care, peri-operative outcomes were comparable pre- versus post-ME implementation.

Assessment of Cancer Center Variation in Textbook Oncologic Outcomes Following Colectomy for Adenocarcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Traditional metrics may inadequately represent rates of attaining optimal oncologic care. We evaluated a composite "textbook oncologic outcome" (TOO) to assess the incidence of achieving an "optimal" clinical result after colon adenocarcinoma (CA) resection. METHODS: The National Cancer Database (NCDB) was queried to identify patients undergoing colectomy for non-metastatic CA between 2010 and 2015. TOO was defined as a margin negative resection with an AJCC compliant lymph node evaluation, no prolonged length of stay (LOS) or 30-day readmission/mortality, as well as receipt of stage appropriate adjuvant chemotherapy. RESULTS: Among 170,120 patients who underwent colectomy at 1315 hospitals, 93,204 (54.8%) achieved TOO with large variations observed among facilities. While certain factors were achieved nearly universally (R0 margin, 95.6%; no 30-day mortality, 97.2%), avoidance of prolonged LOS (77.3%) and appropriate adjuvant chemotherapy (83.0%) were achieved less consistently. On multivariable analysis, Black race/ethnicity (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.80-0.85), Medicaid insurance (OR 0.64, 0.61-0.68), and low-volume facility (< 50/year) (OR 0.83, 0.77-0.89) were associated with decreased likelihood of TOO. Achievement of TOO was associated with improved long-term survival (HR 0.45; 95% CI 0.44-0.46). CONCLUSIONS: Roughly one-half of patients undergoing resection of CA achieved an optimal clinical outcome. TOO may be a more useful quality metric to assess patient-centric composite outcomes following surgical procedures.

Association of County-Level Social Vulnerability with Elective Versus Non-elective Colorectal Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: A person's community, or lived environment, may play an important role in achieving optimal health outcomes. The objective of the current study was to assess the association of county-level vulnerability with the probability of having a non-elective colon resection. We hypothesized that individuals from areas with a high social vulnerability would be at greater risk of non-elective colon resection compared with patients from low social vulnerability areas. METHODS: Patients aged 65-99 who underwent a colon resection for a primary diagnosis of either diverticulitis (n = 11,812) or colon cancer (n = 33,312) were identified in Medicare Part A and Part B for years 2016-2017. Logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate differences in probability of undergoing an elective versus non-elective operation from counties relative to county-level social vulnerability index (SVI). Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications, mortality, readmission, and index hospitalization expenditure. RESULTS: Among 45,124 patients, 11,812 (26.2%) underwent a colon resection for diverticulitis, while 33,312 (73.8%) had a resection for colon cancer; 31,012 (68.7%) patients had an elective procedure (diverticulitis n = 7291 (61.7%) vs. cancer n = 23,721 (71.2%)), while 14,112 (31.3%) had an emergent operation (diverticulitis n = 4521 (38.3%) vs. cancer n = 9591 (28.8%)). Patients with a high SVI were more likely to undergo an emergent colon operation compared with low SVI patients (43.7% vs. 40.4%) (p < 0.001). The association of high SVI with increased risk of an emergent colon operation was similar among patients with diverticulitis (emergent: low SVI 37.2% vs. high SVI 40.4%) or colon cancer (emergent: low SVI 26.0% vs. high SVI 29.9%) (both p < 0.05). On multivariable analyses, risk-adjusted probability of undergoing an urgent/emergent operation remained associated with SVI (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Patients residing in vulnerable communities characterized by a high SVI were more likely to undergo a non-elective colon resection for either diverticulitis or colon cancer. Patients from high SVI areas had a higher risk of postoperative complications, as well as index hospitalization expenditures; however, there were no differences in mortality or readmission rates.