Relationship In Surgery Research Articles

Exploring mentorship in surgery: An interview study on how people stick together.

The objective is to explore the processes contributing to how and why mentors and mentees initiate, maintain and grow in their mentorship relationships in surgery. To explore the processes contributing to how and why mentors and mentees initiate, maintain and grow their mentorship relationships in surgery. Evidence suggests that mentorship has a positive impact on physicians' success. Consequently, mentorship programmes have been incorporated into many medicine environments, albeit with variable success. We designed an interview-based study using a constructivist grounded theory approach to explore the dynamics of mentorship between junior and experienced surgeons. Recruited mentees were asked to nominate a senior surgeon they identified as a mentor. Both mentee and mentors were then interviewed separately. Transcripts were analysed using constant comparison to a create a final coding framework and to generate themes. We interviewed nine faculty mentors and 10 junior faculty mentees. Our analysis identified key themes describing how to initiate, maintain and grow a mentorship relationship. Mentorship starts with ensuring a 'good fit', persists through satisfying a reciprocal loop with timely communication and deepens the relationship through cycles of mutual investment, learning, and success. Participants also discussed how to navigate through tensions to avoid relationship breakdown, balancing formality and friendship, knowing when to transition a relationship to a new dynamic and finding areas of realistic contribution. We found that successful mentorship relationships are viewed as dynamic and thus require active investment and shared responsibility between mentees and mentors. Our results also emphasise the value of co-regulation in the relationship, where cycles of mutual investment can contribute to mutual learning and growth.

Assessing the hospital volume-outcome relationship in surgery: a scoping review

IntroductionMany recent studies have investigated the hospital volume-outcome relationship in surgery. In some cases, the results have prompted the centralization of surgical activity. However, the methodologies and interpretations differ markedly from one study to another. The objective of the present scoping review was to describe the various features used to assess the volume-outcome relationship: the analyzed datasets, study population, outcome, covariates, confounders, volume modalities, and statistical methods.Methods and analysisThe review was conducted according to a study protocol published in BMJ Open in 2020. Two authors (both of whom had helped to design the study protocol) screened publications independently according to the title, the abstract and then the full text. To ensure exhaustivity, all the papers included by each reviewer went through to the next step.InterpretationThe 403 included studies covered 90 types of surgery, 61 types of outcome, and 72 covariates or potential confounders. 191 (47.5%) studies focussed on oncological surgery and 37.8% focussed visceral or digestive tract surgery. Overall, 86.6% of the studies found a statistically significant volume-outcome relationship, although the findings differed from one type of surgery to another. Furthermore, the types of outcome and the covariates were highly diverse. The majority of studies were performed in Western countries, and oncological and visceral surgical procedures were over-represented; this might limit the generalizability and comparability of the studies’ results.

Assessing the hospital volume-outcome relationship in surgery: a scoping review protocol

IntroductionEven if a positive volume-outcome correlation in surgery is mostly admitted in many surgical fields, the various ways to assess this relationship make it difficult for researchers and policymakers to...

One-year patient survival correlates with surgeon volume after elective open abdominal aortic surgery

ObjectiveVolume-outcome relationships in surgery have been well established. Studies have shown that high-volume surgeons provide improved outcomes in performing open abdominal aneurysm repairs. The hypothesis of this study was that high-volume surgeons provide superior short-term and midterm outcomes of elective open aortic operations compared with low-volume surgeons. MethodsWe evaluated patients undergoing elective open abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, aortofemoral bypass, and aortomesenteric bypass by board-certified vascular surgeons using the New York Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative System database from 2002 to 2014. The Contal and O'Quigley technique was used to estimate a cut point objectively and provided an estimate of significance. A division using average yearly volumes (averaged during 3 years) of seven or more cases and fewer than seven cases per year returned the highest Q statistic, and this grouping was used to classify high-volume and low-volume provider groups. Rates of complications during index hospitalization, length of stay, 30-day survival, 90-day survival, 1-year survival, and cause of death were analyzed using mixed effect models. ResultsIn 118 hospitals during the 13-year period, 266 board-certified vascular surgeons performed 244 aortomesenteric bypasses, 4202 aortofemoral bypasses, and 6126 abdominal aortic aneurysm repairs. High-volume surgeons' rates of complications during index hospitalization, 30-day survival, 90-day survival, and 1-year survival were superior to those of low-volume surgeons. The Contal and O'Quigley technique returned an estimate of seven operations per year for optimal survival during 1 year. This cutoff is associated with an adjusted 1-year hazard ratio of 0.687 (P = .003), a 2.69% difference in 1-year all-cause survival (P = .003), and a 1.76-day reduction in the mean length of stay at index hospitalization (P < .001). Higher volume surgeons showed a 25.0%, 43.4%, 42.4%, 40.6%, and 45.0% reduction in postoperative rates of acute renal failure (P < .001), hemorrhage (P < .001), pulmonary failure (P < .001), sepsis (P < .001), and venous thromboembolism (P < .001), respectively. Abdominal abscess, acute renal failure, hemorrhage, myocardial infarction, and sepsis were associated with increased cardiovascular cause-specific mortality after open aortic operations (P < .001). ConclusionsThese data demonstrate that high-volume surgeons performing elective open aortic operations provide reduced complications and improved short-term and midterm survival compared with low-volume surgeons. Clinical and postoperative variables that are associated with increased cardiovascular cause-specific mortality are also identified. These data provide further evidence that elective open abdominal vascular surgery should be centralized to high-volume surgeons.

Volume-Cost Relationship in Surgery: Nationwide Analysis of 84.6 Million Inpatient Admissions

Barrow Neurological Institute, Phoenix, AZ; Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI; Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT

Evidence that surgical performance predicts clinical outcomes.

Assessment of surgeon performance in the operating room has been identified as a direct method of measuring surgical quality. Studies published in urology and other surgical disciplines have investigated this link directly by measuring surgeon and team performance using methodology supported by validity evidence. This article highlights the key findings of these studies and associated underlying concepts. ​Seminal literature from urology and related areas of research was used to inform this review of the performance-outcome relationship in surgery. Current efforts to further our understanding of this concept are discussed, including relevant quality improvement and educational interventions that utilize this relationship. Evidence from multiple surgical specialties and procedures has established the association between surgeon skill and clinically significant patient outcomes. Novel methods of measuring performance utilize surgeon kinematics and artificial intelligence techniques to more reliably and objectively quantify surgical performance. Future directions include the use of this data to create interventions for quality improvement, as well as innovate the credentialing and recertification process for practicing surgeons.

Redeeming Mr. Sawbone: compassion and care in the cultures of nineteenth-century surgery

ObjectiveTo complicate understandings of the emotions involved in the surgical encounter.MethodsI draw on an extensive body of historical material to demonstrate the importance of compassion and sympathy to the professional identities and experiences of early nineteenth-century British surgeons and use this information to reflect on what lessons can be learned for contemporary practice.ResultsThis research demonstrates that compassion and sympathy for the patient were a vital part of surgery in the decades immediately preceding the introduction of anaesthesia in the 1840s and that they played a vital role in shaping the professional identity of the surgeon.ConclusionThis research suggests that we might develop more complex and inclusive ways of thinking about the doctor-patient relationship in surgery and that we can draw on the experiences of the past to ensure that we take compassion seriously as a vital element of the intersubjective clinical encounter.

Dutch surgeons’ views on the volume–outcome mechanism in surgery: A qualitative interview study

To contribute to a better understanding of volume-outcome relationships in surgery by exploring Dutch surgeons' views on the underlying mechanism. A qualitative study based on face-to-face semi structured interviews and an inductive content analysis approach. Interviews were conducted in eight hospitals in the Netherlands (2 university, 4 teaching and 2 general). Twenty surgeons (gastrointestinal, vascular and trauma). Dutch surgeons' views on volume-outcome relationships in surgery and the underlying mechanism. The majority of surgeons believed volume is related to outcomes after surgery. Interviewees highlighted the importance of both focus and skills when describing the underlying mechanism. Focus was visible on three levels: hospital, surgeon and team. Focus on a hospital level referred to investing in specific infrastructure and dedicated personnel. Surgeons described both the benefits and downsides of surgeons' increased focus to a certain surgical subspeciality. And their experiences on the importance of working with fixed, procedure-specific teams. The positive influence of caseload on technical and nontechnical skills was acknowledged, as well as the benefits of combining skills by operating together. Although a basic skill set should be maintained, this does not necessarily require high volume. Focus and skills are important explanatory factors in volume-outcome relationships according to Dutch surgeons. This suggests that both high- and low-volume providers should enable specialized, fixed teams for complex surgeries and focus on maintenance of both their technical and nontechnical skills. By uncovering the underlying mechanism, imperfect quality indicators such as volume can be supplemented or replaced.

Where are we with improving outcome guidance? An update on pelvic urological services in the NHS

Background: The volume–outcome relationship in surgery has been a focus of interest for over a decade. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) published their improving outcome guidance in 2002, which encouraged a regionalised multidisciplinary approach in managing urological cancer cases and recommended centralisation of urological pelvic surgery. The current study offers an updated view on the urological pelvic services in England with regard to radical cystectomy (RC) and radical prostatectomy (RP) and adherence to improving outcome guidance guidelines and patterns of services provision since its introduction in 2002. Methods: The data for inpatient elective RC and RP were taken from hospital episodes statistics for 2003–2013. The RC and RP cases were calculated separately per year for every trust to calculate the annual rates and then combined for every trust. The catchment areas for RC and RP were calculated using the proportionate-flow method. Results: The number of trusts performing RC and RP reduced significantly over the 10 years, while in the same period, the numbers of RC and RP performed increased significantly ( P&lt;0.05). There has been a steady increase in the cases referred to another trust for their RC or RP surgery ( P&lt;0.05). Overall, there has been a significant increase in the number of trusts achieving the improving outcome guidance recommended minimal case volume of 50 or more (RC + RP combined) over the 10-year analysis ( P=0.0006). Conclusion: There has been a shift in urological pelvic surgery provision in England since the publication of improving outcome guidance by NICE in 2002, with over 95% of cases being performed in improving outcome guidance compliant centres achieving 50 cases or more per year. Simultaneously, a significant reduction in postoperative mortality and the hospital length of stay has been seen over this period.

Impact of choice of quality appraisal tool for systematic reviews in overviews.

The question whether the choice of a critical appraisal tool has an impact on the result of the evidence synthesis in systematic reviews has been neglected by research. This is also true for psychometric properties of critical appraisal tools. The objective of the study is to exemplify that in the context of overviews (reviews of reviews). Based on a published overview investigating the hospital volume-outcome relationship in surgery, 32 therein included systematic reviews were independently evaluated with four critical appraisal tools by two reviewers. We rated the relationship on a five-point rating scale using qualitative evidence synthesis. Measures of reliability and correlation coefficients were calculated. The result of the evidence synthesis was not dependent on the choice of a critical appraisal tool. Inter-rater reliability differed depending on the tool, Cohens Kappa ranging from 0.47 to 0.76. There was a high heterogeneity between the two pairs of reviewers. The choice of a critical appraisal tool has no impact on the result of the evidence synthesis, despite differences in the covered components by each CAT. Further studies should concentrate on investigating psychometric properties and the impact of choice of CATs on the evidence synthesis in other contexts. The high heterogeneity between the two pairs of reviewers, all of them experienced in appraising systematic reviews, indicates a degree of interpretability in the items.

Standardized and quality-assured video-recorded examination in undergraduate education: informed consent prior to surgery

BackgroundCommunication skills combined with specialized knowledge are fundamental to the doctor–patient relationship in surgery. During a single-station video-recorded objective structured clinical examination (VOSCE), students were tasked with obtaining informed consent. Our aim was to develop a standardized and quality-assured assessment method in undergraduate education. MethodsOne hundred fifty-five students in their fifth year of medical school (78 videos) participated in a summative VOSCE within the framework of the teaching module “Operative Medicine.” They prepared for three clinical scenarios and the surgical procedures involved. The examination comprised participants having to obtain informed consent from simulated patients, video recording their performance. Students were assessed by two independent raters, the background of one of whom was nonsurgical. Results were statistically tested using SPSS. ResultsStudents' scores were all beyond the pass mark of 70%, averaging 91.0% (±4.0%), 88.4% (±4.4%), and 87.0% (±4.7%) for the appendectomy, cholecystectomy, and inguinal hernia repair checklist, respectively. Most items (68%–89% of the checklists) were found to have fair to excellent discrimination values. Cronbach's α values ranged between 0.565 and 0.605 for the individual checklists. Interrater agreement was strong (Pearson correlation coefficient = 0.80, P < 0.01; intraclass correlation coefficient 2.1 = 0.78). ConclusionsThe VOSCE is both feasible and reliable as a method of assessing student communication skills and the application of clinical knowledge while obtaining informed consent in surgery. This method is efficient (flexible rating outside normal working hours possible with reductions in administrative load) and may be used for high-stakes evaluation of student performance.

Impact on mortality of increasing surgical volumes within hospitals after regionalization of thoracic surgery in Ontario, Canada.

225 Background: The causal direction of the volume-outcome relationship in surgery has not yet been established. Our objective was to study the effect of absolute hospital volume of anatomic lung resections and volume changes within hospitals on mortality, length of stay (LOS), readmission (RA), and post-discharge visits to the emergency room (ER visits), during a period of regionalization for lung surgery in Ontario, Canada, to test the theory of "practice makes perfect". Methods: For each anatomic lung resection in Ontario from 2004-2010 we determined the volume change within hospital as the difference in hospital operative volume between the year immediately prior to the date of surgery and year prior to that (Dvolume). We used generalized estimating equations and logistic regression, controlling for clustering within hospitals, to examine the effect of Dvolume, patient factors and year on operative mortality, RA and ER visits. Negative binomial regression was used for LOS. The absolute effect of volume, measured as the 12-month hospital volume prior to each procedure, on outcomes was also examined with the same models. Results: Higher hospital volumes were associated with significant improvements in mortality and length of stay, (for increases of 10 cases, mortality OR=0.98 [95%CI: 0.96-1.00] and LOS RR=0.98 [95% CI: 0.97-0.99]), but not for RA or ER visits. However, increases in within-hospital volume did not lead to changes in mortality (OR=1.00, 95% CI: 0.96-1.10), RA (OR=1.00, 95% CI: 0.99-1.00), or ER visits (OR=0.99, 95% CI: 0.98-1.00). Volume increases within hospitals did lead to small improvements in LOS (RR=0.996, 95% CI: 0.993-0.999). Conclusions: Increasing volumes within hospitals did not lead to improvements in mortality in our study, but did result in small improvements in LOS. The decrease in LOS was likely appropriate as it was not associated with changes in RA or ER visits. A volume-outcome relationship between absolute hospital volume and improved mortality was observed, but was not explained by increasing volumes within hospitals; thus practice did not make perfect for mortality.

Mentorship in Surgical Training: A Systematic Review

This review systematically examines the literature regarding mentor-mentee relationships in surgery. The usefulness of mentorship in surgical training has been expressed in many articles. However, to date, there has been no systematic review on mentoring surgical trainees. This surgical environment is different from other areas of medicine and requires young surgeons to learn skills not readily available from textbooks. Instead, mentors are a valuable mode of transferring this knowledge to the next generation of surgeons. Thus, mentorship is a worthy area of research and attention. We identified all articles discussing mentorship in surgery between January 1985 and August 2010 using PubMed and ISI Web of Knowledge. Predetermined exclusion and inclusion criteria were used to screen articles by title, abstract, and full text in sequence. We extracted the relevant data, and then analyzed the prevalence of major surgical mentoring themes in the literature. Of the 1,091 unique articles found during our original literature search, 38 were selected for review. The majority (68%) were commentary/editorial articles. The most discussed themes include the desirable qualities of a surgical mentor, the structure of mentor-mentee relationships, and advice for overcoming barriers to mentoring. Much less discussed themes include the desirable traits in a mentee and the appreciation of generational and cultural differences in mentorship. Several barriers to effective surgical mentoring were identified, such as time constraints and a lack of female mentors. By focusing on the positive traits found in this review, for example, developing formal programs to alleviate time constraints, these barriers can be overcome and effective mentor-mentee relationships can be built. Many articles draw attention to the dying art of mentorship in surgical training programs, and currently, the literature on mentorship in surgery is somewhat scarce. These concerns should serve as motivation to revive mentorship in surgery education and to expand the literature regarding underexplored themes and overcoming the current barriers. Although mentorship may not always take on a structured form, it should not be treated casually because proper mentorship is the foundation for training quality surgeons.