Surgical Prioritization Research Articles

COVID-19 pandemic and health care disparities in head and neck cancer: Scanning the horizon.

The COVID‐19 pandemic has profoundly disrupted head and neck cancer (HNC) care delivery in ways that will likely persist long term. As we scan the horizon, this crisis has the potential to amplify preexisting racial/ethnic disparities for patients with HNC. Potential drivers of disparate HNC survival resulting from the pandemic include (a) differential access to telemedicine, timely diagnosis, and treatment; (b) implicit bias in initiatives to triage, prioritize, and schedule HNC‐directed therapy; and (c) the marked changes in employment, health insurance, and dependent care. We present four strategies to mitigate these disparities: (a) collect detailed data on access to care by race/ethnicity, income, education, and community; (b) raise awareness of HNC disparities; (c) engage stakeholders in developing culturally appropriate solutions; and (d) ensure that surgical prioritization protocols minimize risk of racial/ethnic bias. Collectively, these measures address social determinants of health and the moral imperative to provide equitable, high‐quality HNC care.

Considerations for Pediatric Heart Programs During COVID-19: Recommendations From the Congenital Cardiac Anesthesia Society.

Considerations for Pediatric Heart Programs During COVID-19: Recommendations From the Congenital Cardiac Anesthesia Society.

Reliability and Validity of Two Surgical Prioritization Systems for Reinstating Non-Emergent Benign Gynecologic Surgery During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated cancellation of non-emergent surgeries worldwide. As local resources and infection rates allow, systems face an unprecedented backlog of patients, some of whom have incurred suffering and morbidity as a consequence of their delay. Clinically and ethically appropriate triaging is paramount to maximize patient outcomes, allocate resources, and minimize COVID-19 exposure risk. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study at a single academic tertiary care center in the US. The inter-rater reliability and validity of 2 novel surgical prioritization systems (Gyn-MeNTS and mESAS) were assessed. For benign gynecologic procedures postponed between 3/16/2020 and 4/30/2020, surgeons self-prioritized patients per institutional guidelines to minimize patient morbidity. Gyn-MeNTS scores were calculated by 3 raters and analyzed as continuous variables, with a lower score indicating more urgency/priority. The mESAS score was calculated by 2 raters and analyzed as a 3-level ordinal variable with a higher score indicating more urgency/priority. All 5 raters were blinded to reduce bias. Gyn-MeNTS inter-rater reliability was tested using Spearman r and paired t-tests were used to detect systematic differences between raters. Weighted kappa indicated mESAS reliability. Concurrent validity with mESAS and surgeon self-prioritization (SSP) was examined with Spearman r and logistic regression. Findings: 93 patients were included. Spearman r’s for all Gyn-MeNTS rater pairs were above 0·80 (0·84 for 1 vs. 2, 0·82 for 1 vs. 3, 0·82 for 2 vs. 3, all p<·0001) indicating strong agreement. The weighted kappa for the 2 mESAS raters was 0·57 (95% CI 0·40-0·73) indicating moderate agreement. When used together, both scores were significantly independently associated with SSP, with strong discrimination (AUC 0.89). Interpretation: Inter-rater reliability is acceptable for both scoring systems, and concurrent validity of each is moderate for predicting SSP, but discrimination improves to a high level when they are used together. Funding Statement: No funding was received for this study. Declaration of Interests: CQM, JSK, CZW, WAB, CMCB, and RLA have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Ethics Approval Statement: IRB exemption was obtained. (IRB#NCR202525)

Recovery of Elective Facial Plastic Surgery in the Post-Coronavirus Disease 2019 Era: Recommendations from the European Academy of Facial Plastic Surgery Task Force.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in widespread disruption to routine surgical services across the globe. As the peak of the initial pandemic passes, surgeons will increasingly resume elective work to address the backlog. Whilst urgent cases such as cancer work will be prioritized, the safe resumption of facial plastic surgery will remain an ongoing challenge; particularly if there are secondary waves of infection. Rhinoplasty and nasal reconstructive surgery in particular poses a unique challenge to address due to the due to the potential for aerosolizing the virus. A task force of facial plastic surgeons from the European Academy of Facial Plastic Surgery has collaborated to create this document detailing recommendations for resuming a safe facial plastic surgery practice. These include the need to embrace telemedicine, advice on surgical prioritization, planning of clinical area flow plans, advice on pre-/peri- and postoperative care as well as recommendations on training for residents and well-being for surgeons. The recommendations have been made in line with the best available evidence in the literature and are applicable to facial plastic surgery colleagues from around the world in order to resume a safe practice.

Impact of the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on surgical practice - Part 2 (surgical prioritisation).

The Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic represents a once in a century challenge to human healthcare with over 4.5 million cases and over 300,000 deaths thus far. Surgical practice has been significantly impacted with all specialties writing guidelines for how to manage during this crisis. All specialties have had to triage the urgency of their daily surgical procedures and consider non-surgical management options where possible. The Pandemic has had ramifications for ways of working, surgical techniques, open vs minimally invasive, theatre workflow, patient and staff safety, training and education. With guidelines specific to each specialty being implemented and followed, surgeons should be able to continue to provide safe and effective care to their patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this comprehensive and up to date review we assess changes to working practices through the lens of each surgical specialty.

Approaching Surgical Triage During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Approaching Surgical Triage During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Surgical decision-making and prioritization for cancer patients at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic: A multidisciplinary approach

In the midst of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, governmental agencies, state medical boards, and healthcare organizations have called for restricting “elective” operations to mitigate the risk of transmission of the virus amongst patients and healthcare providers and to preserve essential resources for potential regional surges of COVID patients. While the fear of delaying surgical care for many of our patients is deeply challenging for us as cancer care providers, we must balance our personal commitment to providing timely and appropriate oncologic care to our cancer patients with our societal responsibility to protect our patients (including those on whom we are operating), co-workers, trainees, families, and community, from undue risks of contracting and propagating COVID-19. Herein, we present guidelines for surgical decision-making and case prioritization developed among all adult disease specialties in the MD Anderson Cancer Center Departments of Surgical Oncology and Breast Surgical Oncology in Houston, Texas.

COVID-19: Crisis management in congenital heart surgery

COVID-19: Crisis management in congenital heart surgery

The recommendations of the Brazilian College of Surgeons and the Brazilian Bariatric and Metabolic Surgery Societies on the return of bariatric and metabolic operations in geographic regions of the country where the procedures have been allowed by local policies, in the period of COVID-19 pandemic.

Prioritizing surgical procedures aims at facilitating patient's access according to the clinical needs, maximizing access equity, and minimizing the damage from delayed access. Previous categorization of elective bariatric surgery have been adapted to define an objective prioritizing system that reflects those principles for bariatric and metabolic operations. Given the factors that contribute to the morbidity and mortality of obese and type 2 diabetes patients, surgical prioritization should be based on clinical risk stratification. For patients with type 2 diabetes, we suggest that the operation may be prioritized for those with a higher risk of morbidity and mortality in a relatively short term. Likewise, it is necessary to guide the surgical team regarding the necessary care both in the pre, per and postoperative periods of bariatric and metabolic surgery. These recommendations aim to reduce the risk of in-hospital contamination of the surgical team among health professionals and between health professionals and patients. In summary, these recommendations have been shaped after a thorough analysis of the available literature and are extremely important to mitigate the harm related to the clinical complications of obesity and its comorbidities while keeping healthcare providers' and patients' safety.

Does time to surgery affect patient-reported outcome in proximal humeral fractures? A subanalysis of the PROFHER randomized clinical trial.

The aim of this study was to explore whether time to surgery affects functional outcome in displaced proximal humeral fractures. A total of 250 patients presenting within three weeks of sustaining a displaced proximal humeral fracture involving the surgical neck were recruited at 32 acute NHS hospitals in the United Kingdom between September 2008 and April 2011. Of the 125 participants, 109 received surgery (fracture fixation or humeral head replacement) as per randomization. Data were included for 101 and 67 participants at six-month and five-year follow-up, respectively. Oxford Shoulder Scores (OSS) collected at six, 12, and 24 months and at three, four, and five years following randomization was plotted against time to surgery. Long-term recovery was explored by plotting six-month scores against five-year scores and agreement was illustrated with a Bland-Altman plot. The mean time from initial trauma to surgery was 10.5 days (1 to 33). Earlier surgical intervention did not improve OSS throughout follow-up, nor when stratified by participant age (< 65 years vs ≥ 65 years) and fracture severity (one- and two-part vs three- and four-part fractures). Participants managed later than reported international averages (three days in the United States and Germany, eight days in the United Kingdom) did not have worse outcomes. At five-year follow-up, 50 participants (76%) had the same or improved OSS compared with six months (six-month mean OSS 35.8 (SD 10.0); five-year mean OSS 40.1 (SD 9.1); r = 0.613). A Bland-Altman plot demonstrated a positive mean difference (3.3 OSS points (SD 7.92)) with wide 95% limits of agreement (-12.2 and 18.8 points). Timing of surgery did not affect OSS at any stage of follow-up, irrespective of age or fracture type. Most participants had maximum functional outcome at six months that was maintained at five years. These findings may help guide providers of trauma services on surgical prioritization. Cite this article: Bone Joint J 2020;102-B(1):33-41.

Mortality by Timing of Hip Fracture Surgery: Factors and Relationships at Play.

In hip fracture care, it is disputed whether mortality worsens when surgery is delayed. This knowledge gap matters when hospital managers seek to justify resource allocation for prioritizing access to one procedure over another. Uncertainty over the surgical timing-death association leads to either surgical prioritization without benefit or the underuse of expedited surgery when it could save lives. The discrepancy in previous findings results in part from differences between patients who happened to undergo surgery at different times. Such differences may produce the statistical association between surgical timing and death in the absence of a causal relationship. Previous observational studies attempted to adjust for structure, process, and patient factors that contribute to death, but not for relationships between structure and process factors, or between patient and process factors. In this article, we (1) summarize what is known about the factors that influence, directly or indirectly, both the timing of surgery and the occurrence of death; (2) construct a dependency graph of relationships among these factors based explicitly on the existing literature; (3) consider factors with a potential to induce covariation of time to surgery and the occurrence of death, directly or through the network of relationships, thereby explaining a putative surgical timing-death association; and (4) show how age, sex, dependent living, fracture type, hospital type, surgery type, and calendar period can influence both time to surgery and occurrence of death through chains of dependencies. We conclude by discussing how these results can inform the allocation of surgical capacity to prevent the avoidable adverse consequences of delaying hip fracture surgery.

A new dynamic integrated framework for surgical patients' prioritization considering risks and uncertainties

This study reviews current patients' prioritization systems and presents an innovative integrated three-step decisional framework in an attempt to overcome their limitations. In its first step, the proposed framework encompasses fuzzy logic, analytic hierarchy process (AHP) to formalize stakeholders' goals and objectives. In the second step, the assessments made on each patient's condition are integrated by data envelopment analysis (DEA) and compared among them by a min–max regret approach (MRA) to obtain a primary prioritization of patients. The third step uses the delay ratio, the risk criteria score, and a profile matrix to introduce dynamic aspects related to the evolution of patients' condition and changes in the patient's list to the prioritization process. This three-step framework not only considers the surgery team members' opinions but also considers the patient's opinions in the decision-making process. The new framework has been implemented in the Orthopedic Surgery Ward, Shohada University Hospital, Iran, showing very promising results and advantages.

Patient-reported outcomes and surgical triage: A gap in patient-centered care?

To help address wait times for elective surgery, British Columbia has implemented a triaging system that assigns priority levels to patients based on their diagnoses. The extent to which these priority levels concords with patients' assessment of their health status is not known. The purpose of this study was to measure the association between the priority levels assigned to patients and their patient-reported outcomes data collected at the time of being enrolled on the surgical wait list. Patients waiting for elective surgery in the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority were sampled. Participants completed a set of generic and condition-specific patient-reported outcome instruments, including: the EQ-5D(3L) (general health), PEG (pain), and the PHQ-9 (depression). A multivariate ordered logistic model was used to regress patient-reported outcome values on the priority level assigned at the time of wait list registration. A total of 2725 participants completed the survey package (response rate 49%). Using the EQ-5D(3L), 63% reported having problems with pain or discomfort, 41% problems performing usual activities, 36% problems with depression or anxiety, 28% problems with mobility, and 8% a problem with self-care. The results from the ordered logistic model indicated very little association between the patient-reported outcomes and wait list priority levels, when adjusted for patient factors. This study observed no relationship between patients' self-reported health status and their assigned priority level for elective surgery. A more patient-centered approach to triaging patients for surgical treatment would incorporate patients' perspective in surgical wait list prioritization systems.

Defining our destiny: trainee working group consensus statement on the future of emergency surgery training in the United Kingdom.

The United Kingdom National Health Service treats both elective and emergency patients and seeks to provide high quality care, free at the point of delivery. Equal numbers of emergency and elective general surgical procedures are performed, yet surgical training prioritisation and organisation of NHS institutions is predicated upon elective care. The increasing ratio of emergency general surgery consultant posts compared to traditional sub-specialities has yet to be addressed. How should the capability gap be bridged to equip motivated, skilled surgeons of the future to deliver a high standard of emergency surgical care? The aim was to address both training requirements for the acquisition of necessary emergency general surgery skills, and the formation of job plans for trainee and consultant posts to meet the current and future requirements of the NHS.Twenty nine trainees and a consultant emergency general surgeon convened as a Working Group at The Association of Surgeons in Training Conference, 2015, to generate a united consensus statement to the training requirement and delivery of emergency general surgery provision by future general surgeons. Unscheduled general surgical care provision, emergency general surgery, trauma competence, training to meet NHS requirements, consultant job planning and future training challenges arose as key themes. Recommendations have been made from these themes in light of published evidence. Careful workforce planning, education, training and fellowship opportunities will provide well-trained enthusiastic individuals to meet public and societal need.

Patient psychological characteristics have minimal influence on surgical prioritization.

Rationing of health care is universal in systems free at the point of delivery. United Kingdom National Health Service (NHS) policy is for treatment on the basis of "clinical need." Surgeons routinely prioritize elective cases, and structured assessments of symptom severity have been suggested as a rational method of prioritization. We hypothesized that patient psychological factors would play an important role in prioritization as currently practiced. Two hundred thirty participants were recruited from a potential pool of 259 eligible referrals to an orthopaedic department for assessment of lower limb arthroplasty. Participants were assessed at time of referral and followed for 2.5 years. Associations were estimated between participant's psychological distress, illness perceptions, and the outcome of surgical prioritization. One hundred forty-one participants were listed for arthroplasty; 62 (44%) of these were considered urgent cases. Pain was the only univariate predictor of this outcome. Patient's psychological distress and illness perceptions were not associated with being classified as urgent even after adjusting for clinical and demographic status. In a multivariate model, only older age showed an independent effect (OR 2.75, 95% CI 1.14, 6.66) of increasing the chances of being considered urgent. Urgent cases had a 3-month-shorter inpatient wait among the 108 participants operated on during the study. The psychological status of arthroplasty candidates had no significant effect on the surgical prioritization process. Allocation to the urgent list appears to be based primarily on the patient's age, but is partially influenced by patient's better physical health and viewing treatment as being effective.