Surgeon Perception of Risk and Benefit in the Decision to Operate. Ann Surg. 2016;264:896-903. [PMID: 27192348 DOI: 10.1097/sla.0000000000001784]

Factors influencing credentialing of interventionists in the CREST-2 trial

BACKGROUND

The Carotid Revascularization and Medical Management for Asymptomatic Carotid Stenosis Trial (CREST-2) is a pair of randomized trials assessing the relative efficacy of carotid revascularization in the setting of intensive medical management (IMM) in patients with asymptomatic high-grade atherosclerotic stenosis. One of the trials assesses IMM with or without carotid artery stenting (CAS). Given the low risk of stroke in nonrevascularized patients receiving IMM, it is essential that there be low periprocedural risk of stroke for CAS if it is to show incremental benefit. Thus, credentialing of interventionists to ensure excellence is vital. This analysis describes the protocol-driven approach to credentialing of CAS interventionists for CREST-2 and its outcomes.

METHODS

To be eligible to perform stenting in CREST-2, interventionists needed to be credentialed on the basis of a detailed Interventional Management Committee (IMC) review of data from their last 25 consecutive cases during the past 24 months along with self-reported lifetime experience case numbers. When necessary, additional prospective cases performed in a companion registry were requested after webinar training. Here we review the IMC experience from the first formal meeting on March 21, 2014 through October 14, 2017.

RESULTS

The IMC had 102 meetings, and 8311 cases submitted by 334 interventionists were evaluated. Most were either cardiologists or vascular surgeons, although no single specialty made up the majority of applicants. The median total experience was 130 cases (interquartile range [IQR], 75-266; range, 25-2500). Only 9% (30/334) of interventionists were approved at initial review; approval increased to 46% (153/334) after submission of new cases with added training and re-review. The median self-reported lifetime case experience for those approved was 211.5 (IQR, 100-350), and the median number of cases submitted for review was 30 (IQR, 27-35). The number of CAS procedures performed per month (case rate) was the only factor associated with approval during the initial cycle of review (P < .00001).

CONCLUSIONS

Identification of interventionists who were deemed sufficiently skilled for CREST-2 has required substantial oversight and a controlled system to judge current skill level that controls for specialty-based practice variability, procedural experience, and periprocedural outcomes. High-volume interventionists, particularly those with more recent experience, were more likely to be approved to participate in CREST-2. Primary approval was not affected by operator specialty.

High-Risk Ileocolic Anastomoses for Crohn's Disease: When Is Diversion Indicated?

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Patients with Crohn's disease undergoing ileocolectomy and primary anastomosis are often at increased risk of anastomotic leak. We aimed to determine whether diverting ileostomy was protective against anastomotic leak after ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease using a large international registry.

METHODS

We analysed the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Colectomy Module from 2012 to 2016. Multivariable logistic regression analysis and propensity-score matching were used to identify independent risk factors for leak, and to test the hypothesis that diverting ileostomy was protective against anastomotic leakage.

RESULTS

A total of 4172 [92%] patients underwent primary anastomosis, and 365 [8%] underwent anastomosis plus ileostomy. The leak rates in the two groups were 4.5% and 2.7%, [p = 0.12], respectively. Multivariate analysis indicated ileostomy omission, emergency surgery, smoking, inpatient status, wound classification 3 or 4, weight loss, steroid use, and prolonged operative time were independently associated with leak. Patients with 0-6 risk factors had leak rates of 1.6%, 2.7%, 4.3%, 6.7%, 8.8%, 11.5%, and 14.3% [p ≤ 0.001], respectively. Following propensity-score matching, ileostomy reduced the risk of leak rate by 55% [p = 0.005]. Patients with primary anastomosis who leaked most frequently required reoperation [57.8%], but anastomosis plus ileostomy patients who leaked most frequently were managed by percutaneous drainage [70%], p = 0.04.

CONCLUSIONS

After ileocolic resection for Crohn's disease, anastomotic leak may be predicted by simple addition of risk factors. We found that diverting ileostomy mitigated against leak, reducing both the leak rate and the likelihood of unplanned reoperations. Faecal diversion should be considered when ≥3 risk factors are present.

Eye of the beholder: Risk calculators and barriers to adoption in surgical trainees

BACKGROUND

Accurate risk assessment before surgery is complex and hampered by behavioral factors. Underutilized risk-based decision-support tools may counteract these barriers. The purpose of this study was to identify perceptions of and barriers to the use of surgical risk-assessment tools and assess the importance of data framing as a barrier to adoption in surgical trainees.

METHODS

We distributed a survey and risk assessment activity to surgical trainees at four training institutions. The primary outcomes of this study were descriptive risk assessment practices currently performed by residents, identifiable influences and obstacles to adoption, and the variability of preference sets when comparing modified System Usability Scores of a current risk calculator to a purpose-built calculator revision. Risk calculator comparison responses were compared with simple and multivariable regression to identify predictors for preferentiality.

RESULTS

We collected responses from 124 surgical residents (39% response rate). Participants endorsed familiarity with direct verbal communication (100%), sketch diagrams (87%), and brochures (59%). The most contemporary risk communication frameworks, such as best-worst case scenario framing (38%), case-specific risk calculators (43%), and all-procedure calculators (52%) were the least familiar. Usage favored traditional models of communication with only 26% of residents regularly using a strategy other than direct verbal discussion or anatomic sketch diagrams. Barriers limiting routine use included lack of electronic and clinical workflow integration. The mean modified System Usability Scores domain scores were widely dispersed for all domains, and no domain demonstrated one calculator's superiority over another.

CONCLUSION

Risk assessment tools are underutilized by trainees. Of importance, preference sets of clinicians appear to be unpredictable and may benefit more from a customizable, bespoke approach.

Shared Decision-Making in Acute Surgical Illness: The Surgeon's Perspective

BACKGROUND

Surgical patients increasingly have more comorbidities and are of an older age, complicating surgical decision-making in emergent situations. Little is known about surgeons' perceptions of shared decision-making in these settings.

STUDY DESIGN

Twenty semi-structured interviews were conducted with practicing surgeons at 2 large academic medical centers. Thirteen questions and 2 case vignettes were used to assess perceptions of decision-making, considerations when deciding whether to offer to operate, and communication patterns with patients and families.

RESULTS

Thematic analysis revealed 6 major themes: responsibility for the decision to operate, perceived futility, surgeon judgment, surgeon introspection, pressure to operate, and costs of the operation. Perceived futility was universally considered a contraindication to surgical intervention. However, the challenge of defining futility led participants to emphasize the importance of patients' self-determined risk-to-benefit analysis when considering surgical intervention. More experienced surgeons reported greater comfort with communicating to patients that a condition was not amenable to an operation and reserved the right to refuse to operate.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to external pressures and uncertainty, some providers err on the side of operative intervention, despite suspected futility. Greater experience allows surgeons to withstand external pressures, be confident in their assessments of perceived futility, and guide patients and their families away from additional interventions.

Barriers and facilitators to orthopaedic surgeons' uptake of decision aids for total knee arthroplasty: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

The demand for total knee arthroplasty (TKA) is increasing. Differentiating who will derive a clinically meaningful improvement from TKA from others is a key challenge for orthopaedic surgeons. Decision aids can help surgeons select appropriate candidates for surgery, but their uptake has been low. The aim of this study was to explore the barriers and facilitators to decision aid uptake among orthopaedic surgeons.

DESIGN

A qualitative study involving face-to-face interviews. Questions were constructed on the Theoretical Domains Framework to systematically explore barriers and facilitators.

SETTING

One tertiary hospital in Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty orthopaedic surgeons performing TKA.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Beliefs underlying similar interview responses were identified and grouped together as themes describing relevant barriers and facilitators to uptake of decision aids.

RESULTS

While prioritising their clinical acumen, surgeons believed a decision aid could enhance communication and patient informed consent. Barriers identified included the perception that one's patient outcomes were already optimal; a perceived lack of non-operative alternatives for the management of end-stage osteoarthritis, concerns about mandatory cut-offs for patient-centred care and concerns about the medicolegal implications of using a decision aid.

CONCLUSIONS

Multifaceted implementation interventions are required to ensure that orthopaedic surgeons are ready, willing and able to use a TKA decision aid. Audit/feedback to address current decision-making biases such as overconfidence may enhance readiness to uptake. Policy changes and/or incentives may enhance willingness to uptake. Finally, the design/implementation of effective non-operative treatments may enhance ability to uptake by ensuring that surgeons have the resources they need to carry out decisions.

A Framework to Improve Surgeon Communication in High-Stakes Surgical Decisions: Best Case/Worst Case

Importance

Although many older adults prefer to avoid burdensome interventions with limited ability to preserve their functional status, aggressive treatments, including surgery, are common near the end of life. Shared decision making is critical to achieve value-concordant treatment decisions and minimize unwanted care. However, communication in the acute inpatient setting is challenging.

Objective

To evaluate the proof of concept of an intervention to teach surgeons to use the Best Case/Worst Case framework as a strategy to change surgeon communication and promote shared decision making during high-stakes surgical decisions.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Our prospective pre-post study was conducted from June 2014 to August 2015, and data were analyzed using a mixed methods approach. The data were drawn from decision-making conversations between 32 older inpatients with an acute nonemergent surgical problem, 30 family members, and 25 surgeons at 1 tertiary care hospital in Madison, Wisconsin.

Interventions

A 2-hour training session to teach each study-enrolled surgeon to use the Best Case/Worst Case communication framework.

Main Outcomes and Measures

We scored conversation transcripts using OPTION 5, an observer measure of shared decision making, and used qualitative content analysis to characterize patterns in conversation structure, description of outcomes, and deliberation over treatment alternatives.

Results

The study participants were patients aged 68 to 95 years (n = 32), 44% of whom had 5 or more comorbid conditions; family members of patients (n = 30); and surgeons (n = 17). The median OPTION 5 score improved from 41 preintervention (interquartile range, 26-66) to 74 after Best Case/Worst Case training (interquartile range, 60-81). Before training, surgeons described the patient's problem in conjunction with an operative solution, directed deliberation over options, listed discrete procedural risks, and did not integrate preferences into a treatment recommendation. After training, surgeons using Best Case/Worst Case clearly presented a choice between treatments, described a range of postoperative trajectories including functional decline, and involved patients and families in deliberation.

Conclusions and Relevance

Using the Best Case/Worst Case framework changed surgeon communication by shifting the focus of decision-making conversations from an isolated surgical problem to a discussion about treatment alternatives and outcomes. This intervention can help surgeons structure challenging conversations to promote shared decision making in the acute setting.

American College of Surgeons NSQIP Risk Calculator Accuracy for Emergent and Elective Colorectal Operations

BACKGROUND

The American College of Surgeons NSQIP has developed a risk calculator (RC) to assist patients and surgeons with difficult decisions. The aim of this analysis was to determine the accuracy of the RC in patients undergoing elective and emergent colorectal operations.

STUDY DESIGN

From January 2013 through December 2015, seventy-five patients undergoing emergent colorectal operations were paired by date with 75 patients having elective colorectal operations. Patient data were entered into the RC. Actual postoperative outcomes, derived from NSQIP data, were compared with those predicted by the RC.

RESULTS

Emergent and elective patients differed (p < 0.05) with respect to age, functional status, American Society of Anesthesiologists class, steroid use, wound class, COPD, and chronic renal insufficiency. The RC accurately predicted outcomes in elective patients. Outcomes were significantly worse (p < 0.05) after the emergent operations. In emergent cases, the RC underestimated serious complications and length of stay and overestimated discharge to a skilled nursing facility (all p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The American College of Surgeons NSQIP RC accurately predicts outcomes for elective colorectal operations. Predicted and actual outcomes are significantly better in patients undergoing elective colon operations compared with those undergoing emergent procedures. The RC should be used with caution in emergent cases, as it has the potential to underestimate serious complications and length of stay, and overestimate discharge to skilled nursing facility. Refinement of the tool to include procedure complexity and diagnosis terms might improve its accuracy in emergent cases.

Heuristics and bias in rectal surgery

PURPOSE

Deciding to defunction after anterior resection can be difficult, requiring cognitive tools or heuristics. From our previous work, increasing age and risk-taking propensity were identified as heuristic biases for surgeons in Australia and New Zealand (CSSANZ), and inversely proportional to the likelihood of creating defunctioning stomas. We aimed to assess these factors for colorectal surgeons in the British Isles, and identify other potential biases.

METHODS

The Association of Coloproctology of Great Britain and Ireland (ACPGBI) was invited to complete an online survey. Questions included demographics, risk-taking propensity, sensitivity to professional criticism, self-perception of anastomotic leak rate and propensity for creating defunctioning stomas. Chi-squared testing was used to assess differences between ACPGBI and CSSANZ respondents. Multiple regression analysis identified independent surgeon predictors of stoma formation.

RESULTS

One hundred fifty (19.2%) eligible members of the ACPGBI replied. Demographics between ACPGBI and CSSANZ groups were well-matched. Significantly more ACPGBI surgeons admitted to anastomotic leak in the last year (p < 0.001). ACPGBI surgeon age over 50 (p = 0.02), higher risk-taking propensity across several domains (p = 0.044), self-belief in a lower-than-average anastomotic leak rate (p = 0.02) and belief that the average risk of leak after anterior resection is 8% or lower (p = 0.007) were all independent predictors of less frequent stoma formation. Sensitivity to criticism from colleagues was not a predictor of stoma formation.

CONCLUSIONS

Unrecognised surgeon factors including age, everyday risk-taking, self-belief in surgical ability and lower probability bias of anastomotic leak appear to exert an effect on decision-making in rectal surgery.

Predictive Factors of Intestinal Necrosis in Acute Mesenteric Ischemia: Prospective Study from an Intestinal Stroke Center

OBJECTIVES

To identify predictive factors for irreversible transmural intestinal necrosis (ITIN) in acute mesenteric ischemia (AMI) and establish a risk score for ITIN.

METHODS

This single-center prospective cohort study was performed between 2009 and 2015 in patients with AMI. The primary outcome was the occurrence of ITIN, confirmed by specimen analysis in patients who underwent surgery. Patients who recovered from AMI with no need for intestinal resection were considered not to have ITIN. Clinical, biological and radiological data were compared in a Cox regression model.

RESULTS

A total of 67 patients were included. The origin of AMI was arterial, venous, or non-occlusive in 61%, 37%, 2% of cases, respectively. Intestinal resection and ITIN concerned 42% and 34% of patients, respectively. Factors associated with ITIN in multivariate analysis were: organ failure (hazard ratio (HR): 3.1 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.1-8.5); P=0.03), serum lactate levels >2 mmol/l (HR: 4.1 (95% CI: 1.4-11.5); P=0.01), and bowel loop dilation on computerized tomography scan (HR: 2.6 (95% CI: 1.2-5.7); P=0.02). ITIN rate increased from 3% to 38%, 89%, and 100% in patients with 0, 1, 2, and 3 factors, respectively. Area under the receiver operating characteristics curve for the diagnosis of ITIN was 0.936 (95% CI: 0.866-0.997) depending on the number of predictive factors.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified three predictive factors for irreversible intestinal ischemic injury requiring resection in the setting of AMI. Close monitoring of these factors could help avoid unnecessary laparotomy, prevent resection, as well as complications due to unresected necrosis, and possibly lower the overall mortality.

"Best Case/Worst Case": Training Surgeons to Use a Novel Communication Tool for High-Risk Acute Surgical Problems

CONTEXT

Older adults often have surgery in the months preceding death, which can initiate postoperative treatments inconsistent with end-of-life values. "Best Case/Worst Case" (BC/WC) is a communication tool designed to promote goal-concordant care during discussions about high-risk surgery.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to evaluate a structured training program designed to teach surgeons how to use BC/WC.

METHODS

Twenty-five surgeons from one tertiary care hospital completed a two-hour training session followed by individual coaching. We audio-recorded surgeons using BC/WC with standardized patients and 20 hospitalized patients. Hospitalized patients and their families participated in an open-ended interview 30 to 120 days after enrollment. We used a checklist of 11 BC/WC elements to measure tool fidelity and surgeons completed the Practitioner Opinion Survey to measure acceptability of the tool. We used qualitative analysis to evaluate variability in tool content and to characterize patient and family perceptions of the tool.

RESULTS

Surgeons completed a median of 10 of 11 BC/WC elements with both standardized and hospitalized patients (range 5-11). We found moderate variability in presentation of treatment options and description of outcomes. Three months after training, 79% of surgeons reported BC/WC is better than their usual approach and 71% endorsed active use of BC/WC in clinical practice. Patients and families found that BC/WC established expectations, provided clarity, and facilitated deliberation.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons can learn to use BC/WC with older patients considering acute high-risk surgical interventions. Surgeons, patients, and family members endorse BC/WC as a strategy to support complex decision making.

[Management of mesenteric ischemia in the era of intestinal stroke centers: The gut and lifesaving strategy]

Mesenteric ischemia is a gut and life-threatening, medical and surgical, digestive and vascular emergency. Mesenteric ischemia is the result of an arterial or venous occlusion, a vasospasm secondary to low-flow states in intensive care patients, aortic clamping during vascular surgery or intestinal transplantation. Progression towards mesenteric infarction and its complications is unpredictable and correlates with high rates of mortality or a high risk of short bowel syndrome in case of survival. Thus, mesenteric ischemia should be diagnosed and treated at an early stage, when gut injury is still reversible. Diagnostic workup lacks sensitive and specific clinical and biological marker. Consequently, diagnosis and effective therapy can be achieved by a high clinical suspicion and a specific multimodal management: the gut and lifesaving strategy. Based on the model of ischemic stroke centers, the need for a multidisciplinary and expert 24/24 emergency care has led, in 2016, to the inauguration of the first Intestinal Stroke Center (Structure d'urgences vasculaires intestinales [SURVI]) in France. This review highlights the pathophysiological features of chronic and acute mesenteric ischemia, as well as the diagnosis workup and the therapeutic management developed in this Intestinal Stroke Center.