What impact might general surgery practice patterns of colon and rectal surgeons have on future training?

Motivations and Barriers Toward Implementation of a Rectal Cancer Synoptic Operative Report: A Process Evaluation

BACKGROUND

The use of synoptic reporting has been shown to improve documentation of critical information and provide added value related to data access and extraction, data reliability, relevant detail, and completeness of information. Surgeon acceptance and adoption of synoptic reports has lagged behind other specialties.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the process of implementing a synoptic operative report.

DESIGN

This study was a mixed-methods process evaluation including surveys and qualitative interviews.

SETTINGS

This study focused on colorectal surgery practices across the United States.

PATIENTS

Twenty-eight board-certified colorectal surgeons were included.

INTERVENTIONS

The synoptic operative report for rectal cancer was implemented.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Acceptability, feasibility, and usability were measured by Likert-type survey questions and followed up with individual interviews to elicit experiences with implementation as well as motivations and barriers to use.

RESULTS

Among all study participants, 28 surgeons completed the electronic survey (76% response rate) and 21 (57%) completed the telephone interview. Mean usability was 4.14 (range, 1-5; SE, 0.15), mean feasibility was 3.90 (SE, 0.15), and acceptability was 3.98 (SE, 0.18). Participants indicated that substantial administrative and technical support were necessary but not always available for implementation, and many were frustrated by the need to change their workflow.

LIMITATIONS

Most surgeon participants were male, white, had >12 years in practice, and used Epic electronic medical record systems. Therefore, they may not represent the perspectives of all US colon and rectal surgeons. In addition, as the synoptic operative report is implemented more broadly across the United States, it will be important to consider variations in the process by electronic medical record system.

CONCLUSIONS

The synoptic operative report for rectal cancer was easy to implement and incorporate into workflow, in general, but surgeons remained concerned about additional burden without immediate and tangible value. Despite recognizing benefits, many participants indicated they only implemented the synoptic operative report because it was mandated by the National Accreditation Program for Rectal Cancer. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B735MOTIVACIONES Y BARRERAS HACIA LA IMPLEMENTACIÓN DE UN INFORME OPERATIVO SINÓPTICO DE CÁNCER RECTAL: UNA EVALUACIÓN DEL PROCESOANTECEDENTES:Se ha demostrado que el uso de informes sinópticos mejora la documentación de información crítica y proporciona un valor agregado relacionado con el acceso y extracción de datos, la confiabilidad de los datos, los detalles relevantes y la integridad de la información. La aceptación y adopción de informes sinópticos por parte de los cirujanos se ha quedado rezagada con respecto a otras especialidades.OBJETIVO:Evaluar el proceso de implementación de un informe operativo sinóptico.DISEÑO:Evaluación de procesos de métodos mixtos que incluyen encuestas y entrevistas cualitativas.AJUSTES:Prácticas de cirugía colorrectal en los Estados Unidos.PACIENTES:Veintiocho cirujanos colorrectales certificados por la junta.INTERVENCIONES:Implementación del informe operatorio sinóptico de cáncer de recto.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:Aceptabilidad, viabilidad y usabilidad medidas por preguntas de encuestas tipo Likert y seguidas con entrevistas individuales para obtener experiencias con la implementación, así como motivaciones y barreras para el uso.RESULTADOS:Entre todos los participantes del estudio, 28 cirujanos completaron la encuesta electrónica (tasa de respuesta del 76%) y 21 (57%) completaron la entrevista telefónica. La usabilidad media fue 4,14 (rango = 1-5, error estándar (EE) = 0,15), la factibilidad media fue 3,90 (EE = 0,15) y la aceptabilidad fue 3,98 (EE = 0,18). Los participantes indicaron que se necesitaba un apoyo administrativo y técnico sustancial, pero que no siempre estaba disponible para la implementación y muchos se sintieron frustrados por la necesidad de cambiar su flujo de trabajo.LIMITACIONES:La mayoría de los cirujanos participantes eran hombres, blancos, tenían >12 años en la práctica y usaban sistemas de registros médicos electrónicos de Epic. Por lo tanto, es posible que no representen las perspectivas de todos los cirujanos de colon y recto de EE. UU. Además, a medida que el informe operativo sinóptico se implemente de manera más amplia en los EE. UU., Será importante considerar las variaciones en el proceso por sistema EMR.CONCLUSIONES:El informe quirúrgico sinóptico para el cáncer de recto fue en general fácil de implementar e incorporar en el flujo de trabajo, pero los cirujanos seguían preocupados por la carga adicional sin valor inmediato y tangible. A pesar de reconocer los beneficios, muchos participantes indicaron que solo implementaron el informe operativo sinóptico porque era un mandato del Programa Nacional de Acreditación para el Cáncer de Recto. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B735 (Traducción-Dr. Xavier Delgadillo).

Development and validation of an MRI-based radiomic nomogram to distinguish between good and poor responders in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer undergoing neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy

PURPOSE

In the clinical management of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (LARC), the early identification of poor and good responders after neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (N-CRT) is essential. Therefore, we developed and validated predictive models including MRI findings from the structured report template, clinical and radiomics parameters to differentiate between poor and good responders in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy.

METHODS

Preoperative multiparametric MRI from 183 patients with locally advanced rectal cancer (122 in the training cohort, 61 in the validation cohort) was included in this retrospective study. After preprocessing, radiomic features were extracted and two methods of feature selection was applied to reduce the number of radiomics features. Logistic regression (LR) and random forest (RF) machine learning classifiers were trained to identify good responders from poor responders. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to incorporate the radiomic signature and clinical risk factors into a nomogram. Classifier performance was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV).

RESULTS

For the differentiation of poor and good responders, the radiomics model with an LR classifier achieved AUCs of 0.869 and 0.842 for the training and validation cohorts, respectively. The nomogram showed the highest reproducibility and prognostic ability in the training and validation cohorts, with AUCs of 0.923 (95% confidence interval, 0.872-0.975) and 0.898 (0.819-0.978), respectively. Additionally, the nomogram achieved significant risk stratification of patients in respect to progression free survival (PFS).

CONCLUSIONS

The nomogram accurately differentiated good and poor responders in patients with LARC undergoing N-CRT, and showed significant performance for predicting PFS.

Colorectal Surgery Fellowship Improves In-hospital Mortality After Colectomy and Proctectomy Irrespective of Hospital and Surgeon Volume

BACKGROUND

General surgery residents are increasingly pursuing sub-specialty training in colorectal (CR) surgery. However, the majority of operations performed by CR surgeons are also performed by general surgeons. This study aimed to assess in-hospital mortality stratified by CR training status after adjusting for surgeon and hospital volume.

METHODS

The Statewide Planning and Research Cooperative system database was used to identify all patients who underwent colectomy/proctectomy from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2014, in the state of New York. Operations performed by board-certified CR surgeons were identified. The relationships between CR board certification and in-hospital mortality, in-hospital complications, length of stay, and ostomy were assessed using multivariate regression models.

RESULTS

Two hundred seventy thousand six hundred eighty-four patients underwent colectomy/proctectomy over the study period. Seventy-two thousand two hundred seventy-nine (26.7%) of operations were performed by CR surgeons. Without adjusting for hospital and surgeon volume, in-hospital mortality was lower for those undergoing colectomy/proctectomy by a CR surgeon (OR 0.49, CI 0.44-0.54, p = 0.001). After controlling for hospital and surgeon volume, the odds of inpatient mortality after colectomy/proctectomy for those operated on by CR surgeons weakened to 0.76 (CI 0.68-0.86, p = 0.001). Hospital and surgeon volume accounted for 53% of the reduction in in-hospital mortality when CR surgeons performed colectomy/proctectomy. Patients who underwent surgery by a CR surgeon had a shorter inpatient stay (0.8 days, p = 0.001) and a decreased chance of colostomy (OR 0.86, CI 0.78-0.95, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

For patients undergoing colectomy/proctectomy, in-hospital mortality decreased when the operation was performed by a CR surgeon even after accounting for hospital and surgeon volume.

The american board of colon and rectal surgery: past, present, and future

Since the incorporation of the American Board of Proctology, development and refinement of the process of board certification has been a critical part of the establishment and growth of the specialty of colon and rectal surgery. Continued commitment to the process begun by the early pioneers of this field provides quality practitioners not only when initially trained, but increasingly throughout the continuum of each diplomate's professional career. Board certification and maintenance of certification are the most tangible examples of our commitment to our patients and the public.

Impact of the aging population on the demand for colorectal procedures

PURPOSE

With the baby boomers entering retirement age, the United States population is seeing a dramatic increase in the number of elderly individuals. We hypothesized that as a result, during the next 20 years, the demand for colorectal procedures will grow rapidly.

METHODS

We used the 2005 Nationwide Inpatient Sample and the Florida State Ambulatory Surgery Database as source data. From these two data sources, we identified commonly performed inpatient and outpatient colorectal procedures, as well as associated diagnoses. These data were combined with census projections to generate projected volumes for the selected procedures and diagnoses.

RESULTS

Between 2005 and 2025, the United States population is expected to grow by 18 percent, with disproportionate growth in individuals aged 65 to 74 years (92 percent) and those aged 75+ years (54 percent). We forecast that growth in outpatient procedures and inpatient procedures will be 21.3 percent and 40.6 percent, respectively. Inpatient operations for colon cancer and rectal cancer show the greatest growth.

CONCLUSIONS

During the next two decades, demographic changes in the United States population will lead to a marked increase in the use of colorectal surgical services, especially inpatient and oncologic procedures. The ability of the surgical workforce to meet this projected growth in demand should be assessed.