Decision making, bias, and low grade glioma

Stereotactic radiosurgery training patterns across neurosurgical programs: a multi-national survey

INTRODUCTION

The field of neurosurgery has witnessed a dramatic increase in the use of stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS) as a modality to treat various cranial and spinal pathologies. However, studies have consistently demonstrated disparities in SRS training. Accordingly, the present study represents a cross-sectional analysis of current SRS training and practice patterns.

METHODS

An online survey was utilized to collect data from participants. Two-sided t-tests were used in order to compare frequency tables for statistically significant differences between groups. Qualitative analyses were performed by modified thematic analyses, employing open and axial coding.

RESULTS

A total of 67 participants completed the online survey (16.4% response rate). The majority of participants were neurosurgery attendings (58.2%), followed by neurosurgery residents (25.4%). The majority of participants reported that resident exposure to SRS was gained primarily through non-SRS focused rotations (52.2%). The survey found that exposure to tumor cases was most frequent, followed by functional, vascular, and spine indications. The majority of participants (49.3%) indicate that residents are not competent or exhibit a low level of competency in SRS at the completion of neurosurgical residency. Qualitative analyses demonstrated that respondents believe SRS is a critical modality in current cranial neurosurgical care and that increased training is needed.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides a multi-national analysis of SRS residency training and practice patterns, and aims to stimulate improvement in SRS in training worldwide. Enhanced resident training in SRS must include wider exposure to vascular, neoplastic, functional and pediatric indications for SRS.

Factors Affecting Surgical Decision-making-A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Guidelines and Class 1 evidence are strong factors that help guide surgeons' decision-making, but dilemmas exist in selecting the best surgical option, usually without the benefit of guidelines or Class 1 evidence. A few studies have discussed the variability of surgical treatment options that are currently available, but no study has examined surgeons' views on the influential factors that encourage them to choose one surgical treatment over another. This study examines the influential factors and the thought process that encourage surgeons to make these decisions in such circumstances.

METHODS

Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with 32 senior consultant surgeons, surgical fellows, and senior surgical residents at the University of Toronto teaching hospitals. An e-mail was sent out for volunteers, and interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and subjected to thematic analysis using open and axial coding.

RESULTS

Broadly speaking there are five groups of factors affecting surgeons' decision-making: medical condition, information, institutional, patient, and surgeon factors. When information factors such as guidelines and Class 1 evidence are lacking, the other four groups of factors-medical condition, institutional, patient, and surgeon factors (the last-mentioned likely being the most powerful)-play a significant role in guiding surgical decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

This study is the first qualitative study on surgeons' perspectives on the influential factors that help them choose one surgical treatment option over another for their patients.

Neuro-oncology: Under-recognized mental incapacity in brain tumour patients

Many patients with brain tumours possess inadequate mental capacity to provide informed consent, but this situation often goes undetected because clinicians do not routinely conduct formal cognitive assessments. This oversight should be recognized and rectified to enable optimum ethical and medical care of these vulnerable individuals.