Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE OF REVIEW:This review explores trends in the United States (US) transplant surgery workforce with a focus on historical demographics, post-fellowship job market, and quality of life reported by transplant surgeons. Ongoing efforts to improve women and racial/ethnic minority representation in transplant surgery are highlighted. Future directions to create a transplant workforce that reflects the diversity of the US population are discussed. RECENT FINDINGS:Representation of women and racial and ethnic minorities among transplant surgeons is minimal. Although recent data shows an improvement in the number of Black transplant surgeons from 2% to 5.5% and an increase in women to 12%, the White to Non-White transplant workforce ratio has increased 35% from 2000 to 2013. Transplant surgeons report an average of 4.3 call nights per week and less than five leisure days a month. Transplant ranks 1st among surgical sub-specialties in the prevalence of three well-studied facets of burnout. Concerns about lifestyle may contribute to the decreasing demand for advanced training in abdominal transplantation by US graduates. SUMMARY:Minimal improvements have been made in transplant surgery workforce diversity. Sustained and intentional recruitment and promotion efforts are needed to improve the representation of women and minority physicians and advanced practice providers in the field.

Transplanting hepatitis C viremic donor organs into hepatitis C virus (HCV)-negative recipients is becoming increasingly common; however, practices for posttransplant direct-acting antiviral (DAA) treatment vary widely. Protracted insurance authorization processes for DAA therapy often lead to treatment delays.

BACKGROUND:Transplant surgery fellowship has evolved over the years and today there are 66 accredited training programs in the US and Canada. There is growing concern, however, about the number of US-trained general surgery residents pursuing transplant surgery. In this study, we examined the transplant surgery pipeline, comparing it with other surgical subspecialty fellowships, and characterized the resident transplantation experience. METHODS:Datasets were compiled and analyzed from surgical fellowship match data obtained from the National Resident Matching Program and ACGME reports and relative fellowship competitiveness was assessed. The surgical resident training experience in transplantation was evaluated. RESULTS:From 2006 to 2018, a total of 1,094 applicants have applied for 946 transplant surgery fellowship positions; 299 (27.3%) were US graduates. During this period, there was a 0.8% decrease per year in US-trained surgical residents matching into transplant surgery (p = 0.042). In addition, transplant surgery was one of the least competitive fellowships compared with other National Resident Matching Program surgical subspeciality fellowships, as measured by the number of US applicants per available fellowship position, average number of fellowship programs listed on each applicant's rank list, and proportion of unfilled fellowship positions (each, p < 0.05). Finally, from 2015 to 2017, there were 57 general surgery residency programs that produced 77 transplant surgery fellows, but nearly one-half of the fellows (n = 36 [46.8%]) came from 16 (28.1%) programs. CONCLUSIONS:Transplant surgery is one of the least competitive and sought after surgical fellowships for US-trained residents. These findings highlight the need for dedicated efforts to increase exposure, mentorship, and interest in transplantation to recruit strong US graduates.

BACKGROUND:The American Board of Surgery has initiated a pilot study to investigate the incorporation of Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) into the training of general surgery residents (GSR). Limited data exist on perception of EPAs by GSR. We aimed to assess the impact of EPAs on GSR for 2 included program topics: inguinal hernia and general surgery consultation. STUDY DESIGN/METHODS:A 21-question, cross-sectional, Likert scale survey was distributed to 64 GSR at an urban university hospital to assess perceptions and apprehensions regarding EPA implementation. The Mann-Whitney U test was used to analyze differences in responses between junior residents (PGY 1-3) and senior residents (PGY 4-5), and by gender of respondent, α = 0.05. RESULTS:Forty-one (64%) GSR completed surveys. Approximately one-half of respondents had "faint to some" knowledge about EPAs. Fifty-seven percent of GSR were "moderately to highly concerned" about being assessed by attending surgeons with whom they did not have a prior relationship. Additionally, concerns were raised about being assessed by attending surgeons who may have observed their patient interaction only in part. Most GSR expressed "little to no concern" about impact of EPAs to potentially increase workload, the view of their program director as to their clinical competency, or American Board of Surgery plans to use collected data. Forty-two percent GSR in PGY 1 to 3 were "moderately to highly" concerned about impact on progression to the next year of residency, whereas senior GSR had "little to no concern." Most GSR (57%) expressed "moderate to high" concern about emergency medicine attending physicians evaluating them. Similar themes regarding EMA evaluation were identified in the comments section of the survey. CONCLUSIONS:EPAs are intended to be a major part of GSR's competency-based assessment and advancement. More work needs to be done to alleviate concerns as to who should provide assessments, as well as in defining how EPAs will be used to assess clinical competency.

BACKGROUND:Feedback (FB) regarding perioperative care is essential in general surgery residents' (GSRs) training. We hypothesized that FB would be distributed unevenly across preoperative (PrO), intraoperative (IO), and postoperative (PO) continuum of the perioperative period. We aimed to compare results between university- and community-hospital settings planning to institute structured, formalized FB in a large health care system operating multiple surgery residency programs in departments that are linked strategically. METHODS:Quantitative, cross-sectional, Likert scale anonymous surveys were distributed to all GSRs (categorical and preliminary; university: community 1:2). Twenty-five questions considered frequency and perceived quality of FB in PrO, IO, and PO settings. Data were tabulated using REDCap and analyzed in Microsoft Excel using the Mann-Whitney U test, with α = 0.05. Comparisons were made between university- and community-hospital settings, between junior (Post-Graduate Year (PGY) 1-3) and senior (PGY 4-5) GSRs, and by gender. RESULTS:Among 115 GSRs surveyed, 83 (72%) responded. Whereas 93% reported receiving some FB within the past year, 46% reported receiving FB ≤ 20% of the time. A majority (58%) found FB to be helpful ≥ 80% of the time. Among GSRs, 77%, 24%, and 64% reported receiving PrO, IO, or PO FB ≤ 20% of the time, respectively, but 52% also believed that FB was lacking in all 3 areas. Most GSRs wanted designated time for PrO planning FB (82%) and PO FB (87%), respectively. Thirty-six percent of GSRs reported that senior/chief (i.e., PGY-4/PGY-5 GSRs) took them through cases ≥40% of the time; notably,78% reported that FB from senior/chief GSRs was equally or more valuable than FB from attending surgeons. A majority (78%) reported that attending surgeons stated explicitly when they were providing FB only ≤20% of the time. GSRs at the community hospital campuses reported receiving a higher likelihood of "any" FB, IO FB, and PO FB (p < 0.05). Most GSRs surveyed preferred a structured format and designated times for debriefing and evaluation of performance. Subanalyses of gender and GSR level of training showed no differences. CONCLUSIONS:FB during GSR training varies across the perioperative continuum of care. Community programs seem to do better than University Programs. More work need to be done to elucidate why differences exist between the frequency of FB at University and Community programs. Further, data show particularly low FB outside of the operating room. Ideally, according to respondents, FB would be provided in a structured format and at designated times for debriefing and evaluation of performance, which poses a challenge considering the temporal dynamism of general surgery services.

BACKGROUND:Renal transplant allograft function in patients with tertiary hyperparathyroidism who are treated with cinacalcet versus parathyroidectomy remains unclear. METHODS:This is a retrospective, single-center review of patients with tertiary hyperparathyroidism between 2000 and 2017. We compared clinical parameters and outcomes, including renal allograft failure in patients who had undergone parathyroidectomy versus treatment with cinacalcet therapy. RESULTS:A total of 133 patients were included (33 who received parathyroidectomy and 100 who received cinacalcet); median renal allograft survival was 5.9 years (interquartile range 4.0-9.0). There were no differences in age, sex, body mass index, comorbidities, duration of pretransplant dialysis, cadaveric donor utilization, or rates of delayed allograft function between cohorts. In the parathyroidectomy cohort, normalization of parathyroid hormone occurred more frequently (67% vs 15%, P < .001) and renal allograft failure rates were less (9% vs 33%, P = .007), with similar median posttransplant follow-up (7.0 years [interquartile range 4.5-10.0]). On multivariable analysis, parathyroidectomy was inversely associated with allograft failure (odds ratio 0.20, 95%-confidence interval 0.06-0.71, P = .013); there were no other associated factors. A greater median parathyroid hormone (pg/mL) 1 year posttransplant (348 [interquartile range 204-493] vs 195 [interquartile range 147-297], P = .025) was associated with allograft failure in the cinacalcet cohort. CONCLUSION:Parathyroidectomy for tertiary hyperparathyroidism is associated with lesser rates of renal allograft failure compared with cinacalcet management. Patients with inadequate parathyroid hormone control on cinacalcet at 1 year posttransplant should be considered for parathyroidectomy to prevent potential allograft failure.

BACKGROUND:The Association of Perioperative Registered Nurses (AORN) released new guidelines for operating room attire in 2015 in an attempt to reduce surgical site infections (SSIs). These guidelines have been adopted by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. We aimed to assess the relationships among operating room attire, SSIs, and healthcare costs. STUDY DESIGN:In March 2016, our center introduced the AORN attire policy. National Health Safety Network data from our hospital were collected on general surgery, cardiac, neurosurgery, orthopaedic, and gynecology procedures from January 2014 to November 2017. The SSI rates and microbiological culture data for 30,493 procedures before and after policy implementation were compared using propensity score matching. The associated costs of the AORN policy were analyzed. RESULTS:After 1:1 propensity score matching, 12,585 matched pairs spanning the policy change were included (25,170 patients total); before policy change (BC group) and after policy change (AC group). The rate of SSIs did not differ between groups (1.0% AC group vs 1.1% BC group; p = 0.7). There was no difference in the incidence of Staphylococcal species cultured from wounds (19.3% AC group vs 16.8% BC group; p = 0.6). Multivariable analyses demonstrated that wound classification and emergent procedures were the strongest independent predictors of SSIs. The cost of attire for 1 person entering the operating room increased from $0.07 to $0.12 before policy change to $1.11 to $1.38 after policy change. Use of the mandated operating room long-sleeved jackets alone in our institution was associated with an added cost of $1,128,078 annually, which translates to an estimated $540 million per year for all US hospitals combined. CONCLUSIONS:Implementation of the AORN guidelines has not decreased SSIs and has increased healthcare costs.

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.

BACKGROUND:Racial/ethnic diversity remains poor in academic surgery. However, no study has quantified differences in the rates of retention and promotion of underrepresented minority (URM) academic surgeons. METHODS:The American Association of Medical Colleges Faculty Roster was used to track all first-time assistant and associate professors appointed between 1/1/2003 and 12/31/2006. Primary endpoints were percent promotion and retention at ten-year follow-up. RESULTS:Initially, the majority of assistant and associate professors of surgery were White (62%; 75%). Black assistant professors had lower 10-year promotion rates across all specialties (p < 0.01). There were no race/ethnicity-based differences in promotion for associate professors. Retention rates were higher for White assistant professors than Asian or Black/Hispanic/Other minority faculty (61.3% vs 52.8% vs. 50.8% respectively; p < 0.01). There was no difference in 10-year retention rates among associate professors based on race/ethnicity. CONCLUSIONS:Underrepresented minority surgeons are less likely to remain in academia and Black assistant professors have the lowest rates of promotion. These findings highlight the need to develop institutional programs to better support and develop minority faculty members in academic medicine.