Citations

Briefings are suggested to be an important mechanism for establishing and maintaining cohesive teams. However, there is still much to learn about briefings and how best to design and implement them for surgical teams in the operating room. Currently, there are no formally recognized protocols or methodologies for conducting surgical team briefings. This research reports preliminary findings from an effort to develop a model of team briefings for gynecological surgical teams. Semi-structured interviews were conducted using techniques derived from Applied Cognitive Task Analysis (Millitello & Hutton, 1998) with thirteen surgical team members spanning six different roles including surgeon, surgical resident, registered nurse, certified surgical assistant, certified scrub technician, and anesthesia. Findings reveal that informational needs are consistent across the team but also vary by individual role, illustrating the importance of addressing all stakeholders in potential interventions. Implications for the development of a team briefing model are discussed.

BackgroundA histologic hallmark of chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) is an eosinophilic inflammation, present with and without nasal polyposis and independent of atopy. Eosinophils migrate through nasal tissue including the epithelium into the nasal airway mucus, where they form clusters and degranulate, releasing granule proteins including the toxic major basic protein (MBP). Specific biomarkers for CRS, which could be used as a diagnostic test for CRS with a high sensitivity and specificity, are presently lacking. Recently, an enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)‐based test for MBP in nasal airway mucus received regulatory approval.MethodsA new assay was specifically developed to detect released MBP in airway mucus. MBP levels in nasal mucus of 85 randomly selected CRS patients diagnosed by endoscopy, computed tomography (CT) scans and symptoms were compared to 13 healthy controls and 5 disease controls (allergic rhinitis).ResultsOverall, 92% (78/85) of CRS patients’ mucus were positive for MBP (mean 7722 ng/mL) vs none of 13 healthy controls and none of 5 allergic rhinitis patients (<7.8 ng/mL; p < 0.000000000002). In this study, the MBP ELISA had a 92% sensitivity and 100% specificity for CRS.ConclusionFree MBP in nasal mucus can be used as a biomarker to diagnose CRS. The MBP ELISA represents the first immunologically‐based test to potentially distinguish CRS from the eosinophilic inflammation in allergic rhinitis.

BACKGROUND:Youth ice hockey is an exciting sport with growing participation in the United States. Updated assessment of injury patterns is needed to determine risk factors for severe injury and develop preventive efforts. The purpose of this study was to evaluate our experience as a level 1 pediatric trauma center in Minnesota treating injured youth ice hockey players.METHODS:Children ≤18 years old who presented to our institution from July 1997 to July 2013 with an injury sustained while participating in ice hockey were identified. Patient demographic information, injury characteristics, and outcomes including use of computed tomography, hospital admission, and procedures were obtained. Age- and gender-specific patterns were determined for injuries and outcomes.RESULTS:Over 16 years, 168 injuries in 155 children occurred, including 26 (15.5%) injuries in girls. Extremity injuries were most common, followed by traumatic brain injury. Injuries to the spine, face, and trunk were less common. Traumatic brain injury and injuries to the spine were most common in younger children (≤14 years old) and girls, whereas injuries to the face were most common in older players (≥15 years old). Most injuries resulted from intentional contact. Admission to the hospital was needed in 65 patients, including 14 (8.3%) who needed intensive care. A major procedure was needed by 23.2% of patients because of their injuries.CONCLUSIONS:Youth ice hockey trauma can be severe, necessitating a thorough evaluation of injured children. Injury patterns are influenced by age and gender, providing an opportunity for targeted preventive efforts.

BACKGROUNDSurgeon and hospital factors are associated with the survival of patients treated for rectal cancer. The relative contribution of each of these factors toward determining outcomes is poorly understood.METHODSWe used data from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results–Medicare database to analyze the outcomes of patients aged 65 years and older undergoing operative treatment for nonmetastatic rectal cancer, diagnosed in the United States between 1998 and 2007. These data were linked to a registry to identify whether the treating surgeon was a board‐certified colorectal surgeon versus a noncolorectal surgeon. Hospital volume and hospital certification as a National Cancer Institute–designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers were also analyzed. The primary outcome of interest was long‐term survival.RESULTSOur data source yielded 6432 patients. Initial analysis demonstrated improved long‐term survival in patients treated by higher‐volume colorectal surgeons, higher‐volume hospitals, teaching hospitals, and National Cancer Institute (NCI)–designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers. Based on an iterative approach to modeling the interactions between these various factors, we found a robust effect of surgeon subspecialty status, hospital volume, and NCI designation. Surgeon volume was not distinctly associated with long‐term survival.CONCLUSIONSPatients treated for rectal cancer by board‐certified colorectal surgeons in centers that are higher volume and/or NCI‐designated Comprehensive Cancer Centers experience better overall survival. These differences persist after adjustment for a broad range of patient and contextual risk factors, including surgeon volume. Patients and payers can use these results to identify surgeons and hospitals where outcomes are most favorable. Cancer 2014;120:2472–2481. © 2014 American Cancer Society.

Adverse events because of medical errors are a leading cause of death in the United States (US) exceeding the mortality rates of motor vehicle accidents, breast cancer, and AIDS. Improvements can and should be made to reduce the rates of preventable surgical errors because they account for nearly half of all adverse events within hospitals. Although minimally invasive surgery (MIS) has proven patient benefits such as reduced postoperative pain and hospital stay, its operative environment imposes substantial physical and cognitive strain on the surgeon increasing the risk of error. To mitigate errors and protect patients, a multidisciplinary approach is needed to improve MIS. Clinical human factors, and biomedical engineering principles and methodologies can be used to develop and assess laparoscopic surgery instrumentation, practices, and procedures. First, the foundational understanding and the imperative to transform health care into a high-quality and safe system is discussed. Next, a generalized perspective is presented on the impact of the design and redesign of surgical technologies and processes on human performance. Finally, the future of this field and the research needed to further improve the quality and safety of MIS is discussed.

AbstractIntroductionIn response to the need for simple, rapid means of quantifying surgical capacity in low resource settings, Surgeons OverSeas (SOS) developed the personnel, infrastructure, procedures, equipment and supplies (PIPES) tool. The present investigation assessed the inter‐rater reliability of the PIPES tool.MethodsAs part of a government assessment of surgical services in Santa Cruz, Bolivia, the PIPES tool was translated into Spanish and applied in interviews with physicians at 31 public hospitals. An additional interview was conducted with nurses at a convenience sample of 25 of these hospitals. Physician and nurse responses were then compared to generate an estimate of reliability. For dichotomous survey items, inter‐rater reliability between physicians and nurses was assessed using the Cohen’s kappa statistic and percent agreement. The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to assess agreement for continuous items. ResultsCohen’s kappa was 0.46 for infrastructure, 0.43 for procedures, 0.26 for equipment, and 0 for supplies sections. The median correlation coefficient was 0.91 for continuous items. Correlation was 0.79 for the PIPES index, and ranged from 0.32 to 0.98 for continuous response items.ConclusionsReliability of the PIPES tool was moderate for the infrastructure and procedures sections, fair for the equipment section, and poor for supplies section when comparing surgeons’ responses to nurses’ responses—an extremely rigorous test of reliability. These results indicate that the PIPES tool is an effective measure of surgical capacity but that the equipment and supplies sections may need to be revised.

BACKGROUNDTo ensure that National Institutes of Health‐funded research is relevant to the population's needs, specific emphasis on proportional representation of minority/sex groups into National Cancer Institute (NCI) cancer centers' clinical research programs is reported to the NCI.METHODSEMPaCT investigators at 5 regionally diverse comprehensive cancer centers compared data reported to the NCI for their most recent Cancer Center Support Grant competitive renewal to assess and compare the centers' catchment area designations, data definitions, data elements, collection processes, reporting, and performance regarding proportional representation of race/ethnicity and sex subsets.RESULTSCancer centers' catchment area definitions differed widely in terms of their cancer patient versus general population specificity, levels of specificity, and geographic coverage. Racial/ethnic categories were similar, yet were defined differently, across institutions. Patients' socioeconomic status and insurance status were inconsistently captured across the 5 centers.CONCLUSIONSCatchment area definitions and the collection of patient‐level demographic factors varied widely across the 5 comprehensive cancer centers. This challenged the assessment of success by cancer centers in accruing representative populations into the cancer research enterprise. Accrual of minorities was less than desired for at least 1 racial/ethnic subcategory at 4 of the 5 centers. Institutions should clearly and consistently declare their primary catchment area and the rationale and should report how race/ethnicity and sex are defined, determined, collected, and reported. More standardized, frequent, consistent collection, reporting, and review of these data are recommended, as is a commitment to collecting socioeconomic data, given that socioeconomic status is a primary driver of cancer disparities in the United States. Cancer 2014;120(7 suppl):1113–21. © 2014 American Cancer Society.

Bridging for antiplatelet therapy remains a subject of debate with data favoring GP blockers but at a risk of bleeding. This Conversation in Cardiology addresses a key and often asked question about use of alternatives to P2Y12 agents in patients requiring surgery within 6 months after drug eluting stent implantation. © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.