Can patients shower immediately after surgery

Here’s what a recent paper published ahead of print in Annals of Surgery says:

Between May 2013 and March 2014, 222 patients were randomized to the group allowed remove their dressings and shower at 48 hours and 222 to the group permitted to shower only after the original dressing and the sutures were removed in clinic. There were 4 (1.8%) superficial surgical site infections in the early shower group and 6 (2.7%) in the late shower group, an insignificant difference with p = 0.751.

The authors concluded that clean and clean-contaminated wounds can be safely showered 48 hours after surgery, and early postoperative showering may increase patient satisfaction.

I have always been an advocate of early showering after surgery. Wounds properly closed will be bridged by epithelium within 48 hours. Tap water is relatively sterile or we couldnt drink it. Many studies have shown that even irrigating open wounds with tap water instead of sterile saline does not lead to more infections. [Links here and here.]

Much as I would like to believe the Annals study, I can’t because it is probably underpowered to show a difference between the two groups.

Here is a nice definition of statistical power from a website called effectsizeFAQ.com:

“In plain English, statistical power is the likelihood that a study will detect an effect when there is an effect there to be detected. If statistical power is high, the probability of making a Type II error, or concluding there is no effect when, in fact, there is one, goes down.”

To their credit, the authors did try to estimate the sample sizes they would need by doing a power calculation. They knew that the wound infection rate for the cases they intended to enroll was about 1%. The problem is they estimated that showering at 48 hours would result in a wound infection rate of 5%. That seems very high to me for the types of cases included in their investigation—thyroid, lung, inguinal hernia and skin tumors.

If they had hypothesized that early showering would merely triple the rate of wound infections from 1% to 3%, they would have needed at least 1536 patients in each arm of the study. Then if there was no difference, one could conclude that early showering truly does not cause more wound infections.

Even if the known incidence of wound infection was much larger, say 5%, and the rate of infection with showering was presumed to be doubled (10%), to have enough power a study would need 434 patients in each arm.

Many websites provide calculators for determining the appropriate sample sizes to detect with a reasonable degree of certainty whether one intervention is better than another. Anyone thinking about doing a prospective randomized trial should realistically estimate the expected difference and calculate the power.

Whenever you read a negative study, the first question to ask is, “Was the study adequately powered to avoid a type II error?”

Read More..

It wasnt like this in my med school

When I was a medical student, we had to practice drawing blood on our lab partners. I remember the first day we did it. One guy fainted as he was having his blood drawn, and another fainted while he was drawing someone elses blood.

Weve made a lot of progress in medical education since then. In 2015, teaching blood drawing, which is going to eventually be taken over by robots anyway, is passé.

Students are suing a Florida sonography school because they were forced to perform transvaginal ultrasounds on each other almost every week. Those who complained were allegedly told to “find another school if they did not wish to be probed” said an article in the Washington Post.

While that seems out of line, it pales in comparison to allegations lodged against a former US Army doctor who ran a company that taught battlefield medicine to soldiers and made more than $10.5 million in the process.

According to Reuters, he gave students alcohol and drugs, including ketamine, a powerful hypnotic used as an anesthetic. Sometimes alcohol and ketamine were given at the same time.

Trainees were told to insert urinary catheters into each other, and two students underwent penile nerve blocks. On another occasion, when students balked at receiving penile blocks, the doctor had the students perform a penile nerve block on him. Its not clear what a penile nerve block has to do with treating wartime casualties.

If thats not troubling enough, he supposedly ran what he called "shock labs," during which he drew blood from trainees, observed them, and gave their blood back to them.

But wait, theres more. The doctor is alleged to have had a few beers with a student and examined, manipulated, and photographed the students uncircumcised penis.

The doctors claim that his methods are standard in Virginia medical schools was refuted by experts quoted in the Reuters piece.

The Virginia Medical Board has suspended the doctors license and will hold a hearing on June 19.

And we thought sticking each other with needles was traumatic.

Read More..

More on selecting and teaching residents

A resident emailed me with some questions about surgical residency programs and education. For space considerations, his queries are incorporated with my answers.

Thanks for sending the link to the paper on selecting residents. Many surgeons feel that choosing athletes who played a varsity sport—team or individual—in college is a good way to pick residents. With one notable exception, my limited experience is consistent with that idea. Its limited because there are not enough applicants (at least not to programs I ran) who are athletes. I have a post coming out soon about the subject of "grit" or conscientiousness and selecting residents who have high grit levels. A recent paper suggests that residents who drop out of surgical programs might have low grit levels.

The resident who wrote to me suggested trying to choose applicants who fit in. At first glance, the idea is appealing. However, the matching process can thwart that goal because the people you think will fit in may not rank the program highly. If everyone based their selections on who fit in best, there might not be women or minorities in many programs.

Teaching residents how to dictate operative notes is important for residents. The problem with allowing a resident to dictate a case is that the dictation is a legal document and cannot be removed from the chart, particularly if it is an electronic medical record. I have always felt that if a resident cannot coherently dictate a case, she probably did not learn how to do it and would not be able to do it by herself. Practicing off-line using speech recognition technology could overcome this problem. The resident could dictate a draft which then could be gone over with the attending thereby achieving the feedback which is a very important part of learning.

Regarding the best use of limited didactic time, I have no brilliant answers. In fact, Im glad Im no longer a program director and dont have to deal with this difficult question. One often overlooked factor in work hours limits discussions is that conference time has been quite negatively impacted since 2003.

Because about one-third of residents must go home early every morning means that there are no longer any afternoon conferences or rounds. Cramming 2 or 3 hours of didactic time into a single morning goes against many principles of learning especially if the sessions are boring lectures which do not engage the audience. Intermittent bursts of teaching and/or practice have been found to be better for learning than long single sessions. In addition, there is so much more to learn because of the expanding body of knowledge and mandates from the RRC and other regulatory entities.

I have written several posts advocating teaching residents how to think rather than memorize facts which are available on a smartphone. Heres one from 2012. However, this will require a top to bottom reorganization of not only the way residents are taught, but also the way they are tested.

Please comment if you disagree or have something to add.

Read More..

Facebook and unprofessional behavior among surgical residents

Have you ever wondered about the behavior of surgical residents on Facebook? I have. A study from the Journal of Surgical Education posted online in June 2014 looked at the issue.

The paper, "An Assessment of Unprofessional Behavior among Surgical Residents on Facebook: A Warning of the Dangers of Social Media," identified 996 surgical residents from 57 surgical residency programs in the Midwest and found that 319 (32%) had Facebook profiles.

Most (73.7%) displayed no unprofessional content, but 45 (14.1%) exhibited possibly unprofessional material. Clearly unprofessional behaviors were noted in 39 (12.2%) resident profiles. The paper said, "binge drinking, sexually suggestive photos, and Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) violations were the most commonly found variables."

There were no differences in the rates of unprofessional behavior between male and female residents or by postgraduate year.

I have blogged previously about the ill-defined nature of professionalism, and the papers authors acknowledged that it can be subjective. Some of the behaviors they felt were potentially unprofessional such as photos of residents holding an alcoholic drink, holding a gun while hunting, or making political or religious comments are debatable.

They referenced another paper that found similar rates of unprofessional behavior (16%) on Facebook among applicants to an orthopedic surgery residency program.

A 2005 New England Journal of Medicine case-control study found that practicing physicians disciplined by state medical boards were significantly more likely to have had documentation of unprofessional behavior in medical school as well as lower Medical College Admission Test scores and poorer grades in the first two years of medical school.

Unprofessional behaviors listed in the New England Journal paper were irresponsibility, diminished capacity for self-improvement, immaturity, poor initiative, impaired relationships with students, residents, nurses, or faculty, impaired relationships with patients and families, and unprofessional behavior associated with anxiety, insecurity, or nervousness.

Some of those seem a bit vague. Are diminished capacity for self-improvement and poor initiative really unprofessional behaviors?

Facebook unprofessional behavior and the unprofessional behavior documented in the NEJM paper which pre-dated the widespread use of Facebook may not be comparable.

But I suppose one could say that some of the Facebook behaviors could be categorized as immature or irresponsible.

Until stories about residents being rejected for jobs after training start emerging, there probably wont be a change in the way they use Facebook or other social media.

Or maybe society will change.

In 1987, politician Gary Hart had to withdraw as a candidate for the Democratic Partys presidential nomination because he had an extramarital affair, and just a few years later, the president himself had a dalliance with an intern in the White House and survived.

Who thought marijuana use would ever be legalized?

Read More..

Are today’s surgery residents poorly trained What can be done about it

A surgical resident writes

I’m sure you have read several recent studies suggesting that current general surgery residents are poorly trained and unprepared for independent practice at the completion of residency.

My questions for you:

1. In general, do you agree that current general surgery residents are poorly trained and unable to operate independently at the completion of residency?

2. What should we do differently? I personally don’t feel that “more simulation activities”, which many have suggested, is an adequate solution.

Thank you for the excellent questions.

I have been out of the surgical education loop for a few years and no longer have first-hand experience, but the literature does indicate that some surgical residency graduates are not ready to practice by themselves.

In 2013, I blogged about an Annals of Surgery paper reporting as many as one third of subspecialty general surgery fellowship directors felt that about one-third of incoming fellows were deficient in several areas and unable to independently perform a laparoscopic cholecystectomy or 30 minutes of a major case unsupervised.

Click on the table to enlarge it. You can see the responses of the program directors.

This paper was criticized by some because the fellowship directors surveyed were not subspecialtists recognized by the ACGME. The implication was that fellows in these programs might not be representative of all surgical graduates. However, many of them were minimally invasive fellowship programs which continue to be highly sought after.

Does it really matter? Some general surgery graduates apparently can’t operate by themselves.

In 2011, I blogged about a paper that reported 27% of all graduating surgical residents surveyed were not confident performing surgery by themselves. That was approximately the same percentage identified by the fellowship program directors.

Regarding what can be done about the issues of confidence and traing, I agree with you about simulation. You can simulate all you want, but being alone at 2 AM with a patient who is bleeding out cannot be adequately simulated.

The American College of Surgeons created a Transition to Practice Fellowship in 2013. They later change the name from a fellowship to a program. Of course, I blogged about this too. As far as I know, not many hospitals are involved. How many graduating residents have enrolled in this fellowship program is unknown.

Henry Buchwald, a prominent senior surgeon, recently advocated establishing “open surgery” fellowships and wrote, “I submit that it would behoove our training programs to return open surgery schooling to their curricula.” However, he doesn’t explain how this could be done or where one would go to do a fellowship and open surgery.

Life imitates art. In a post last year, I cited the visionary surgeon Leo Gordon who saw it coming in 2002. He predicted the need for a "macrolaparotomy" course, and said it could be run by the newly created "American Board of Open Surgery."

The lack of confidence stems from the gradual increase in supervision of residents over the last 15 to 20 years. In yet another blog post, I pointed out that many of today’s residents rarely if ever operate independently during residency training. To realize you are on your own as a full-fledged surgeon without ever having performed a case by yourself must be frightening.

With all the ACGME regulations, medicolegal concerns, and extensive scrutiny surgeons and trainees are subjected to, I don’t see this problem going away anytime soon.

All you can do as a surgical resident is to try to scrub on as many cases as possible and take care of as many patients as you can. With luck, you may have faculty who have enough confidence in themselves to allow you some autonomy and decision making in the OR and when managing patients pre-and postoperatively.

Read More..

A curious trend in appendectomies by residents

Some experts are worried that laparoscopic cholecystectomy is so prevalent that future surgeons may have difficulty doing open cases. I was going to blog about the possibility that open appendectomy would become the next operation that next generation surgeon might have trouble with. But while looking at some data [link added 12/4/15] collected by the RRC for Surgery, I was struck by something else.

Since 1999, the total number of appendectomies (open and laparoscopic) performed by surgical residents who completed 5 years of training has risen by 65.1% compared to the total number of appendectomies done in the US, which has increased only 16.4%. Here are the numbers:

Except for the academic year ending in 2006, the average total appendectomy rate per resident has risen every year since 2000. The chart below displays that change and the changes in the numbers of open and laparoscopic appendectomies.

Click on chart to enlarge

The difference in the average combined number of appendectomies between the two academic years ending 2000 and 2014 is significant, p < 0.0001.

The population of the US rose from 279 million in 1999 to 318.9 million in 2014, an increase of 14.3%. The number of appendectomies done in the US for those years was about 281,000 vs. about 327,000 respectively, a 16.4% increase. The appendectomy rate increase does not significantly differ from the increase in population.

The difference between the total number of appendectomies done in the US and the total done by residents at teaching hospitals was significant, p < 0.0001.

What is going on here? Why is the increase in the rate of appendectomies being done by residents significantly higher than the rise in the rate of appendectomy for the entire country?

I posed this question on Twitter and got a number of replies.

Could the difference be due to more appendectomies being referred to teaching hospitals? It is possible, but except for a few anecdotes, a pattern of has not emerged. For example, the change in total numbers of cholecystectomies has been much more modest. In 1999-2000, graduating residents did 99.5 cholecystectomies and in 2013-14, they did 120.9, an increase of only 21.5% which is significantly lower than the increase in appendectomies, p < 0.0001.

Have academic centers increased their catchment areas? I dont think catchment areas have changed much in 15 years.

Are attending surgeons lazier than they were in 1999-2000? Thats not likely. For most cases, they had to be present in the OR anyway in both eras.

Are surgeons doing more appendectomies to increase their incomes? If that were so, the number of normal appendices (that is, appendices that were judged to be not inflamed by pathologists) would be higher than it was in 99-00. In fact, the reverse is true. The rate of normals has fallen drastically over the years.

Residents might not have logged all their appendectomies in the past or maybe they are inflating their numbers now. Those are interesting theories both of which cannot be proven.

Could it be because of increased use of CT scans? In a recent New England Journal paper, Dr. David Flum suggests the CT scan that just about every patient with right lower abdominal pain now gets may be too sensitive. This could lead to the overdiagnosis of mild cases of appendicitis that might have resolved without any intervention.

However if the issues is CT scan overdiagnosis, the rate of appendectomy nationwide would be as high as the rate in teaching hospitals.

Im out of ideas. Can you explain the appendectomy mystery?

By the way—in case you missed it in the table above—over the 15-year period, open appendectomies have decreased 68% and laparoscopic appendectomies have increased 546%.

Read More..

Problems with surgical residents and continuity of care

How are we doing with residency training and continuity of care? Not too well if you believe a recent paper called "Continuity of Care in General Surgery Resident Education" appearing online in the American Journal of Surgery.

A group from Rush University in Chicago looked at the records of 228 patients who underwent commonly performed operations during the year 2012. They found that in only 21/228 (9.2%) of cases had the operating resident seen the patient preoperatively, and in 20/223 (9.0%) had the operating resident seen the patient in postoperative follow-up. In no case, did the operating resident see the same patient both pre- and postoperatively.

The table lists the type of cases and the frequency of resident participation in preoperative care or postoperative follow-up.

This is important because on page 18 of the Residency Review Committee (RRC) for Surgery Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education in General Surgery, the following is stated:

A resident may be considered the surgeon only when he or she can document a significant role in the following aspects of management: determination or confirmation of the diagnosis, provision of preoperative care, selection, and accomplishment of the appropriate operative procedure, and direction of the postoperative care.

If you interpret this literally, in not one of the 228 cases that were done was the resident who performed the procedure entitled to consider herself the surgeon for purposes of taking credit in the eyes of the RRC.

Continuity of patient care is also part of the professionalism core competency.

This is not the first paper describing this problem, nor is it the first paper to find that no residents followed a single patient all the way through the process.

What is the cause of this problem? Its not the length of the rotations because the shortest rotation for a senior resident was six weeks which should have afforded the residents ample time to have established complete continuity in at least a few cases.

The authors should be commended for their candor in reporting these findings. Had their paper been published 20 or 25 years ago, their program would have been cited by the RRC for a deficiency in continuity of care.

It’s an even bigger concern in community hospital surgical programs where the majority of elective patients come from private practice offices.

Whats the solution? The easiest fix would be to change the RRC requirement. What is the point of having a rule that cant be followed?

The residents are not learning about making the diagnosis, deciding whether to operate, the informed consent discussion, and evaluating the patient after discharge from the hospital.

The real issue is that there is much more to surgery than simply doing the operation.

Read More..

Tsundoku

Back in May, I posed this question, "Does anyone really read anything online?" Based on some data from various sources, I concluded that not many do. I also noted that many links I tweeted were passed along by others who could not possibly have read them in the elapsed time between my tweet and their tweet.

The problem may not be limited to online readers.

Have you ever heard of "tsundoku"? Its an informal Japanese word defined as "the act of leaving a book unread after buying it, typically piled up together with other such unread books."

This reminds me of a phenomenon which I observed among medical students and surgical residents over the course of many years.

Whenever a subject arose that they were not too familiar with, they would go off to the library and copy some articles about it and carry the articles around in their pockets for weeks. The papers would curl up at the edges and become as soiled as their white coats. But most of the time they were never read.

I would point out to them that photocopying an article, even though it can take a few minutes, was not a substitute for actually reading it.

I thought I might have been the only one to have noticed this, but recently a Twitter follower of mine, Terry Murray [?@terromur], tweeted, "In the 1980s, the librarian at Hosp for Sick Children in Toronto urged neuroxing (i.e., reading) instead of photocopying."

The Internet version of this phenomenon is facilitated by programs like Evernote, which make it easy to save links or PDFs for reading later. And you dont even have to go to the library.

I suppose some people eventually do read them. But Ill bet the majority dont.

Maybe the definition of tsundoku should be expanded to include the act of leaving a link unread after tweeting it, typically piled up together with other such unread links.

Read More..

Dont jump to conclusions about that JAMA surgical readmissions paper

On February 3, JAMA published a paper online about readmission rates after surgery. The focus of most tweets was on the most common cause for readmission—surgical site infections (SSIs)—in 19.5% of readmitted patients.

At first glance, this suggests that infection rates after surgery were 19.5%, but that is not so. The paper said that 19.5% of the readmissions were caused by infections.

Of 498,875 total operations reviewed, only 30,270 (6.1%) were readmitted for any reason, and only 5576 (1%) of all patients were readmitted for SSIs.

According to the full text of the paper, the authors had two main points:

One, "because most readmissions were attributable to well-described postoperative complications, readmissions after surgery are mostly a proxy measure for postdischarge complications and in effect penalize hospitals twice [my emphasis] for postoperative complications (ie, other pay-for-performance programs include postoperative complications such as SSI)."

Two, "the majority of hospital readmissions were related to SSI and ileus [non-mechanical failure of bowel peristalsis]. Identifying clinical interventions to reduce the occurrence of these complications to below current levels has been challenging."

An article about the paper in US News quoted an editorial by Lucian Leape who said "system-wide changes need to be made." One such system change, the Surgical Care Improvement Project (SCIP), has been ongoing for more than 10 years.

The paper confirms what I wrote in 2010 about SCIP and other process measures and points out that "Most hospitals in the United States have high adherence rates for the SCIP SSI-prevention process measures; however, compliance with these process measures has not been shown to be strongly associated with reduced SSI rates."

And I am unaware of a conclusive study showing that the incidence of postoperative ileus can be lowered by any intervention.

I agree with the comments of the papers authors who say, "It is important to note that many readmissions may be unavoidable and are actually the correct course of action for surgical patients. [My emphasis] Many complications should be treated in the inpatient setting, and surgeons should not be deterred from readmitting patients because of concerns about quality measure performance and resulting penalties."

Every effort should be made to lower the infection rates of all procedures. But this papers results should be viewed not with alarm, but rather as reassurance that the problem is not out of control.

Read More..