Endoscopy services and training: a national survey of general surgeons

Background

Delivering high-quality endoscopy services depends largely on the competence of endoscopists. General surgery residency training in endoscopy and the associated quality of endoscopy services being delivered by general surgeons have been the subject of considerable controversy. In conjunction with the Canadian Association of General Surgeons (CAGS) executive board, we formulated a survey to evaluate the general state of endoscopy practice and training among general surgeons in Canada.

Methods

The study was designed as a cross-sectional survey. General surgeons who are members of CAGS were selected to participate in the study and were emailed a link to the online questionnaire regarding the importance of endoscopy. They were asked to compare their training to resident training today.

Results

Sixty-nine surveys were completed. The majority of general surgeons (95.7%) indicated that endoscopy was an important skill to possess, and more than 85.5% used endoscopy in their own practices. However, nearly half (46.4%) felt that general surgery endoscopy training in Canada is currently inadequate to produce competent endoscopists. The main qualitative themes emerging from the survey were the inadequacy of current postgraduate endoscopy training (37.5%) and the absence of standardization in training (25.0%).

Conclusion

Endoscopy is considered integral to academic and community general surgeons’ practices; however, the adequacy of training seems to be questioned. Postgraduate training in endoscopy needs to be formalized and standardized, with a greater emphasis placed on teaching endoscopy.     

The practice of laparoscopic liver surgery in Belgium: a national survey

Background: Laparoscopic liver surgery (LLS) gained popularity bringing several advantages including decreased morbidity and reduction of length of hospital stay compared to open.

Methods: To understand practice and evolution of LLS in Belgium, a 20-questions survey was sent to all members of the Royal Belgian Society for Surgery, the Belgian Section of Hepato-Pancreatic and Biliary Surgery and the Belgian Group for Endoscopic Surgery.

Results: Thirty-seven surgical units representing 61 surgeons performing LLS in Belgium responded: 50% from regional hospitals, 28% from university and 22% from peripheral hospitals. Replies from high volume centers (>50 liver-surgery/year) were 19%. More than 25% of liver procedures were performed laparoscopically in 35% of centers. LLS is adopted since more than 15-years in 14.5% of centers with an increasing rate reported in 59%. Low relevance of LLS in the hospital organization (26.5%) and lack of time in surgical schedules (12%) or of specific training (9%) are the main barriers for further diffusion. More than 80% of the responders agreed to participate to a national prospective registry.

Conclusion: LLS is mainly performed in experienced HPB units with an increasing interest in peripheral centers. A prospective national registry will be useful by providing real data in terms of indications, morbidity and overall evolution.     

MIS training in Canada: a national survey of general surgery residents

Background  

General surgery trainees’ perceptions regarding their own laparoscopic training remain poorly defined. The objective of this survey was to identify and evaluate learner experiences with laparoscopic procedures in general surgery programs on a national level.     

Graduating general surgery resident operative confidence: perspective from a national survey

Background

General surgical training has changed significantly over the last decade with work hour restrictions, increasing subspecialization, the expanding use of minimally invasive techniques, and nonoperative management for solid organ trauma. Given these changes, this study was undertaken to assess the confidence of graduating general surgery residents in performing open surgical operations and to determine factors associated with increased confidence.

Methods

A survey was developed and sent to general surgery residents nationally. We queried them regarding demographics and program characteristics, asked them to rate their confidence (rated 1–5 on a Likert scale) in performing open surgical procedures and compared those who indicated confidence with those who did not.

Results

We received 653 responses from the fifth year (postgraduate year 5) surgical residents: 69% male, 68% from university programs, and 51% from programs affiliated with a Veterans Affairs hospital; 22% from small programs, 34% from medium programs, and 44% from large programs. Anticipated postresidency operative confidence was 72%. More than 25% of residents reported a lack of confidence in performing eight of the 13 operations they were queried about. Training at a university program, a large program, dedicated research years, future fellowship plans, and training at a program that performed a large percentage of operations laparoscopically was associated with decreased confidence in performing a number of open surgical procedures. Increased surgical volume was associated with increased operative confidence. Confidence in performing open surgery also varied regionally.

Conclusions

Graduating surgical residents indicated a significant lack of confidence in performing a variety of open surgical procedures. This decreased confidence was associated with age, operative volume as well as type, and location of training program. Analyzing and addressing this confidence deficit merits further study.     

Obesity surgery in the United Kingdom: survey of 970 general surgeons.

The results of a questionnaire survey on obesity surgery sent to 970 consultant general surgeons working in the United Kingdom National Health Service are presented. The response rate was 37%. There were 38 surgeons actively practising this surgery. The majority were performing a gastric procedure, mostly gastroplasty, but some did gastric bypass or banding. Three were doing the biliopancreatic bypass. Most surgeons were doing less than 10 operations a year. A total of 109 expressed an interest in attending a UK symposium and 59 would participate in a UK Bariatric Register. This practice, though only a small part of UK surgery, is larger than expected.     

Ergonomics and design of laparoscopic instruments: results of a survey among laparoscopic surgeons

This study determined which types of laparoscopic instruments are most often used in Europe, why they are being used, and what problems exist while using the instruments. The handles were also evaluated according to ergonomic design criteria. A questionnaire was send to 62 experienced surgeons in 19 countries. The laparoscopic instruments were divided into four groups: instruments with similar functionality and handgrip model were grouped together. Eight questions were asked for every group about the type of instrument (disposable, reusable, or semireusable), the type of handle, the reason for using a specific instrument, and the experience of discomfort while using the instrument. The handles of the instruments of the group that were associated with the greatest discomfort were ergonomically evaluated on eight aspects (dimensions, angles, and control). Half of the questionnaires were returned. In every group, about 80% of the instruments the surgeons employed were reusable. The chief reason for using a specific type was the good cost-quality of the product and satisfying experiences with other products of the brand. The discomfort was pressure on thumb and fingers (scissors handle) and fixating the tip (ratchet). The handle of the instruments that causes the most discomfort met only three of the eight ergonomic requirements. Most of the laparoscopic instruments employed by surgeons in Europe are reusable. A significant number of the instruments cause discomfort. These instruments do not meet standard ergonomic requirements.     

Perioperative management of patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery in Israel: a national survey

BACKGROUND: The approach to perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis, bowel preparation, and postoperative routines in elective colorectal resections has changed over the last two decades. The aim of this national survey was to document the current methods of perioperative management of those patients scheduled for elective colorectal resections in surgical departments in Israel. METHODS: A mail and telephone survey of surgical departments was conducted in 2001 in order to evaluate the routines of perioperative management of elective colorectal resections. Re-evaluation was performed in 2004. RESULTS: In 2001, all but one of the responders used low-residue diet preoperatively and combined oral and parenteral antibiotic prophylaxis. Polyethylene glycol or sodium phosphate bowel preparation was used by 69% of the responders. The most common oral regimens were a combination of neomycin plus metronidazole (43.5%) or neomycin plus erythromycin (47.8%). The most common parenteral regimens used were gentamicin plus metronidazole or gentamicin plus metronidazole plus ampicillin (56.5% and 17% of the responders, respectively). Cephalosporins alone or in combination were used in three departments. In 17 departments (74%), parenteral prophylactic antibiotics were continued for 24 h or longer (up to 72 h). All but one of the departments left a nasogastric tube for 1-5 days after surgery. There were substantial changes over the last three years-that is, less use of preoperative restriction diets, shorter duration of perioperative antibiotic coverage, more common use of cephalosporins, switch to sodium dihydrogen and sodium hydrogen phosphate bowel preparation, shorter use of postoperative nasogastric drainage, and faster resumption of peroral fluids. CONCLUSIONS: In 2001, the majority of surgical departments in Israel used a conservative approach to perioperative management of patients undergoing elective colorectal resections. Significant changes occurred during the last three years. The perioperative routines used today in most general surgery departments in Israel comply with current recommendations.     

Perioperative care: a survey of New Zealand and Australian colorectal surgeons

Aim Recent surveys in Europe and North America have demonstrated significant challenges in the implementation of evidence‐based surgical practice. Method A survey of New Zealand and Australian colorectal surgeons was conducted to help understand current practice and perceived barriers to interventions in this region. Questions were based around elective colorectal resection care. Results There were 152 eligible participants identified. Over a 60‐day period, 82 (54%) surgeons responded but only 76 (50%) of the questionnaires were complete; they were used for data analysis. The majority of surgeons indicated a preference for laparoscopic techniques. Barriers to laparoscopy include lack of operating time, lack of adequate training and institutional pressures. Only 28 (37%) indicated that they cared for patients in a formalized enhanced recovery programme (ERAS). Barriers to implementing ERAS included lack of support from institutions and other specialities. Routine oral ‘mechanical’ bowel preparation for colon and rectal resection was preferred by 28% and 63%, respectively. Drainage after routine colon and rectal resection was not used by 62 (83%) and 39 (53%). Prophylactic nasogastric intubation afterwards was not used by 66 (87%) responders. The preferred mode of analgesia was patient‐controlled opioid analgesia (PCA) for 52%. A ‘restrictive’ intravenous fluid therapy was preferred by 34 (49%) while 33 (48%) preferred no fluid restriction. A prolonged ‘nil by mouth’ status was preferred by 28%. Conclusion There appears to be a high rate of evidence in agreement with some interventions but not others. The systemic barriers to implementing evidence‐based perioperative care need attention.     

Breast reconstruction after mastectomy: a survey of general surgeons in Singapore

Background : Breast cancer is the leading malignancy among women in Singapore. In the West as many as 30% of eligible patients undergo some form of reconstruction, but in Singapore breast reconstruction is not often performed. Methods : A postal survey of general surgeons in Singapore (response rate of 46%) was conducted to ascertain the factors influencing their decision to refer for reconstruction and the possible concerns they had about reconstruction. Results : Age, anticipated psychosocial morbidity and the need for adjuvant therapy were the most important factors identified. The survey also found that almost 30% of respondents were unsure of whether reconstruction would mask recurrence. Despite this, almost 80% of respondents felt that reconstruction was worth the effort, but 55% (compared to less than 20% in the West) felt that patients did not want reconstruction despite being advised of its availability. Conclusion : Lack of information and the perception that patients would not want reconstruction may be important reasons for the low emphasis placed on the role of breast reconstruction in post‐mastectomy patients.