Juan R. Flores-Gonzalez

Facilitators and barriers of implementing enhanced recovery in colorectal surgery at a safety net hospital: A provider and patient perspective.

BACKGROUND Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathways are known to decrease complications and duration of stay in colorectal surgery patients. However, it is unclear whether an ERAS pathway would be feasible and effective at a safety-net hospital. The aim of this study was to identify local barriers and facilitators before the adoption of an ERAS pathway for patients undergoing colorectal operations at a safety-net hospital. METHODS Semistructured interviews were conducted to assess the perceived barriers and facilitators before ERAS adoption. Stratified purposive sampling was used. Interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed using content analysis. Analytic and investigator triangulation were used to establish credibility. RESULTS Interviewees included 8 anesthesiologists, 5 surgeons, 6 nurses, and 18 patients. Facilitators identified across the different medical professions were (1) feasibility and alignment with current practice, (2) standardization of care, (3) smallness of community, (4) good teamwork and communication, and (5) caring for patients. The barriers were (1) difficulty in adapting to change, (2) lack of coordination between different departments, (3) special needs of a highly comorbid and socioeconomically disadvantaged patient population, (4) limited resources, and (5) rotating residents. Facilitators identified by the patients were (1) welcoming a speedy recovery, (2) being well-cared for and satisfied with treatment, (3) adequate social support, (4) welcoming early mobilization, and (5) effective pain management. The barriers were (1) lack of quiet and private space, (2) need for more patient education and counseling, and (3) unforeseen complications. CONCLUSION Although limited hospital resources are perceived as a barrier to ERAS implementation at a safety-net hospital, there is strong support for such pathways and multiple factors were identified that may facilitate change. Inclusion of patient perspectives is critical to identifying challenges and facilitators to implementing ERAS changes focused on optimizing patient perioperative health and outcomes.

Use of Computed Tomography in Diagnosing Ventral Hernia Recurrence: A Blinded, Prospective, Multispecialty Evaluation

IMPORTANCE Physical examination misses up to one-third of ventral hernia recurrences seen on radiologic imaging. However, tests such as computed tomographic (CT) imaging are subject to interpretation and require validation of interobserver reliability. OBJECTIVE To determine the interobserver reliability of CT scans for detecting a ventral hernia recurrence among surgeons and radiologists. We hypothesized there would be significant disagreement in the diagnosis of a ventral hernia recurrence among different observers. Our secondary aim was to determine reasons for disagreement in the interpretation of CT scans. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS One hundred patients who underwent ventral hernia repair from 2010-2011 at an academic health care center with a postoperative CT scan were randomly selected from a larger cohort. This study was conducted from July 2014 to March 2015. Prospective assessment of the presence or absence of a recurrent ventral hernia on CT scans was compared among 9 blinded reviewers and the radiology report. Five reviewers (consensus group) met to discuss all CT scans with disagreement. The discussion was assessed for keywords and key concepts. The remaining 4 reviewers (validation group) read the consensus group recommendations and reassessed the CT scans. Pre- and post-review κ were calculated; the post-review assessments were compared with clinical examination findings. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Interobserver reliability in determining hernia recurrence radiographically. RESULTS Of 100 CT scans, there was disagreement among all 9 reviewers and the radiology report on the presence/absence of a ventral hernia in 73 cases (κ = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.35-0.54; P < .001). Following discussion among the consensus group, there remained disagreement in 10 cases (κ = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.83-0.95; P < .001). Among the validation group, the κ value had a slight improvement from 0.21 (95% CI, 0.12-0.33) to 0.34 (95% CI, 0.23-0.46) (P < .001) after reviewing the consensus group proposals. There was disagreement between clinical examination and the consensus group assessment of CT scans on the presence/absence of a ventral hernia in 25 cases. The concepts most frequently discussed were the absence of an accepted definition for a radiographic ventral hernia and differentiating pseudorecurrence from recurrence. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Owing to the high interobserver variability, CT scan was not associated with reliable diagnosing in ventral hernia recurrence. Consensus guidelines and improved communication between surgeon and radiologist may decrease interobserver variability.

Is nonoperative management warranted in ventral hernia patients with comorbidities?: A case-matched, prospective, patient-centered study

Objective: The aim of this study was to determine patient-centered outcomes of nonoperative treatment of a ventral hernia. Summary of Background Data: Nonoperative management of ventral hernias (VHs) is often recommended for patients at increased risk of complications; however, the impact of this management strategy on outcome and quality of life (QoL) is unknown. We hypothesize that QoL and function are better among patients with VHs managed operatively. Methods: Patients with a VH from a single-center hernia clinic were prospectively enrolled between June 2014 and June 2015. Nonoperative management was recommended if smoking, obesity, or poorly controlled diabetes was present. Primary outcomes were patient-centered outcomes, including QoL and function, which were measured using a validated, hernia-specific survey (modified Activities Assessment Scale) before surgeon’ consultation and at 6 months. Other outcomes included surgical site infection (SSI) and recurrence. Risk-adjusted outcomes between nonoperative and operative groups were compared using: paired t test on a propensity score-matched subset and multivariable analysis on the overall cohort. Results: A total of 152 patients (nonoperative = 97, operative = 55) were enrolled. In the propensity-matched cohort (n = 90), both groups had similar baseline QoL and function scores, but only repaired patients had improved scores on 6-month follow-up. In the overall cohort, nonoperative management was strongly associated with lower function scores (log odds ratio = −26.5; 95% confidence interval = −35.0 to −18.0). Conclusions: This is the first prospective study comparing management strategies in VH patients with comorbidities. Elective repair improves hernia-related QoL and function in low- to moderate-risk patients and should be considered in appropriately selected patients.

Barriers to Participation in Preoperative Risk-Reduction Programs Prior to Ventral Hernia Repair: An Assessment of Underserved Patients at a Safety-Net Hospital

Barriers to Participation in Preoperative Risk-Reduction Programs Prior to Ventral Hernia Repair: An Assessment of Underserved Patients at a Safety-Net Hospital Nearly 80% of patients presenting with a ventral hernia have modifiable risk factors such as obesity, poor fitness, smoking, and poorly controlled diabetes mellitus.1 Preoperative riskreduction programs have been shown to be effective in behavior modification. However, generalizability of these outcomes to underserved patients may be hindered by unrecognized barriers.2 The aim of this study was to identify patientreported barriers to successful implementation of a preoperative risk-reduction program at a safety-net hospital.