Lauren J. Taylor

The Surgical Apgar Score in esophagectomy

OBJECTIVE The Surgical Apgar Score is a validated prognostic tool that is based on select intraoperative variables (heart rate, mean arterial pressure, and blood loss). It has been shown to be a strong predictor of morbidity and mortality in a variety of surgical populations. Esophagectomy for malignancy represents a unique subset of patients at high risk for postoperative complications. This study assessed the ability of a modified esophagectomy Surgical Apgar Score (eSAS) to predict 30-day major morbidity. METHODS A retrospective review included 168 patients who underwent elective esophagectomy for malignant disease at the University of Wisconsin from January 2009 through July 2013. Preoperative patient characteristics, intraoperative details, and short-term outcomes were recorded. Primary outcome was 30-day major morbidity. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine associations between predictive variables, eSAS, and major morbidity. RESULTS Major morbidity occurred in 35% of cases. Univariate analysis showed that eSAS of 6 or less was strongly associated with major morbidity (unadjusted odds ratio, 2.55; 95% confidence interval, 1.32-4.91; P = .005). Other risk factors included transhiatal technique, body mass index less than 20 or greater than 35 kg/m(2), and history of diabetes mellitus. In multivariate analysis, eSAS of 6 or less remained a strong predictor of postoperative complications (adjusted odds ratio, 3.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.70-8.26; P = .001). CONCLUSIONS The eSAS was strongly associated with 30-day major morbidity after esophagectomy. Prospective studies are needed to determine whether improved outcomes can be achieved with the eSAS for risk-stratified triage and postoperative care modification.

Managing Uncertainty — Harnessing the Power of Scenario Planning

Scenario planning permits physicians to say, “If all goes well, this is what is likely to follow, and if things go poorly, this is what we can expect.” It helps patients appreciate causal relationships and imagine a range of outcomes more realistically.

A framework to improve surgeon communication in high-stakes surgical decisions best case/worst case

Importance Although many older adults prefer to avoid burdensome interventions with limited ability to preserve their functional status, aggressive treatments, including surgery, are common near the end of life. Shared decision making is critical to achieve value-concordant treatment decisions and minimize unwanted care. However, communication in the acute inpatient setting is challenging. Objective To evaluate the proof of concept of an intervention to teach surgeons to use the Best Case/Worst Case framework as a strategy to change surgeon communication and promote shared decision making during high-stakes surgical decisions. Design, Setting, and Participants Our prospective pre-post study was conducted from June 2014 to August 2015, and data were analyzed using a mixed methods approach. The data were drawn from decision-making conversations between 32 older inpatients with an acute nonemergent surgical problem, 30 family members, and 25 surgeons at 1 tertiary care hospital in Madison, Wisconsin. Interventions A 2-hour training session to teach each study-enrolled surgeon to use the Best Case/Worst Case communication framework. Main Outcomes and Measures We scored conversation transcripts using OPTION 5, an observer measure of shared decision making, and used qualitative content analysis to characterize patterns in conversation structure, description of outcomes, and deliberation over treatment alternatives. Results The study participants were patients aged 68 to 95 years (n = 32), 44% of whom had 5 or more comorbid conditions; family members of patients (n = 30); and surgeons (n = 17). The median OPTION 5 score improved from 41 preintervention (interquartile range, 26-66) to 74 after Best Case/Worst Case training (interquartile range, 60-81). Before training, surgeons described the patient’s problem in conjunction with an operative solution, directed deliberation over options, listed discrete procedural risks, and did not integrate preferences into a treatment recommendation. After training, surgeons using Best Case/Worst Case clearly presented a choice between treatments, described a range of postoperative trajectories including functional decline, and involved patients and families in deliberation. Conclusions and Relevance Using the Best Case/Worst Case framework changed surgeon communication by shifting the focus of decision-making conversations from an isolated surgical problem to a discussion about treatment alternatives and outcomes. This intervention can help surgeons structure challenging conversations to promote shared decision making in the acute setting.

Navigating high-risk surgery: protocol for a multisite, stepped wedge, cluster-randomised trial of a question prompt list intervention to empower older adults to ask questions that inform treatment decisions

Introduction Older patients frequently undergo operations that carry high risk for postoperative complications and death. Poor preoperative communication between patients and surgeons can lead to uninformed decisions and result in unexpected outcomes, conflict between surgeons and patients, and treatment inconsistent with patient preferences. This article describes the protocol for a multisite, cluster-randomised trial that uses a stepped wedge design to test a patient-driven question prompt list (QPL) intervention aimed to improve preoperative decision making and inform postoperative expectations. Methods and analysis This Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute-funded trial will be conducted at five academic medical centres in the USA. Study participants include surgeons who routinely perform vascular or oncological surgery, their patients and families. We aim to enrol 40 surgeons and 480 patients over 24 months. Patients age 65 or older who see a study-enrolled surgeon to discuss a vascular or oncological problem that could be treated with high-risk surgery will be enrolled at their clinic visit. Together with stakeholders, we developed a QPL intervention addressing preoperative communication needs of patients considering major surgery. Guided by the theories of self-determination and relational autonomy, this intervention is designed to increase patient activation. Patients will receive the QPL brochure and a letter from their surgeon encouraging its use. Using audio recordings of the outpatient surgical consultation, patient and family member questionnaires administered at three time points and retrospective chart review, we will compare the effectiveness of the QPL intervention to usual care with respect to the following primary outcomes: patient engagement in decision making, psychological well-being and post-treatment regret for patients and families, and interpersonal and intrapersonal conflict relating to treatment decisions and treatments received. Ethics and dissemination Approvals have been granted by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Wisconsin and at each participating site, and a Certificate of Confidentiality has been obtained. Results will be reported in peer-reviewed publications and presented at national meetings. Trial registration number NCT02623335.

Utilization of surgical treatment for local and locoregional esophageal cancer: Analysis of the National Cancer Data Base

Previous studies have suggested that esophagectomy is severely underused for patients with resectable esophageal cancer. The recent expansion of endoscopic local therapies, advances in surgical techniques, and improved postoperative outcomes have changed the therapeutic landscape. The impact of these developments and evolving treatment guidelines on national practice patterns is unknown.

Barriers to Goal-concordant Care for Older Patients with Acute Surgical Illness

Objective: We sought to characterize patterns of communication extrinsic to a decision aid that may impede goal-concordant care. Background: Decision aids are designed to facilitate difficult clinical decisions by providing better treatment information. However, these interventions may not be sufficient to effectively reveal patient values and promote preference-aligned decisions for seriously ill, older adults. Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of 31 decision-making conversations between surgeons and frail, older inpatients with acute surgical problems at a single tertiary care hospital. Conversations occurred before and after surgeons were trained to use a decision aid. We used directed qualitative content analysis to characterize patterns within 3 communication elements: disclosure of prognosis, elicitation of patient preferences, and integration of preferences into a treatment recommendation. Results: First, surgeons missed an opportunity to break bad news. By focusing on the acute surgical problem and need to make a treatment decision, surgeons failed to expose the life-limiting nature of the patients illness. Second, surgeons asked patients to express preference for a specific treatment without gaining knowledge about the patients priorities or exploring how patients might value specific health states or disabilities. Third, many surgeons struggled to integrate patients’ goals and values to make a treatment recommendation. Instead, they presented options and noted, “Its your decision.” Conclusions: A decision aid alone may be insufficient to facilitate a decision that is truly shared. Attention to elements beyond provision of treatment information has the potential to improve communication and promote goal-concordant care for seriously ill older patients.

Harms of unsuccessful donation after circulatory death: An exploratory study

While donation after circulatory death (DCD) has expanded options for organ donation, many who wish to donate are still unable to do so. We conducted face‐to‐face interviews with family members (N = 15) who had direct experience with unsuccessful DCD and 5 focus groups with professionals involved in the donation process. We used qualitative content analysis to characterize the harms of nondonation as perceived by participants. Participants reported a broad spectrum of harms affecting organ recipients, donors, and donor families. Harms included waste of precious life‐giving organs and hospital resources, inability to honor the donors memory and character, and impaired ability for families to make sense of tragedy and cope with loss. Donor families empathized with the initial hope and ultimate despair of potential recipients who must continue their wait on the transplant list. Focus group members reinforced these findings and highlighted the struggle of families to navigate the uncertainty regarding the timing of death during the donation process. While families reported significant harm, many appreciated the donation attempt. These findings highlight the importance of organ donation to donor families and the difficult experiences associated with current processes that could inform development of alternative donation strategies.

Moving beyond disease-focused decision making: understanding competing risks to personalize lung cancer treatment for older adults

Every year in the United States alone over 500,000 adults age 65 years and older undergo high-risk surgery. For many of these procedures, including lung resection, annual volume is increasing (1).

Improving the Histologic Characterization of Burn Depth

Visual assessment of burn wound appearance is the standard of care to determine the depth of thermal injury but often incorrectly predicts wound healing potential. Histologic evaluation of hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) stained burn tissue is prone to subjectivity and is challenging for the novice. Lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) staining may offer a simplified and consistent technique to identify burn tissue viability.

Using Implementation Science to Adapt a Training Program to Assist Surgeons with High-Stakes Communication

OBJECTIVE Surgeons often conduct difficult conversations with patients near the end of life, yet surgical education provides little formalized communication training. We developed a communication tool, Best Case/Worst Case, and trained surgeons using a one-on-one resource intensive format that was effective but difficult to scale for widespread dissemination. We aimed to generate an implementation package to teach surgeons using fewer resources without sacrificing fidelity. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS We used the Replicating Effectiveness Programs framework to guide our implementation strategy and tested our intervention with 39 surgical residents at 4 institutions from September 2016 to June 2017. The implementation package consisted of: (1) instructional video, (2) checklist to assess competence, (3) learner manual, and (4) instructor manual. We focused on 3 implementation outcomes: feasibility, fidelity, and acceptability to participants. RESULTS Attendance rates ranged from 16% to 75%. Site leaders had little difficulty identifying suitable instructors; however, resident recruitment proved challenging. Sixty-nine percent of residents completed the post-training assessment and the mean score was 12.8 (range 8-15) using the 15-point checklist. Across sites, 69% strongly agreed that Best Case/Worst Case is better than how they usually approach high-stakes conversations and 100% felt prepared to use the tool after training. Instructors reported that the training provided residents with the necessary skills to perform the fundamental elements of Best Case/Worst Case. CONCLUSIONS Using implementation science we demonstrated that a resource intensive communication training intervention can be successfully modified for group-learning and wide-scale dissemination. However, we identified barriers to implementation, including challenges with feasibility and programmatic buy-in that inform not only resident education but also communication skills training more broadly.