Dataset Information

Innovation or rebranding, acute care surgery diffusion will continue.

ABSTRACT: Patterns of adoption of acute care surgery (ACS) as a strategy for emergency general surgery (EGS) care are unknown.We conducted a qualitative study comprising face-to-face interviews with senior surgeons responsible for ACS at 18 teaching hospitals chosen to ensure diversity of opinions and practice environment (three practice types [community, public or charity, and university] in each of six geographic regions [Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, New England, Northeast, South, and West]). Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using NVivo (QSR International, Melbourne, Australia). We applied the methods of investigator triangulation using an inductive approach to develop a final taxonomy of codes organized by themes related to respondents' views on the future of ACS as a strategy for EGS. We applied our findings to a conceptual model on diffusion of innovation.We found a paradox between ACS viewed as a health care delivery innovation versus a rebranding of comprehensive general surgery. Optimism for the future of ACS because of increased desirability for trauma and critical care careers as well as improved EGS outcomes was tempered by fear over lack of continuity, poor institutional resources, and uncertainty regarding financial viability. Our analysis suggests that the implementation of ACS, whether a true health care delivery innovation or an innovative rebranding, fits into the Rogers' diffusion of innovation theory.Despite concerns over resource allocation and the definition of the specialty, from the perspective of senior surgeons deeply entrenched in executing this care delivery model, ACS represents the new face of general surgery that will likely continue to diffuse from these early adopters.

SUBMITTER: Collins CE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4466126 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Innovation or rebranding, acute care surgery diffusion will continue.

Collins Courtney E CE Pringle Patricia L PL Santry Heena P HP

The Journal of surgical research 20150323 2

<h4>Background</h4>Patterns of adoption of acute care surgery (ACS) as a strategy for emergency general surgery (EGS) care are unknown.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a qualitative study comprising face-to-face interviews with senior surgeons responsible for ACS at 18 teaching hospitals chosen to ensure diversity of opinions and practice environment (three practice types [community, public or charity, and university] in each of six geographic regions [Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, New England, Northeast, ...[more]

PMID: 25891673

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceOwing to lack of adequate emergency care infrastructure and decline in general surgery workforce, the United States faces a crisis in access to emergency general surgery (EGS) care. Acute care surgery (ACS), an organized system of trauma, general surgery, and critical care, is a proposed solution; however, ACS diffusion remains poorly understood.ObjectiveTo investigate geographic diffusion of ACS models of care and characterize the communities in which ACS implementation is lagging.Design, setting, and participantsA national survey on EGS practices was developed, tested, and administered at all 2811 US acute care hospitals providing EGS to adults between August 2015 and October 2015. Surgeons responsible for EGS coverage at these hospitals were approached. If these surgeons failed to respond to the initial survey implementation, secondary surgeons or chief medical officers at hospitals with only 1 general surgeon were approached.InterventionsSurvey responses on ACS implementation were linked with geocoded hospital data and national census data to determine geographic diffusion of and access to ACS.Main outcomes and measuresWe measured the distribution of hospitals with ACS models of care vs those without over time (diffusion) and by US counties characterized by sociodemographic characteristics of county residents (access).ResultsSurvey response rate was 60% (n = 1690); 272 responding hospitals had implemented ACS by 2015, steadily increasing from 34 in 2001 to 125 in 2010. Acute care surgery implementation has not been uniform. Rural regions have limited ACS access, with hospitals in counties with greater than the 75th percentile population having 5.4 times higher odds (95% CI, 1.66-7.35) of implementing ACS than hospitals in counties with less than 25th percentile population. Communities with greater percentages of adults without a college degree also have limited ACS access (OR, 3.43; 95% CI, 1.81-6.48). However, incorporating EGS into ACS models may be a potential equalizer for poor, black, and Hispanic communities.Conclusions and relevanceUnderstanding and addressing gaps in ACS implementation across communities will be crucial to ensuring health equity for US residents experiencing general surgery emergencies.

Project description:BackgroundCessation of long-term aspirin treatment before noncardiac surgery can cause adverse cardiac events in patients at risk, particularly in those with previous percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) with stent implantation. The factors influencing the clinical decision to stop aspirin treatment are currently unknown.MethodsIn a single-center, cross-sectional study (retrospective registration: NCT03049566) carried out from February to December 2014, we took a survey among patients scheduled for noncardiac surgery who were under long-term aspirin treatment, and among their treating anesthesiologists using standardized questionnaires on preoperative aspirin use, comorbidities, and risk-benefit assessments. The main objective was to identify factors associated with the decision to stop aspirin treatment. The results of multivariable logistic regressions and intraclass correlations are presented.Results805 patients were included in the study, and 636 questionnaires were returned (203 of which concerned patients with coronary stents). 46.8% of the patients stopped their long-term aspirin treatment before surgery; 38.7% of these patients stopped it too early (>10 days before surgery) or too late (≤ 3 days before surgery). A prior PCI with stent implantation lowered the probability of aspirin cessation (odds ratio [OR] = 0.47 [0.31; 0.72]; p <0.001). On the other hand, patients were more likely to stop their long-term aspirin treatment if it had already been discontinued once before (OR = 4.58 [3.06; 6.84]; p <0.001), if there was a risk of bleeding into a closed space (OR = 4.54 [2.02; 10.22]; p <0.001), if they did not know why they were supposed to take aspirin (OR = 2.12 [1.05; 4.28]; p = 0.036), or if the preoperative consultation with the anesthesiologist occurred <2 days before surgery (OR = 1.60 [1.08; 2.37]; p = 0.018). Patients often assessed the risks related to aspirin cessation lower than their physicians did.ConclusionThis study reveals discordance between guideline recommendations and everyday clinical practice in patients with coronary stents. The early integration of cardiologists and anesthesiologists and a more widespread use of stent implant cards could promote adherence to the guidelines.

Project description:BackgroundExisting surgical innovation frameworks suffer from a unifying limitation, their qualitative nature. A rigorous approach to measuring surgical innovation is needed that extends beyond detecting simply publication, citation, and patent counts and instead uncovers an implementation-based value from the structure of the entire adoption cascades produced over time by diffusion processes. Based on the principles of evidence-based medicine and existing surgical regulatory frameworks, the surgical innovation funnel is described. This illustrates the different stages through which innovation in surgery typically progresses. The aim is to propose a novel and quantitative network-based framework that will permit modeling and visualizing innovation diffusion cascades in surgery and measuring virality and value of innovations.Materials and methodsNetwork analysis of constructed citation networks of all articles concerned with robotic surgery (n = 13,240, Scopus®) was performed (1974-2014). The virality of each cascade was measured as was innovation value (measured by the innovation index) derived from the evidence-based stage occupied by the corresponding seed article in the surgical innovation funnel. The network-based surgical innovation metrics were also validated against real world big data (National Inpatient Sample-NIS®).ResultsRankings of surgical innovation across specialties by cascade size and structural virality (structural depth and width) were found to correlate closely with the ranking by innovation value (Spearman's rank correlation coefficient = 0.758 (p = 0.01), 0.782 (p = 0.008), 0.624 (p = 0.05), respectively) which in turn matches the ranking based on real world big data from the NIS® (Spearman's coefficient = 0.673;p = 0.033).ConclusionNetwork analysis offers unique new opportunities for understanding, modeling and measuring surgical innovation, and ultimately for assessing and comparing generative value between different specialties. The novel surgical innovation metrics developed may prove valuable especially in guiding policy makers, funding bodies, surgeons, and healthcare providers in the current climate of competing national priorities for investment.

Project description:The greatest advantages of laparoscopy when compared to open surgery include the faster recovery times, shorter hospital stays, decreased postoperative pain, earlier return to work and resumption of normal daily activity as well as cosmetic benefits. Laparoscopy today is considered the gold standard of care in the treatment of cholecystitis and appendicitis worldwide. Laparoscopy has even been adopted in colorectal surgery with good results. The technological improvements in this surgical field along with the development of modern techniques and the acquisition of specific laparoscopic skills have allowed for its utilization in operations with fully intracorporeal anastomoses. Further progress in laparoscopy has included single-incision laparoscopic surgery and natural orifice trans-luminal endoscopic surgery. Nevertheless, laparoscopy for emergency surgery is still considered challenging and is usually not recommended due to the lack of adequate experience in this area. The technical difficulties of operating in the presence of diffuse peritonitis or large purulent collections and diffuse adhesions are also given as reasons. However, the potential advantages of laparoscopy, both in terms of diagnosis and therapy, are clear. Major advantages may be observed in cases with diffuse peritonitis secondary to perforated peptic ulcers, for example, where laparoscopy allows the confirmation of the diagnosis, the identification of the position of the ulcer and a laparoscopic repair with effective peritoneal washout. Laparoscopy has also revolutionized the approach to complicated diverticulitis even when intestinal perforation is present. Many other emergency conditions can be effectively managed laparoscopically, including trauma in select hemodynamically-stable patients. We have therefore reviewed the most recent scientific literature on advances in laparoscopy for acute care surgery and trauma in order to demonstrate the current indications and outcomes associated with a laparoscopic approach to the treatment of the most common emergency surgical conditions.

Dataset Information

Innovation or rebranding, acute care surgery diffusion will continue.

Publications

Innovation or rebranding, acute care surgery diffusion will continue.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets