Search

Intraoperative errors are inevitable, and how surgeons respond impacts patient outcomes. Although previous research has queried surgeons on their responses to errors, no research to our knowledge has considered how surgeons respond to operative errors from a contemporary first-hand source: the operating room staff. This study evaluated how surgeons react to intraoperative errors and the effectiveness of employed strategies as witnessed by operating room staff. A survey was distributed to operating room staff at 4 academic hospitals. Items included multiple-choice and open-ended questions assessing surgeon behaviors observed after intraoperative error. Participants reported the perceived effectiveness of the surgeon's actions. Of 294 respondents, 234 (79.6%) reported being in the operating room when an error or adverse event occurred. Strategies positively associated with effective surgeon coping included the surgeon telling the team about the event and announcing a plan. Themes emerged regarding the importance of the surgeon remaining calm, communicating, and not blaming others for the error. Evidence of poor coping also emerged: "Yelling, feet stomping and throwing objects onto the field. [The surgeon] cannot articulate needs well because of anger." These data from operating room staff corroborates previous research presenting a framework for effective coping while shedding light on new, often poor, behaviors that have not emerged in prior research. Surgical trainees will benefit from the now-enhanced empirical foundation on which coping curricula and interventions can be built. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To investigate the steps faculty surgeons take upon experiencing intraoperative error and synthesize these actions to offer a framework for coping with errors. Background: While intraoperative errors are inevitable, formal training in error recovery is insufficient and there are no established curricula that teach surgeons how to deal with the intraoperative error. This is problematic because insufficient error recovery is detrimental to both patient outcomes and surgeon psychological well-being. Methods: We conducted a thematic analysis. One-hour in-depth semistructured interviews were conducted with faculty surgeons from 3 hospitals. Surgeons described recent experiences with intraoperative error. Interviews were transcribed and coded. Analysis allowed for development of themes regarding responses to errors and coping strategies. Results: Twenty-seven surgeons (30% female) participated. Upon completion of the analysis, themes emerged in 3 distinct areas: (1) Exigency, or a need for training surgical learners how to cope with intraoperative errors, (2) Learning, or how faculty surgeons themselves learned to cope with intraoperative errors, and (3) Responses, or how surgeons now handle intraoperative errors. The latter category was organized into the STOPS framework: Intraoperative errors could produce STOPS: Stop, Talk to your Team, Obtain Help, Plan, Succeed. Conclusions and Relevance: This study provides both novel insight into how surgeons cope with intraoperative errors and a framework that may be of great use to trainees and faculty alike. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prior work has identified intraoperative and postoperative coping strategies among surgeons and has demonstrated surgical errors to have a significant impact on patient outcomes and physicians. Little research has considered which coping strategies are most common among surgeons and if there exist coping strategy differences among sex or training level. An electronic survey was distributed to surgical faculty and trainees at 3 institutions. Variables included coping techniques after making an error in the operating room. Participants were asked to report the effectiveness of their overall coping strategy. A total of 168 participants (56% male, 45% faculty) experienced an operative error and answered questions regarding coping strategies. The only coping strategy significantly associated with positive ratings of coping effectiveness was, upon error, taking a step back and taking time to think and act (r = 0.17; P =.024). There were differences between men and women in both intra and postoperative coping strategies. Men (mean = 3.69/5, standard error =.09) viewed their overall coping strategy as more effective than women (mean = 3.38/5, standard error =.09), t(158.86) = 2.47; P =.015. Although both male and female surgeons reported making errors in the operating room, differences exist in the strategies surgeons use to cope with these mistakes, and strategies differ in their ratings of effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Utility of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II cancer remains a matter of debate. Clinical guidelines suggest adjuvant chemotherapy for stage II tumors with high‐risk features, in particular T4 tumors. However, limited consensus exists regarding the importance of other high‐risk features (lymphovascular or perineural invasion, microsatellite instability). Our study aimed to investigate the impact of adjuvant chemotherapy for stage IIA (T3N0) colon cancer patients. Patients who underwent colectomy for stage IIA colon adenocarcinoma (2010‐2015) were identified in the National Cancer Database (NCDB) and divided in two groups based on receipt of adjuvant chemotherapy vs observation. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW)‐adjusted Kaplan‐Meier and Cox proportional hazards regression analyses were performed to compare overall survival between the two groups. Subgroup analysis of patients with specific high‐risk features LVI, PNI and MSI was performed. Among 46 688 surgical patients with stage IIA colon adenocarcinoma 5937 (12.7%) received adjuvant chemotherapy, while 40 751 (87.3%) were observed. Five‐year IPTW‐adjusted survival was higher in the adjuvant chemotherapy group (79.7% [95% CI 79.1, 80.2]) compared to the observation group (70.3% [95% CI 69.7, 70.9]). Patients with high‐risk pathological features showed an estimated 5‐year survival benefit of 11.3% (78.2% [95% CI 77.4, 79.1] vs 66.9% [95% CI 65.9, 67.8]) when treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. This NCDB analysis revealed a survival benefit for patients with stage IIA colon adenocarcinoma and high‐risk features that were treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. What's new? While adjuvant chemotherapy is associated with improved survival following curative resection for stage IIB‐C colon cancer with poor prognostic features, there is less consensus about the potential benefit of adjuvant treatment for patients with stage IIA disease. This propensity score analysis on a large cohort of stage IIA colon cancer patients shows that adjuvant chemotherapy can improve overall survival. Survival benefits were observed even among stage II patients with tumor growth into the outer lining of the colon wall (pathological T3 extent) and other high‐risk features, such as poor differentiation, invasion into perineural or lymphovascular tissues, or microsatellite instability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]