Quality improvement efforts take considerable commitment, including mentorship, training, and resources. Leveraging an established framework, such as that outlined by the American College of Surgeons, to design, implement, and analyze quality improvement projects offers the best chance for success. Herein, we illustrate the application of this framework to a gap in advance care planning for surgical patients. This article helps outline how to go from identifying and outlining a problem, to articulating a clearly defined project goal that is specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and timebound, and later implementing and analyzing a gap in quality identified at the unit (e.g., service line, inpatient unit, clinic) or hospital level.

Recent controversy has called into question the meaning and clinical utility of Advance Care Planning (ACP), however data have consistently shown potential benefit to patients and their surrogate decision makers. We present the concept of surgery-specific advance care planning and a structured, scalable approach to integrating it into clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: To examine public opinions of surgery in older adults. BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of older adults are undergoing surgery. National healthcare organizations recognize the increased risks of postoperative complications and mortality in the older surgical population and have made efforts to improve the care of older adults undergoing surgery through hospital-level programs. However, limited research has explored the opinions and responses of the wider U.S. public regarding surgery in older adults. METHODS: We performed a qualitative, thematic analysis of reader comments posted in response to online newspaper articles relating to surgery in older adults. Articles were published in 2019-2020 and targeted for a popular press audience. RESULTS: Nine hundred eight reader comments posted in response to 6 articles relating to surgery in older adults were identified. Articles were published in online editions of print newspapers with a digital circulation between 1.3 and 5.7 million subscribers. Three themes were identified: (1) wariness/distrust towards healthcare: including general distrust of medicine and distrust of surgery, (2) problems experienced: ineffective communication and unrealistic expectations, and (3) recommended solutions: the need for multidisciplinary teams and patient-centered communication. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the public viewed surgery in older adults with wariness/distrust due to ineffective communication and unrealistic expectations. Specialized surgical care tailored to the unique needs of older adults is needed. The public perspective suggests that U.S. health systems should strongly consider adopting programs that provide care to meet the unique needs of older adults undergoing surgery and ultimately improve both patient outcomes and their surgical experience.

BACKGROUND: For patients who may permanently or temporarily lose their ability to communicate preferences, advance care planning is a critical mechanism to guide medical decision-making but is currently underused among surgical patients. METHODS: A resident-led quality improvement project, including education and performance measurement, was conducted on an emergency general surgery service to increase the completion of inpatient advance care planning notes using a specialized template in the electronic health record. Advance care planning documentation was defined as either preadmission advance care planning documentation (eg, advance directive) or inpatient advance care planning (use of the electronic health record template). Data from patients admitted to the emergency general surgery service for 12+ hours were analyzed, and baseline data (July 2020 to June 2021) were compared with data from the intervention period (July 2021 to June 2022). The chart review evaluated the content of the inpatient advance care planning documentation from the intervention period. RESULTS: The frequency of inpatient advance care planning documentation increased (9.3%, n = 56 to 16.6%, n = 92, P < .001) with a greater contribution of inpatient advance care planning notes by the surgery team (16.7% to 55.4%) in the intervention period. Content analysis indicated that 79.0% of inpatient advance care planning notes listed preferences for life-sustaining therapy, 78.3% listed surrogacy, 57.3% listed overall health goals, and 50.3% listed treatment goals specific to the surgical encounter. CONCLUSION: Although a resident-led quality improvement project contributed to greater adoption of standardized inpatient advance care planning documentation on an emergency general surgery service, progress was slow, and integration into standard work was not achieved. Future efforts are needed to better understand the integration of essential advance care planning elements into workflows and to establish inclusive educational programming to prepare all team members for conducting and documenting advance care planning conversations.

BACKGROUND: Unanticipated changes in health status and worsening of chronic conditions often prompt the need to consider emergency general surgery (EGS). Although discussions about goals of care may promote goal-concordant care and reduce patient and caregiver depression and anxiety, these conversations, as well as standardized documentation, remain infrequent for EGS patients. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using electronic health record data from patients admitted to an EGS service at a tertiary academic center to determine the prevalence of clinically meaningful advance care planning (ACP) documentation (conversations and legal ACP forms) during the EGS hospitalization. Multivariable regression was performed to identify patient, clinician, and procedural factors associated with the lack of ACP. RESULTS: Among 681 patients admitted to the EGS service in 2019, only 20.1% had ACP documentation in the electronic health record at any time point during their hospitalization (of those, 75.5% completed before and 24.5% completed during admission). Two thirds (65.8%) of the total cohort had surgery during their admission, but none of them had a documented ACP conversation with the surgical team preoperatively. Patients with ACP documentation tended to have Medicare insurance (adjusted odds ratio, 5.06; 95% confidence interval, 2.09-12.23; p < 0.001) and had greater burden of comorbid conditions (adjusted odds ratio, 4.19; 95% confidence interval, 2.55-6.88; p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Adults experiencing a significant, often abrupt change in health status leading to an EGS admission are infrequently engaged in ACP conducted by the surgical team. This is a critical missed opportunity to promote patient-centered care and to communicate patients care preferences to the surgical and other inpatient medical teams. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management; Level IV.

Background

Perineal hernias can be secondarily acquired following abdominoperineal resection of the rectum. While transabdominal minimally invasive techniques have traditionally used laparoscopy, there are few studies published on the robotic platform, which has been gaining popularity for other types of hernia repairs. We review the existing literature, share a video vignette, and provide practical tips for surgeons interested in adopting this approach.

Methods

A literature search in Pubmed was performed to include all articles in English describing robotic repair of perineal hernias with identification of variables of interest related to repair. A case presentation with an accompanying video vignette and lessons learned from the experience are provided.

Results

Seven case reports (four containing video) published between 2019 and 2022 were included. Most articles (n = 5) utilized the Da Vinci Si or Xi, and most patients (n = 5) had undergone abdominoperineal resection with neoadjuvant chemotherapy to treat rectal cancer. Patients were positioned in Trendelenburg with rightward tilt (n = 2), modified lithotomy (n = 1), or a combination of the two (n = 1). All articles (n = 7) reported closing the defect and using mesh. Three articles describe placing five ports (one camera, three robotic, one assistant). There were no significant intraoperative or postoperative complications reported, and no recurrence noted at 3-27 months follow-up. Based on our experience, as shown in the video vignette, we recommend lithotomy positioning, using porous polypropylene mesh anchored to the periosteum of the sacrum and peritoneum overlying the bladder and side wall, and placing a drain above the mesh.

Conclusions

A robotic transabdominal approach to perineal hernia repair is a viable alternate to laparoscopy based on low complication rates and lack of recurrence. Prospective and longer duration data are needed to compare the techniques.