Surgery

The number of same-day discharges has grown with the increase in robotic-assisted surgeries and advances in imaging and pressures to reduce hospital costs. COVID-19 has, perhaps temporarily, increased the same-day surgery numbers as surgeries have been restricted and hospital beds are needed for COVID-19 patients.

Urologist Ronney Abaza, MD, a robotic surgery specialist in Dublin, Ohio, and colleagues, reviewed robotic surgeries at their hospital during COVID-19 restrictions on surgery in Ohio between March 17 and June 5, 2020, and compared them with robotic procedures before COVID-19 and after restrictions were lifted. They published their results in Urology.

Since 2016, the hospital has offered the option of same-day discharge (SDD) to all robotic urologic surgery patients, regardless of procedure or patient-specific factors.

Among patients who had surgery during COVID-19 restrictions, 98% (87/89 patients) opted for SDD versus 52% in the group having surgery before the restrictions (P < .00001). After the COVID-19 surgery restrictions were lifted, the higher rate of SDD remained at 98%.

“There were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between SDD and overnight patients,” the authors write.
 

The right patient, the right motivation for successful surgery

Brian Lane, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist with Spectrum Health in Grand Rapids, Michigan, told this news organization that, for nephrectomies, uptake of same-day discharge will continue to be slow.

“You have to have the right patient, the right patient motivation, and the surgery has to go smoothly,” he said. “If you start sending everyone home the same day, you will certainly see readmissions,” he said.

Dr. Lane is part of the Michigan Urologic Surgery Improvement Collaborative and he said the group recently looked at same-day discharge outcomes after robotic prostatectomies with SDD as compared with 1-2 nights in the hospital.

The work has not yet been published but, “There was a slight signal that there were increased readmissions with same-day discharge vs. 0-1 day,” he said.

A paper on outcomes of same-day discharge in total knee arthroplasty in the Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery found a higher risk of perioperative complications “including component failure, surgical site infection, knee stiffness, and deep vein thrombosis.” Researchers compared outcomes between 4,391 patients who underwent outpatient TKA and 128,951 patients who underwent inpatient TKA.

But for other many surgeries, same-day discharge numbers are increasing without worsening outcomes.

A paper in the Journal of Robotic Surgery found that same-day discharge following robotic-assisted endometrial cancer staging is “safe and feasible.”

Stephen Bradley, MD, MPH, with the Minneapolis Heart Institute in Minneapolis, and colleagues write in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiovascular Interventions that they found a large increase in the use of same-day discharge after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was not associated with worse 30-day mortality rates or readmission.

In that study, 114,461 patients were discharged the same day they underwent PCI. The proportion of patients who had a same-day discharge increased from 4.5% in 2009 to 28.6% in the fourth quarter of 2017.

Risk-adjusted 30-day mortality did not change in that time, while risk-adjusted rehospitalization decreased over time and more quickly when patients had same-day discharge.

Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, and Jonathan G. Sung, MBCHB, both of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in an accompanying article that, “Advances in the devices and techniques of PCI have improved the safety and efficacy of the procedure. In selected patients, same-day discharge has become possible, and overnight in-hospital observation can be avoided. By reducing unnecessary hospital stays, both patients and hospitals could benefit.”

Evan Garden, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, presented findings at the American Urological Association 2021 annual meeting that show patients selected for same-day discharge after partial or radical nephrectomy did not have increased rates of postoperative complications or readmissions in the immediate postoperative period, compared with standard discharge of 1-3 days.
 

Case studies in nephrectomy

While several case studies have looked at the feasibility and safety of performing partial and radical nephrectomy with same-day discharge in select cases, “this topic has not been addressed on a national level,” Mr. Garden said.

Few patients who have partial or radical nephrectomies have same-day discharges. The researchers found that fewer than 1% of patients who have either procedure in the sample studied were discharged the same day.

Researchers used the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database, a nationally representative deidentified database that prospectively tracks patient characteristics and 30-day perioperative outcomes for major inpatient and outpatient surgical procedures at more than 700 hospitals.

They extracted all minimally invasive partial and radical nephrectomies from 2012 to 2019 and refined the cohort to 28,140 patients who were theoretically eligible for same-day discharge: Of those, 237 (0.8%) had SSD, and 27,903 (99.2%) had a standard-length discharge (SLD).

The team found that there were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between same-day discharge (Clavien-Dindo [CD] I/II, 4.22%; CD III, 0%; CD IV, 1.27%; readmission, 4.64%); and SLD (CD I/II, 4.11%; CD III, 0.95%; CD IV, 0.79%; readmission, 3.90%; all P > .05).

Controlling for demographic and clinical variables, SDD was not associated with greater risk of 30-day complications or readmissions (CD I/II: odds ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-2.048; P = .813; CD IV: OR 1.699; 95% CI, 0.537-5.375; P = .367; readmission: OR, 1.254; 95% CI, 0.681-2.31; P = .467).

Mr. Garden and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Lane reports no relevant financial relationships.

The number of same-day discharges has grown with the increase in robotic-assisted surgeries and advances in imaging and pressures to reduce hospital costs. COVID-19 has, perhaps temporarily, increased the same-day surgery numbers as surgeries have been restricted and hospital beds are needed for COVID-19 patients.

Urologist Ronney Abaza, MD, a robotic surgery specialist in Dublin, Ohio, and colleagues, reviewed robotic surgeries at their hospital during COVID-19 restrictions on surgery in Ohio between March 17 and June 5, 2020, and compared them with robotic procedures before COVID-19 and after restrictions were lifted. They published their results in Urology.

Since 2016, the hospital has offered the option of same-day discharge (SDD) to all robotic urologic surgery patients, regardless of procedure or patient-specific factors.

Among patients who had surgery during COVID-19 restrictions, 98% (87/89 patients) opted for SDD versus 52% in the group having surgery before the restrictions (P < .00001). After the COVID-19 surgery restrictions were lifted, the higher rate of SDD remained at 98%.

“There were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between SDD and overnight patients,” the authors write.
 

The right patient, the right motivation for successful surgery

Brian Lane, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist with Spectrum Health in Grand Rapids, Michigan, told this news organization that, for nephrectomies, uptake of same-day discharge will continue to be slow.

“You have to have the right patient, the right patient motivation, and the surgery has to go smoothly,” he said. “If you start sending everyone home the same day, you will certainly see readmissions,” he said.

Dr. Lane is part of the Michigan Urologic Surgery Improvement Collaborative and he said the group recently looked at same-day discharge outcomes after robotic prostatectomies with SDD as compared with 1-2 nights in the hospital.

The work has not yet been published but, “There was a slight signal that there were increased readmissions with same-day discharge vs. 0-1 day,” he said.

A paper on outcomes of same-day discharge in total knee arthroplasty in the Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery found a higher risk of perioperative complications “including component failure, surgical site infection, knee stiffness, and deep vein thrombosis.” Researchers compared outcomes between 4,391 patients who underwent outpatient TKA and 128,951 patients who underwent inpatient TKA.

But for other many surgeries, same-day discharge numbers are increasing without worsening outcomes.

A paper in the Journal of Robotic Surgery found that same-day discharge following robotic-assisted endometrial cancer staging is “safe and feasible.”

Stephen Bradley, MD, MPH, with the Minneapolis Heart Institute in Minneapolis, and colleagues write in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiovascular Interventions that they found a large increase in the use of same-day discharge after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was not associated with worse 30-day mortality rates or readmission.

In that study, 114,461 patients were discharged the same day they underwent PCI. The proportion of patients who had a same-day discharge increased from 4.5% in 2009 to 28.6% in the fourth quarter of 2017.

Risk-adjusted 30-day mortality did not change in that time, while risk-adjusted rehospitalization decreased over time and more quickly when patients had same-day discharge.

Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, and Jonathan G. Sung, MBCHB, both of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in an accompanying article that, “Advances in the devices and techniques of PCI have improved the safety and efficacy of the procedure. In selected patients, same-day discharge has become possible, and overnight in-hospital observation can be avoided. By reducing unnecessary hospital stays, both patients and hospitals could benefit.”

Evan Garden, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, presented findings at the American Urological Association 2021 annual meeting that show patients selected for same-day discharge after partial or radical nephrectomy did not have increased rates of postoperative complications or readmissions in the immediate postoperative period, compared with standard discharge of 1-3 days.
 

Case studies in nephrectomy

While several case studies have looked at the feasibility and safety of performing partial and radical nephrectomy with same-day discharge in select cases, “this topic has not been addressed on a national level,” Mr. Garden said.

Few patients who have partial or radical nephrectomies have same-day discharges. The researchers found that fewer than 1% of patients who have either procedure in the sample studied were discharged the same day.

Researchers used the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database, a nationally representative deidentified database that prospectively tracks patient characteristics and 30-day perioperative outcomes for major inpatient and outpatient surgical procedures at more than 700 hospitals.

They extracted all minimally invasive partial and radical nephrectomies from 2012 to 2019 and refined the cohort to 28,140 patients who were theoretically eligible for same-day discharge: Of those, 237 (0.8%) had SSD, and 27,903 (99.2%) had a standard-length discharge (SLD).

The team found that there were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between same-day discharge (Clavien-Dindo [CD] I/II, 4.22%; CD III, 0%; CD IV, 1.27%; readmission, 4.64%); and SLD (CD I/II, 4.11%; CD III, 0.95%; CD IV, 0.79%; readmission, 3.90%; all P > .05).

Controlling for demographic and clinical variables, SDD was not associated with greater risk of 30-day complications or readmissions (CD I/II: odds ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-2.048; P = .813; CD IV: OR 1.699; 95% CI, 0.537-5.375; P = .367; readmission: OR, 1.254; 95% CI, 0.681-2.31; P = .467).

Mr. Garden and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Lane reports no relevant financial relationships.

The number of same-day discharges has grown with the increase in robotic-assisted surgeries and advances in imaging and pressures to reduce hospital costs. COVID-19 has, perhaps temporarily, increased the same-day surgery numbers as surgeries have been restricted and hospital beds are needed for COVID-19 patients.

Urologist Ronney Abaza, MD, a robotic surgery specialist in Dublin, Ohio, and colleagues, reviewed robotic surgeries at their hospital during COVID-19 restrictions on surgery in Ohio between March 17 and June 5, 2020, and compared them with robotic procedures before COVID-19 and after restrictions were lifted. They published their results in Urology.

Since 2016, the hospital has offered the option of same-day discharge (SDD) to all robotic urologic surgery patients, regardless of procedure or patient-specific factors.

Among patients who had surgery during COVID-19 restrictions, 98% (87/89 patients) opted for SDD versus 52% in the group having surgery before the restrictions (P < .00001). After the COVID-19 surgery restrictions were lifted, the higher rate of SDD remained at 98%.

“There were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between SDD and overnight patients,” the authors write.
 

The right patient, the right motivation for successful surgery

Brian Lane, MD, PhD, a urologic oncologist with Spectrum Health in Grand Rapids, Michigan, told this news organization that, for nephrectomies, uptake of same-day discharge will continue to be slow.

“You have to have the right patient, the right patient motivation, and the surgery has to go smoothly,” he said. “If you start sending everyone home the same day, you will certainly see readmissions,” he said.

Dr. Lane is part of the Michigan Urologic Surgery Improvement Collaborative and he said the group recently looked at same-day discharge outcomes after robotic prostatectomies with SDD as compared with 1-2 nights in the hospital.

The work has not yet been published but, “There was a slight signal that there were increased readmissions with same-day discharge vs. 0-1 day,” he said.

A paper on outcomes of same-day discharge in total knee arthroplasty in the Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery found a higher risk of perioperative complications “including component failure, surgical site infection, knee stiffness, and deep vein thrombosis.” Researchers compared outcomes between 4,391 patients who underwent outpatient TKA and 128,951 patients who underwent inpatient TKA.

But for other many surgeries, same-day discharge numbers are increasing without worsening outcomes.

A paper in the Journal of Robotic Surgery found that same-day discharge following robotic-assisted endometrial cancer staging is “safe and feasible.”

Stephen Bradley, MD, MPH, with the Minneapolis Heart Institute in Minneapolis, and colleagues write in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology: Cardiovascular Interventions that they found a large increase in the use of same-day discharge after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was not associated with worse 30-day mortality rates or readmission.

In that study, 114,461 patients were discharged the same day they underwent PCI. The proportion of patients who had a same-day discharge increased from 4.5% in 2009 to 28.6% in the fourth quarter of 2017.

Risk-adjusted 30-day mortality did not change in that time, while risk-adjusted rehospitalization decreased over time and more quickly when patients had same-day discharge.

Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, and Jonathan G. Sung, MBCHB, both of Brigham and Women’s Hospital Heart & Vascular Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston, wrote in an accompanying article that, “Advances in the devices and techniques of PCI have improved the safety and efficacy of the procedure. In selected patients, same-day discharge has become possible, and overnight in-hospital observation can be avoided. By reducing unnecessary hospital stays, both patients and hospitals could benefit.”

Evan Garden, a medical student at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, presented findings at the American Urological Association 2021 annual meeting that show patients selected for same-day discharge after partial or radical nephrectomy did not have increased rates of postoperative complications or readmissions in the immediate postoperative period, compared with standard discharge of 1-3 days.
 

Case studies in nephrectomy

While several case studies have looked at the feasibility and safety of performing partial and radical nephrectomy with same-day discharge in select cases, “this topic has not been addressed on a national level,” Mr. Garden said.

Few patients who have partial or radical nephrectomies have same-day discharges. The researchers found that fewer than 1% of patients who have either procedure in the sample studied were discharged the same day.

Researchers used the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database, a nationally representative deidentified database that prospectively tracks patient characteristics and 30-day perioperative outcomes for major inpatient and outpatient surgical procedures at more than 700 hospitals.

They extracted all minimally invasive partial and radical nephrectomies from 2012 to 2019 and refined the cohort to 28,140 patients who were theoretically eligible for same-day discharge: Of those, 237 (0.8%) had SSD, and 27,903 (99.2%) had a standard-length discharge (SLD).

The team found that there were no differences in 30-day complications or readmissions between same-day discharge (Clavien-Dindo [CD] I/II, 4.22%; CD III, 0%; CD IV, 1.27%; readmission, 4.64%); and SLD (CD I/II, 4.11%; CD III, 0.95%; CD IV, 0.79%; readmission, 3.90%; all P > .05).

Controlling for demographic and clinical variables, SDD was not associated with greater risk of 30-day complications or readmissions (CD I/II: odds ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-2.048; P = .813; CD IV: OR 1.699; 95% CI, 0.537-5.375; P = .367; readmission: OR, 1.254; 95% CI, 0.681-2.31; P = .467).

Mr. Garden and coauthors report no relevant financial relationships.

Dr. Lane reports no relevant financial relationships.

The Food and Drug Administration on Oct. 27 announced stronger safety requirements for breast implants, restricting sales of implants only to providers and health facilities that review potential risks of the devices with patients before surgery, via a “Patient Decision Checklist.” The agency also placed a boxed warning – the strongest warning that the FDA requires – on all legally marketed breast implants.

“Protecting patients’ health when they are treated with a medical device is our most important priority,” Binita Ashar, MD, director of the Office of Surgical and Infection Control Devices in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a press release. “In recent years, the FDA has sought more ways to increase patients’ access to clear and understandable information about the benefits and risks of breast implants. By strengthening the safety requirements for manufacturers, the FDA is working to close information gaps for anyone who may be considering breast implant surgery.”

This announcement comes 10 years after the FDA issued a comprehensive safety update on silicone gel–filled implants, which reported a possible association between these devices and anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). The studies reviewed in the 2011 document also noted that a “significant percentage of women who receive silicone gel–filled breast implants experience complications and adverse outcomes,” the most common being repeat operation, implant removal, rupture, or capsular contracture (scar tissue tightening around the implant).

Breast augmentation has been one of the top five cosmetic procedures in the United States since 2006, according to the American Society for Plastic Surgery, with more than 400,000 people getting breast implants in 2019. Nearly 300,000 were for cosmetic reasons, and more than 100,000 were for breast reconstruction after mastectomies.

In 2019, the FDA proposed adding a boxed warning for breast implants, stating that the devices do not last an entire lifetime; that over time the risk for complications increases; and that breast implants have been associated with ALCL, and also may be associated with systemic symptoms such as fatigue, joint pain, and brain fog. The Oct. 27 FDA action now requires that manufacturers update breast implant packaging to include that information in a boxed warning, as well as the following:

• A patient-decision checklist
• Updated silicone gel–filled breast implant rupture screening recommendations
• A device description including materials used in the device
• Patient device ID cards

The updated label changes must be present on manufacturers’ websites in 30 days, the FDA said.

The new requirements have received largely positive reactions from both physicians and patient organizations. In an emailed statement to this news organization, Lynn Jeffers, MD, MBA, the immediate past president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, said that “ASPS has always supported patients being fully informed about their choices and the risks, benefits, and alternatives of the options available. “We look forward to our continued collaboration with the FDA on the safety of implants and other devices.”

Maria Gmitro, president and cofounder of the Breast Implant Safety Alliance, an all-volunteer nonprofit based in Charleston, S.C., said that some of the language in the patient checklist could be stronger, especially when referring to breast implant–associated ALCL.

To inform patients of risks more clearly, “it’s the words like ‘associated with’ that we feel need to be stronger” she said in an interview. She also noted that women who already have breast implants may not be aware of these potential complications, which these new FDA requirements do not address.

But overall, the nonprofit was “thrilled” with the announcement, Ms. Gmitro said. “Placing restrictions on breast implants is a really big step, and we applaud the FDA’s efforts. This is information that every patient considering breast implants should know, and we’ve been advocating for better informed consent.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration on Oct. 27 announced stronger safety requirements for breast implants, restricting sales of implants only to providers and health facilities that review potential risks of the devices with patients before surgery, via a “Patient Decision Checklist.” The agency also placed a boxed warning – the strongest warning that the FDA requires – on all legally marketed breast implants.

“Protecting patients’ health when they are treated with a medical device is our most important priority,” Binita Ashar, MD, director of the Office of Surgical and Infection Control Devices in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a press release. “In recent years, the FDA has sought more ways to increase patients’ access to clear and understandable information about the benefits and risks of breast implants. By strengthening the safety requirements for manufacturers, the FDA is working to close information gaps for anyone who may be considering breast implant surgery.”

This announcement comes 10 years after the FDA issued a comprehensive safety update on silicone gel–filled implants, which reported a possible association between these devices and anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). The studies reviewed in the 2011 document also noted that a “significant percentage of women who receive silicone gel–filled breast implants experience complications and adverse outcomes,” the most common being repeat operation, implant removal, rupture, or capsular contracture (scar tissue tightening around the implant).

Breast augmentation has been one of the top five cosmetic procedures in the United States since 2006, according to the American Society for Plastic Surgery, with more than 400,000 people getting breast implants in 2019. Nearly 300,000 were for cosmetic reasons, and more than 100,000 were for breast reconstruction after mastectomies.

In 2019, the FDA proposed adding a boxed warning for breast implants, stating that the devices do not last an entire lifetime; that over time the risk for complications increases; and that breast implants have been associated with ALCL, and also may be associated with systemic symptoms such as fatigue, joint pain, and brain fog. The Oct. 27 FDA action now requires that manufacturers update breast implant packaging to include that information in a boxed warning, as well as the following:

• A patient-decision checklist
• Updated silicone gel–filled breast implant rupture screening recommendations
• A device description including materials used in the device
• Patient device ID cards

The updated label changes must be present on manufacturers’ websites in 30 days, the FDA said.

The new requirements have received largely positive reactions from both physicians and patient organizations. In an emailed statement to this news organization, Lynn Jeffers, MD, MBA, the immediate past president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, said that “ASPS has always supported patients being fully informed about their choices and the risks, benefits, and alternatives of the options available. “We look forward to our continued collaboration with the FDA on the safety of implants and other devices.”

Maria Gmitro, president and cofounder of the Breast Implant Safety Alliance, an all-volunteer nonprofit based in Charleston, S.C., said that some of the language in the patient checklist could be stronger, especially when referring to breast implant–associated ALCL.

To inform patients of risks more clearly, “it’s the words like ‘associated with’ that we feel need to be stronger” she said in an interview. She also noted that women who already have breast implants may not be aware of these potential complications, which these new FDA requirements do not address.

But overall, the nonprofit was “thrilled” with the announcement, Ms. Gmitro said. “Placing restrictions on breast implants is a really big step, and we applaud the FDA’s efforts. This is information that every patient considering breast implants should know, and we’ve been advocating for better informed consent.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The Food and Drug Administration on Oct. 27 announced stronger safety requirements for breast implants, restricting sales of implants only to providers and health facilities that review potential risks of the devices with patients before surgery, via a “Patient Decision Checklist.” The agency also placed a boxed warning – the strongest warning that the FDA requires – on all legally marketed breast implants.

“Protecting patients’ health when they are treated with a medical device is our most important priority,” Binita Ashar, MD, director of the Office of Surgical and Infection Control Devices in the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a press release. “In recent years, the FDA has sought more ways to increase patients’ access to clear and understandable information about the benefits and risks of breast implants. By strengthening the safety requirements for manufacturers, the FDA is working to close information gaps for anyone who may be considering breast implant surgery.”

This announcement comes 10 years after the FDA issued a comprehensive safety update on silicone gel–filled implants, which reported a possible association between these devices and anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). The studies reviewed in the 2011 document also noted that a “significant percentage of women who receive silicone gel–filled breast implants experience complications and adverse outcomes,” the most common being repeat operation, implant removal, rupture, or capsular contracture (scar tissue tightening around the implant).

Breast augmentation has been one of the top five cosmetic procedures in the United States since 2006, according to the American Society for Plastic Surgery, with more than 400,000 people getting breast implants in 2019. Nearly 300,000 were for cosmetic reasons, and more than 100,000 were for breast reconstruction after mastectomies.

In 2019, the FDA proposed adding a boxed warning for breast implants, stating that the devices do not last an entire lifetime; that over time the risk for complications increases; and that breast implants have been associated with ALCL, and also may be associated with systemic symptoms such as fatigue, joint pain, and brain fog. The Oct. 27 FDA action now requires that manufacturers update breast implant packaging to include that information in a boxed warning, as well as the following:

• A patient-decision checklist
• Updated silicone gel–filled breast implant rupture screening recommendations
• A device description including materials used in the device
• Patient device ID cards

The updated label changes must be present on manufacturers’ websites in 30 days, the FDA said.

The new requirements have received largely positive reactions from both physicians and patient organizations. In an emailed statement to this news organization, Lynn Jeffers, MD, MBA, the immediate past president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, said that “ASPS has always supported patients being fully informed about their choices and the risks, benefits, and alternatives of the options available. “We look forward to our continued collaboration with the FDA on the safety of implants and other devices.”

Maria Gmitro, president and cofounder of the Breast Implant Safety Alliance, an all-volunteer nonprofit based in Charleston, S.C., said that some of the language in the patient checklist could be stronger, especially when referring to breast implant–associated ALCL.

To inform patients of risks more clearly, “it’s the words like ‘associated with’ that we feel need to be stronger” she said in an interview. She also noted that women who already have breast implants may not be aware of these potential complications, which these new FDA requirements do not address.

But overall, the nonprofit was “thrilled” with the announcement, Ms. Gmitro said. “Placing restrictions on breast implants is a really big step, and we applaud the FDA’s efforts. This is information that every patient considering breast implants should know, and we’ve been advocating for better informed consent.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Black and Latina women are more likely to have an open surgery compared with a minimally invasive procedure to treat ectopic pregnancy, according to research presented at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2021 meeting.

The researchers found that Black and Latina women had 50% lesser odds of undergoing laparoscopic surgery, a minimally invasive procedure, compared to their White peers.

“We see these disparities in minority populations, [especially in] women with regard to so many other aspects of [gynecologic] surgery,” study author Alexandra Huttler, MD, said in an interview. “The fact that these disparities exist [in the treatment of tubal pregnancies] was unfortunately not surprising to us.”

Dr. Huttler and her team analyzed data from the American College of Surgeons’ National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, which followed more than 9,000 patients who had undergone surgical management of a tubal ectopic pregnancy between 2010 and 2019. Of the group, 85% underwent laparoscopic surgery while 14% had open surgery, which requires a longer recovery time.

The proportion of cases performed laparoscopically increased from 81% in 2010 to 91% in 2019. However, a disproportionate number of Black and Latina women underwent open surgery to treat ectopic pregnancies during this time. Because they are more invasive, open surgeries are associated with longer operative times, hospital stays, and increased complications, Dr. Huttler said. They are typically associated with more pain and patients are more likely to be admitted to the hospital for postoperative care.

On the other hand, minimally invasive surgeries are associated with decreased operative time, “less recovery and less pain,” Dr. Huttler explained.

The researchers also looked at trends of the related surgical procedure salpingectomy, which is surgical removal of one or both fallopian tubes versus salpingostomy, a surgical unblocking of the tube. Of the group, 91% underwent salpingectomy and 9% underwent salpingostomy.

Researchers found that Black and Latina women had 78% and 54% greater odds, respectively, of receiving a salpingectomy. However, the clinical significance of these findings are unclear because there are “many factors” that are patient and case specific, Dr. Huttler said.

The study is important and adds to a litany of studies that have shown that women of color do not receive optimal care, said Ruben Alvero, MD, who was not involved in the study.

“Women of color in general have seen compromises in their care at many levels in the system,” Dr. Alvero, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview. “We really have to do a massive overhaul of how we treat women of color so they get the same level of treatment that all other populations receive.”

While the factors contributing to these health disparities can be complicated, Dr. Alvero said that one reason for this multivariate discrepancy could be that Black and Latina women tend to seek care at, or only have access to, underresourced hospitals.

Dr. Huttler said she hopes her findings prompt further discussion of these disparities.

“There really are disparities at all levels of care here and figuring out what the root of this is certainly requires further research,” Dr. Huttler said.

The experts interviewed disclosed no conflicts on interests.

Black and Latina women are more likely to have an open surgery compared with a minimally invasive procedure to treat ectopic pregnancy, according to research presented at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2021 meeting.

The researchers found that Black and Latina women had 50% lesser odds of undergoing laparoscopic surgery, a minimally invasive procedure, compared to their White peers.

“We see these disparities in minority populations, [especially in] women with regard to so many other aspects of [gynecologic] surgery,” study author Alexandra Huttler, MD, said in an interview. “The fact that these disparities exist [in the treatment of tubal pregnancies] was unfortunately not surprising to us.”

Dr. Huttler and her team analyzed data from the American College of Surgeons’ National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, which followed more than 9,000 patients who had undergone surgical management of a tubal ectopic pregnancy between 2010 and 2019. Of the group, 85% underwent laparoscopic surgery while 14% had open surgery, which requires a longer recovery time.

The proportion of cases performed laparoscopically increased from 81% in 2010 to 91% in 2019. However, a disproportionate number of Black and Latina women underwent open surgery to treat ectopic pregnancies during this time. Because they are more invasive, open surgeries are associated with longer operative times, hospital stays, and increased complications, Dr. Huttler said. They are typically associated with more pain and patients are more likely to be admitted to the hospital for postoperative care.

On the other hand, minimally invasive surgeries are associated with decreased operative time, “less recovery and less pain,” Dr. Huttler explained.

The researchers also looked at trends of the related surgical procedure salpingectomy, which is surgical removal of one or both fallopian tubes versus salpingostomy, a surgical unblocking of the tube. Of the group, 91% underwent salpingectomy and 9% underwent salpingostomy.

Researchers found that Black and Latina women had 78% and 54% greater odds, respectively, of receiving a salpingectomy. However, the clinical significance of these findings are unclear because there are “many factors” that are patient and case specific, Dr. Huttler said.

The study is important and adds to a litany of studies that have shown that women of color do not receive optimal care, said Ruben Alvero, MD, who was not involved in the study.

“Women of color in general have seen compromises in their care at many levels in the system,” Dr. Alvero, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview. “We really have to do a massive overhaul of how we treat women of color so they get the same level of treatment that all other populations receive.”

While the factors contributing to these health disparities can be complicated, Dr. Alvero said that one reason for this multivariate discrepancy could be that Black and Latina women tend to seek care at, or only have access to, underresourced hospitals.

Dr. Huttler said she hopes her findings prompt further discussion of these disparities.

“There really are disparities at all levels of care here and figuring out what the root of this is certainly requires further research,” Dr. Huttler said.

The experts interviewed disclosed no conflicts on interests.

Black and Latina women are more likely to have an open surgery compared with a minimally invasive procedure to treat ectopic pregnancy, according to research presented at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine’s 2021 meeting.

The researchers found that Black and Latina women had 50% lesser odds of undergoing laparoscopic surgery, a minimally invasive procedure, compared to their White peers.

“We see these disparities in minority populations, [especially in] women with regard to so many other aspects of [gynecologic] surgery,” study author Alexandra Huttler, MD, said in an interview. “The fact that these disparities exist [in the treatment of tubal pregnancies] was unfortunately not surprising to us.”

Dr. Huttler and her team analyzed data from the American College of Surgeons’ National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, which followed more than 9,000 patients who had undergone surgical management of a tubal ectopic pregnancy between 2010 and 2019. Of the group, 85% underwent laparoscopic surgery while 14% had open surgery, which requires a longer recovery time.

The proportion of cases performed laparoscopically increased from 81% in 2010 to 91% in 2019. However, a disproportionate number of Black and Latina women underwent open surgery to treat ectopic pregnancies during this time. Because they are more invasive, open surgeries are associated with longer operative times, hospital stays, and increased complications, Dr. Huttler said. They are typically associated with more pain and patients are more likely to be admitted to the hospital for postoperative care.

On the other hand, minimally invasive surgeries are associated with decreased operative time, “less recovery and less pain,” Dr. Huttler explained.

The researchers also looked at trends of the related surgical procedure salpingectomy, which is surgical removal of one or both fallopian tubes versus salpingostomy, a surgical unblocking of the tube. Of the group, 91% underwent salpingectomy and 9% underwent salpingostomy.

Researchers found that Black and Latina women had 78% and 54% greater odds, respectively, of receiving a salpingectomy. However, the clinical significance of these findings are unclear because there are “many factors” that are patient and case specific, Dr. Huttler said.

The study is important and adds to a litany of studies that have shown that women of color do not receive optimal care, said Ruben Alvero, MD, who was not involved in the study.

“Women of color in general have seen compromises in their care at many levels in the system,” Dr. Alvero, professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford (Calif.) University, said in an interview. “We really have to do a massive overhaul of how we treat women of color so they get the same level of treatment that all other populations receive.”

While the factors contributing to these health disparities can be complicated, Dr. Alvero said that one reason for this multivariate discrepancy could be that Black and Latina women tend to seek care at, or only have access to, underresourced hospitals.

Dr. Huttler said she hopes her findings prompt further discussion of these disparities.

“There really are disparities at all levels of care here and figuring out what the root of this is certainly requires further research,” Dr. Huttler said.

The experts interviewed disclosed no conflicts on interests.

Background: Medical comanagement of hip fracture patients is common. Prior evidence comes from mostly single-center studies, with most improvements being in process indicators such as length of stay and staff satisfaction.

This study failed to show superior outcomes in comanagement patients. The retrospective nature and propensity matching will lead to the question of unmeasured confounding in this large multinational database.

Bottom line: Medical comanagement of hip fractures was not associated with improved outcomes in the NSQIP database.

Citation: Maxwell BG, Mirza A. Medical comanagement of hip fracture patients is not associated with superior perioperative outcomes: A propensity score–matched retrospective cohort analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Project. J Hosp Med. 2020;15:468-74.

Dr. Lockwood is a hospitalist and chief of quality, performance, and patient safety at the Lexington (Ky.) VA Health Care System.

Background: Medical comanagement of hip fracture patients is common. Prior evidence comes from mostly single-center studies, with most improvements being in process indicators such as length of stay and staff satisfaction.

This study failed to show superior outcomes in comanagement patients. The retrospective nature and propensity matching will lead to the question of unmeasured confounding in this large multinational database.

Bottom line: Medical comanagement of hip fractures was not associated with improved outcomes in the NSQIP database.

Citation: Maxwell BG, Mirza A. Medical comanagement of hip fracture patients is not associated with superior perioperative outcomes: A propensity score–matched retrospective cohort analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Project. J Hosp Med. 2020;15:468-74.

Dr. Lockwood is a hospitalist and chief of quality, performance, and patient safety at the Lexington (Ky.) VA Health Care System.

Background: Medical comanagement of hip fracture patients is common. Prior evidence comes from mostly single-center studies, with most improvements being in process indicators such as length of stay and staff satisfaction.

This study failed to show superior outcomes in comanagement patients. The retrospective nature and propensity matching will lead to the question of unmeasured confounding in this large multinational database.

Bottom line: Medical comanagement of hip fractures was not associated with improved outcomes in the NSQIP database.

Citation: Maxwell BG, Mirza A. Medical comanagement of hip fracture patients is not associated with superior perioperative outcomes: A propensity score–matched retrospective cohort analysis of the National Surgical Quality Improvement Project. J Hosp Med. 2020;15:468-74.

Dr. Lockwood is a hospitalist and chief of quality, performance, and patient safety at the Lexington (Ky.) VA Health Care System.

Which of the following statements about breast density is TRUE?

_{Text copyright DenseBreast-info.org.}

Answer

D. The risks associated with dense breast tissue are 2-fold: Dense tissue can mask cancer on a mammogram, and having dense breasts also increases the risk of developing breast cancer. As breast density increases, the sensitivity of mammography decreases, and the risk of developing breast cancer increases.

A woman’s breast density is usually determined by a radiologist’s visual evaluation of the mammogram. Breast density also can be measured quantitatively by computer software or estimated on computed tomography scan or magnetic resonance imaging. Breast density cannot be determined by the way a breast looks or feels.

Breast density and mammographic sensitivity

Cancers can be hidden or “masked” by dense tissue. On a mammogram, cancer is white. Normal dense tissue also appears white. If a cancer develops in an area of normal dense tissue, it can be harder or sometimes impossible to see it on the mammogram, like trying to see a snowman in a blizzard. As breast density increases, the ability to see cancer on mammography decreases (FIGURE 1).

Standard 2D mammography has been shown to miss about 40% of cancers present in women with extremely dense breasts and 25% of cancers present in women with heterogeneously dense breasts.^1-6 A cancer still can be masked on tomosynthesis (3D mammography) if it occurs in an area of dense tissue (where breast cancers more commonly occur), and tomosynthesis does not improve cancer detection appreciably in women with extremely dense breasts. To find cancer in a woman with dense breasts, additional screening beyond mammography should be considered.

Breast density and breast cancer risk

Dense breast tissue not only reduces mammography effectiveness, it also is a risk factor for the development of breast cancer: the denser the breast, the higher the risk.⁷ A meta-analysis across many studies concluded that magnitude of risk increases with each increase in density category, and women with extremely dense breasts (category D) have a 4-fold greater risk of developing breast cancer than do women with fatty breasts (category A), with upper limit of nearly 6-fold greater risk (FIGURE 2).⁸

Most women do not have fatty breasts, however. More women have breasts with scattered fibroglandular density.⁹ Women with heterogeneously dense breasts (category C) have about a 1.5-fold greater risk of developing breast cancer than those with scattered fibroglandular density (category B), while women with extremely dense breasts (category D) have about a 2-fold greater risk.

There are probably several reasons that dense tissue increases breast cancer risk. One is that cancers arise microscopically in the glandular tissue. The more glandular tissue, the more susceptible tissue where cancer can develop. Glandular cells divide with hormonal stimulation throughout a woman’s lifetime, and each time a cell divides, “mistakes” can be made. An accumulation of mistakes can result in cancer. The more glandular the tissue, the greater the breast cancer risk. Women who have had breast reduction experience a reduced risk for breast cancer: thus, even a reduced absolute amount of glandular tissue reduces the risk for breast cancer. The second is that the local environment around the glands may produce certain growth hormones that stimulate cells to divide, and this is observed with fibrous breast tissue more than fatty breast tissue. ●

Which of the following statements about breast density is TRUE?

_{Text copyright DenseBreast-info.org.}

Answer

D. The risks associated with dense breast tissue are 2-fold: Dense tissue can mask cancer on a mammogram, and having dense breasts also increases the risk of developing breast cancer. As breast density increases, the sensitivity of mammography decreases, and the risk of developing breast cancer increases.

A woman’s breast density is usually determined by a radiologist’s visual evaluation of the mammogram. Breast density also can be measured quantitatively by computer software or estimated on computed tomography scan or magnetic resonance imaging. Breast density cannot be determined by the way a breast looks or feels.

Breast density and mammographic sensitivity

Cancers can be hidden or “masked” by dense tissue. On a mammogram, cancer is white. Normal dense tissue also appears white. If a cancer develops in an area of normal dense tissue, it can be harder or sometimes impossible to see it on the mammogram, like trying to see a snowman in a blizzard. As breast density increases, the ability to see cancer on mammography decreases (FIGURE 1).

Standard 2D mammography has been shown to miss about 40% of cancers present in women with extremely dense breasts and 25% of cancers present in women with heterogeneously dense breasts.^1-6 A cancer still can be masked on tomosynthesis (3D mammography) if it occurs in an area of dense tissue (where breast cancers more commonly occur), and tomosynthesis does not improve cancer detection appreciably in women with extremely dense breasts. To find cancer in a woman with dense breasts, additional screening beyond mammography should be considered.

Breast density and breast cancer risk

Dense breast tissue not only reduces mammography effectiveness, it also is a risk factor for the development of breast cancer: the denser the breast, the higher the risk.⁷ A meta-analysis across many studies concluded that magnitude of risk increases with each increase in density category, and women with extremely dense breasts (category D) have a 4-fold greater risk of developing breast cancer than do women with fatty breasts (category A), with upper limit of nearly 6-fold greater risk (FIGURE 2).⁸

Most women do not have fatty breasts, however. More women have breasts with scattered fibroglandular density.⁹ Women with heterogeneously dense breasts (category C) have about a 1.5-fold greater risk of developing breast cancer than those with scattered fibroglandular density (category B), while women with extremely dense breasts (category D) have about a 2-fold greater risk.

There are probably several reasons that dense tissue increases breast cancer risk. One is that cancers arise microscopically in the glandular tissue. The more glandular tissue, the more susceptible tissue where cancer can develop. Glandular cells divide with hormonal stimulation throughout a woman’s lifetime, and each time a cell divides, “mistakes” can be made. An accumulation of mistakes can result in cancer. The more glandular the tissue, the greater the breast cancer risk. Women who have had breast reduction experience a reduced risk for breast cancer: thus, even a reduced absolute amount of glandular tissue reduces the risk for breast cancer. The second is that the local environment around the glands may produce certain growth hormones that stimulate cells to divide, and this is observed with fibrous breast tissue more than fatty breast tissue. ●

Which of the following statements about breast density is TRUE?

_{Text copyright DenseBreast-info.org.}

Answer

D. The risks associated with dense breast tissue are 2-fold: Dense tissue can mask cancer on a mammogram, and having dense breasts also increases the risk of developing breast cancer. As breast density increases, the sensitivity of mammography decreases, and the risk of developing breast cancer increases.

A woman’s breast density is usually determined by a radiologist’s visual evaluation of the mammogram. Breast density also can be measured quantitatively by computer software or estimated on computed tomography scan or magnetic resonance imaging. Breast density cannot be determined by the way a breast looks or feels.

Breast density and mammographic sensitivity

Cancers can be hidden or “masked” by dense tissue. On a mammogram, cancer is white. Normal dense tissue also appears white. If a cancer develops in an area of normal dense tissue, it can be harder or sometimes impossible to see it on the mammogram, like trying to see a snowman in a blizzard. As breast density increases, the ability to see cancer on mammography decreases (FIGURE 1).

Standard 2D mammography has been shown to miss about 40% of cancers present in women with extremely dense breasts and 25% of cancers present in women with heterogeneously dense breasts.^1-6 A cancer still can be masked on tomosynthesis (3D mammography) if it occurs in an area of dense tissue (where breast cancers more commonly occur), and tomosynthesis does not improve cancer detection appreciably in women with extremely dense breasts. To find cancer in a woman with dense breasts, additional screening beyond mammography should be considered.

Breast density and breast cancer risk

Dense breast tissue not only reduces mammography effectiveness, it also is a risk factor for the development of breast cancer: the denser the breast, the higher the risk.⁷ A meta-analysis across many studies concluded that magnitude of risk increases with each increase in density category, and women with extremely dense breasts (category D) have a 4-fold greater risk of developing breast cancer than do women with fatty breasts (category A), with upper limit of nearly 6-fold greater risk (FIGURE 2).⁸

Most women do not have fatty breasts, however. More women have breasts with scattered fibroglandular density.⁹ Women with heterogeneously dense breasts (category C) have about a 1.5-fold greater risk of developing breast cancer than those with scattered fibroglandular density (category B), while women with extremely dense breasts (category D) have about a 2-fold greater risk.

There are probably several reasons that dense tissue increases breast cancer risk. One is that cancers arise microscopically in the glandular tissue. The more glandular tissue, the more susceptible tissue where cancer can develop. Glandular cells divide with hormonal stimulation throughout a woman’s lifetime, and each time a cell divides, “mistakes” can be made. An accumulation of mistakes can result in cancer. The more glandular the tissue, the greater the breast cancer risk. Women who have had breast reduction experience a reduced risk for breast cancer: thus, even a reduced absolute amount of glandular tissue reduces the risk for breast cancer. The second is that the local environment around the glands may produce certain growth hormones that stimulate cells to divide, and this is observed with fibrous breast tissue more than fatty breast tissue. ●

In July 2021, University Hospitals, in Cleveland, announced that its staff had transplanted a kidney into the wrong patient. Although the patient who received the kidney was recovering well, the patient who was supposed to have received the kidney was skipped over. As a result of the error, two employees were placed on administrative leave and the incident was being investigated, the hospital announced.

In April 2020, an interventional radiologist at Boca Raton Regional Hospital, in Boca Raton, Fla., was sued for allegedly placing a stent into the wrong kidney of an 80-year-old patient. Using fluoroscopic guidance, the doctor removed an old stent from the right side but incorrectly replaced it with a new stent on the left side, according to an interview conducted by this news organization with the patient’s lawyers at Searcy Law, in West Palm Beach.

Wrong-site surgery -- surgery performed on the wrong patient, the wrong body part, or the wrong side of the body -- is a rare but distressing event and garners much attention when it happens. “The problem is that it is so rare that doctors don’t focus on it,” says Mary R. Kwaan, MD, a colorectal surgeon at UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles.

A 2006 study in which Kwaan was the lead author concluded that there was one wrong-site surgery for every 112,994 surgeries. Those mistakes can add up. A 2006 study estimated that 25 to 52 wrong-site surgeries were performed each week in the United States.

“Many surgeons don’t think it can happen to them, so they don’t take extra precautions,” says David Mayer, MD, executive director of the MedStar Institute for Quality and Safety, in Washington, DC. “When they make a wrong-site error, usually the first thing they say is, ‘I never thought this would happen to me,’ ” he says.

Wrong-site surgeries are considered sentinel events -- the worst kinds of medical errors. The Sullivan Group, a patient safety consultancy based in Colorado, reports that in 2013, 2.7% of patients who were involved in wrong-site surgeries died and 41% experienced some type of permanent injury. The mean malpractice payment was $127,000.

Some malpractice payments are much higher. In 2013, a Maryland ob.gyn paid a $1.42 million malpractice award for removing the wrong ovary from a woman in 2009. In 2017, a Pennsylvania urologist paid $870,000 for removing the wrong testicle from a man in 2013.
 

Wrong-site surgery often involves experienced surgeons

One might think that wrong-site surgeries usually involve younger or less-experienced surgeons, but that’s not the case; two thirds of the surgeons who perform wrong-site surgeries are in their 40s and 50s, compared with fewer than 25% younger than 40.

In a rather chilling statistic, in a 2013 survey, 12.4% of doctors who were involved in sentinel events in general had claims for more than one event.

These errors are more common in certain specialties. In a study reported in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Spine, 25% of orthopedic surgeons reported performing at least one wrong-site surgery during their career.

Within orthopedics, spine surgery is ground zero for wrong-site surgery. “Finding the site in spine surgery can be more difficult than in common left-right orthopedic procedures,” says Joseph A. Bosco III, a New York City orthopedist.

A 2007 study found that 25% of neurosurgeons had performed wrong-site surgeries. In Missouri in 2013, for example, a 53-year-old patient who was scheduled to undergo a left-sided craniotomy bypass allegedly underwent a right-sided craniotomy and was unable to speak after surgery.

Wrong-site surgeries are also performed by general surgeons, urologists, cardiologists, otolaryngologists, and ophthalmologists. A 2021 lawsuit accused a Tampa urologist of removing the patient’s wrong testicle. And a 2019 lawsuit accused a Chicago ophthalmologist of operating on the wrong eye to remove a cyst.
 

It’s not just the surgeon’s mistake

Mistakes are not only made by the surgeon in the operating room (OR). They can be made by staff when scheduling a surgery, radiologists and pathologists when writing their reports for surgery, and by team members in the OR.

Many people are prone to confusing left and right. A 2020 study found that 14.9% of people had difficulty distinguishing left from right; other studies have shown higher rates. Distractions increase the likelihood of mistakes. In a 2015 study, background noise in a hospital ward made it more difficult for medical students to make left-right judgments.

OR personnel can be confused when patients are turned around. “To operate on the back of someone’s leg, the surgeon may turn the patient from supine to prone, and so left becomes right,” says Samuel C. Seiden, MD, an anesthesiologist in Roseville, Calif., who has studied wrong-site surgery.

Operative site markings that are drawn on the skin can be rubbed off when surgical prep is applied, and markings aren’t usually possible for procedures such as spine surgeries. Surgical draping can make it harder to distinguish the patient’s left and right, and a busy surgeon relying on memory may confuse cases and perform wrong-patient surgery.
 

A push to eliminate wrong-site surgery

In 2004, the Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals and many surgery centers, decided to do something about wrong-site surgery and related surgical errors. It released a universal protocol, which requires hospitals to take three steps to prevent errors: perform preoperative verification that is based on patient care documents; mark the operative site; and take a time-out just before surgery, during which the team should consider whether a mistake is about to be made.

Two years after the Joint Commission published its protocol, Dr. Seiden led a study to determine what effect it had had. The investigators found that wrong-site cases had decreased by only about one third. Preventing wrong-site surgery “turns out to be more complicated to eradicate than anybody thought,” Mark Chassin, MD, president of the Joint Commission, stated a few years later.

Why did the protocol have only a limited effect? Dr. Seiden says that it has been hard to change doctors’ traditional attitudes against standardization. “Some have had an attitude that checklists are for dummies, but that is changing,” he says.

For instance, some surgical teams were not paying attention during time-outs. “The time-out should be like the invocation of the National Anthem,” an orthopedic surgeon from Iowa wrote. “All other activities should stop.”

Even had surgeons followed the universal protocol, about one third of wrong-site surgeries would not have been identified, according to Dr. Kwaan’s study, which was published in the same year as Dr. Seiden’s. As an example, when the wrong kidney was removed at Methodist Hospital, in St. Louis Park, Minn., the hospital said it was following a protocol set by the Minnesota Hospital Association.
 

Redoubling efforts

In 2009, the Joint Commission decided to take another tack. It encouraged hospitals to make root-cause analyses not only of wrong-site surgeries but also of near misses, which are much more plentiful. It used the insights gained to change surgical routines and protocols.

The Safe Surgery Project, a collaboration between the Joint Commission’s Center for Transforming Healthcare and eight hospitals and surgery centers, reduced the number of errors and near misses by 46% in the scheduling area, 63% in pre-op, and 51% in the OR area.

From that project, the center developed the Targeted Solutions Tool, which basically uses the same methodology that the project used. The center told this news organization that 79 healthcare organizations have used the tool and have reduced the number of errors and near misses by 56% in scheduling, 24% in pre-op, and 48% in the OR.

For this approach to work, however, surgical teams must report their errors to the hospital, which had not been done before. A 2008 study by the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that surgical staff did not report 86% of adverse events to their hospitals. Reasons given included lack of time, fear of punitive action, and skepticism that reporting would do any good.

Unlike some other adverse events, it’s hard to keep wrong-site surgeries secret from patients, because they can usually see the scars from it, but some surgeons invent ways to cover it up from patients, too, Dr. Mayer says. One wrong-side hernia repair was corrected in mid operation. Afterward, the surgeon told the patient that he had found another hernia on the other side and had fixed that one, too.
 

Changing the culture

Reformers argue that wrong-site surgeries can be prevented by changing the culture of the hospital or surgery center. “We have to think of wrong-site surgeries as a failure of the system, not of the individual,” says Ron Savrin, MD, a general surgeon in Chagrin Falls, Ohio, who is a surgery subject matter expert for the Sullivan Group. “It should never be only up to one individual to stop an error from occurring.”

Seeing oneself as part of a team can reduce errors. Although other people can introduce errors that make a person look bad, they can also stop the errors that might otherwise have occurred. Punishing individuals for making errors does little good in stopping errors.

“It’s human nature to want to punish somebody for making a mistake, and it’s hard to change that mentality,” Dr. Savrin says. He recalls that when he was a resident, “the morbidity and mortality conferences could be very difficult for anyone who made a mistake, but I think that attitude is changing.”

Studies have found wide variation in the number of wrong-site surgeries among hospitals. A recent Pennsylvania study found an average of one wrong-site surgery or near miss per hospital per year, but about one third of hospitals did not report any.

Wrong-site surgeries are often concentrated in certain hospitals -- even prestigious teaching hospitals are not immune. A decade ago, Rhode Island Hospital had five wrong-site surgeries in 2 years, and Boston’s Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center had three wrong-spine surgeries within 2 months.
 

Other ways to reduce errors

Dr. Seiden thinks reform efforts should take a page from his own specialty. Anesthesiology has developed a variety of forcing functions, which are simple changes in technology that can stop errors. An example is the use of a valve that will not deliver a drug unless certain steps are followed.

The StartBox System, a new way to prevent surgical errors, delivers the surgery blade only after all safety information has been provided. Tested by 11 orthopedic surgeons performing 487 procedures, the system identified 17 near misses.

Another approach is to film time-outs so as to enforce compliance with protocols and help with root-cause analyses. NYU-Langone Medical Center, in New York City, not only films the time-out but also grades OR teams on compliance, says Dr. Bosco, who is vice chair of clinical affairs in the department of orthopedic surgery at the hospital.

In addition, more states are requiring hospitals to report adverse events, including wrong-site surgeries. According to the National Academy for State Health Policy, 28 states require the reporting of adverse events. However, only six states identify facilities in public reports; 16 states publish only aggregate data; and five states do not report error data to the public.
 

The goal is zero errors

Are there fewer wrong-site surgeries now? “My sense is that surgeons, hospitals, and surgery centers are taking wrong-site errors more seriously,” Dr. Savrin says.

Because reported information is spotty and no major studies on incidence have been conducted in recent years, “we don’t have a clear idea,” he says, “but my best guess is that the rate is declining.

“Absolute zero preventable errors has to be our goal,” Dr. Savrin says “We might not get there, but we can’t stop trying.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In July 2021, University Hospitals, in Cleveland, announced that its staff had transplanted a kidney into the wrong patient. Although the patient who received the kidney was recovering well, the patient who was supposed to have received the kidney was skipped over. As a result of the error, two employees were placed on administrative leave and the incident was being investigated, the hospital announced.

In April 2020, an interventional radiologist at Boca Raton Regional Hospital, in Boca Raton, Fla., was sued for allegedly placing a stent into the wrong kidney of an 80-year-old patient. Using fluoroscopic guidance, the doctor removed an old stent from the right side but incorrectly replaced it with a new stent on the left side, according to an interview conducted by this news organization with the patient’s lawyers at Searcy Law, in West Palm Beach.

Wrong-site surgery -- surgery performed on the wrong patient, the wrong body part, or the wrong side of the body -- is a rare but distressing event and garners much attention when it happens. “The problem is that it is so rare that doctors don’t focus on it,” says Mary R. Kwaan, MD, a colorectal surgeon at UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles.

A 2006 study in which Kwaan was the lead author concluded that there was one wrong-site surgery for every 112,994 surgeries. Those mistakes can add up. A 2006 study estimated that 25 to 52 wrong-site surgeries were performed each week in the United States.

“Many surgeons don’t think it can happen to them, so they don’t take extra precautions,” says David Mayer, MD, executive director of the MedStar Institute for Quality and Safety, in Washington, DC. “When they make a wrong-site error, usually the first thing they say is, ‘I never thought this would happen to me,’ ” he says.

Wrong-site surgeries are considered sentinel events -- the worst kinds of medical errors. The Sullivan Group, a patient safety consultancy based in Colorado, reports that in 2013, 2.7% of patients who were involved in wrong-site surgeries died and 41% experienced some type of permanent injury. The mean malpractice payment was $127,000.

Some malpractice payments are much higher. In 2013, a Maryland ob.gyn paid a $1.42 million malpractice award for removing the wrong ovary from a woman in 2009. In 2017, a Pennsylvania urologist paid $870,000 for removing the wrong testicle from a man in 2013.
 

Wrong-site surgery often involves experienced surgeons

One might think that wrong-site surgeries usually involve younger or less-experienced surgeons, but that’s not the case; two thirds of the surgeons who perform wrong-site surgeries are in their 40s and 50s, compared with fewer than 25% younger than 40.

In a rather chilling statistic, in a 2013 survey, 12.4% of doctors who were involved in sentinel events in general had claims for more than one event.

These errors are more common in certain specialties. In a study reported in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Spine, 25% of orthopedic surgeons reported performing at least one wrong-site surgery during their career.

Within orthopedics, spine surgery is ground zero for wrong-site surgery. “Finding the site in spine surgery can be more difficult than in common left-right orthopedic procedures,” says Joseph A. Bosco III, a New York City orthopedist.

A 2007 study found that 25% of neurosurgeons had performed wrong-site surgeries. In Missouri in 2013, for example, a 53-year-old patient who was scheduled to undergo a left-sided craniotomy bypass allegedly underwent a right-sided craniotomy and was unable to speak after surgery.

Wrong-site surgeries are also performed by general surgeons, urologists, cardiologists, otolaryngologists, and ophthalmologists. A 2021 lawsuit accused a Tampa urologist of removing the patient’s wrong testicle. And a 2019 lawsuit accused a Chicago ophthalmologist of operating on the wrong eye to remove a cyst.
 

It’s not just the surgeon’s mistake

Mistakes are not only made by the surgeon in the operating room (OR). They can be made by staff when scheduling a surgery, radiologists and pathologists when writing their reports for surgery, and by team members in the OR.

Many people are prone to confusing left and right. A 2020 study found that 14.9% of people had difficulty distinguishing left from right; other studies have shown higher rates. Distractions increase the likelihood of mistakes. In a 2015 study, background noise in a hospital ward made it more difficult for medical students to make left-right judgments.

OR personnel can be confused when patients are turned around. “To operate on the back of someone’s leg, the surgeon may turn the patient from supine to prone, and so left becomes right,” says Samuel C. Seiden, MD, an anesthesiologist in Roseville, Calif., who has studied wrong-site surgery.

Operative site markings that are drawn on the skin can be rubbed off when surgical prep is applied, and markings aren’t usually possible for procedures such as spine surgeries. Surgical draping can make it harder to distinguish the patient’s left and right, and a busy surgeon relying on memory may confuse cases and perform wrong-patient surgery.
 

A push to eliminate wrong-site surgery

In 2004, the Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals and many surgery centers, decided to do something about wrong-site surgery and related surgical errors. It released a universal protocol, which requires hospitals to take three steps to prevent errors: perform preoperative verification that is based on patient care documents; mark the operative site; and take a time-out just before surgery, during which the team should consider whether a mistake is about to be made.

Two years after the Joint Commission published its protocol, Dr. Seiden led a study to determine what effect it had had. The investigators found that wrong-site cases had decreased by only about one third. Preventing wrong-site surgery “turns out to be more complicated to eradicate than anybody thought,” Mark Chassin, MD, president of the Joint Commission, stated a few years later.

Why did the protocol have only a limited effect? Dr. Seiden says that it has been hard to change doctors’ traditional attitudes against standardization. “Some have had an attitude that checklists are for dummies, but that is changing,” he says.

For instance, some surgical teams were not paying attention during time-outs. “The time-out should be like the invocation of the National Anthem,” an orthopedic surgeon from Iowa wrote. “All other activities should stop.”

Even had surgeons followed the universal protocol, about one third of wrong-site surgeries would not have been identified, according to Dr. Kwaan’s study, which was published in the same year as Dr. Seiden’s. As an example, when the wrong kidney was removed at Methodist Hospital, in St. Louis Park, Minn., the hospital said it was following a protocol set by the Minnesota Hospital Association.
 

Redoubling efforts

In 2009, the Joint Commission decided to take another tack. It encouraged hospitals to make root-cause analyses not only of wrong-site surgeries but also of near misses, which are much more plentiful. It used the insights gained to change surgical routines and protocols.

The Safe Surgery Project, a collaboration between the Joint Commission’s Center for Transforming Healthcare and eight hospitals and surgery centers, reduced the number of errors and near misses by 46% in the scheduling area, 63% in pre-op, and 51% in the OR area.

From that project, the center developed the Targeted Solutions Tool, which basically uses the same methodology that the project used. The center told this news organization that 79 healthcare organizations have used the tool and have reduced the number of errors and near misses by 56% in scheduling, 24% in pre-op, and 48% in the OR.

For this approach to work, however, surgical teams must report their errors to the hospital, which had not been done before. A 2008 study by the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that surgical staff did not report 86% of adverse events to their hospitals. Reasons given included lack of time, fear of punitive action, and skepticism that reporting would do any good.

Unlike some other adverse events, it’s hard to keep wrong-site surgeries secret from patients, because they can usually see the scars from it, but some surgeons invent ways to cover it up from patients, too, Dr. Mayer says. One wrong-side hernia repair was corrected in mid operation. Afterward, the surgeon told the patient that he had found another hernia on the other side and had fixed that one, too.
 

Changing the culture

Reformers argue that wrong-site surgeries can be prevented by changing the culture of the hospital or surgery center. “We have to think of wrong-site surgeries as a failure of the system, not of the individual,” says Ron Savrin, MD, a general surgeon in Chagrin Falls, Ohio, who is a surgery subject matter expert for the Sullivan Group. “It should never be only up to one individual to stop an error from occurring.”

Seeing oneself as part of a team can reduce errors. Although other people can introduce errors that make a person look bad, they can also stop the errors that might otherwise have occurred. Punishing individuals for making errors does little good in stopping errors.

“It’s human nature to want to punish somebody for making a mistake, and it’s hard to change that mentality,” Dr. Savrin says. He recalls that when he was a resident, “the morbidity and mortality conferences could be very difficult for anyone who made a mistake, but I think that attitude is changing.”

Studies have found wide variation in the number of wrong-site surgeries among hospitals. A recent Pennsylvania study found an average of one wrong-site surgery or near miss per hospital per year, but about one third of hospitals did not report any.

Wrong-site surgeries are often concentrated in certain hospitals -- even prestigious teaching hospitals are not immune. A decade ago, Rhode Island Hospital had five wrong-site surgeries in 2 years, and Boston’s Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center had three wrong-spine surgeries within 2 months.
 

Other ways to reduce errors

Dr. Seiden thinks reform efforts should take a page from his own specialty. Anesthesiology has developed a variety of forcing functions, which are simple changes in technology that can stop errors. An example is the use of a valve that will not deliver a drug unless certain steps are followed.

The StartBox System, a new way to prevent surgical errors, delivers the surgery blade only after all safety information has been provided. Tested by 11 orthopedic surgeons performing 487 procedures, the system identified 17 near misses.

Another approach is to film time-outs so as to enforce compliance with protocols and help with root-cause analyses. NYU-Langone Medical Center, in New York City, not only films the time-out but also grades OR teams on compliance, says Dr. Bosco, who is vice chair of clinical affairs in the department of orthopedic surgery at the hospital.

In addition, more states are requiring hospitals to report adverse events, including wrong-site surgeries. According to the National Academy for State Health Policy, 28 states require the reporting of adverse events. However, only six states identify facilities in public reports; 16 states publish only aggregate data; and five states do not report error data to the public.
 

The goal is zero errors

Are there fewer wrong-site surgeries now? “My sense is that surgeons, hospitals, and surgery centers are taking wrong-site errors more seriously,” Dr. Savrin says.

Because reported information is spotty and no major studies on incidence have been conducted in recent years, “we don’t have a clear idea,” he says, “but my best guess is that the rate is declining.

“Absolute zero preventable errors has to be our goal,” Dr. Savrin says “We might not get there, but we can’t stop trying.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

In July 2021, University Hospitals, in Cleveland, announced that its staff had transplanted a kidney into the wrong patient. Although the patient who received the kidney was recovering well, the patient who was supposed to have received the kidney was skipped over. As a result of the error, two employees were placed on administrative leave and the incident was being investigated, the hospital announced.

In April 2020, an interventional radiologist at Boca Raton Regional Hospital, in Boca Raton, Fla., was sued for allegedly placing a stent into the wrong kidney of an 80-year-old patient. Using fluoroscopic guidance, the doctor removed an old stent from the right side but incorrectly replaced it with a new stent on the left side, according to an interview conducted by this news organization with the patient’s lawyers at Searcy Law, in West Palm Beach.

Wrong-site surgery -- surgery performed on the wrong patient, the wrong body part, or the wrong side of the body -- is a rare but distressing event and garners much attention when it happens. “The problem is that it is so rare that doctors don’t focus on it,” says Mary R. Kwaan, MD, a colorectal surgeon at UCLA Medical Center, Los Angeles.

A 2006 study in which Kwaan was the lead author concluded that there was one wrong-site surgery for every 112,994 surgeries. Those mistakes can add up. A 2006 study estimated that 25 to 52 wrong-site surgeries were performed each week in the United States.

“Many surgeons don’t think it can happen to them, so they don’t take extra precautions,” says David Mayer, MD, executive director of the MedStar Institute for Quality and Safety, in Washington, DC. “When they make a wrong-site error, usually the first thing they say is, ‘I never thought this would happen to me,’ ” he says.

Wrong-site surgeries are considered sentinel events -- the worst kinds of medical errors. The Sullivan Group, a patient safety consultancy based in Colorado, reports that in 2013, 2.7% of patients who were involved in wrong-site surgeries died and 41% experienced some type of permanent injury. The mean malpractice payment was $127,000.

Some malpractice payments are much higher. In 2013, a Maryland ob.gyn paid a $1.42 million malpractice award for removing the wrong ovary from a woman in 2009. In 2017, a Pennsylvania urologist paid $870,000 for removing the wrong testicle from a man in 2013.
 

Wrong-site surgery often involves experienced surgeons

One might think that wrong-site surgeries usually involve younger or less-experienced surgeons, but that’s not the case; two thirds of the surgeons who perform wrong-site surgeries are in their 40s and 50s, compared with fewer than 25% younger than 40.

In a rather chilling statistic, in a 2013 survey, 12.4% of doctors who were involved in sentinel events in general had claims for more than one event.

These errors are more common in certain specialties. In a study reported in the Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Spine, 25% of orthopedic surgeons reported performing at least one wrong-site surgery during their career.

Within orthopedics, spine surgery is ground zero for wrong-site surgery. “Finding the site in spine surgery can be more difficult than in common left-right orthopedic procedures,” says Joseph A. Bosco III, a New York City orthopedist.

A 2007 study found that 25% of neurosurgeons had performed wrong-site surgeries. In Missouri in 2013, for example, a 53-year-old patient who was scheduled to undergo a left-sided craniotomy bypass allegedly underwent a right-sided craniotomy and was unable to speak after surgery.

Wrong-site surgeries are also performed by general surgeons, urologists, cardiologists, otolaryngologists, and ophthalmologists. A 2021 lawsuit accused a Tampa urologist of removing the patient’s wrong testicle. And a 2019 lawsuit accused a Chicago ophthalmologist of operating on the wrong eye to remove a cyst.
 

It’s not just the surgeon’s mistake

Mistakes are not only made by the surgeon in the operating room (OR). They can be made by staff when scheduling a surgery, radiologists and pathologists when writing their reports for surgery, and by team members in the OR.

Many people are prone to confusing left and right. A 2020 study found that 14.9% of people had difficulty distinguishing left from right; other studies have shown higher rates. Distractions increase the likelihood of mistakes. In a 2015 study, background noise in a hospital ward made it more difficult for medical students to make left-right judgments.

OR personnel can be confused when patients are turned around. “To operate on the back of someone’s leg, the surgeon may turn the patient from supine to prone, and so left becomes right,” says Samuel C. Seiden, MD, an anesthesiologist in Roseville, Calif., who has studied wrong-site surgery.

Operative site markings that are drawn on the skin can be rubbed off when surgical prep is applied, and markings aren’t usually possible for procedures such as spine surgeries. Surgical draping can make it harder to distinguish the patient’s left and right, and a busy surgeon relying on memory may confuse cases and perform wrong-patient surgery.
 

A push to eliminate wrong-site surgery

In 2004, the Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals and many surgery centers, decided to do something about wrong-site surgery and related surgical errors. It released a universal protocol, which requires hospitals to take three steps to prevent errors: perform preoperative verification that is based on patient care documents; mark the operative site; and take a time-out just before surgery, during which the team should consider whether a mistake is about to be made.

Two years after the Joint Commission published its protocol, Dr. Seiden led a study to determine what effect it had had. The investigators found that wrong-site cases had decreased by only about one third. Preventing wrong-site surgery “turns out to be more complicated to eradicate than anybody thought,” Mark Chassin, MD, president of the Joint Commission, stated a few years later.

Why did the protocol have only a limited effect? Dr. Seiden says that it has been hard to change doctors’ traditional attitudes against standardization. “Some have had an attitude that checklists are for dummies, but that is changing,” he says.

For instance, some surgical teams were not paying attention during time-outs. “The time-out should be like the invocation of the National Anthem,” an orthopedic surgeon from Iowa wrote. “All other activities should stop.”

Even had surgeons followed the universal protocol, about one third of wrong-site surgeries would not have been identified, according to Dr. Kwaan’s study, which was published in the same year as Dr. Seiden’s. As an example, when the wrong kidney was removed at Methodist Hospital, in St. Louis Park, Minn., the hospital said it was following a protocol set by the Minnesota Hospital Association.
 

Redoubling efforts

In 2009, the Joint Commission decided to take another tack. It encouraged hospitals to make root-cause analyses not only of wrong-site surgeries but also of near misses, which are much more plentiful. It used the insights gained to change surgical routines and protocols.

The Safe Surgery Project, a collaboration between the Joint Commission’s Center for Transforming Healthcare and eight hospitals and surgery centers, reduced the number of errors and near misses by 46% in the scheduling area, 63% in pre-op, and 51% in the OR area.

From that project, the center developed the Targeted Solutions Tool, which basically uses the same methodology that the project used. The center told this news organization that 79 healthcare organizations have used the tool and have reduced the number of errors and near misses by 56% in scheduling, 24% in pre-op, and 48% in the OR.

For this approach to work, however, surgical teams must report their errors to the hospital, which had not been done before. A 2008 study by the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services found that surgical staff did not report 86% of adverse events to their hospitals. Reasons given included lack of time, fear of punitive action, and skepticism that reporting would do any good.

Unlike some other adverse events, it’s hard to keep wrong-site surgeries secret from patients, because they can usually see the scars from it, but some surgeons invent ways to cover it up from patients, too, Dr. Mayer says. One wrong-side hernia repair was corrected in mid operation. Afterward, the surgeon told the patient that he had found another hernia on the other side and had fixed that one, too.
 

Changing the culture

Reformers argue that wrong-site surgeries can be prevented by changing the culture of the hospital or surgery center. “We have to think of wrong-site surgeries as a failure of the system, not of the individual,” says Ron Savrin, MD, a general surgeon in Chagrin Falls, Ohio, who is a surgery subject matter expert for the Sullivan Group. “It should never be only up to one individual to stop an error from occurring.”

Seeing oneself as part of a team can reduce errors. Although other people can introduce errors that make a person look bad, they can also stop the errors that might otherwise have occurred. Punishing individuals for making errors does little good in stopping errors.

“It’s human nature to want to punish somebody for making a mistake, and it’s hard to change that mentality,” Dr. Savrin says. He recalls that when he was a resident, “the morbidity and mortality conferences could be very difficult for anyone who made a mistake, but I think that attitude is changing.”

Studies have found wide variation in the number of wrong-site surgeries among hospitals. A recent Pennsylvania study found an average of one wrong-site surgery or near miss per hospital per year, but about one third of hospitals did not report any.

Wrong-site surgeries are often concentrated in certain hospitals -- even prestigious teaching hospitals are not immune. A decade ago, Rhode Island Hospital had five wrong-site surgeries in 2 years, and Boston’s Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center had three wrong-spine surgeries within 2 months.
 

Other ways to reduce errors

Dr. Seiden thinks reform efforts should take a page from his own specialty. Anesthesiology has developed a variety of forcing functions, which are simple changes in technology that can stop errors. An example is the use of a valve that will not deliver a drug unless certain steps are followed.

The StartBox System, a new way to prevent surgical errors, delivers the surgery blade only after all safety information has been provided. Tested by 11 orthopedic surgeons performing 487 procedures, the system identified 17 near misses.

Another approach is to film time-outs so as to enforce compliance with protocols and help with root-cause analyses. NYU-Langone Medical Center, in New York City, not only films the time-out but also grades OR teams on compliance, says Dr. Bosco, who is vice chair of clinical affairs in the department of orthopedic surgery at the hospital.

In addition, more states are requiring hospitals to report adverse events, including wrong-site surgeries. According to the National Academy for State Health Policy, 28 states require the reporting of adverse events. However, only six states identify facilities in public reports; 16 states publish only aggregate data; and five states do not report error data to the public.
 

The goal is zero errors

Are there fewer wrong-site surgeries now? “My sense is that surgeons, hospitals, and surgery centers are taking wrong-site errors more seriously,” Dr. Savrin says.

Because reported information is spotty and no major studies on incidence have been conducted in recent years, “we don’t have a clear idea,” he says, “but my best guess is that the rate is declining.

“Absolute zero preventable errors has to be our goal,” Dr. Savrin says “We might not get there, but we can’t stop trying.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Study Overview

Objective. The objectives of this study were to (1) quantify the frequency of preoperative advance care planning (ACP) discussion and documentation for older adults undergoing major surgery in a national sample, and (2) characterize how surgical patients and their family members considered ACP after postoperative complications.

Design. A secondary analysis of data from a multisite randomized clinical trial testing the effects of a question prompt list intervention (a Question Problem List [QPL] brochure with 11 questions) given to patients aged 60 years or older undergoing high-risk surgery on preoperative communication with their surgeons.

Setting and participants. This multisite randomized controlled trial involved 5 study sites that encompassed distinct US geographic areas, including University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics (UWHC), Madison; the University of California, San Francisco, Medical Center (UCSF); Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU), Portland; the University Hospital of Rutgers New Jersey Medical School (Rutgers), Newark; and the Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH), Boston, Massachusetts. The study enrolled 40 surgeons who routinely performed high-risk oncological or vascular surgery via purposeful sampling; patients aged 60 years or older with at least 1 comorbidity and an oncological or vascular problem that were treatable with high-risk surgery; and 1 invited family member per enrolled patient to participate in open-ended interviews postsurgery. High-risk surgery was defined as an operation that has a 30-day in-hospital mortality rate greater than or equal to 1%. Data were collected from June 1, 2016, to November 30, 2018.

Main outcome measures. The frequency of preoperative discussions and documentation of ACP was determined. For patients who had major surgery, any mention of ACP (ie, mention of advance directive [AD], health care power of attorney, or preference for limitations of life-sustaining treatments) by the surgeon, patient or family member during the audio recorded, transcribed, and coded preoperative consultation was counted. The presence of a written AD in the medical record at the time of the initial consultation, filed between the consultation and the date of surgery, or added postoperatively, was recorded using a standardized abstraction form. Postoperative treatments administered and complications experienced within 6 weeks after surgery were recorded. Open-ended interviews with patients who experienced significant postoperative complications (eg, prolonged hospitalization > 8 days, intensive care unit stay > 3 days) and their family members were conducted 6 weeks after surgery. Information ascertained during interviews focused on treatment decisions, postoperative experiences, and interpersonal relationships among patients, families, and clinicians. Transcripts of these interviews were then subjected to qualitative content analysis.

Main results. A total of 446 patients were enrolled in the primary study. Of these patients, 213 (122 men [57%]; 91 women [43%]; mean [SD] age, 72 [7] years) underwent major surgery. Only 13 (6.1%) of those who had major surgery had any discussion related to ACP in the preoperative consultation. In this cohort, 141 (66%) patients did not have an AD on file before undergoing major surgery. The presence of AD was not associated with age (60-69 years, 26 [31%]; 70-79 years, 31 [33%]; ≥ 80 years, 15 [42%]; P = .55), number of comorbidities (1, 35 [32%]; 2, 18 [33%]; ≥ 3, 19 [40%]; P = .62), or type of procedure (oncological, 53 [32%]; vascular, 19 [42%]; P = .22). Moreover, there was no difference in preoperative communication about ACP or documentation of an AD for patients who were mailed a QPL brochure compared to those who received usual care (intervention, 38 [35%]; usual care, 34 [33%]; P = .77). Rates of AD documentation were associated with individual study sites with BWH and UWHC having higher rates of documentation (20 [50%] and 27 [44%], respectively) compared to OHSU, UCSF, or Rutgers (7 [17%], 17 [35%], and 1 [5%], respectively). Analysis from the interviews indicated that patients and families felt unprepared for serious surgical complications and had varied interpretations of ACP. Patients with complications were enthusiastic about ACP but did not think it was important to discuss their preferences for life-sustaining treatments with their surgeon preoperatively.

Conclusion. Although surgeons and patients report that they believe ACP is important, preoperative discussion of patient preferences rarely occurs. This study found that the frequency of ACP discussions or AD documentations among older patients undergoing high-risk oncologic or vascular surgery was low. Interventions that are aimed to increase rates of preoperative ACP discussions should be implemented to help prepare patients and their families for difficult decisions in the setting of serious surgical complications and could help decrease postoperative conflicts that result from unclear patient care goals.

Commentary

Surgeons and patients approach surgical interventions with optimistic outlooks while simultaneously preparing for unintended adverse outcomes. For patients, preoperative ACP discussions ease the burden on their families and ensure their wishes and care goals are communicated. For surgeons, these discussions inform them how best to support the values of the patient. Therefore, it is unsurprising that preoperative ACP is viewed favorably by both groups. Given the consensus that ACP is important in the care of older adults undergoing high-risk surgery, one would assume that preoperative ACP discussion is a standard of practice among surgeons and their aging patients. However, in a secondary analysis of a randomized control trial testing a patient-mediated intervention to improve preoperative communication, Kalbfell et al¹ showed that ACP discussions rarely take place prior to major surgery in older adults. This finding highlights the significant discrepancy between the belief that ACP is important, and the actual rate that it is practiced, in older patients undergoing high-risk surgery. This discordance is highly concerning because it suggests that surgeons who provide care to a very vulnerable subset of older patients may overlook an essential aspect of preoperative care and therefore lack a thorough and thoughtful understanding of the patient’s care goals. In practice, this omission can pose significant challenges associated with the surgeon and family’s decisions to use postoperative life-sustaining interventions or to manage unforeseen complications should a patient become unable to make medical decisions.

The barriers to conducting successful ACP discussions between surgeons and patients are multifactorial. Kalbfell et al¹ highlighted several of these barriers, including lack of patient efficacy, physician attitudes, and institutional values in older adults who require major surgeries. The inadequacy of patient efficacy in preoperative ACP is illustrated by findings from the primary, multisite trial of QPL intervention conducted by Schwarze et al. Interestingly, the authors found that patients who did not receive QPL brochure had no ACP discussions, and that QPL implementation did not significantly improve discussion rates despite its intent to encourage these discussions.² Possible explanations for this lack of engagement might be a lack of health literacy or patient efficacy in the study population. Qualitative data from the current study provided further evidence to support these explanations. For instance, some patients provided limited or incomplete information about their wishes for health care management while others felt it was unnecessary to have ACP discussions unless complications arose.¹ However, the latter example counters the purpose of ACP which is to enable patients to make plans about future health care and not reactive to a medical complication or emergency.

Surgeons bear a large responsibility in providing treatments that are consistent with the care goals of the patient. Thus, surgeons play a crucial role in engaging, guiding, and facilitating ACP discussions with patients. This role is even more critical when patients are unable or unwilling to initiate care goal discussions. Physician attitudes towards ACP, therefore, greatly influence the effectiveness of these discussions. In a study of self-administered surveys by vascular, neurologic, and cardiothoracic surgeons, greater than 90% of respondents viewed postoperative life-supporting therapy as necessary, and 54% would decline to operate on patients with an AD limiting life-supporting therapy.³ Moreover, the same study showed that 52% of respondents reported discussing AD before surgery, a figure that exceeded the actual rates at which ACP discussions occur in many other studies. In the current study, Kalbfell et al¹ also found that surgeons viewed ACP discussions largely in the context of AD creation and declined to investigate the full scope of patient preferences. These findings, when combined with other studies that indicate an incomplete understanding of ACP in some surgeons, suggest that not all physicians are able or willing to navigate these sometimes lengthy and difficult conversations with patients. This gap in practice provides opportunities for training in surgical specialties that center on optimizing preoperative ACP discussions to meet the care needs of older patients.

Institutional value and culture are important factors that impact physician behavior and the practice of ACP discussion. In the current study, the authors reported that the majority of ACP discussions were held by a minority of surgeons and that different institutions and study sites had vastly different rates of ACP documentation.¹ These results are further supported by findings of large variations between physicians and hospitals in ACP reporting in hospitalized frail older adults.⁴ These variations in practices at different institutions suggest that it is possible to improve rates of preoperative ACP discussion. Reasons for these differences need to be further investigated in order to identify strategies, resources, or trainings required by medical institutions to support surgeons to carry out ACP discussions with patients undergoing high-risk surgeries.

The study conducted by Kalbfell et al¹ has several strengths. For example, it included Spanish-speaking patients and the use of a Spanish version of the QPL intervention to account for cultural differences. The study also included multiple surgical specialties and institutions and captured a large and national sample, thus making its findings more generalizable. However, the lack of data on the duration of preoperative consultation visits in patients who completed ACP discussions poses a limitation to this study. This is relevant because surgeon availability to engage in lengthy ACP discussions may be limited due to busy clinical schedules. Additional data on the duration of preoperative visits inclusive of a thoughtfully conducted ACP discussion could help to modify clinical workflow to facilitate its uptake in surgical practices.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The findings from the current study indicate that patients and surgeons agree that preoperative ACP discussions are beneficial to the clinical care of older adults before high-risk surgeries. However, these important conversations do not occur frequently. Surgeons and health care institutions need to identify strategies to initiate, facilitate, and optimize productive preoperative ACP discussions to provide patient-centered care in vulnerable older surgical patients.

Financial disclosures: None.

Study Overview

Objective. The objectives of this study were to (1) quantify the frequency of preoperative advance care planning (ACP) discussion and documentation for older adults undergoing major surgery in a national sample, and (2) characterize how surgical patients and their family members considered ACP after postoperative complications.

Design. A secondary analysis of data from a multisite randomized clinical trial testing the effects of a question prompt list intervention (a Question Problem List [QPL] brochure with 11 questions) given to patients aged 60 years or older undergoing high-risk surgery on preoperative communication with their surgeons.

Setting and participants. This multisite randomized controlled trial involved 5 study sites that encompassed distinct US geographic areas, including University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics (UWHC), Madison; the University of California, San Francisco, Medical Center (UCSF); Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU), Portland; the University Hospital of Rutgers New Jersey Medical School (Rutgers), Newark; and the Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH), Boston, Massachusetts. The study enrolled 40 surgeons who routinely performed high-risk oncological or vascular surgery via purposeful sampling; patients aged 60 years or older with at least 1 comorbidity and an oncological or vascular problem that were treatable with high-risk surgery; and 1 invited family member per enrolled patient to participate in open-ended interviews postsurgery. High-risk surgery was defined as an operation that has a 30-day in-hospital mortality rate greater than or equal to 1%. Data were collected from June 1, 2016, to November 30, 2018.

Main outcome measures. The frequency of preoperative discussions and documentation of ACP was determined. For patients who had major surgery, any mention of ACP (ie, mention of advance directive [AD], health care power of attorney, or preference for limitations of life-sustaining treatments) by the surgeon, patient or family member during the audio recorded, transcribed, and coded preoperative consultation was counted. The presence of a written AD in the medical record at the time of the initial consultation, filed between the consultation and the date of surgery, or added postoperatively, was recorded using a standardized abstraction form. Postoperative treatments administered and complications experienced within 6 weeks after surgery were recorded. Open-ended interviews with patients who experienced significant postoperative complications (eg, prolonged hospitalization > 8 days, intensive care unit stay > 3 days) and their family members were conducted 6 weeks after surgery. Information ascertained during interviews focused on treatment decisions, postoperative experiences, and interpersonal relationships among patients, families, and clinicians. Transcripts of these interviews were then subjected to qualitative content analysis.

Main results. A total of 446 patients were enrolled in the primary study. Of these patients, 213 (122 men [57%]; 91 women [43%]; mean [SD] age, 72 [7] years) underwent major surgery. Only 13 (6.1%) of those who had major surgery had any discussion related to ACP in the preoperative consultation. In this cohort, 141 (66%) patients did not have an AD on file before undergoing major surgery. The presence of AD was not associated with age (60-69 years, 26 [31%]; 70-79 years, 31 [33%]; ≥ 80 years, 15 [42%]; P = .55), number of comorbidities (1, 35 [32%]; 2, 18 [33%]; ≥ 3, 19 [40%]; P = .62), or type of procedure (oncological, 53 [32%]; vascular, 19 [42%]; P = .22). Moreover, there was no difference in preoperative communication about ACP or documentation of an AD for patients who were mailed a QPL brochure compared to those who received usual care (intervention, 38 [35%]; usual care, 34 [33%]; P = .77). Rates of AD documentation were associated with individual study sites with BWH and UWHC having higher rates of documentation (20 [50%] and 27 [44%], respectively) compared to OHSU, UCSF, or Rutgers (7 [17%], 17 [35%], and 1 [5%], respectively). Analysis from the interviews indicated that patients and families felt unprepared for serious surgical complications and had varied interpretations of ACP. Patients with complications were enthusiastic about ACP but did not think it was important to discuss their preferences for life-sustaining treatments with their surgeon preoperatively.

Conclusion. Although surgeons and patients report that they believe ACP is important, preoperative discussion of patient preferences rarely occurs. This study found that the frequency of ACP discussions or AD documentations among older patients undergoing high-risk oncologic or vascular surgery was low. Interventions that are aimed to increase rates of preoperative ACP discussions should be implemented to help prepare patients and their families for difficult decisions in the setting of serious surgical complications and could help decrease postoperative conflicts that result from unclear patient care goals.

Commentary

Surgeons and patients approach surgical interventions with optimistic outlooks while simultaneously preparing for unintended adverse outcomes. For patients, preoperative ACP discussions ease the burden on their families and ensure their wishes and care goals are communicated. For surgeons, these discussions inform them how best to support the values of the patient. Therefore, it is unsurprising that preoperative ACP is viewed favorably by both groups. Given the consensus that ACP is important in the care of older adults undergoing high-risk surgery, one would assume that preoperative ACP discussion is a standard of practice among surgeons and their aging patients. However, in a secondary analysis of a randomized control trial testing a patient-mediated intervention to improve preoperative communication, Kalbfell et al¹ showed that ACP discussions rarely take place prior to major surgery in older adults. This finding highlights the significant discrepancy between the belief that ACP is important, and the actual rate that it is practiced, in older patients undergoing high-risk surgery. This discordance is highly concerning because it suggests that surgeons who provide care to a very vulnerable subset of older patients may overlook an essential aspect of preoperative care and therefore lack a thorough and thoughtful understanding of the patient’s care goals. In practice, this omission can pose significant challenges associated with the surgeon and family’s decisions to use postoperative life-sustaining interventions or to manage unforeseen complications should a patient become unable to make medical decisions.

The barriers to conducting successful ACP discussions between surgeons and patients are multifactorial. Kalbfell et al¹ highlighted several of these barriers, including lack of patient efficacy, physician attitudes, and institutional values in older adults who require major surgeries. The inadequacy of patient efficacy in preoperative ACP is illustrated by findings from the primary, multisite trial of QPL intervention conducted by Schwarze et al. Interestingly, the authors found that patients who did not receive QPL brochure had no ACP discussions, and that QPL implementation did not significantly improve discussion rates despite its intent to encourage these discussions.² Possible explanations for this lack of engagement might be a lack of health literacy or patient efficacy in the study population. Qualitative data from the current study provided further evidence to support these explanations. For instance, some patients provided limited or incomplete information about their wishes for health care management while others felt it was unnecessary to have ACP discussions unless complications arose.¹ However, the latter example counters the purpose of ACP which is to enable patients to make plans about future health care and not reactive to a medical complication or emergency.

Surgeons bear a large responsibility in providing treatments that are consistent with the care goals of the patient. Thus, surgeons play a crucial role in engaging, guiding, and facilitating ACP discussions with patients. This role is even more critical when patients are unable or unwilling to initiate care goal discussions. Physician attitudes towards ACP, therefore, greatly influence the effectiveness of these discussions. In a study of self-administered surveys by vascular, neurologic, and cardiothoracic surgeons, greater than 90% of respondents viewed postoperative life-supporting therapy as necessary, and 54% would decline to operate on patients with an AD limiting life-supporting therapy.³ Moreover, the same study showed that 52% of respondents reported discussing AD before surgery, a figure that exceeded the actual rates at which ACP discussions occur in many other studies. In the current study, Kalbfell et al¹ also found that surgeons viewed ACP discussions largely in the context of AD creation and declined to investigate the full scope of patient preferences. These findings, when combined with other studies that indicate an incomplete understanding of ACP in some surgeons, suggest that not all physicians are able or willing to navigate these sometimes lengthy and difficult conversations with patients. This gap in practice provides opportunities for training in surgical specialties that center on optimizing preoperative ACP discussions to meet the care needs of older patients.

Institutional value and culture are important factors that impact physician behavior and the practice of ACP discussion. In the current study, the authors reported that the majority of ACP discussions were held by a minority of surgeons and that different institutions and study sites had vastly different rates of ACP documentation.¹ These results are further supported by findings of large variations between physicians and hospitals in ACP reporting in hospitalized frail older adults.⁴ These variations in practices at different institutions suggest that it is possible to improve rates of preoperative ACP discussion. Reasons for these differences need to be further investigated in order to identify strategies, resources, or trainings required by medical institutions to support surgeons to carry out ACP discussions with patients undergoing high-risk surgeries.

The study conducted by Kalbfell et al¹ has several strengths. For example, it included Spanish-speaking patients and the use of a Spanish version of the QPL intervention to account for cultural differences. The study also included multiple surgical specialties and institutions and captured a large and national sample, thus making its findings more generalizable. However, the lack of data on the duration of preoperative consultation visits in patients who completed ACP discussions poses a limitation to this study. This is relevant because surgeon availability to engage in lengthy ACP discussions may be limited due to busy clinical schedules. Additional data on the duration of preoperative visits inclusive of a thoughtfully conducted ACP discussion could help to modify clinical workflow to facilitate its uptake in surgical practices.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The findings from the current study indicate that patients and surgeons agree that preoperative ACP discussions are beneficial to the clinical care of older adults before high-risk surgeries. However, these important conversations do not occur frequently. Surgeons and health care institutions need to identify strategies to initiate, facilitate, and optimize productive preoperative ACP discussions to provide patient-centered care in vulnerable older surgical patients.

Financial disclosures: None.

Study Overview

Objective. The objectives of this study were to (1) quantify the frequency of preoperative advance care planning (ACP) discussion and documentation for older adults undergoing major surgery in a national sample, and (2) characterize how surgical patients and their family members considered ACP after postoperative complications.

Design. A secondary analysis of data from a multisite randomized clinical trial testing the effects of a question prompt list intervention (a Question Problem List [QPL] brochure with 11 questions) given to patients aged 60 years or older undergoing high-risk surgery on preoperative communication with their surgeons.

Setting and participants. This multisite randomized controlled trial involved 5 study sites that encompassed distinct US geographic areas, including University of Wisconsin Hospital and Clinics (UWHC), Madison; the University of California, San Francisco, Medical Center (UCSF); Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU), Portland; the University Hospital of Rutgers New Jersey Medical School (Rutgers), Newark; and the Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH), Boston, Massachusetts. The study enrolled 40 surgeons who routinely performed high-risk oncological or vascular surgery via purposeful sampling; patients aged 60 years or older with at least 1 comorbidity and an oncological or vascular problem that were treatable with high-risk surgery; and 1 invited family member per enrolled patient to participate in open-ended interviews postsurgery. High-risk surgery was defined as an operation that has a 30-day in-hospital mortality rate greater than or equal to 1%. Data were collected from June 1, 2016, to November 30, 2018.

Main outcome measures. The frequency of preoperative discussions and documentation of ACP was determined. For patients who had major surgery, any mention of ACP (ie, mention of advance directive [AD], health care power of attorney, or preference for limitations of life-sustaining treatments) by the surgeon, patient or family member during the audio recorded, transcribed, and coded preoperative consultation was counted. The presence of a written AD in the medical record at the time of the initial consultation, filed between the consultation and the date of surgery, or added postoperatively, was recorded using a standardized abstraction form. Postoperative treatments administered and complications experienced within 6 weeks after surgery were recorded. Open-ended interviews with patients who experienced significant postoperative complications (eg, prolonged hospitalization > 8 days, intensive care unit stay > 3 days) and their family members were conducted 6 weeks after surgery. Information ascertained during interviews focused on treatment decisions, postoperative experiences, and interpersonal relationships among patients, families, and clinicians. Transcripts of these interviews were then subjected to qualitative content analysis.

Main results. A total of 446 patients were enrolled in the primary study. Of these patients, 213 (122 men [57%]; 91 women [43%]; mean [SD] age, 72 [7] years) underwent major surgery. Only 13 (6.1%) of those who had major surgery had any discussion related to ACP in the preoperative consultation. In this cohort, 141 (66%) patients did not have an AD on file before undergoing major surgery. The presence of AD was not associated with age (60-69 years, 26 [31%]; 70-79 years, 31 [33%]; ≥ 80 years, 15 [42%]; P = .55), number of comorbidities (1, 35 [32%]; 2, 18 [33%]; ≥ 3, 19 [40%]; P = .62), or type of procedure (oncological, 53 [32%]; vascular, 19 [42%]; P = .22). Moreover, there was no difference in preoperative communication about ACP or documentation of an AD for patients who were mailed a QPL brochure compared to those who received usual care (intervention, 38 [35%]; usual care, 34 [33%]; P = .77). Rates of AD documentation were associated with individual study sites with BWH and UWHC having higher rates of documentation (20 [50%] and 27 [44%], respectively) compared to OHSU, UCSF, or Rutgers (7 [17%], 17 [35%], and 1 [5%], respectively). Analysis from the interviews indicated that patients and families felt unprepared for serious surgical complications and had varied interpretations of ACP. Patients with complications were enthusiastic about ACP but did not think it was important to discuss their preferences for life-sustaining treatments with their surgeon preoperatively.

Conclusion. Although surgeons and patients report that they believe ACP is important, preoperative discussion of patient preferences rarely occurs. This study found that the frequency of ACP discussions or AD documentations among older patients undergoing high-risk oncologic or vascular surgery was low. Interventions that are aimed to increase rates of preoperative ACP discussions should be implemented to help prepare patients and their families for difficult decisions in the setting of serious surgical complications and could help decrease postoperative conflicts that result from unclear patient care goals.

Commentary

Surgeons and patients approach surgical interventions with optimistic outlooks while simultaneously preparing for unintended adverse outcomes. For patients, preoperative ACP discussions ease the burden on their families and ensure their wishes and care goals are communicated. For surgeons, these discussions inform them how best to support the values of the patient. Therefore, it is unsurprising that preoperative ACP is viewed favorably by both groups. Given the consensus that ACP is important in the care of older adults undergoing high-risk surgery, one would assume that preoperative ACP discussion is a standard of practice among surgeons and their aging patients. However, in a secondary analysis of a randomized control trial testing a patient-mediated intervention to improve preoperative communication, Kalbfell et al¹ showed that ACP discussions rarely take place prior to major surgery in older adults. This finding highlights the significant discrepancy between the belief that ACP is important, and the actual rate that it is practiced, in older patients undergoing high-risk surgery. This discordance is highly concerning because it suggests that surgeons who provide care to a very vulnerable subset of older patients may overlook an essential aspect of preoperative care and therefore lack a thorough and thoughtful understanding of the patient’s care goals. In practice, this omission can pose significant challenges associated with the surgeon and family’s decisions to use postoperative life-sustaining interventions or to manage unforeseen complications should a patient become unable to make medical decisions.

The barriers to conducting successful ACP discussions between surgeons and patients are multifactorial. Kalbfell et al¹ highlighted several of these barriers, including lack of patient efficacy, physician attitudes, and institutional values in older adults who require major surgeries. The inadequacy of patient efficacy in preoperative ACP is illustrated by findings from the primary, multisite trial of QPL intervention conducted by Schwarze et al. Interestingly, the authors found that patients who did not receive QPL brochure had no ACP discussions, and that QPL implementation did not significantly improve discussion rates despite its intent to encourage these discussions.² Possible explanations for this lack of engagement might be a lack of health literacy or patient efficacy in the study population. Qualitative data from the current study provided further evidence to support these explanations. For instance, some patients provided limited or incomplete information about their wishes for health care management while others felt it was unnecessary to have ACP discussions unless complications arose.¹ However, the latter example counters the purpose of ACP which is to enable patients to make plans about future health care and not reactive to a medical complication or emergency.

Surgeons bear a large responsibility in providing treatments that are consistent with the care goals of the patient. Thus, surgeons play a crucial role in engaging, guiding, and facilitating ACP discussions with patients. This role is even more critical when patients are unable or unwilling to initiate care goal discussions. Physician attitudes towards ACP, therefore, greatly influence the effectiveness of these discussions. In a study of self-administered surveys by vascular, neurologic, and cardiothoracic surgeons, greater than 90% of respondents viewed postoperative life-supporting therapy as necessary, and 54% would decline to operate on patients with an AD limiting life-supporting therapy.³ Moreover, the same study showed that 52% of respondents reported discussing AD before surgery, a figure that exceeded the actual rates at which ACP discussions occur in many other studies. In the current study, Kalbfell et al¹ also found that surgeons viewed ACP discussions largely in the context of AD creation and declined to investigate the full scope of patient preferences. These findings, when combined with other studies that indicate an incomplete understanding of ACP in some surgeons, suggest that not all physicians are able or willing to navigate these sometimes lengthy and difficult conversations with patients. This gap in practice provides opportunities for training in surgical specialties that center on optimizing preoperative ACP discussions to meet the care needs of older patients.

Institutional value and culture are important factors that impact physician behavior and the practice of ACP discussion. In the current study, the authors reported that the majority of ACP discussions were held by a minority of surgeons and that different institutions and study sites had vastly different rates of ACP documentation.¹ These results are further supported by findings of large variations between physicians and hospitals in ACP reporting in hospitalized frail older adults.⁴ These variations in practices at different institutions suggest that it is possible to improve rates of preoperative ACP discussion. Reasons for these differences need to be further investigated in order to identify strategies, resources, or trainings required by medical institutions to support surgeons to carry out ACP discussions with patients undergoing high-risk surgeries.

The study conducted by Kalbfell et al¹ has several strengths. For example, it included Spanish-speaking patients and the use of a Spanish version of the QPL intervention to account for cultural differences. The study also included multiple surgical specialties and institutions and captured a large and national sample, thus making its findings more generalizable. However, the lack of data on the duration of preoperative consultation visits in patients who completed ACP discussions poses a limitation to this study. This is relevant because surgeon availability to engage in lengthy ACP discussions may be limited due to busy clinical schedules. Additional data on the duration of preoperative visits inclusive of a thoughtfully conducted ACP discussion could help to modify clinical workflow to facilitate its uptake in surgical practices.

Applications for Clinical Practice

The findings from the current study indicate that patients and surgeons agree that preoperative ACP discussions are beneficial to the clinical care of older adults before high-risk surgeries. However, these important conversations do not occur frequently. Surgeons and health care institutions need to identify strategies to initiate, facilitate, and optimize productive preoperative ACP discussions to provide patient-centered care in vulnerable older surgical patients.

Financial disclosures: None.

For patients with endometriosis-related dysmenorrhea, it is cost effective to use medical therapy before surgery, according to investigators.

A stepwise strategy involving two medications, then surgery, was associated with the lowest cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), reported lead author, Jacqueline A. Bohn, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues.

“In 2009, the medical costs associated with endometriosis in the United States were estimated at $69.4 billion annually,” the investigators wrote in Obstetrics and Gynecology. “Despite the recognized cost burden of this disease, cost-effectiveness data on the various treatment strategies is limited. Previous studies have investigated the direct and indirect costs regarding endometriosis; however, there are no prior studies that evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a stepwise regimen to guide management.”

To fill this knowledge gap, Dr. Bohn and colleagues created a cost-effectiveness model comparing four treatment strategies:

NSAIDs, then surgery

NSAIDs, then short-acting reversible contraceptives or long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs), then surgery

NSAIDs, then a short-acting reversible contraceptive or a LARC, then a LARC or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) modulator, then surgery

Surgery alone

The analysis, which compared costs, QALYs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, involved a theoretical cohort of 4,817,894 women aged 18-45 years, representing the estimated number of reproductive-age women in the United States with endometriosis-related dysmenorrhea. Costs were determined from published literature and inflated to 2019 dollars. Medical treatments were theoretically given for 6 months each, and the cost of laparoscopic surgery incorporated 12 months of postoperative care.

Of the four strategies, the two-medication approach was most cost effective, with a cost per QALY of $1,158. This was followed closely by the three-medication regimen, at $1,158, the single-medication regimen, at $2,108, and finally, surgery alone, at $4,338.

“We found that, although cost effective, requiring trial of a third medication offered little comparative advantage before proceeding directly to surgery after the second therapy fails,” the investigators wrote. “Yet, for the woman who is anxious about surgical intervention, or when a prolonged wait for a surgical specialist occurs, trial of a GnRH modulator may be worthwhile.”

Compared with surgery alone, each regimen starting with medical therapy remained below the standard willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY; however, the investigators recommend against trying more than three medications.

“Delaying surgical management in a woman with pain refractory to more than three medications may decrease quality of life and further increase cost,” they wrote.

To make surgery alone the most cost-effective option, surgery success would need to exceed 83%, Dr. Bohn and colleagues concluded.

According to Hugh Taylor, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., it’s unlikely that this surgery success threshold will be met, since surgery alone typically leads to recurrence.

“We know there’s a very high relapse rate after surgery,” Dr. Taylor said in an interview. “Even if the surgery may be initially successful, there’s roughly a 50% recurrence rate after about 2 years. So, finding the right medical therapy will give you more chance for long-term success.”

Dr. Taylor said it’s “really nice” that Dr. Bohn and colleagues conducted a sequential analysis because the findings support the most common approach in real-world practice.

“It confirms that starting with a medical therapy prior to surgery is an appropriate, successful treatment for endometriosis, which is something that many, many people in the community do, but we haven’t had a real trial to show that,” he said.

Dr. Taylor offered two areas of improvement for similar studies in the future: First, he suggested separating LARCs from oral contraceptives because LARCs may be less effective for some patients with endometriosis; and second, he suggested that limiting the third medication to a GnRH antagonist would be more applicable to real-world practice than using the broader category of GnRH modulators.

Although the three-medication approach involving a GnRH modulator was slightly more expensive than the two-medication approach, Dr. Taylor said the costs were so similar that a three-medication approach is “still reasonable,” particularly because it could spare patients from surgery.

Dr. Taylor also speculated that trying a GnRH antagonist could become more cost effective soon. Although only one GnRH antagonist is currently on the market, he noted that a second agent is poised for Food and Drug Administration approval, while a third is in the pipeline, and this competition may decrease drug prices.

The investigators disclosed support from the National Institutes of Health, Arnold Ventures, the World Health Organization, Merck, and others. Dr. Taylor reported that Yale University receives funding for endometriosis biomarker research from AbbVie.

For patients with endometriosis-related dysmenorrhea, it is cost effective to use medical therapy before surgery, according to investigators.

A stepwise strategy involving two medications, then surgery, was associated with the lowest cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), reported lead author, Jacqueline A. Bohn, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues.

“In 2009, the medical costs associated with endometriosis in the United States were estimated at $69.4 billion annually,” the investigators wrote in Obstetrics and Gynecology. “Despite the recognized cost burden of this disease, cost-effectiveness data on the various treatment strategies is limited. Previous studies have investigated the direct and indirect costs regarding endometriosis; however, there are no prior studies that evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a stepwise regimen to guide management.”

To fill this knowledge gap, Dr. Bohn and colleagues created a cost-effectiveness model comparing four treatment strategies:

NSAIDs, then surgery

NSAIDs, then short-acting reversible contraceptives or long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs), then surgery

NSAIDs, then a short-acting reversible contraceptive or a LARC, then a LARC or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) modulator, then surgery

Surgery alone

The analysis, which compared costs, QALYs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, involved a theoretical cohort of 4,817,894 women aged 18-45 years, representing the estimated number of reproductive-age women in the United States with endometriosis-related dysmenorrhea. Costs were determined from published literature and inflated to 2019 dollars. Medical treatments were theoretically given for 6 months each, and the cost of laparoscopic surgery incorporated 12 months of postoperative care.

Of the four strategies, the two-medication approach was most cost effective, with a cost per QALY of $1,158. This was followed closely by the three-medication regimen, at $1,158, the single-medication regimen, at $2,108, and finally, surgery alone, at $4,338.

“We found that, although cost effective, requiring trial of a third medication offered little comparative advantage before proceeding directly to surgery after the second therapy fails,” the investigators wrote. “Yet, for the woman who is anxious about surgical intervention, or when a prolonged wait for a surgical specialist occurs, trial of a GnRH modulator may be worthwhile.”

Compared with surgery alone, each regimen starting with medical therapy remained below the standard willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY; however, the investigators recommend against trying more than three medications.

“Delaying surgical management in a woman with pain refractory to more than three medications may decrease quality of life and further increase cost,” they wrote.

To make surgery alone the most cost-effective option, surgery success would need to exceed 83%, Dr. Bohn and colleagues concluded.

According to Hugh Taylor, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., it’s unlikely that this surgery success threshold will be met, since surgery alone typically leads to recurrence.

“We know there’s a very high relapse rate after surgery,” Dr. Taylor said in an interview. “Even if the surgery may be initially successful, there’s roughly a 50% recurrence rate after about 2 years. So, finding the right medical therapy will give you more chance for long-term success.”

Dr. Taylor said it’s “really nice” that Dr. Bohn and colleagues conducted a sequential analysis because the findings support the most common approach in real-world practice.

“It confirms that starting with a medical therapy prior to surgery is an appropriate, successful treatment for endometriosis, which is something that many, many people in the community do, but we haven’t had a real trial to show that,” he said.

Dr. Taylor offered two areas of improvement for similar studies in the future: First, he suggested separating LARCs from oral contraceptives because LARCs may be less effective for some patients with endometriosis; and second, he suggested that limiting the third medication to a GnRH antagonist would be more applicable to real-world practice than using the broader category of GnRH modulators.

Although the three-medication approach involving a GnRH modulator was slightly more expensive than the two-medication approach, Dr. Taylor said the costs were so similar that a three-medication approach is “still reasonable,” particularly because it could spare patients from surgery.

Dr. Taylor also speculated that trying a GnRH antagonist could become more cost effective soon. Although only one GnRH antagonist is currently on the market, he noted that a second agent is poised for Food and Drug Administration approval, while a third is in the pipeline, and this competition may decrease drug prices.

The investigators disclosed support from the National Institutes of Health, Arnold Ventures, the World Health Organization, Merck, and others. Dr. Taylor reported that Yale University receives funding for endometriosis biomarker research from AbbVie.

For patients with endometriosis-related dysmenorrhea, it is cost effective to use medical therapy before surgery, according to investigators.

A stepwise strategy involving two medications, then surgery, was associated with the lowest cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), reported lead author, Jacqueline A. Bohn, MD, of Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, and colleagues.

“In 2009, the medical costs associated with endometriosis in the United States were estimated at $69.4 billion annually,” the investigators wrote in Obstetrics and Gynecology. “Despite the recognized cost burden of this disease, cost-effectiveness data on the various treatment strategies is limited. Previous studies have investigated the direct and indirect costs regarding endometriosis; however, there are no prior studies that evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a stepwise regimen to guide management.”

To fill this knowledge gap, Dr. Bohn and colleagues created a cost-effectiveness model comparing four treatment strategies:

NSAIDs, then surgery

NSAIDs, then short-acting reversible contraceptives or long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs), then surgery

NSAIDs, then a short-acting reversible contraceptive or a LARC, then a LARC or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) modulator, then surgery

Surgery alone

The analysis, which compared costs, QALYs, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, involved a theoretical cohort of 4,817,894 women aged 18-45 years, representing the estimated number of reproductive-age women in the United States with endometriosis-related dysmenorrhea. Costs were determined from published literature and inflated to 2019 dollars. Medical treatments were theoretically given for 6 months each, and the cost of laparoscopic surgery incorporated 12 months of postoperative care.

Of the four strategies, the two-medication approach was most cost effective, with a cost per QALY of $1,158. This was followed closely by the three-medication regimen, at $1,158, the single-medication regimen, at $2,108, and finally, surgery alone, at $4,338.

“We found that, although cost effective, requiring trial of a third medication offered little comparative advantage before proceeding directly to surgery after the second therapy fails,” the investigators wrote. “Yet, for the woman who is anxious about surgical intervention, or when a prolonged wait for a surgical specialist occurs, trial of a GnRH modulator may be worthwhile.”

Compared with surgery alone, each regimen starting with medical therapy remained below the standard willingness-to-pay threshold of $100,000 per QALY; however, the investigators recommend against trying more than three medications.

“Delaying surgical management in a woman with pain refractory to more than three medications may decrease quality of life and further increase cost,” they wrote.

To make surgery alone the most cost-effective option, surgery success would need to exceed 83%, Dr. Bohn and colleagues concluded.

According to Hugh Taylor, MD, of Yale University, New Haven, Conn., it’s unlikely that this surgery success threshold will be met, since surgery alone typically leads to recurrence.

“We know there’s a very high relapse rate after surgery,” Dr. Taylor said in an interview. “Even if the surgery may be initially successful, there’s roughly a 50% recurrence rate after about 2 years. So, finding the right medical therapy will give you more chance for long-term success.”

Dr. Taylor said it’s “really nice” that Dr. Bohn and colleagues conducted a sequential analysis because the findings support the most common approach in real-world practice.

“It confirms that starting with a medical therapy prior to surgery is an appropriate, successful treatment for endometriosis, which is something that many, many people in the community do, but we haven’t had a real trial to show that,” he said.

Dr. Taylor offered two areas of improvement for similar studies in the future: First, he suggested separating LARCs from oral contraceptives because LARCs may be less effective for some patients with endometriosis; and second, he suggested that limiting the third medication to a GnRH antagonist would be more applicable to real-world practice than using the broader category of GnRH modulators.

Although the three-medication approach involving a GnRH modulator was slightly more expensive than the two-medication approach, Dr. Taylor said the costs were so similar that a three-medication approach is “still reasonable,” particularly because it could spare patients from surgery.

Dr. Taylor also speculated that trying a GnRH antagonist could become more cost effective soon. Although only one GnRH antagonist is currently on the market, he noted that a second agent is poised for Food and Drug Administration approval, while a third is in the pipeline, and this competition may decrease drug prices.

The investigators disclosed support from the National Institutes of Health, Arnold Ventures, the World Health Organization, Merck, and others. Dr. Taylor reported that Yale University receives funding for endometriosis biomarker research from AbbVie.

This fall, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will announce when they will hear oral arguments for Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The court will examine a Mississippi law, known as the “Gestational Age Act,” originally passed in 2018, that sought to “limit abortions to fifteen weeks’ gestation except in a medical emergency or in cases of severe fetal abnormality.”¹ This sets the stage for SCOTUS to make a major ruling on abortion, one which could affirm or upend landmark decisions and nearly 50 years of abortion legislative precedent. Additionally, SCOTUS’ recent decision to not intervene on Texas’ Senate Bill 8 (SB8), which essentially bans all abortions after 6 weeks’ gestational age, may foreshadow how this case will be decided. The current abortion restrictions in Texas and the implications of SB8 will be discussed in a forthcoming column.

SCOTUS and abortion rights

The decision to hear this case comes on the heels of another recent decision regarding a Louisiana law in June Medical Services v Russo. This case examined Louisiana Act 620, which would have required physicians to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of where they provide abortion services.² The law was deemed constitutionally invalid, with the majority noting the law would have drastically burdened a woman’s right to access abortion services. The Court ruled similarly in 2016 in Whole Women’s Health (WWH) v Hellerstedt, in which WWH challenged Texas House Bill 2, a nearly identical law requiring admitting privileges for abortion care providers. In both of these cases, SCOTUS pointed to precedent set by Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, which established that it is unconstitutional for a state to create an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to abortion prior to fetal viability.³ The precedent to this, Roe v Wade, and 5 decades of abortion legislation set may be upended by a SCOTUS decision this next term.

Dobbs v Jackson

On March 19, 2018, Mississippi enacted the “Gestational Age Act” into law. The newly enacted law would limit abortions to 15 weeks’ gestation except in a medical emergency or in cases of severe fetal anomalies. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the only licensed abortion provider in the state, challenged the constitutionality of the law with legal support from Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR). The US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi granted summary judgement in favor of the clinic and placed an injunction on the law’s enforcement. The state appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the district court decision in a 3-0 decision in November 2019. Mississippi appealed to the Supreme Court, with their petition focusing on multiple questions from the appeals process. After repeatedly rescheduling the case, and multiple reviews in conference, SCOTUS agreed to hear the case. Most recently, the state has narrowed its argument, changing course, and attacking Roe v Wade directly. In a brief submitted in July 2021, the state argues the court should hold that all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are constitutional.

Interestingly, during this time the Mississippi legislature also passed a law, House Bill 2116, also known as the “fetal heartbeat bill,” banning abortion with gestational ages after detection of a fetal heartbeat. This was also challenged, deemed unconstitutional, and affirmed on appeal by the Fifth US Circuit Court.

While recent challenges have focused on the “undue burden” state laws placed on those trying to access abortion care, this case will bring the issue of “viability” and gestational age limits to the forefront.^4,5 In addition to Roe v Wade, the Court will have the opportunity to reexamine other relevant precedent, such as Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, in considering the most recent arguments of the state. In this most recent brief, the state argues that the Court should, “reject viability as a barrier to prohibiting elective abortions” and that a “viability rule has no constitutional basis.” The state goes on to argue the “Constitution does not protect a right to abortion or limit States’ authority to restrict it.”⁶ The language and tone in this brief are more direct and aggressive than the states’ petition submitted last June.

However, the composition of the Court is different than in the past. This case will be argued with Justice Amy Coney Barrett seated in place of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was a strong advocate for women’s rights.⁷ She joins Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, also appointed by President Donald Trump and widely viewed as conservative judges, tipping the scales to a more conservative Supreme Court. This case will also be argued in a polarized political environment.^8,9 Given the conservative Supreme Court in the setting of an increasingly politically charged environment, reproductive right advocates are understandably worried that members of the anti-abortion movement view this as an opportunity to weaken or remove federal constitutional protections for abortion.

Continue to: Potential outcome of Dobbs v Jackson...

Should SCOTUS choose to rule in favor of Mississippi, it could severely weaken, or even overturn Roe v Wade. This would leave a legal path for states with pre-Roe abortion bans and currently unenforced post-Roe bans to take effect. These “trigger” laws are bans or severe restrictions on abortion providers and patients intended to take effect if Roe were to be overturned. Alternatively, the Court may overturn Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, but maintain Roe v Wade, essentially leaving the regulation of pre-viability abortion care to individual states. Currently 21 states have laws that would restrict the legal status of abortion.¹⁰ In addition, state legislatures are aggressively introducing abortion restrictions. As of June 2021, there have been 561 abortion restrictions, including 165 abortion bans, introduced across 47 states, putting 2021 on course to be the most devastating anti-abortion state legislative session in decades.¹¹

The damage caused by such restriction on abortion care would be significant. It would block or push access out of reach for many. The negative effects of such legislative action would most heavily burden those already marginalized by systemic, structural inequalities including those of low socioeconomic status, people of color, young people, those in rural communities, and members of the LGBTQ community. The medical community has long recognized the harm caused by restricting access to abortion care. Restriction of access to safe abortion care paradoxically has been shown not to decrease the incidence of abortion, but rather increases the number of unsafe abortions.¹² The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) acknowledge “individuals require access to safe, legal abortion” and that this represents “a necessary component for comprehensive health care.”^13,14 They joined the American Medical Association and other professional groups in a 2019 amicus brief to SCOTUS opposing restrictions on abortion access.¹⁵ In addition, government laws restricting access to abortion care undermine the fundamental relationship between a person and their physician, limiting a physician’s obligation to honor patient autonomy and provide appropriate medical care.

By taking up the question whether all pre-viability bans on elective abortions violate the Constitution, SCOTUS is indicating a possible willingness to revisit the central holding of abortion jurisprudence. Their decision regarding this case will likely be the most significant ruling regarding the legal status of abortion care in decades, and will significantly affect the delivery of abortion care in the future.

Action items

• Reach out to your representatives to support the Women’s Health Protection Act, an initiative introduced to Congress to protect access to abortion care. If you reside in a state where your federal representatives support the Women’s Health Protection Act, reach out to friends and colleagues in states without supportive elected officials and ask them to call their representatives and ask them to support the bill.
• Get involved with local grassroots groups fighting to protect abortion access.
• Continue to speak out against laws and policies designed to limit access to safe abortion care.
• Connect with your local ACOG chapter for more ways to become involved.
• As always, make sure you are registered to vote, and exercise your right whenever you can.

This fall, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will announce when they will hear oral arguments for Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The court will examine a Mississippi law, known as the “Gestational Age Act,” originally passed in 2018, that sought to “limit abortions to fifteen weeks’ gestation except in a medical emergency or in cases of severe fetal abnormality.”¹ This sets the stage for SCOTUS to make a major ruling on abortion, one which could affirm or upend landmark decisions and nearly 50 years of abortion legislative precedent. Additionally, SCOTUS’ recent decision to not intervene on Texas’ Senate Bill 8 (SB8), which essentially bans all abortions after 6 weeks’ gestational age, may foreshadow how this case will be decided. The current abortion restrictions in Texas and the implications of SB8 will be discussed in a forthcoming column.

SCOTUS and abortion rights

The decision to hear this case comes on the heels of another recent decision regarding a Louisiana law in June Medical Services v Russo. This case examined Louisiana Act 620, which would have required physicians to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of where they provide abortion services.² The law was deemed constitutionally invalid, with the majority noting the law would have drastically burdened a woman’s right to access abortion services. The Court ruled similarly in 2016 in Whole Women’s Health (WWH) v Hellerstedt, in which WWH challenged Texas House Bill 2, a nearly identical law requiring admitting privileges for abortion care providers. In both of these cases, SCOTUS pointed to precedent set by Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, which established that it is unconstitutional for a state to create an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to abortion prior to fetal viability.³ The precedent to this, Roe v Wade, and 5 decades of abortion legislation set may be upended by a SCOTUS decision this next term.

Dobbs v Jackson

On March 19, 2018, Mississippi enacted the “Gestational Age Act” into law. The newly enacted law would limit abortions to 15 weeks’ gestation except in a medical emergency or in cases of severe fetal anomalies. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the only licensed abortion provider in the state, challenged the constitutionality of the law with legal support from Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR). The US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi granted summary judgement in favor of the clinic and placed an injunction on the law’s enforcement. The state appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the district court decision in a 3-0 decision in November 2019. Mississippi appealed to the Supreme Court, with their petition focusing on multiple questions from the appeals process. After repeatedly rescheduling the case, and multiple reviews in conference, SCOTUS agreed to hear the case. Most recently, the state has narrowed its argument, changing course, and attacking Roe v Wade directly. In a brief submitted in July 2021, the state argues the court should hold that all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are constitutional.

Interestingly, during this time the Mississippi legislature also passed a law, House Bill 2116, also known as the “fetal heartbeat bill,” banning abortion with gestational ages after detection of a fetal heartbeat. This was also challenged, deemed unconstitutional, and affirmed on appeal by the Fifth US Circuit Court.

While recent challenges have focused on the “undue burden” state laws placed on those trying to access abortion care, this case will bring the issue of “viability” and gestational age limits to the forefront.^4,5 In addition to Roe v Wade, the Court will have the opportunity to reexamine other relevant precedent, such as Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, in considering the most recent arguments of the state. In this most recent brief, the state argues that the Court should, “reject viability as a barrier to prohibiting elective abortions” and that a “viability rule has no constitutional basis.” The state goes on to argue the “Constitution does not protect a right to abortion or limit States’ authority to restrict it.”⁶ The language and tone in this brief are more direct and aggressive than the states’ petition submitted last June.

However, the composition of the Court is different than in the past. This case will be argued with Justice Amy Coney Barrett seated in place of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was a strong advocate for women’s rights.⁷ She joins Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, also appointed by President Donald Trump and widely viewed as conservative judges, tipping the scales to a more conservative Supreme Court. This case will also be argued in a polarized political environment.^8,9 Given the conservative Supreme Court in the setting of an increasingly politically charged environment, reproductive right advocates are understandably worried that members of the anti-abortion movement view this as an opportunity to weaken or remove federal constitutional protections for abortion.

Continue to: Potential outcome of Dobbs v Jackson...

Should SCOTUS choose to rule in favor of Mississippi, it could severely weaken, or even overturn Roe v Wade. This would leave a legal path for states with pre-Roe abortion bans and currently unenforced post-Roe bans to take effect. These “trigger” laws are bans or severe restrictions on abortion providers and patients intended to take effect if Roe were to be overturned. Alternatively, the Court may overturn Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, but maintain Roe v Wade, essentially leaving the regulation of pre-viability abortion care to individual states. Currently 21 states have laws that would restrict the legal status of abortion.¹⁰ In addition, state legislatures are aggressively introducing abortion restrictions. As of June 2021, there have been 561 abortion restrictions, including 165 abortion bans, introduced across 47 states, putting 2021 on course to be the most devastating anti-abortion state legislative session in decades.¹¹

The damage caused by such restriction on abortion care would be significant. It would block or push access out of reach for many. The negative effects of such legislative action would most heavily burden those already marginalized by systemic, structural inequalities including those of low socioeconomic status, people of color, young people, those in rural communities, and members of the LGBTQ community. The medical community has long recognized the harm caused by restricting access to abortion care. Restriction of access to safe abortion care paradoxically has been shown not to decrease the incidence of abortion, but rather increases the number of unsafe abortions.¹² The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) acknowledge “individuals require access to safe, legal abortion” and that this represents “a necessary component for comprehensive health care.”^13,14 They joined the American Medical Association and other professional groups in a 2019 amicus brief to SCOTUS opposing restrictions on abortion access.¹⁵ In addition, government laws restricting access to abortion care undermine the fundamental relationship between a person and their physician, limiting a physician’s obligation to honor patient autonomy and provide appropriate medical care.

By taking up the question whether all pre-viability bans on elective abortions violate the Constitution, SCOTUS is indicating a possible willingness to revisit the central holding of abortion jurisprudence. Their decision regarding this case will likely be the most significant ruling regarding the legal status of abortion care in decades, and will significantly affect the delivery of abortion care in the future.

Action items

• Reach out to your representatives to support the Women’s Health Protection Act, an initiative introduced to Congress to protect access to abortion care. If you reside in a state where your federal representatives support the Women’s Health Protection Act, reach out to friends and colleagues in states without supportive elected officials and ask them to call their representatives and ask them to support the bill.
• Get involved with local grassroots groups fighting to protect abortion access.
• Continue to speak out against laws and policies designed to limit access to safe abortion care.
• Connect with your local ACOG chapter for more ways to become involved.
• As always, make sure you are registered to vote, and exercise your right whenever you can.

This fall, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will announce when they will hear oral arguments for Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization. The court will examine a Mississippi law, known as the “Gestational Age Act,” originally passed in 2018, that sought to “limit abortions to fifteen weeks’ gestation except in a medical emergency or in cases of severe fetal abnormality.”¹ This sets the stage for SCOTUS to make a major ruling on abortion, one which could affirm or upend landmark decisions and nearly 50 years of abortion legislative precedent. Additionally, SCOTUS’ recent decision to not intervene on Texas’ Senate Bill 8 (SB8), which essentially bans all abortions after 6 weeks’ gestational age, may foreshadow how this case will be decided. The current abortion restrictions in Texas and the implications of SB8 will be discussed in a forthcoming column.

SCOTUS and abortion rights

The decision to hear this case comes on the heels of another recent decision regarding a Louisiana law in June Medical Services v Russo. This case examined Louisiana Act 620, which would have required physicians to have hospital admitting privileges within 30 miles of where they provide abortion services.² The law was deemed constitutionally invalid, with the majority noting the law would have drastically burdened a woman’s right to access abortion services. The Court ruled similarly in 2016 in Whole Women’s Health (WWH) v Hellerstedt, in which WWH challenged Texas House Bill 2, a nearly identical law requiring admitting privileges for abortion care providers. In both of these cases, SCOTUS pointed to precedent set by Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, which established that it is unconstitutional for a state to create an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to abortion prior to fetal viability.³ The precedent to this, Roe v Wade, and 5 decades of abortion legislation set may be upended by a SCOTUS decision this next term.

Dobbs v Jackson

On March 19, 2018, Mississippi enacted the “Gestational Age Act” into law. The newly enacted law would limit abortions to 15 weeks’ gestation except in a medical emergency or in cases of severe fetal anomalies. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the only licensed abortion provider in the state, challenged the constitutionality of the law with legal support from Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR). The US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi granted summary judgement in favor of the clinic and placed an injunction on the law’s enforcement. The state appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the district court decision in a 3-0 decision in November 2019. Mississippi appealed to the Supreme Court, with their petition focusing on multiple questions from the appeals process. After repeatedly rescheduling the case, and multiple reviews in conference, SCOTUS agreed to hear the case. Most recently, the state has narrowed its argument, changing course, and attacking Roe v Wade directly. In a brief submitted in July 2021, the state argues the court should hold that all pre-viability prohibitions on elective abortions are constitutional.

Interestingly, during this time the Mississippi legislature also passed a law, House Bill 2116, also known as the “fetal heartbeat bill,” banning abortion with gestational ages after detection of a fetal heartbeat. This was also challenged, deemed unconstitutional, and affirmed on appeal by the Fifth US Circuit Court.

While recent challenges have focused on the “undue burden” state laws placed on those trying to access abortion care, this case will bring the issue of “viability” and gestational age limits to the forefront.^4,5 In addition to Roe v Wade, the Court will have the opportunity to reexamine other relevant precedent, such as Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, in considering the most recent arguments of the state. In this most recent brief, the state argues that the Court should, “reject viability as a barrier to prohibiting elective abortions” and that a “viability rule has no constitutional basis.” The state goes on to argue the “Constitution does not protect a right to abortion or limit States’ authority to restrict it.”⁶ The language and tone in this brief are more direct and aggressive than the states’ petition submitted last June.

However, the composition of the Court is different than in the past. This case will be argued with Justice Amy Coney Barrett seated in place of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was a strong advocate for women’s rights.⁷ She joins Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, also appointed by President Donald Trump and widely viewed as conservative judges, tipping the scales to a more conservative Supreme Court. This case will also be argued in a polarized political environment.^8,9 Given the conservative Supreme Court in the setting of an increasingly politically charged environment, reproductive right advocates are understandably worried that members of the anti-abortion movement view this as an opportunity to weaken or remove federal constitutional protections for abortion.

Continue to: Potential outcome of Dobbs v Jackson...

Should SCOTUS choose to rule in favor of Mississippi, it could severely weaken, or even overturn Roe v Wade. This would leave a legal path for states with pre-Roe abortion bans and currently unenforced post-Roe bans to take effect. These “trigger” laws are bans or severe restrictions on abortion providers and patients intended to take effect if Roe were to be overturned. Alternatively, the Court may overturn Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, but maintain Roe v Wade, essentially leaving the regulation of pre-viability abortion care to individual states. Currently 21 states have laws that would restrict the legal status of abortion.¹⁰ In addition, state legislatures are aggressively introducing abortion restrictions. As of June 2021, there have been 561 abortion restrictions, including 165 abortion bans, introduced across 47 states, putting 2021 on course to be the most devastating anti-abortion state legislative session in decades.¹¹

The damage caused by such restriction on abortion care would be significant. It would block or push access out of reach for many. The negative effects of such legislative action would most heavily burden those already marginalized by systemic, structural inequalities including those of low socioeconomic status, people of color, young people, those in rural communities, and members of the LGBTQ community. The medical community has long recognized the harm caused by restricting access to abortion care. Restriction of access to safe abortion care paradoxically has been shown not to decrease the incidence of abortion, but rather increases the number of unsafe abortions.¹² The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) acknowledge “individuals require access to safe, legal abortion” and that this represents “a necessary component for comprehensive health care.”^13,14 They joined the American Medical Association and other professional groups in a 2019 amicus brief to SCOTUS opposing restrictions on abortion access.¹⁵ In addition, government laws restricting access to abortion care undermine the fundamental relationship between a person and their physician, limiting a physician’s obligation to honor patient autonomy and provide appropriate medical care.

By taking up the question whether all pre-viability bans on elective abortions violate the Constitution, SCOTUS is indicating a possible willingness to revisit the central holding of abortion jurisprudence. Their decision regarding this case will likely be the most significant ruling regarding the legal status of abortion care in decades, and will significantly affect the delivery of abortion care in the future.

Action items

• Reach out to your representatives to support the Women’s Health Protection Act, an initiative introduced to Congress to protect access to abortion care. If you reside in a state where your federal representatives support the Women’s Health Protection Act, reach out to friends and colleagues in states without supportive elected officials and ask them to call their representatives and ask them to support the bill.
• Get involved with local grassroots groups fighting to protect abortion access.
• Continue to speak out against laws and policies designed to limit access to safe abortion care.
• Connect with your local ACOG chapter for more ways to become involved.
• As always, make sure you are registered to vote, and exercise your right whenever you can.

Orthopedic researchers from New York University have proposed standardizing prescribing patterns for patients after fracture surgery so as to include low-dose opioids.

In a paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, researchers from NYU reported on the implementation of their multimodal strategy, dubbed the “lopioid protocol.”

According to the 2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, orthopedic surgeons are the third-highest opioid prescribers in the United States.

Kennneth A. Egol, MD, vice chair of the department of orthopedic surgery at NYU, who is the first author of the study, was motivated to help create the protocol following misconceptions that orthopedic surgeons were helping to fuel the opioid epidemic.

Dr. Egol pointed to the year 1995, when pain became the fifth vital sign after body temperature, pulse rate, respiratory rate, and blood pressure.

Since then, in light of the opioid epidemic, the focus of physicians has shifted away from prescribing strong pain medication and reducing pain scores to zero to instead reducing pain to a manageable level.

Reducing opioid prescriptions can be challenging when patients are prescribed an anti-inflammatory and they subsequently ask their physician for a “pain pill.” Patients sometimes don’t understand that inflammation is what causes pain.

It can also be difficult to convince patients that medications that they can buy over the counter can adequately control their pain, as confirmed in numerous studies.

Multimodal pain therapy aims to reduce the need for opioids by supplementing their use with other oral medications and, at times, long-lasting regional nerve blocks.

Anti-inflammatories act at the site of injury or surgery where inflammation is occurring. Nerves then carry the pain signal to the brain. These signals can be dampened by medications such as gabapentin that act on the nerves themselves. The pain signal is received in the brain, where opioids act by binding to receptors in the brain.

The so-called lopioid protocol does not eliminate opioids completely but rather uses “safer” opioids, such as tramadol, in lieu of stronger narcotics.

The protocol began at NYU on Jan. 1, 2019. It consists in the prescribing of tramadol, meloxicam, gabapentin, and acetaminophen.

The study presented at the AAOS meeting demonstrated statistically significant reductions in visual analogue pain scores at discharge and subsequent medication refills for the 931 patients in the lopioid group, compared with a group of 848 patients who received narcotic prescriptions containing oxycodone from the year prior to the protocol initiation.

Educating patients on the rationale for the prescription combination can help to allay their fears. Dr. Egol thinks it’s important for physicians to explain the dangers of opioids to patients. He said in an interview that he also believes surgeons need to “give [patients] an understanding of why we are pursuing these protocols. They also need to know we will not ignore their pain and concerns.”

Brannon Orton, MD, is an orthopedic surgeon at Confluence Health, in Moses Lake, Wash. He sees a large number of trauma patients and thinks NYU is doing a good job of addressing a difficult problem in orthopedics – especially in the field of trauma.

He said in an interview: “Managing narcotics postoperatively can be challenging due to the fact that many people come into these fractures with a history of narcotic use.” Not only are they used to turning to opioids for pain relief, but they also may have built up a tolerance to them.

Although he hasn’t been using the lopioid protocol specifically, he has been following a multimodal approach regarding the postoperative use of narcotics. Of the study by Dr. Egol and colleagues, he said, “I think their paper presents an effective way of decreasing use of oral narcotics and still adequately managing patients’ pain postoperatively.” Dr. Orton’s own practice utilizes tramadol, acetaminophen, and ibuprofen after fracture surgery.

From Dr. Orton’s perspective, a significant challenge in implementing the lopioid protocol in practice is simply sticking to the plan. “It can become difficult when patients are pressuring staff or physicians for more narcotics. However, I feel that if everybody is on the same page with the plan, then it can be very doable.”

Dr. Egol and NYU try to limit narcotic prescriptions beginning with the patient’s initial visit to the ED. The ED physicians at his institution only “prescribe small amounts of narcotics. Our ED people really limit the amount of opioids prescribed.”

Dr. Egol recommends that all practitioners begin with nonnarcotic medication, even if treating a fracture nonoperatively. “Start low and go higher. I always try to start with NSAIDs and Tylenol,” he said.

Dr. Egol and Dr. Orton reported no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Orthopedic researchers from New York University have proposed standardizing prescribing patterns for patients after fracture surgery so as to include low-dose opioids.

In a paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, researchers from NYU reported on the implementation of their multimodal strategy, dubbed the “lopioid protocol.”

According to the 2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, orthopedic surgeons are the third-highest opioid prescribers in the United States.

Kennneth A. Egol, MD, vice chair of the department of orthopedic surgery at NYU, who is the first author of the study, was motivated to help create the protocol following misconceptions that orthopedic surgeons were helping to fuel the opioid epidemic.

Dr. Egol pointed to the year 1995, when pain became the fifth vital sign after body temperature, pulse rate, respiratory rate, and blood pressure.

Since then, in light of the opioid epidemic, the focus of physicians has shifted away from prescribing strong pain medication and reducing pain scores to zero to instead reducing pain to a manageable level.

Reducing opioid prescriptions can be challenging when patients are prescribed an anti-inflammatory and they subsequently ask their physician for a “pain pill.” Patients sometimes don’t understand that inflammation is what causes pain.

It can also be difficult to convince patients that medications that they can buy over the counter can adequately control their pain, as confirmed in numerous studies.

Multimodal pain therapy aims to reduce the need for opioids by supplementing their use with other oral medications and, at times, long-lasting regional nerve blocks.

Anti-inflammatories act at the site of injury or surgery where inflammation is occurring. Nerves then carry the pain signal to the brain. These signals can be dampened by medications such as gabapentin that act on the nerves themselves. The pain signal is received in the brain, where opioids act by binding to receptors in the brain.

The so-called lopioid protocol does not eliminate opioids completely but rather uses “safer” opioids, such as tramadol, in lieu of stronger narcotics.

The protocol began at NYU on Jan. 1, 2019. It consists in the prescribing of tramadol, meloxicam, gabapentin, and acetaminophen.

The study presented at the AAOS meeting demonstrated statistically significant reductions in visual analogue pain scores at discharge and subsequent medication refills for the 931 patients in the lopioid group, compared with a group of 848 patients who received narcotic prescriptions containing oxycodone from the year prior to the protocol initiation.

Educating patients on the rationale for the prescription combination can help to allay their fears. Dr. Egol thinks it’s important for physicians to explain the dangers of opioids to patients. He said in an interview that he also believes surgeons need to “give [patients] an understanding of why we are pursuing these protocols. They also need to know we will not ignore their pain and concerns.”

Brannon Orton, MD, is an orthopedic surgeon at Confluence Health, in Moses Lake, Wash. He sees a large number of trauma patients and thinks NYU is doing a good job of addressing a difficult problem in orthopedics – especially in the field of trauma.

He said in an interview: “Managing narcotics postoperatively can be challenging due to the fact that many people come into these fractures with a history of narcotic use.” Not only are they used to turning to opioids for pain relief, but they also may have built up a tolerance to them.

Although he hasn’t been using the lopioid protocol specifically, he has been following a multimodal approach regarding the postoperative use of narcotics. Of the study by Dr. Egol and colleagues, he said, “I think their paper presents an effective way of decreasing use of oral narcotics and still adequately managing patients’ pain postoperatively.” Dr. Orton’s own practice utilizes tramadol, acetaminophen, and ibuprofen after fracture surgery.

From Dr. Orton’s perspective, a significant challenge in implementing the lopioid protocol in practice is simply sticking to the plan. “It can become difficult when patients are pressuring staff or physicians for more narcotics. However, I feel that if everybody is on the same page with the plan, then it can be very doable.”

Dr. Egol and NYU try to limit narcotic prescriptions beginning with the patient’s initial visit to the ED. The ED physicians at his institution only “prescribe small amounts of narcotics. Our ED people really limit the amount of opioids prescribed.”

Dr. Egol recommends that all practitioners begin with nonnarcotic medication, even if treating a fracture nonoperatively. “Start low and go higher. I always try to start with NSAIDs and Tylenol,” he said.

Dr. Egol and Dr. Orton reported no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Orthopedic researchers from New York University have proposed standardizing prescribing patterns for patients after fracture surgery so as to include low-dose opioids.

In a paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, researchers from NYU reported on the implementation of their multimodal strategy, dubbed the “lopioid protocol.”

According to the 2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, orthopedic surgeons are the third-highest opioid prescribers in the United States.

Kennneth A. Egol, MD, vice chair of the department of orthopedic surgery at NYU, who is the first author of the study, was motivated to help create the protocol following misconceptions that orthopedic surgeons were helping to fuel the opioid epidemic.

Dr. Egol pointed to the year 1995, when pain became the fifth vital sign after body temperature, pulse rate, respiratory rate, and blood pressure.

Since then, in light of the opioid epidemic, the focus of physicians has shifted away from prescribing strong pain medication and reducing pain scores to zero to instead reducing pain to a manageable level.

Reducing opioid prescriptions can be challenging when patients are prescribed an anti-inflammatory and they subsequently ask their physician for a “pain pill.” Patients sometimes don’t understand that inflammation is what causes pain.

It can also be difficult to convince patients that medications that they can buy over the counter can adequately control their pain, as confirmed in numerous studies.

Multimodal pain therapy aims to reduce the need for opioids by supplementing their use with other oral medications and, at times, long-lasting regional nerve blocks.

Anti-inflammatories act at the site of injury or surgery where inflammation is occurring. Nerves then carry the pain signal to the brain. These signals can be dampened by medications such as gabapentin that act on the nerves themselves. The pain signal is received in the brain, where opioids act by binding to receptors in the brain.

The so-called lopioid protocol does not eliminate opioids completely but rather uses “safer” opioids, such as tramadol, in lieu of stronger narcotics.

The protocol began at NYU on Jan. 1, 2019. It consists in the prescribing of tramadol, meloxicam, gabapentin, and acetaminophen.

The study presented at the AAOS meeting demonstrated statistically significant reductions in visual analogue pain scores at discharge and subsequent medication refills for the 931 patients in the lopioid group, compared with a group of 848 patients who received narcotic prescriptions containing oxycodone from the year prior to the protocol initiation.

Educating patients on the rationale for the prescription combination can help to allay their fears. Dr. Egol thinks it’s important for physicians to explain the dangers of opioids to patients. He said in an interview that he also believes surgeons need to “give [patients] an understanding of why we are pursuing these protocols. They also need to know we will not ignore their pain and concerns.”

Brannon Orton, MD, is an orthopedic surgeon at Confluence Health, in Moses Lake, Wash. He sees a large number of trauma patients and thinks NYU is doing a good job of addressing a difficult problem in orthopedics – especially in the field of trauma.

He said in an interview: “Managing narcotics postoperatively can be challenging due to the fact that many people come into these fractures with a history of narcotic use.” Not only are they used to turning to opioids for pain relief, but they also may have built up a tolerance to them.

Although he hasn’t been using the lopioid protocol specifically, he has been following a multimodal approach regarding the postoperative use of narcotics. Of the study by Dr. Egol and colleagues, he said, “I think their paper presents an effective way of decreasing use of oral narcotics and still adequately managing patients’ pain postoperatively.” Dr. Orton’s own practice utilizes tramadol, acetaminophen, and ibuprofen after fracture surgery.

From Dr. Orton’s perspective, a significant challenge in implementing the lopioid protocol in practice is simply sticking to the plan. “It can become difficult when patients are pressuring staff or physicians for more narcotics. However, I feel that if everybody is on the same page with the plan, then it can be very doable.”

Dr. Egol and NYU try to limit narcotic prescriptions beginning with the patient’s initial visit to the ED. The ED physicians at his institution only “prescribe small amounts of narcotics. Our ED people really limit the amount of opioids prescribed.”

Dr. Egol recommends that all practitioners begin with nonnarcotic medication, even if treating a fracture nonoperatively. “Start low and go higher. I always try to start with NSAIDs and Tylenol,” he said.

Dr. Egol and Dr. Orton reported no relevant financial disclosures.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.