Diversity and ethics in trauma and acute care surgery teams: results from an international survey

Background Investigating the context of trauma and acute care surgery, the article aims at understanding the factors that can enhance some ethical aspects, namely the importance of patient consent, the perceptiveness of the ethical role of the trauma leader, and the perceived importance of ethics as an educational subject. Methods The article employs an international questionnaire promoted by the World Society of Emergency Surgery. Results Through the analysis of 402 fully filled questionnaires by surgeons from 72 different countries, the three main ethical topics are investigated through the lens of gender, membership of an academic or non-academic institution, an official trauma team, and a diverse group. In general terms, results highlight greater attention paid by surgeons belonging to academic institutions, official trauma teams, and diverse groups. Conclusions Our results underline that some organizational factors (e.g., the fact that the team belongs to a university context or is more diverse) might lead to the development of a higher sensibility on ethical matters. Embracing cultural diversity forces trauma teams to deal with different mindsets. Organizations should, therefore, consider those elements in defining their organizational procedures. Level of evidence Trauma and acute care teams work under tremendous pressure and complex circumstances, with their members needing to make ethical decisions quickly. The international survey allowed to shed light on how team assembly decisions might represent an opportunity to coordinate team member actions and increase performance

Do neurosurgeons follow the guidelines? a world-based survey on severe traumatic brain injury

ANTECEDENTES: La lesión cerebral traumática (LCT) será la tercera causa de muerte en todo el mundo, según la OMS. Dos encuestas europeas sugirieron que el cumplimiento de las directrices sobre traumatismos craneoencefálicos es deficiente. Ningún estudio ha comparado el cumplimiento entre países de ingresos bajos (LMIC) y países de ingresos altos (UHIC). Por lo tanto, este estudio tuvo como objetivo investigar las diferencias en el manejo de pacientes con TBI grave, comparando ingresos bajos y altos, y la adherencia a las pautas de BTF. MÉTODOS: se difundió una encuesta basada en la web a través de la fundación global Neuro, diferentes sociedades neuroquirúrgicas y las redes sociales. RESULTADOS: participaron un total de 803 neurocirujanos: 70,4 de UHIC y 29,6% de LMIC. El 73 % y el 65 % de los que respondieron en LMIC y UHIC, respectivamente (P = 0,016), administraron hipertónico como medida temprana. El 66 % y el 58 % de los neurocirujanos de los LMIC y los UHIC recomendaron una monitorización invasiva de la presión intracraneal, respectivamente (p<0,001). los fármacos anticonvulsivos (P<0,001) se administraron con mayor frecuencia en los LMIC que, en contra de las recomendaciones, los esteroides (87 % frente a 61 % y 86 % frente a 81 %, respectivamente). en los LMIC tanto la evacuación de la contusión como la craniectomía descompresiva se realizaron antes que en los UHIC (30 % frente a 17 % con P<0,001 y 44 % frente a 28 % con P=0,006, respectivamente). En los LMIC, el control de TC de la cabeza se realizó principalmente entre 12 y 24 horas desde la primera imagen (38 % frente a 23 %, P <0,001). CONCLUSIONES: Las Directrices actuales sobre TBI no siempre se ajustan tanto a los recursos como a las circunstancias de los diferentes países. La investigación futura y las guías de práctica clínica deberían reflejar la mayor relevancia de la LCT en entornos de bajos recursos.BACKGROUND: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) is going to be the third-leading cause of death worldwide, according to the WHO. Two european surveys suggested that adherence to brain trauma guidelines is poor. No study has compared compliance between low- (LMICs) and high-income (UHICs) countries. Hence, this study aimed to investigate differences in the management of severe TBI patients, comparing low- and high-income, and adherence to the BTF guidelines. METHODS: a web-based survey was spread through the global Neuro foundation, different neurosurgical societies, and social media. RESULTS: a total of 803 neurosurgeons participated: 70.4 from UHICs and 29.6% from LMICs. Hypertonic was administered as an early measure by the 73% and 65% of the responders in LMICs and UHICs, respectively (P=0.016). an invasive intracranial pressure monitoring was recommended by the 66% and 58% of the neurosurgeons in LMICs and UHICs, respectively (P<0.001). antiseizure drugs (P<0.001) were given most frequently in LMICs as, against recommendations, steroids (87% vs. 61% and 86% vs. 81%, respectively). in the LMICs both the evacuation of the contusion and decompressive craniectomy were performed earlier than in UHICs (30% vs. 17% with P<0.001 and 44% vs. 28% with P=0.006, respectively). In the LMICs, the head CT control was performed mostly between 12 and 24 hours from the first imaging (38% vs. 23%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The current Guidelines on TBI do not always fit to both the resources and circumstances in different countries. Future research and clinical practice guidelines should reflect the greater relevance of TBI in low resource settings

Surgeons' perspectives on artificial intelligence to support clinical decision-making in trauma and emergency contexts: results from an international survey

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is gaining traction in medicine and surgery. AI-based applications can offer tools to examine high-volume data to inform predictive analytics that supports complex decision-making processes. Time-sensitive trauma and emergency contexts are often challenging. The study aims to investigate trauma and emergency surgeons' knowledge and perception of using AI-based tools in clinical decision-making processes. Methods: An online survey grounded on literature regarding AI-enabled surgical decision-making aids was created by a multidisciplinary committee and endorsed by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES). The survey was advertised to 917 WSES members through the society's website and Twitter profile. Results: 650 surgeons from 71 countries in five continents participated in the survey. Results depict the presence of technology enthusiasts and skeptics and surgeons' preference toward more classical decision-making aids like clinical guidelines, traditional training, and the support of their multidisciplinary colleagues. A lack of knowledge about several AI-related aspects emerges and is associated with mistrust. Discussion: The trauma and emergency surgical community is divided into those who firmly believe in the potential of AI and those who do not understand or trust AI-enabled surgical decision-making aids. Academic societies and surgical training programs should promote a foundational, working knowledge of clinical AI

Time for a paradigm shift in shared decision-making in trauma and emergency surgery? Results from an international survey

Background Shared decision-making (SDM) between clinicians and patients is one of the pillars of the modern patient-centric philosophy of care. This study aims to explore SDM in the discipline of trauma and emergency surgery, investigating its interpretation as well as the barriers and facilitators for its implementation among surgeons. Methods Grounding on the literature on the topics of the understanding, barriers, and facilitators of SDM in trauma and emergency surgery, a survey was created by a multidisciplinary committee and endorsed by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES). The survey was sent to all 917 WSES members, advertised through the society’s website, and shared on the society’s Twitter profile. Results A total of 650 trauma and emergency surgeons from 71 countries in five continents participated in the initiative. Less than half of the surgeons understood SDM, and 30% still saw the value in exclusively engaging multidisciplinary provider teams without involving the patient. Several barriers to effectively partnering with the patient in the decision-making process were identified, such as the lack of time and the need to concentrate on making medical teams work smoothly. Discussion Our investigation underlines how only a minority of trauma and emergency surgeons understand SDM, and perhaps, the value of SDM is not fully accepted in trauma and emergency situations. The inclusion of SDM practices in clinical guidelines may represent the most feasible and advocated solutions

The impact of surgical delay on resectability of colorectal cancer: An international prospective cohort study

AimThe SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to explore the impact of surgical delays on cancer resectability. This study aimed to compare resectability for colorectal cancer patients undergoing delayed versus non-delayed surgery.MethodsThis was an international prospective cohort study of consecutive colorectal cancer patients with a decision for curative surgery (January-April 2020). Surgical delay was defined as an operation taking place more than 4 weeks after treatment decision, in a patient who did not receive neoadjuvant therapy. A subgroup analysis explored the effects of delay in elective patients only. The impact of longer delays was explored in a sensitivity analysis. The primary outcome was complete resection, defined as curative resection with an R0 margin.ResultsOverall, 5453 patients from 304 hospitals in 47 countries were included, of whom 6.6% (358/5453) did not receive their planned operation. Of the 4304 operated patients without neoadjuvant therapy, 40.5% (1744/4304) were delayed beyond 4 weeks. Delayed patients were more likely to be older, men, more comorbid, have higher body mass index and have rectal cancer and early stage disease. Delayed patients had higher unadjusted rates of complete resection (93.7% vs. 91.9%, P = 0.032) and lower rates of emergency surgery (4.5% vs. 22.5%, P ConclusionOne in 15 colorectal cancer patients did not receive their planned operation during the first wave of COVID-19. Surgical delay did not appear to compromise resectability, raising the hypothesis that any reduction in long-term survival attributable to delays is likely to be due to micro-metastatic disease

Delaying surgery for patients with a previous SARS-CoV-2 infection

Not availabl