Team-Centered Care after Trauma Patient Death: Promoting Healers’ Healing by Humanizing Our Roles

Introduction: Recurrent exposures to adverse patient events, including death, affect all members of the care team and can have long-term effects on clinician performance, personal well-being, and patient safety. Recognizing the impact of patient deaths on care teams is essential to mitigating potential risks of increased clinician burnout. We share the outcomes of a three-month pilot wellness intervention implemented at a busy academic hospital, directed explicitly toward resuscitation care teams managing patients who die from traumatic injuries. Approach: A collaborative group from Stanford’s Trauma Surgery, Emergency Department (ED), and well-being leadership developed an integrated workflow to connect with care team members after a resuscitation ending in patient death. Our 4-pronged approach included 1) an immediate pause and 2) a defusion session, 3) a direct email communication to extend peer support and mental health resources, and 4) an invitation to monthly grief counselor-facilitated healing sessions. Engagement was measured based on email responses and healing session attendance. At 3 months, 8 trauma mortalities were recorded, with 120 corresponding email communications sent to care team members. The average event-to-distribution time was 84 hours (SD = 52.9 hours). A total of 18 unsolicited positive email responses were documented, in addition to the reception of verbal in-person feedback. Three monthly counselor-facilitated healing sessions occurred with 15, 10, and 9 individuals in attendance, respectively. Discussion: Trauma-associated death is not uncommon, yet it often occurs without organized support systems for care teams. Our 4-pronged approach demonstrated the feasibility and considerable interest of medical professionals in a team-based and institution-driven effort to streamline resources and create spaces for facilitated peer-to-peer discussions. Further investigation is needed to understand the sustainability of offering consistent opportunities for healing support across all healthcare professions

Robot-assisted pelvic floor reconstructive surgery:an international Delphi study of expert users

Background: Robotic surgery has gained popularity for the reconstruction of pelvic floor defects. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that robot-assisted reconstructive surgery is either appropriate or superior to standard laparoscopy for the performance of pelvic floor reconstructive procedures or that it is sustainable. The aim of this project was to address the proper role of robotic pelvic floor reconstructive procedures using expert opinion. Methods: We set up an international, multidisciplinary group of 26 experts to participate in a Delphi process on robotics as applied to pelvic floor reconstructive surgery. The group comprised urogynecologists, urologists, and colorectal surgeons with long-term experience in the performance of pelvic floor reconstructive procedures and with the use of the robot, who were identified primarily based on peer-reviewed publications. Two rounds of the Delphi process were conducted. The first included 63 statements pertaining to surgeons’ characteristics, general questions, indications, surgical technique, and future-oriented questions. A second round including 20 statements was used to reassess those statements where borderline agreement was obtained during the first round. The final step consisted of a face-to-face meeting with all participants to present and discuss the results of the analysis. Results: The 26 experts agreed that robotics is a suitable indication for pelvic floor reconstructive surgery because of the significant technical advantages that it confers relative to standard laparoscopy. Experts considered these advantages particularly important for the execution of complex reconstructive procedures, although the benefits can be found also during less challenging cases. The experts considered the robot safe and effective for pelvic floor reconstruction and generally thought that the additional costs are offset by the increased surgical efficacy. Conclusion: Robotics is a suitable choice for pelvic reconstruction, but this Delphi initiative calls for more research to objectively assess the specific settings where robotic surgery would provide the most benefit.</p

A Primer on Endoscopic Electronic Medical Records

Endoscopic electronic medical record systems (EEMRs) are now increasingly utilized in many endoscopy centers. Modern EEMRs not only support endoscopy report generation, but often include features such as practice management tools, image and video clip management, inventory management, e-faxes to referring physicians, and database support to measure quality and patient outcomes. There are many existing software vendors offering EEMRs, and choosing a software vendor can be time consuming and confusing. The goal of this article is inform the readers about current functionalities available in modern EEMR and provide them with a framework necessary to find an EEMR that is best fit for their practice

Surgical decision-making for rectal prolapse: one size does not fit all

Surgery remains the only known treatment option for rectal prolapse. Although over 100 abdominal and perineal procedures are available, there is no consensus as to which intervention is best suited for an individual. This retrospective cohort study describes the patient- and disease-related factors involved in making surgical recommendations around rectal prolapse in a single surgeon experience. 91 consecutive patients ≥18 years old diagnosed with external and/or high-grade internal rectal prolapse were assessed and were prospectively entered into an IRB approved registry. Information on patient symptoms, comorbidities, exam findings, surgeon judgment, and patient preference was collected. Treatment recommendations (abdominal, perineal, or no operation) were analyzed and compared. Surgical intervention was recommended to 93% of patients. Of those, 66% were recommended robotic abdominal procedures: 75%, robotic ventral mesh rectopexies; 16%, resection rectopexies; and 9%, suture rectopexies. On univariate analysis, patients with older age, higher ASA scores, presence of cardiopulmonary morbidity, pain as a primary rectal prolapse symptom, rectal prolapse always descended, and surgeon concern for frailty and general anesthesia were associated with recommendations for perineal operations (p 80 years of age, 15% were recommended an abdominal approach. With multiple options available for the treatment of rectal prolapse, treatment recommendations remain surgeon-dependent and may be influenced by many factors. In our practice, robotic ventral mesh rectopexy was the most commonly recommended operation and was offered to carefully selected patients of advanced age. Although robotic surgery and ventral mesh rectopexy may not be accessible to all patients and surgeons, this represents a single surgeon's practice bias. This study reinforces the importance of perineal procedures for higher-risk individuals