Effect of Lean Processes on Surgical Wait Times and Efficiency in a Tertiary Care Veterans Affairs Medical Center

Importance There are an increasing number of veterans in the United States, and the current delay and wait times prevent Veterans Affairs institutions from fully meeting the needs of current and former service members. Concrete strategies to improve throughput at these facilities have been sparse. Objective To identify whether lean processes can be used to improve wait times for surgical procedures in Veterans Affairs hospitals. Design, Setting, and Participants Databases in the Veterans Integrated Service Network 11 Data Warehouse, Veterans Health Administration Support Service Center, and Veterans Information Systems and Technology Architecture/Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol were queried to assess changes in wait times for elective general surgical procedures and clinical volume before, during, and after implementation of lean processes over 3 fiscal years (FYs) at a tertiary care Veterans Affairs medical center. All patients evaluated by the general surgery department through outpatient clinics, clinical video teleconferencing, and e-consultations from October 2011 through September 2014 were included. Patients evaluated through the emergency department or as inpatient consults were excluded. Exposures The surgery service and systems redesign service held a value stream analysis in FY 2013, culminating in multiple rapid process improvement workshops. Multidisciplinary teams identified systemic inefficiencies and strategies to improve interdepartmental and patient communication to reduce canceled consultations and cases, diagnostic rework, and no-shows. High-priority triage with enhanced operating room flexibility was instituted to reduce scheduling wait times. General surgery department pilot projects were then implemented mid-FY 2013. Main Outcomes and Measures Planned outcome measures included wait time, clinic and telehealth volume, number of no-shows, and operative volume. Paired t tests were used to identify differences in outcome measures after the institution of reforms. Results Following rapid process improvement workshop project rollouts, mean (SD) patient wait times for elective general surgical procedures decreased from 33.4 (8.3) days in FY 2012 to 26.0 (9.5) days in FY 2013 (P = .02). In FY 2014, mean (SD) wait times were half the value of the previous FY at 12.0 (2.1) days (P = .07). This was a 3-fold decrease from wait times in FY 2012 (P = .02). Operative volume increased from 931 patients in FY 2012 to 1090 in FY 2013 and 1072 in FY 2014. Combined clinic, telehealth, and e-consultation encounters increased from 3131 in FY 2012 to 3460 in FY 2013 and 3517 in FY 2014, while the number of no-shows decreased from 366 in FY 2012 to 227 in FY 2014 (P = .02). Conclusions and Relevance Improvement in the overall surgical patient experience can stem from multidisciplinary collaboration among systems redesign personnel, clinicians, and surgical staff to reduce systemic inefficiencies. Monitoring and follow-up of system efficiency measures and the employment of lean practices and process improvements can have positive short- and long-term effects on wait times, clinical throughput, and patient care and satisfaction

An Assessment of the Academic Impact of Shock Society Members

Professional society membership enhances career development and productivity by offering opportunities for networking and learning about recent advances in the field. The quality and contribution of such societies can be measured in part through the academic productivity, career status, and funding success rates of their members. Here, using Scopus, NIH RePORTER, and departmental websites, we compare characteristics of the Shock Society membership to those of the top 55 NIH-funded American university and hospital-based departments of surgery. Shock Society members' mean number of publications, citations and H-indices were all significantly higher than those of non-members in surgery departments (P < 0.001). A higher percentage of members also have received funding from the NIH (42.5% vs. 18.5%, P < 0.001). Regression analysis indicated that members were more likely to have NIH funding compared with non-members (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.12-1.916). Trauma surgeons belonging to the Shock Society had a higher number of publications and greater NIH funding than those who did not (130.4 vs. 42.7, P < 0.001; 40.4% vs. 8.5%, P < 0.001). Aggregate academic metrics from the Shock Society were superior to those of the Association for Academic Surgery and generally for the Society of University Surgeons as well. These data indicate that the Shock Society represents a highly academic and productive group of investigators. For surgery faculty, membership is associated with greater academic productivity and career advancement. While it is difficult to ascribe causation, certainly the Shock Society might positively influence careers for its members

National Cancer Institute Centers and Society of Surgical Oncology Cancer Research Synergy

Background: The objective of this study was to examine the influence of Surgical Society Oncology (SSO) membership and National Cancer Institute (NCI) status on the academic output of surgical faculty. Methods: NCI cancer program status for each department of surgery was identified with publically available data, whereas SSO membership was determined for every faculty member. Academic output measures such as NIH funding, publications, and citations were analyzed in subsets by the type of cancer center (NCI comprehensive cancer center [CCC]; NCI cancer center [NCICC]; and non-NCI center) and SSO membership status. Results: Of the surgical faculty, 2537 surgeons (61.9%) were from CCC, whereas 854 (20.8%) were from NCICC. At the CCC, 22.7% of surgeons had a history of or current NIH funding, compared with 15.8% at the NCICC and 11.8% at the non-NCI centers. The academic output of SSO members was higher at NCICC (52 ± 113 publications/1266 ± 3830 citations) and CCC (53 ± 92/1295 ± 4001) compared with nonmembers (NCICC: 26 ± 78/437 ± 2109; CCC: 37 ± 91/670 ± 3260), respectively, P < 0.05. Multivariate logistic regression revealed that SSO membership imparts an additional 22 publications and 270 citations, whereas NCI-designated CCC added 10 additional publications, but not citations. Conclusions: CCCs have significantly higher academic output and NIH funding. Recruitment of SSO members, a focus on higher performing divisions, and NIH funding are factors that non-NCI cancer centers may be able to focus on to improve academic productivity to aid in obtaining NCI designation

Endangered academia: preserving the pediatric surgeon scientist

Background Pediatric surgery is one of the most difficult surgical fellowships to obtain. It requires stellar academic credentials and, often, dedicated time pursuing research. It is unknown, however, if pediatric surgeons maintain high academic output as faculty members. We hypothesized that the majority of pediatric surgeons do not pursue robust research activities as faculty, and therefore, over time, their academic productivity decreases. Methods Numbers of publications, citations, H-index, and NIH funding rates were determined for 4354 surgical faculty at the top-55 NIH based departments of surgery using websites, Scopus, NIH RePORTER, and Grantome. Continuous variables were compared with ANOVA and post-hoc Bonferroni; categorical variables by χ2 test. p < 0.05 was significant. Results In this dataset, 321 pediatric surgery (PS) faculty represented 7.4% of the cohort. Among PS faculty, 31% were assistant professors, 24% associate professors, 31% full professors and 13% had no academic rank. PS faculty had significantly more publications, a higher H index, and more high level NIH funding early in their careers at the assistant professor level compared to general surgeons. PS faculty at the associate professor level had equivalent high level NIH funding, but lower recentness and academic power compared to general surgeons. Professors of PS rebounded slightly, with only observed deficiencies in number of citations compared to general surgeons. Conclusions PS faculty in assistant professor ranks has higher scholarly productivity compared to equivalently ranked general surgeons. Despite some mild academic setbacks in midcareer, pediatric surgeons are able to maintain similar academic productivity to their general surgery colleagues by the time they are full professors. Level of evidence 2

The impact of members of the Society of University Surgeons on the scholarship of American surgery

Background A core objective of the Society of University Surgeons (SUS) is research focused: to “advance the art and science of surgery through original investigation.” This study sought to determine the current impact of the SUS on academic surgical productivity. Methods Individual faculty data for numbers of publications, citations, and National Institute of Health (NIH) funding history were collected for 4,015 surgical faculty at the top 55 NIH-funded departments of surgery using SCOPUS and the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools. SUS membership was determined from membership registry data. Results Overall, 502 surgical faculty (12.5%) were SUS members with 92.7% holding positions of associate or full professor (versus 59% of nonmembers). Median publications (P) and citations (C) among SUS members were P: 112, C: 2,460 versus P: 29, C: 467 for nonmembers (P < .001). Academic productivity was considerably higher by rank for SUS members than for nonmembers: associate professors (P: 61 vs 36, C: 1,199 vs 591, P < .001) and full professors (P: 141 vs 81, C: 3,537 vs 1,856, P < .001). Among full professors, SUS members had much higher rates of NIH funding than did nonmembers (52.6% vs 26%, P < .05) and specifically for R01, P01, and U01 awards (37% vs 17.7%, P < .01). SUS members were 2 times more likely to serve in divisional leadership or chair positions (23.5% vs 10.2%, P < .05). Conclusion SUS society members are a highly productive academic group. These data support the premise that the SUS is meeting its research mission and identify its members as very academically productive contributors to research and scholarship in American surgery and medicine

Specialized care improves outcomes for patients with cirrhosis who require general surgical operations

BACKGROUND: General surgical operations on patients with cirrhosis have historically been associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. This study examines a contemporary series of patients with cirrhosis undergoing general surgical procedures. METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of 358 cirrhotic patients undergoing general surgical operations at a single institution between 2004-2015 was performed. Thirty- and 90-day mortality along with complications and subsequent transplantation rates were examined. RESULTS: 358 cirrhotic patients were identified. The majority were Child-Turcotte-Pugh class (CTP) A (55.9%) followed by class B (32.4%) and class C (11.7%). Mean MELD score differed significantly between the groups (8.7 vs. 12.1 vs. 20.1; p<0.001). The most common operations were herniorrhaphy (29.9%), cholecystectomy (19.3%), and liver resection (14.5%). The majority of cases were performed semi-electively (68.4%), however, within the CTP C patients most cases were performed emergently (73.8%). Thirty and 90-day mortality for all patients were 5% and 6%, respectively. Mortality rates increased from CTP A to CTP C (30 day: 3.0% vs. 5.2% vs. 14.3%; p = 0.01; 90 day: 4.5% vs. 6.9% vs. 16.7%; p = 0.016). Additionally, 30-day mortality (12.8% vs. 2.3%; p<0.001), 90 day mortality (16.0% vs. 3.4%; p<0.001) were higher for emergent compared to elective cases. A total of 13 (3.6%) patients underwent transplantation ≤ 90 days from surgery. No elective cases resulted in an urgent transplantation. CONCLUSION: Performing general surgical operations on cirrhotic patients carries a significant morbidity and mortality. This contemporary series from a specialized liver center demonstrates improved outcomes compared to historical series. These data strongly support early referral of cirrhotic patients needing general surgical operation to centers with liver expertise to minimize morbidity and mortality

Impact of Integrated Vascular Residencies on Academic Productivity within Vascular Surgery Divisions

Background Changing training paradigms in vascular surgery have been introduced to reduce overall training time. Herein, we sought to examine how shortened training for vascular surgeons may have influenced overall divisional academic productivity. Methods Faculty from the top 55 surgery departments were identified according to National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. Academic metrics of 315 vascular surgery, 1,132 general surgery, and 2,403 other surgical specialties faculty were examined using institutional Web sites, Scopus, and NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools from September 1, 2014, to January 31, 2015. Individual-level and aggregate numbers of publications, citations, and NIH funding were determined. Results The mean size of the vascular divisions was 5 faculty. There was no correlation between department size and academic productivity of individual faculty members (R2 = 0.68, P = 0.2). Overall percentage of vascular surgery faculty with current or former NIH funding was 20%, of which 10.8% had major NIH grants (R01/U01/P01). Vascular surgery faculty associated with integrated vascular training programs demonstrated significantly greater academic productivity. Publications and citations were higher for vascular surgery faculty from institutions with both integrated and traditional training programs (48 of 1,051) compared to those from programs with integrated training alone (37 of 485) or traditional fellowships alone (26 of 439; P < 0.05). Conclusions In this retrospective examination, academic productivity was improved within vascular surgery divisions with integrated training programs or both program types. These data suggest that the earlier specialization of integrated residencies in addition to increasing dedicated vascular training time may actually help promote research within the field of vascular surgery

Determining the Drivers of Academic Success in Surgery: An Analysis of 3,850 Faculty.

ObjectiveDetermine drivers of academic productivity within U.S. departments of surgery.MethodsEighty academic metrics for 3,850 faculty at the top 50 NIH-funded university- and 5 outstanding hospital-based surgical departments were collected using websites, Scopus, and NIH RePORTER.ResultsMean faculty size was 76. Overall, there were 35.3% assistant, 27.8% associate, and 36.9% full professors. Women comprised 21.8%; 4.9% were MD-PhDs and 6.1% PhDs. By faculty-rank, median publications/citations were: assistant, 14/175, associate, 39/649 and full-professor, 97/2250. General surgery divisions contributed the most publications and citations. Highest performing sub-specialties per faculty member were: research (58/1683), transplantation (51/1067), oncology (41/777), and cardiothoracic surgery (48/860). Overall, 23.5% of faculty were principal investigators for a current or former NIH grant, 9.5% for a current or former R01/U01/P01. The 10 most cited faculty (MCF) within each department contributed to 42% of all publications and 55% of all citations. MCF were most commonly general (25%), oncology (19%), or transplant surgeons (15%). Fifty-one-percent of MCF had current/former NIH funding, compared with 20% of the rest (pConclusionsDepartmental academic productivity as defined by citations and NIH funding is highly driven by sections or divisions of research, general and transplantation surgery. MCF, regardless of subspecialty, contribute disproportionally to major grants and publications. Approaches that attract, develop, and retain funded MCF may be associated with dramatic increases in total departmental citations and NIH-funding

Sonic Hedgehog in pancreatic cancer: From bench to bedside, then back to the bench

Developmental genes are known to regulate cell proliferation, migration, and differentiation; thus, it comes as no surprise that the misregulation of developmental genes plays an important role in the biology of human cancers. One such pathway that has received an increasing amount of attention for its function in carcinogenesis is the Hedgehog (Hh) pathway. Initially the domain of developmental biologists, the Hh pathway and one of its ligands, Sonic Hedgehog (Shh), have been shown to play an important role in body planning and organ development, particularly in the foregut endoderm. Their importance in human disease became known to cancer biologists when germline mutations that resulted in the unregulated activity of the Hh pathway were found to cause basal cell carcinoma and medulloblastoma. Since then, misexpression of the Hh pathway has been shown to play an important role in many other cancers, including those of the pancreas. In many institutions, investigators are targeting misexpression of the Hh pathway in clinical trials, but there is still much fundamental knowledge to be gained about this pathway that can shape its clinical utility. This review will outline the evolution of our understanding of this pathway as it relates to the pancreas, as well as how the Hh pathway came to be a high-priority target for treatment