Assessment of postoperative nausea and vomiting after bariatric surgery using a validated questionnaire

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is known to occur after bariatric surgery, with over two thirds of patients affected. However, variability exists in how to objectively measure PONV. OBJECTIVES: The goals of the present study were to use a validated, patient-centered scoring tool, the Rhodes Index of Nausea, Vomiting, and Retching to measure the severity of PONV after bariatric surgery, to directly compare PONV between patients who underwent laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) and laparoscopic Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (LRYGB), and to identify risk factors for the development of PONV after bariatric surgery. SETTING: Barnes-Jewish Hospital/Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, United States of America. METHODS: The Washington University Weight Loss Surgery team prospectively surveyed patients from January 1, 2017 to December 1, 2018 at the following 6 different timepoints: postoperative day (POD) 0, POD 1, POD 2, POD 3 to 4, the first postoperative outpatient visit (POV 1: POD 5-25), and the second postoperative visit (POV 2: POD 25-50). At each timepoint, a cumulative Rhodes score was calculated from the sum of 8 questions. The American Society for Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Accreditation and Quality Improvement Program database was used to collect patient demographic characteristics and perioperative clinical data. RESULTS: A total of 274 patients met study criteria and completed 605 Rhodes questionnaires. Two hundred fifty Rhodes questionnaires were completed by patients after SG and 355 were completed by patients after LRYGB. Total Rhodes scores are statistically higher in LSG patients compared with patients who underwent LRYGB (LSG = 5.45 ± 6.27; LRYGB = 3.08 ± 4.19, P = .0002). Additionally, at the earlier timepoints, scores were higher among patients who underwent LSG than those who had undergone LRYGB as follows: POD 0 (LSG = 6.96 ± 6.50; LRYGB = 2.89 ± 2.90, P = .0115), POD 1 (LSG = 8.20 ± 6.76; LRYGB = 2.88 ± 3.44, P \u3c .0001), and POD 2 (LSG = 4.05 ± 4.88; LRYGB = 2.06 ± 3.43, P = .05). On subset analysis, examining patients who either underwent an LSG or LRYGB, both procedures had a statistically significant PONV peak emerge on POV 2. Last, overall Rhodes scores were statistically higher in female patients compared with male patients (female: 4.43 ± 5.46; male: 2.35 ± 3.90, P = .021). Although the magnitude of the difference varied somewhat across POD time intervals, the difference was most pronounced at POV 2. CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest study using a validated nausea and vomiting questionnaire to objectively measure PONV after bariatric surgery. The factors found to be most associated with increased PONV were LSG and female sex. Ultimately, these data can help bariatric surgery programs, including Washington University Weight Loss Surgery, identify patients who may require more intensive treatment of PONV, particularly POD 0 to 2, and help to identify patients that continue to struggle with PONV in the later surgical recovery phase

Estimating implicit and explicit gender bias among health care professionals and surgeons

Importance: The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is a validated tool used to measure implicit biases, which are mental associations shaped by one\u27s environment that influence interactions with others. Direct evidence of implicit gender biases about women in medicine has yet not been reported, but existing evidence is suggestive of subtle or hidden biases that affect women in medicine. Objectives: To use data from IATs to assess (1) how health care professionals associate men and women with career and family and (2) how surgeons associate men and women with surgery and family medicine. Design, Setting, and Participants: This data review and cross-sectional study collected data from January 1, 2006, through December 31, 2017, from self-identified health care professionals taking the Gender-Career IAT hosted by Project Implicit to explore bias among self-identified health care professionals. A novel Gender-Specialty IAT was also tested at a national surgical meeting in October 2017. All health care professionals who completed the Gender-Career IAT were eligible for the first analysis. Surgeons of any age, gender, title, and country of origin at the meeting were eligible to participate in the second analysis. Data were analyzed from January 1, 2018, through March 31, 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Measure of implicit bias derived from reaction times on the IATs and a measure of explicit bias asked directly to participants. Results: Almost 1 million IAT records from Project Implicit were reviewed, and 131 surgeons (64.9% men; mean [SD] age, 42.3 [11.5] years) were recruited to complete the Gender-Specialty IAT. Healthcare professionals (n = 42 991; 82.0% women; mean [SD] age, 32.7 [11.8] years) held implicit (mean [SD] D score, 0.41 [0.36]; Cohen d = 1.14) and explicit (mean [SD], 1.43 [1.85]; Cohen d = 0.77) biases associating men with career and women with family. Similarly, surgeons implicitly (mean [SD] D score, 0.28 [0.37]; Cohen d = 0.76) and explicitly (men: mean [SD], 1.27 [0.39]; Cohen d = 0.93; women: mean [SD], 0.73 [0.35]; Cohen d = 0.53) associated men with surgery and women with family medicine. There was broad evidence of consensus across social groups in implicit and explicit biases with one exception. Women in healthcare (mean [SD], 1.43 [1.86]; Cohen d = 0.77) and surgery (mean [SD], 0.73 [0.35]; Cohen d = 0.53) were less likely than men to explicitly associate men with career (B coefficient, -0.10; 95% CI, -0.15 to -0.04; P \u3c .001) and surgery (B coefficient, -0.67; 95% CI, -1.21 to -0.13; P = .001) and women with family and family medicine. Conclusions and Relevance: The main contribution of this work is an estimate of the extent of implicit gender bias within surgery. On both the Gender-Career IAT and the novel Gender-Specialty IAT, respondents had a tendency to associate men with career and surgery and women with family and family medicine. Awareness of the existence of implicit biases is an important first step toward minimizing their potential effect

How to Review a Surgical Scientific Paper: A Guide for Critical Appraisal

It is important for surgeons to participate in the peer-review process of scientific literature. As the number of published manuscripts continues to increase, there is a great need for volunteerism in this arena. However, there is little formal or informal training, which can help surgeons provide unbiased and meaningful reviews. Therefore, it is critical to provide more resources and guidelines to aid surgeons during the review process. The purpose of this paper is to provide a structured guide for a quality review of a surgical paper. This review represents the work of the Association of Women Surgeons Publications Committee

Barriers to Family Building Among Physicians and Medical Students

Physicians and medical students who desire to build families face significant barriers due to the structure and culture of medicine. To understand the barriers and facilitators to family building for all people in medicine-not only individuals who can become pregnant-through an open-ended, qualitative analysis of survey responses. This qualitative study used a survey conducted in April and May 2021 with a broad sample of physicians and medical students. Participants were recruited through social media, targeting physician and medical student communities. Physicians (residents, fellows, and physicians in independent practice) and medical students of all gender identities and sexual orientations were included. Informed by a postpositivist approach, coding reliability thematic analysis was performed on 3 open-ended survey questions on family-building experiences (what they would do differently, what advice they have for others, and anything else they wished to share). Identified themes were mapped to the social-ecological model, a model used in public health to examine how a spectrum of factors is associated with health outcomes. A total of 2025 people (1860 [92%] women; 299 [15%] Asian, 151 [8%] Black, and 1303 [64%] White; 1730 [85%] heterosexual; and 1200 [59%] physicians who had completed training) responded to at least 1 of 3 open-ended questions. Themes mapped to social-ecological model levels included: (1) cultural, eg, medical training being at odds with family building; (2) organizational, eg, lack of institutional support for the range of family-building routes; (3) interpersonal, eg, impact of social support on family building; and (4) individual, eg, socioeconomic status and other individual factors that facilitate or inhibit family building. Recommendations to improve family-building experiences include implementing family-building curricula at medical schools, providing adequate parental leave for all physicians and medical students who become parents, and providing insurance coverage for all family-building routes. In this qualitative study of physicians and medical students, self-reported barriers to family building were identified at each level of the social-ecological model. Addressing these barriers is critical to creating a more equitable family-building environment for physicians and medical students