The colorectal surgeon's personality may influence the rectal anastomotic decision

Influencing factors in surgical decision-making: a qualitative analysis of colorectal surgeons' experiences of postoperative complications

AIM

When making anastomotic decisions in rectal cancer surgery, surgeons must consider the risk of anastomotic leakage, which bears implications for the patient's quality of life, cancer recurrence and, potentially, death. The aim of this study was to investigate the views of colorectal surgeons on how their individual attributes (e.g. experience, personality traits) may influence their decision-making and experience of complications.

METHOD

This qualitative study used individual interviews for data collection. Purposive sampling was used to invite certified UK-based colorectal surgeons to participate. Participants were recruited until ongoing data review indicated no new codes were generated, suggesting data sufficiency. Data were analysed thematically following Braun and Clarke's six-step framework.

RESULTS

Seventeen colorectal surgeons (eight female, nine male) participated. Two key themes with relevant subthemes were identified: (1) personal attributes influencing variation in decision-making (e.g. demographics, personality) and (2) the influence of complications on decision-making. Surgeons described variation in the management of complications based upon their personal attributes, which included factors such as gender, experience and subspeciality interests. Surgeons described the detrimental impact of anastomotic leakage on their mental and physical health. Experience of anastomotic leakage influences future decision-making and is associated with changes in practice even when a technical error is not identified.

CONCLUSION

Colorectal surgeons consider anastomotic leaks to be personal 'failures', which has a negative impact on surgeon welfare. Better understanding of how surgeons make difficult decisions, and how surgeons respond to and learn from complications, is necessary to identify 'personalized' methods of supporting surgeons at all career stages, which may improve patient outcomes.

Dissecting the surgeon's personality: cross-cultural comparisons in Western Europe

AIM

The surgeon's personality contributes to variation in surgical decision-making. Previous work on surgeon personality has largely been reserved to Anglo-Saxon studies, with limited international comparisons. In this work we built upon recent work on gastrointestinal surgeon personality and aimed to detect international variations.

METHOD

Gastrointestinal surgeons from the UK and the Netherlands were invited to participate in validated personality assessments (44-item, 60-item Big Five Inventory; BFI). These encompass personality using five domains (open-mindedness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and negative emotionality) with three subtraits each. Mean differences in domain factors were calculated between surgeon and nonsurgeon populations from normative data using independent-samples t-tests, adjusted for multiple testing. The items from the 44-item and 60-item BFI were compared between UK and Dutch surgeons and classified accordingly: identical (n = 16), analogous (n = 3), comparable (n = 12).

RESULTS

UK (n = 78, 61.5% male) and Dutch (n = 280, 65% male) gastrointestinal surgeons had marked differences in the domains of open-mindedness, extraversion and agreeableness compared with national normative datasets. Moreover, although surgeons had similar levels of emotional stability, country of work influenced differences in specific BFI items. For example, Netherlands-based surgeons scored highly on questions related to sociability and organization versus UK-based surgeons who scored highly on creative imagination (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

In a first cross-cultural setting, we identified country-specific personality differences in gastrointestinal surgeon cohorts across domain and facet levels. Given the variation between Dutch and UK surgeons, understanding country-specific data could be useful in guiding personality research in healthcare. Furthermore, we advocate that future work adopts consensus usage of the five factor model.

Protective ileostomy creation after anterior resection of the rectum: Shared decision-making or still subjective?

AIM

The choice of whether to perform protective ileostomy (PI) after anterior resection (AR) is mainly guided by risk factors (RFs) responsible for the development of anastomotic leakage (AL). However, clear guidelines about PI creation are still lacking in the literature and this is often decided according to the surgeon's preferences, experiences or feelings. This qualitative study aims to investigate, by an open-ended question survey, the individual surgeon's decision-making process regarding PI creation after elective AR.

METHOD

Fifty four colorectal surgeons took part in an electronic survey to answer the questions and describe what usually led their decision to perform PI. A content analysis was used to code the answers. To classify answers, five dichotomous categories (In favour/Against PI, Listed/Unlisted RFs, Typical/Atypical, Emotions/Non-emotions, Personal experience/No personal experience) have been developed.

RESULTS

Overall, 76% of surgeons were in favour of PI creation and 88% considered listed RFs in the question of whether to perform PI. Atypical answers were reported in 10% of cases. Emotions and personal experience influenced surgeons' decision-making process in 22% and 49% of cases, respectively. The most frequently considered RFs were the distance of the anastomosis from the anal verge (96%), neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy (88%), a positive intraoperative leak test (65%), blood loss (37%) and immunosuppression therapy (35%).

CONCLUSION

The indications to perform PI following rectal cancer surgery lack standardization and evidence-based guidelines are required to inform practice. Until then, expert opinion can be helpful to assist the decision-making process in patients who have undergone AR for adenocarcinoma.

Exploring variation in surgical practice: does surgeon personality influence anastomotic decision-making?

BACKGROUND

Decision-making under uncertainty may be influenced by an individual's personality. The primary aim was to explore associations between surgeon personality traits and colorectal anastomotic decision-making.

METHODS

Colorectal surgeons worldwide participated in a two-part online survey. Part 1 evaluated surgeon characteristics using the Big Five Inventory to measure personality (five domains: agreeableness; conscientiousness; extraversion; emotional stability; openness) in response to scenarios presented in Part 2 involving anastomotic decisions (i.e. rejoining the bowel with/without temporary stomas, or permanent diversion with end colostomy). Anastomotic decisions were compared using repeated-measure ANOVA. Mean scores of traits domains were compared with normative data using two-tailed t tests.

RESULTS

In total, 186 surgeons participated, with 127 surgeons completing both parts of the survey (68.3 per cent). One hundred and thirty-one surgeons were male (70.4 per cent) and 144 were based in Europe (77.4 per cent). Forty-one per cent (77 surgeons) had begun independent practice within the last 5 years. Surgeon personality differed from the general population, with statistically significantly higher levels of emotional stability (3.25 versus 2.97 respectively), lower levels of agreeableness (3.03 versus 3.74), extraversion (2.81 versus 3.38) and openness (3.19 versus 3.67), and similar levels of conscientiousness (3.42 versus 3.40 (all P <0.001)). Female surgeons had significantly lower levels of openness (P <0.001) than males (3.06 versus 3.25). Personality was associated with anastomotic decision-making in specific scenarios.

CONCLUSION

Colorectal surgeons have different personality traits from the general population. Certain traits seem to be associated with anastomotic decision-making but only in specific scenarios. Further exploration of the association of personality, risk-taking, and decision-making in surgery is necessary.

Risk taking propensity: Nurse, surgeon and patient preferences for diverting ileostomy

AIM

The decision-making process to defunction a pelvic colorectal anastomosis involves complex heuristics and is framed by surgeon personality factors. Risk taking propensity may be an important factor in these decisions and patient preferences have not been evaluated alongside surgeons and nurses.

METHODS

A prospective cross-sectional study involving a one-off interview and questionnaire assessing how risk taking propensity affects nurse, surgeon and patient preferences for a temporary defunctioning ileostomy (TDI) was performed. The risk taking index (RTI) was employed to evaluate risk taking propensity and the validated prospective measures of preference instruments to evaluate preferences for stoma avoidance in several scenarios by asking the individual to consider trading or gambling years of remaining life expectancy.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifty participants met the inclusion criteria, which included 30 (20.0%) surgical nurses, 20 (13.3%) colorectal surgeons and 100 (66.7%) patients. Surgeons had a significantly higher RTI (mean ± SD: 26.8 ± 6.7) than patients (mean ± SD: 20.0 ± 9.8) and nurses (mean ± SD: 23.0 ± 6.6) p = 0.002. Surgeons would consider that it would be in a patient's best interest to have a TDI at an AL rate of 15% or greater, whereas nurses and patients would do so at 28% and 25%, respectively (p = 0.007).

CONCLUSION

Surgeons were shown to have a higher risk taking propensity than patients and nurses but a significantly lower threshold of AL where they would consider a TDI is in the best interest of the patient.

Advanced undergraduate medical students' perceptions of basic medical competences and specific competences for different medical specialties - a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Medical graduates should have acquired basic competences that enable them to practice medicine independently as physicians and to enter postgraduate training in any specialty they wish. Little is known about advanced undergraduate medical students' perceptions of basic medical competences needed to start postgraduate training and about specialty-specific competences. This qualitative study aims to identify medical students' perceptions of basic medical competences and specific competence requirements for different specialties.

METHODS

In December 2020, sixty-four advanced undergraduate medical students participated in the role of a resident in a competence-based telemedicine training simulating a first day in postgraduate training. After the training, eight focus group interviews were conducted about students' perceptions of basic medical competences and specialty-specific competences using a semi-structured interview guide. The interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically according to the six steps of Braun and Clarke. The analysis was carried out by an inductive search for themes, which were deductively assigned to the six competence areas of the requirement-tracking questionnaire (R-Track).

RESULTS

Regarding basic medical competences, four R-Track competence areas could be identified as main themes. The students considered 'Social-interactive competences' to be particularly relevant for basic clinical work, including 'Structuring information', 'Tactfulness', and 'Stress resistance'. Students especially emphasized 'Concentration' as an important aspect of the competence area 'Mental abilities'. Among 'Personality traits', 'Honesty' was mentioned most frequently, and students were also aware that 'Expertise' is particularly important for 'Motivation'. For different specialties, some competence areas were newly added to the competences needed for the respective specialty. For surgery, the competence areas 'Sensory abilities' and 'Psychomotor & multitasking abilities' were mentioned anew. 'Sensory abilities' were also newly attributed to radiology. 'Mental abilities' were mentioned as new competence area for psychiatry and internal medicine, while for anaesthesiology, 'Psychomotor & multitasking abilities' were newly added.

CONCLUSIONS

Advanced students seem to be well aware of basic competences needed for clinical practice. Good consensus between students and physicians was only found for psychiatry-specific competences. Medical schools should support their students in matching their perceptions of competences needed for specific specialties with specialty-specific requirements for a realistic choice of a specialty for postgraduate training.

The Importance of Incorporating Human Factors in the Design and Implementation of Artificial Intelligence for Skin Cancer Diagnosis in the Real World

Artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms have been shown to diagnose skin lesions with impressive accuracy in experimental settings. The majority of the literature to date has compared AI and dermatologists as opponents in skin cancer diagnosis. However, in the real-world clinical setting, the clinician will work in collaboration with AI. Existing evidence regarding the integration of such AI diagnostic tools into clinical practice is limited. Human factors, such as cognitive style, personality, experience, preferences, and attitudes may influence clinicians' use of AI. In this review, we consider these human factors and the potential cognitive errors, biases, and unintended consequences that could arise when using an AI skin cancer diagnostic tool in the real world. Integrating this knowledge in the design and implementation of AI technology will assist in ensuring that the end product can be used effectively. Dermatologist leadership in the development of these tools will further improve their clinical relevance and safety.

A Systematic Review of the Abdominal Surgeon's Personality: Exploring Common Traits in Western Populations

The personality traits commonly seen in abdominal surgeons remains undefined, and its potential influence on decision-making and patient outcomes underexplored. This systematic review identified studies on abdominal surgeons who had undergone validated personality testing, with assessment of decision-making and post-operative patient outcomes. The study protocol was registered on PROSPERO (University of York, UK (CRD42019151375)). MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and Cochrane Library databases were searched using the keywords: surgeon; surgeon personality; outcomes. All study designs were accepted including adult visceral surgeons published in English. Five articles from 3056 abstracts met our inclusion criteria and one article was identified from hand searches with two reviewers screening studies. Bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Six studies included 386 surgeons. Studies assessing personality using the Five Factor Model (four studies, 329 surgeons) demonstrated higher levels of conscientiousness (self-discipline, thoughtfulness), extraversion (sociability, emotional expression) and openness (creative, conventional) in surgeons versus population norms. Surgeon characterisation of agreeableness and emotional stability was less clear, with studies reporting mixed results. Post-operative outcomes were reported by only one study. Further exploration of the influence of surgeon personality and its influence on decision-making is necessary to deliver patient-centred care and targeted non-technical skills training for surgeons.

Exploring shared surgical decision-making from the patient's perspective: is the personality of the surgeon important?

AIM

The aim was to determine the importance of a colorectal surgeon's personality to patients and its influence on their decision-making.

METHODS

We present a two-part mixed methods study using the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP-2) long form. Part 1 was an online survey (25 questions) and Part 2 a face-to-face patient and public involvement exercise. Part 1 included patient demographics, details of surgery, overall patient satisfaction (net promoter score) and patient views on surgeon personality (Gosling 10 Item Personality Index). The thematic analysis of free-text responses generated four themes that were taken forward to Part 2. These themes were used to structure focus group discussions on surgeon-patient interactions.

RESULTS

Part 1 yielded 296 responses: 72% women, 75.3% UK-based and 55.1% aged 40-59 years. Inflammatory bowel disease (45.3%) and cancer (40.2%) were the main indications. 84.1% of respondents reported satisfaction with their surgical experience (net promoter score). Four key themes were generated from Part 1 and validated in Part 2: (i) surgeon personality stereotypes (media differed from patients' perspective); (ii) favourable and unfavourable surgical personality traits (openness, conscientiousness, emotional stability preferred over risk-taking and narcissism); (iii) patient-surgeon interaction (mutual respect and rapport valued); (iv) impact of surgeon personality on decision-making (majority unaware of second opinion option; management of postoperative complications).

CONCLUSION

Patients believe surgeon personality influences shared decision-making. Low levels of emotional stability and conscientiousness are perceived by patients to increase the likelihood of postoperative adverse events. Further work is required to explore the potential influence of surgeon personality on shared decision-making and postoperative outcomes.

Systematic review protocol examining the influence of surgeon personality on perioperative decision making in abdominal surgery

INTRODUCTION

There is limited published literature exploring how the personality traits of surgeons may influence preoperative decision making, particularly in the context of visceral/abdominal surgery. Multiple validated personality scoring systems exist and have been used to describe surgeon personalities previously. The degree to which each trait is expressed by abdominal surgeons is neither currently known, nor the impact of these traits on postoperative outcomes. The protocol has been written in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols checklist.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The search strategy has been developed by a Health Scientist Librarian in collaboration with the review team. The search was conducted on 1st October 2019.Database subject headings and text words relating to 'abdominal/general surgeons', 'personality', 'postoperative outcomes' and 'decision making' formed the basis of our literature search strategy; the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo and Cochrane databases will be searched. Three reviewers will independently screen and appraise articles, with a fourth reviewer utilised if disagreements arise.A systematic narrative synthesis will be performed, with information presented in text and table format. These will summarise the findings and characteristics of any included studies. Using guidance from the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, the reviewers will describe the potential relationship and findings between studies using the narrative synthesis. Studies will only be reported if they are felt to have low or mid-levels of bias. Studies felt to display high levels of bias will be excluded.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study does not require ethical approval. The formal systematic review will be submitted for peer reviewed publication and presented at relevant conferences. The methods may inform future reviews in other surgical specialties regarding surgeon personality.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019151375.

Development of a Risk Score to Predict Anastomotic Leak After Left-Sided Colectomy: Which Patients Warrant Diversion?

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leak is a feared complication after left-sided colectomy, but its risk can potentially be reduced with the use of a diverting ostomy. However, an ostomy has its own associated negative sequelae; therefore, it is critical to appropriately identify patients to divert. This is difficult in practice since many risk factors for anastomotic leak exist and outside factors bias this decision. We aimed to develop and validate a risk score to predict an individual's risk of anastomotic leak and aid in the decision.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Colectomy Targeted PUF was queried from 2012 to 2016 for patients undergoing elective left-sided resection for malignancy, benign neoplasm, or diverticular disease. Multivariable logistic regression identified predictors of anastomotic leak in non-diverted patients, and a risk score was developed and validated.

RESULTS

38,475 patients underwent resection with an overall anastomotic leak rate of 3%. Independent risk factors for anastomotic leak included younger age, male sex, tobacco use, and omission of combined bowel preparation. A risk score incorporating independent predictors demonstrated excellent calibration. There was strong visual correspondence between predicted and observed anastomotic leak rates. 3960 patients underwent resection with diversion, yet over half of these patients had a predicted leak rate of less than 4%.

CONCLUSION

A novel risk score can be used to stratify patients according to anastomotic leak risk after elective left-sided resection. Intraoperative calculation of scores for patients can help guide surgical decision-making in both diverting the highest risk patients and avoiding diversion in low-risk patients.

Shared decision making: Does a physician's decision-making style affect patient participation in treatment choices for primary immunodeficiency?

Overall health care spending in the United States is equivalent to more than 15% of GDP, yet outcomes rank below the top 25 in most quality categories when compared with other Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries. The majority of spending is consumed by small patient populations with chronic diseases. Experts believe increased patient-physician shared decision making (SDM) should result in better overall longitudinal care but understanding the physician's role in facilitating SDM is limited. Structural equation modelling was applied to results of a 2016 questionnaire-based survey of 330 US physicians who treat approximately 55% of primary immune deficiency requiring immune globulin therapy; it tested the relationship between slow/rational vs fast/intuitive decision-making styles and SDM as mediated by patient-centric care and moderated by physician's trust in the patient. The results showed a statistically significant relationship between slow/rational decision making and SDM. The results also suggest differences related to age, gender, education, and race but no differences related to trust.

UK vs US physician decision-making in the treatment of haemophilia

Introduction

Patient–physician shared decision‐making (SDM) has become increasingly seen as having a positive effect on management of chronic diseases. However, little is known of the factors that encourage SDM or how effective it may be at improving health outcomes or how cost‐effective it is.

Aim

To investigate the uses and applications of patient physician–SDM in the management of haemophilia and the influence of healthcare systems in the United States and the United Kingdom.

Methods

This was a qualitative study based on interviews with treatment experts in the United States and United Kingdom. A grounded theory approach was used to analyse the data from the transcribed interviews and themes that emerged as related to the decision influencers. Twelve physicians from each country were interviewed by the author.

Results

Treatment guidelines were viewed as having only limited applicability because of the lack of universal best options in haemophilia. The US physicians in the sample appeared to be more influenced by patient preferences than physicians in the UK, who instead tended to follow policies and standards of care more closely. Physicians in both countries commented that many of their patents had become highly knowledgeable of their bleeding disorder. US physicians were sometimes limited by insurance company policies but also reported that they were often successful in appealing insurance decisions.

Conclusion

The research suggests that there are different influences on decision‐making between healthcare systems; patients and overarching healthcare systems play a major role in how physicians treat haemophilia.

Safety of primary anastomosis following emergency left sided colorectal resection: an international, multi-centre prospective audit

INTRODUCTION

Some evidence suggests that primary anastomosis following left sided colorectal resection in the emergency setting may be safe in selected patients, and confer favourable outcomes to permanent enterostomy. The aim of this study was to compare the major postoperative complication rate in patients undergoing end stoma vs primary anastomosis following emergency left sided colorectal resection.

METHODS

A pre-planned analysis of the European Society of Coloproctology 2017 audit. Adult patients (> 16 years) who underwent emergency (unplanned, within 24 h of hospital admission) left sided colonic or rectal resection were included. The primary endpoint was the 30-day major complication rate (Clavien-Dindo grade 3 to 5).

RESULTS

From 591 patients, 455 (77%) received an end stoma, 103 a primary anastomosis (17%) and 33 primary anastomosis with defunctioning stoma (6%). In multivariable models, anastomosis was associated with a similar major complication rate to end stoma (adjusted odds ratio for end stoma 1.52, 95%CI 0.83-2.79, P = 0.173). Although a defunctioning stoma was not associated with reduced anastomotic leak (12% defunctioned [4/33] vs 13% not defunctioned [13/97], adjusted odds ratio 2.19, 95%CI 0.43-11.02, P = 0.343), it was associated with less severe complications (75% [3/4] with defunctioning stoma, 86.7% anastomosis only [13/15]), a lower mortality rate (0% [0/4] vs 20% [3/15]), and fewer reoperations (50% [2/4] vs 73% [11/15]) when a leak did occur.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary anastomosis in selected patients appears safe after left sided emergency colorectal resection. A defunctioning stoma might mitigate against risk of subsequent complications.