Concurrent Panniculectomy With Abdominal Wall Reconstruction: A Propensity-scored Matched Study of Quality Improvement Outcomes

Background

Concurrent panniculectomy with abdominal wall reconstruction (CP-AWR) as a single-stage operation has reported increased complications, but constant quality improvement can improve results. This study describes outcomes for 21 years, impacted by evidence-based-practice changes.

Methods

Prospectively maintained database was reviewed for CP-AWR and separated by surgery date: "early" (2002-2016) and "recent" (2017-2023). A 1:1 propensity-scored matching was performed based on age, tobacco use, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, wound class, and defect size.

Results

Of 701 CP-AWRs, 196 pairs matched. Match criteria were not significantly different between early and recent groups, except for BMI (34.6 ± 7.2 versus 32.1 ± 6.01 kg/m2; P = 0.001). Groups were comparable in sex and diabetes, but recent patients had fewer recurrent hernias (71.4% versus 56.1%; P = 0.002). Recent patients had more biologic (21.9% versus 49.0%; P < 0.001) and preperitoneal mesh (87.2% versus 97.4%; P = 0.005). Readmission and reoperation did not significantly differ, but length of stay (8.3 ± 6.7 versus 6.5 ± 3.4 d; P = 0.001) and wound complications decreased over time (50.5% versus 25.0%; P < 0.001). Hernia recurrence rates improved (6.6% versus 1.5%; P = 0.019), but follow-up was shorter (50.9 ± 52.8 versus 22.9 ± 22.6 months; P < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Despite patient complexity, outcomes of CP-AWR improved with implementation of evidence-based-practice changes in preoperative optimization, intraoperative technique, and postoperative care. This large dataset demonstrates the safety of a single-stage repair that should be part of hernia surgeons' repertoire.

Critically Appraising Pragmatist Critiques of Evidence-Based Medicine: Is EBM Defensible on Pragmatist Grounds?

Significant contributions to debates in the philosophy of evidence-based medicine (EBM) have come from a variety of different philosophical quarters, yet mainstream discourse in the field has been largely devoid of contributions from scholars working in the pragmatist tradition. This is a particularly conspicuous omission, given pragmatism's commitment to the melioristic view that philosophy both can, and should, be about the business of concretely bettering the human estate. Two exceptions to this oversight come from Brian Walsh and Maya Goldenberg. Unfortunately, in both cases, the misapplication of pragmatist thinking leads to the mistaken view that EBM is committed to some form of pernicious objectivism. This article aims to revise these pragmatist critiques in order to bring them more consistently in line with pragmatist values and commitments. Doing so shows that EBM is defensible on pragmatist grounds against objectivist attacks.

The Ethic of Responsibility: Max Weber's Verstehen and Shared Decision-Making in Patient-Centred Care

Whereas evidence-based medicine (EBM) encourages the translation of medical research into decision-making through clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), patient-centred care (PCC) aims to integrate patient values through shared decision-making. In order to successfully integrate EBM and PCC, I propose a method of orienting physician decision-making to overcome the different obligations set out by a formally-rational EBM and substantively-rational ethics of care. I engage with Weber's concepts "the ethic of responsibility" and verstehen as a new model of clinical reasoning that reformulates the relationship between medical knowledge and social values, while demonstrating the relevance of the classical sociological cannon to contemporary medical humanities.

What are the primary influences on treatment decisions? How does this reflect on evidence-based practice? Indications from the discipline of speech and language therapy

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

Four pillars of evidence underpin evidence-based behavioural practice: research evidence, practice evidence, patient evidence and contextual evidence. However, it is unknown which of these pillars or other factors are used by clinicians such as speech and language therapists (SLTS) when making treatment choices. The aim of this study was to identify the factors underpinning SLTs' treatment decisions and contextualize findings in terms of evidence-based practice (EBP).

METHODS

Ethical approval was obtained for the electronic questionnaire-based study. A questionnaire was designed, piloted and then sent via gatekeepers to SLTs to ascertain agreement with a range of statements potentially underpinning treatment choices.

RESULTS

A total of 249 respondents completed the survey. The respondents defined themselves as dynamic and pragmatic practitioners with an appreciation for the four pillars of EBP. Using factor analysis, treatment decisions were found to rely primarily on practice evidence and pragmatic considerations. Qualifications, clinical experience and the patient group an SLT works with further influenced attitudes and treatment decisions. Those with additional qualifications and experience were identified as more autonomous, more scientific in their treatment choices and less influenced by patient preferences.

CONCLUSION

Factors influencing decision making did not clearly align with the four pillars of EBP, the principal influences being practice evidence and pragmatic constraints. The findings of this study have implications for understanding why specific treatment choices are made. Attempts to improve practice should focus on a range of evidence sources and take into account clinician's specific needs depending on career stage, post-qualification status and patient group factors of their practice.

Ills from the womb? A critical examination of clinical guidelines for obesity in pregnancy

In this article, we critically examine the clinical guidelines for obesity in pregnancy put forth by the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada (SOGC) that are underpinned by the rules of Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM), a system of ranking knowledge that promises to provide unbiased evidence about the effectiveness of treatments. While the SOGC guidelines are intended to direct health practitioners on ‘best practice’ as they address pregnancy weight gain with clients in the clinical context, we question their usefulness, arguing that despite their commitment to objectivity, they remain mired in cultural biases that stigmatize large female bodies and associates them to ‘unfit’ mothers.

Image Theory’s counting rule in clinical decision making: Does it describe how clinicians make patient-specific forecasts?

The field of clinical decision making is polarized by two predominate views. One holds that treatment recommendations should conform with guidelines; the other emphasizes clinical expertise in reaching case-specific judgments. Previous work developed a test for a proposed alternative, that clinical judgment should systematically incorporate both general knowledge and patient-specific information. The test was derived from image theory’s two phase-account of decision making and its “simple counting rule”, which describes how possible courses of action are pre-screened for compatibility with standards and values. The current paper applies this rule to clinical forecasting, where practitioners indicate how likely a specific patient will respond favorably to a recommended treatment. Psychiatric trainees evaluated eight case vignettes that exhibited from 0 to 3 incompatible attributes. They made two forecasts, one based on a guideline recommendation, the other based on their own alternative. Both forecasts were predicted by equally- and unequally-weighted counting rules. Unequal weighting provided a better fit and exhibited a clearer rejection threshold, or point at which forecasts are not diminished by additional incompatibilities. The hypothesis that missing information is treated as an incompatibility was not confirmed. There was evidence that the rejection threshold was influenced by clinician preference. Results suggests that guidelines may have a de-biasing influence on clinical judgment. Subject to limitations pertaining to the subject sample and population, clinical paradigm, guideline, and study procedure, the data support the use of a compatibility test to describe how clinicians make patient-specific forecasts.

The 'actualities' of knowledge work: an institutional ethnography of multi-disciplinary primary health care teams

This study is set against the backdrop of the evolving order of a health care system in a province implementing a set of concurrent reforms. The study investigates how 'knowledge work' of multi-disciplinary health care teams is actually done and how it is co-ordinated across sites. Knowledge work involves three processes: the creation of new knowledge during the transfer of knowledge, in the context of the application of knowledge to their collective clinical decision-making. Institutional ethnography is used to explore the social and institutional forces that shape the knowledge work of health care providers in and across multi-disciplinary teams by way of examining how the texts trans-locally organise the formation and functioning of multi-disciplinary teams. The study confirms that in the course of their collective clinical decision-making, teams' dialogical exchange facilitates the articulation of tacit knowledge and opens up the communicative space for the creation of new knowledge. In addition to this confirmatory finding, the study contributes to the existing health-related knowledge management by illustrating the importance of the social, communicative aspects of the knowledge processes, and in particular, the relationship between knowledge and the social organisation of power.

To call or not to call: a judgement of risk by pre-registration house officers

OBJECTIVES

This study set out to answer the following questions. What influences a junior doctor's response to a judgement call within a clinical setting? What, if any, are the relationships between these influences?

METHODS

This paper describes an interpretivist study based on a grounded theory approach to data analysis. This involved a phased approach to data collection using semi-structured interviews. Analysis was facilitated by observations and group presentations. Participants were doctors in their first year of postgraduate practice who were purposively selected from a range of hospitals in the Northern Deanery.

RESULTS

The data demonstrated a number of influences on whether junior doctors chose to seek senior assistance. These included the upholding and balancing of tenets that were necessary for ensuring safe practice, and estimating the chance and severity of potential negative consequences to patients, themselves and their teams. In order to make these judgements, junior doctors drew on different forms of knowledge, especially knowledge gained from previous clinical experiences. In judging whether or not to contact a senior, pre-registration house officers (PRHOs) were practising essential clinical attributes, that of independent yet co-operative and discerning practitioners who are able to balance multiple considerations while ensuring patient care.

CONCLUSIONS

This particular judgement of risk, as it was described by those interviewed, was a dynamic process exemplified by the need to create counterbalances between multiple consequences. As a result, no prescriptive action could have allowed PRHOs to deal with the numerous configurations they faced and took into account.