Background Surgery is the main modality of cure for solid cancers and was prioritised to continue during COVID-19 outbreaks. This study aimed to identify immediate areas for system strengthening by comparing the delivery of elective cancer surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic in periods of lockdown versus light restriction. Methods This international, prospective, cohort study enrolled 20 006 adult (≥18 years) patients from 466 hospitals in 61 countries with 15 cancer types, who had a decision for curative surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic and were followed up until the point of surgery or cessation of follow-up (Aug 31, 2020). Average national Oxford COVID-19 Stringency Index scores were calculated to define the government response to COVID-19 for each patient for the period they awaited surgery, and classified into light restrictions (index <20), moderate lockdowns (20–60), and full lockdowns (>60). The primary outcome was the non-operation rate (defined as the proportion of patients who did not undergo planned surgery). Cox proportional-hazards regression models were used to explore the associations between lockdowns and non-operation. Intervals from diagnosis to surgery were compared across COVID-19 government response index groups. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT04384926 . Findings Of eligible patients awaiting surgery, 2003 (10·0%) of 20 006 did not receive surgery after a median follow-up of 23 weeks (IQR 16–30), all of whom had a COVID-19-related reason given for non-operation. Light restrictions were associated with a 0·6% non-operation rate (26 of 4521), moderate lockdowns with a 5·5% rate (201 of 3646; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·81, 95% CI 0·77–0·84; p<0·0001), and full lockdowns with a 15·0% rate (1775 of 11 827; HR 0·51, 0·50–0·53; p<0·0001). In sensitivity analyses, including adjustment for SARS-CoV-2 case notification rates, moderate lockdowns (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·80–0·88; p<0·001), and full lockdowns (0·57, 0·54–0·60; p<0·001), remained independently associated with non-operation. Surgery beyond 12 weeks from diagnosis in patients without neoadjuvant therapy increased during lockdowns (374 [9·1%] of 4521 in light restrictions, 317 [10·4%] of 3646 in moderate lockdowns, 2001 [23·8%] of 11 827 in full lockdowns), although there were no differences in resectability rates observed with longer delays. Interpretation Cancer surgery systems worldwide were fragile to lockdowns, with one in seven patients who were in regions with full lockdowns not undergoing planned surgery and experiencing longer preoperative delays. Although short-term oncological outcomes were not compromised in those selected for surgery, delays and non-operations might lead to long-term reductions in survival. During current and future periods of societal restriction, the resilience of elective surgery systems requires strengthening, which might include...

No abstract

IMPORTANCE Board certification is used as a marker of surgeon quality and professionalism. Although some research has linked certification in surgery to outcomes, more research is needed.OBJECTIVE To measure associations between surgeons obtaining American Board of Surgery (ABS) certification and examination performance with receiving future severe disciplinary actions against their medical licenses.DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Retrospective analysis of severe license action rates for surgeons who attempted ABS certification based on certification status and examination performance. Surgeons who attempted to become certified were classified as certified or failing to obtain certification. Additionally, groups were further categorized based on whether the surgeon had to repeat examinations and whether they ultimately passed. The study included surgeons who initially attempted certification between 1976 and 2017 (n = 44 290). Severe license actions from 1976 to 2018 were obtained from the Federation of State Medical Boards, and certification data were obtained from the ABS database. Data were analyzed between 1978 and 2008.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Severe license action rates were analyzed across certified surgeons and those failing to obtain certification, as well as across examination performance groups. RESULTSThe final dataset included 36 197 men (81.7%) and 8093 women (18.3%). The incidence of severe license actions was significantly greater for surgeons who attempted and failed to obtain certification (incidence rate per 1000 person-years = 2.49; 95% CI, 2.13-2.85) than surgeons who were certified (incidence rate per 1000 person years = 0.77; 95% CI, 0.71-0.83). Adjusting for sex and international medical graduate status, the risk of receiving a severe license action across time was also significantly greater for surgeons who failed to obtain certification. Surgeons who progressed further in the certification examination sequence and had fewer repeated examinations had a lower incidence and less risk over time of receiving severe license actions. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEObtaining board certification was associated with a lower rate of receiving severe license actions from a state medical board. Passing examinations in the certification examination process on the first attempt was also associated with lower severe license action rates. This study provides supporting evidence that board certification is 1 marker of surgeon quality and professionalism.

Objective: To Study the Outcomes of the First Virtual General Surgery Certifying Exam of the American Board of Surgery. Summary of Background Data: The ABS General Surgery CE is normally an in-person oral examination. Due to the COVID-19 outbreak, the ABS was required to reschedule these. After 2 small pilots, the CE's October administration represented the first large-scale remote virtual exam. The purpose of this report is to compare the outcomes of this virtual and the previous inperson CEs. Methods: CE candidates were asked to provide feedback on their experience via a survey. The passing rate was compared to the 1025 candidates who took the 2019-2020 in-person CEs. Results: Of the 308 candidates who registered for the virtual CE, 306 completed the exam (99.4%) and 188 completed the survey (61.4%). The majority had a very positive experience. They rated the virtual CE as very good/excellent in security (90%), ease of exam platform (77%), audio quality (71%), video quality (69%), and overall satisfaction (86%). Notably, when asked their preference, 78% preferred the virtual exam. There were no differences in the passing rates between the virtual or in-person exams. Conclusions: The first virtual CE by the ABS was completed using available internet technology. There was high satisfaction, with the majority preferring the virtual platform. Compared to past in-person CEs, there was no difference in outcomes as measured by passing rates. These data suggest that expansion of the virtual CE may be desirable.

No abstract