BACKGROUND: Centralizing complex cancer operations, such as pancreatectomy and esophagectomy, has been shown to increase value, largely due to reduction in complications. For high-volume operations with low complication rates, it is unknown to what degree value varies between facilities, or by what mechanism value may be improved. To identify possible opportunities for value enhancement for such operations, we sought to describe variations in episode spending for mastectomy with a secondary aim of identifying patient- and facility-level determinants of variation. STUDY DESIGN: Using the Michigan Value Collaborative risk-adjusted, price-standardized claims data, we evaluated mean spending for patients undergoing mastectomy at 74 facilities (n = 7,342 patients) across the state of Michigan. Primary outcomes were 30- and 90-day episode spending. Using linear mixed models, facility- and patient-level factors were explored for association with spending variability. RESULTS: Among 7,342 women treated across 74 facilities, mean 30-day spending by facility ranged from $11,129 to $20,830 (median $14,935). Ninety-day spending ranged from $17,303 to $31,060 (median $23,744). Patient-level factors associated with greater spending included simultaneous breast reconstruction, bilateral surgery, length of stay, and readmission. Among women not undergoing reconstruction, variation persisted, and length of stay, bilateral surgery, and readmission were all associated with increased spending. CONCLUSION: Michigan hospitals have significant variation in spending for mastectomy. Reducing length of stay through wider adoption of same-day discharge for mastectomy and reducing the frequency of bilateral surgery may represent opportunities to increase value, without compromising patient safety or oncologic outcomes.

No abstract

Background Same-day discharge after mastectomy without immediate reconstruction (MwoR) has been shown to be safe, with improved patient satisfaction when compared with patients discharged 1 or more days after surgery. Nevertheless, only 16% of patients undergoing MwoR in Michigan are discharged on the day of surgery, with significant variation between facilities (3–88%). Our objective was to explore determinants of same-day discharge and offer strategies for broader implementation of this practice. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with surgeons performing MwoR across the state of Michigan. Recruitment utilized purposeful and snowball sampling methods. The Tailored Implementation in Chronic Disease (TICD) framework was used to inform the creation of the interview guide. Interviews were transcribed and then analyzed using directed content analysis guided by the TICD framework. Salient determinants were organized into patient, provider, and system-level factors. Results Participants ( n = 26) included general surgeons, breast surgeons, and surgical oncologists. Most surgeons ( n = 18, 69%) reported that they discharged fewer than 60% of patients the same day after MwoR. The most common barriers included patient knowledge at the patient level; awareness of evidence, surgeon dogma, and peer influence at the provider level; and team processes and operating room logistics at the system level. Conclusion We identified surgeon-defined determinants of same-day discharge after MwoR. For the identified barriers, potential implementation strategies could include incorporation of preoperative drain teachings for patients, utilizing consensus statements and opinion leaders to disseminate evidence supporting same-day mastectomies, and conducting workshops with relevant stakeholders to establish consistent facility practice patterns among surgical teams. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1245/s10434-022-12934-x.

The holistic review of applicants conducted by medical schools includes an assessment of their distance traveled (e.g., hardships overcome) to get to this point on their educational journey. 1 What medical students consider to be distance traveled and how they think it should be included has not been explored. This qualitative study seeks to address this gap in knowledge and centers the voices of medical students by attending to how they conceptualize their own distance traveled.

IntroductionWithin medical school's holistic review of applicants includes a review of their distance travelled to get to this point in their education. The AAMC defines distance travelled (DT) as, ‘any obstacles or hardships you've overcome to get to this point in your education or any life challenges you've faced and conquered’. What medical students consider as their distance travelled has not been explored. The authors sought to identify the factors medical students perceive are important for medical school admissions to consider when assessing someone's ‘distance travelled’ by asking current medical students to share their DT experiences along with the barriers and facilitators they encountered on their medical school journey.MethodsThe authors conducted semi‐structured interviews with US medical students through purposeful sampling methods. The social‐ecological model framework was used to develop questions to elicit participants' experiences that contributed to their distance travelled. Interviews were conducted in 2021 and ranged from 60–75 minutes. Transcribed interviews were qualitatively analysed using interpretive description.ResultsA total of 31 medical students from seven medical schools were included in the study. Overall, participants defined distance travelled as an applicant's hardships (e.g. being the primary caregiver for a family member) and privileges (e.g. having physician parents) they experienced. Three major themes were identified: (1) individual‐level characteristics and factors, (2) interpersonal relationships and (3) aspects of the participants' community and society.DiscussionOur findings show that medical school applicants considered DT to be a valuable component of a holistic medical school admission process. Participants' experiences of DT were varied and complex. Our research suggests that admissions teams for medical schools should incorporate more comprehensive recruitment practices and inclusive methodological frameworks to accurately capture the diversity of identities and experiences of medical school applicants and to consider the factors that shape their journey to medical schools.