Background: From a patient's point of view, an 'ideal' doctor could be defined as one having personal qualities for interpersonal relationships, technical skills and good intentions. However, doctors' opinions about what it means to be a 'good' patient have not been systematically investigated. Aim: To explore how patients define the characteristics of a 'good' and a 'bad' doctor, and how doctors define a 'good' and a 'bad' patient. Material and Methods: We surveyed a cohort of 107 consecutive patients attending a community teaching hospital in February 2019, who were asked to define the desirable characteristics of a good/ bad doctor. Additionally, a cohort of 115 physicians working at the same hospital was asked to define the desirable characteristics of a good/bad patient. Responses were subjected to content analysis. Simultaneously, an algorithm in Python was used to automatically categorize responses throughout text-mining. Results: The predominant patients' perspective alluded to desirable personal qualities more importantly than proficiency in knowledge and technical skills. Doctors would be satisfied if patients manifested positive personality characteristics, were prone to avoid decisional and personal conflicts, had a high adherence to treatment, and trusted the doctor. The text-mining algorithm was accurate to classify individuals' opinions. Conclusions: Ideally, fusing the skills of the scientist to the reflective capabilities of the medical humanist will fulfill the archetype of what patients consider to be a 'good' doctor. Doctors' preferences reveal a "paternalistic" style, and his/her opinions should be managed carefully to avoid stigmatizing certain patients' behaviors.

Objective: The aim was to explore how in-training junior physicians perceive their surgical performance compared with the one externally rated by their senior surgeon trainers, using a general learning curve model. Methods: Between April and June 2018, a prospective study was conducted at a community hospital associated with a school of medicine. To assess how in-training physicians estimated their surgical performance, 48 surgical residents and fellows were invited to choose one among six options using a scale ranging from "novice" to "automatic expert." In addition, five senior surgeons who supervised the residents/fellows were asked to give their own opinions on each surveyed physician's expertise level, according to the same categories. Concordance analysis was done to compare residents' and fellows' self-perceived skills and their actual performance as estimated by senior surgeons. Results: Self-assessments tended to overestimate residents' and fellows' position on the learning curve; particularly for "proficient" over "competent," and for "automatic expert" over "expert" categories (p = 0.025). The average degree of agreement among senior physicians was 50.0%. Comparison between residents' and fellows' perceived skills and their performances as estimated by senior surgeons showed a weak concordance (kappa = 0.494, 95% confidence interval 0.359-0.631, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Nearly 51% of the residents/fellows included in some surgical specialty training program overestimated his/her actual performance as evaluated by classical learning curve categories. Underestimation of self-assessed performance was also observed in 17% of respondents. A better feedback from expert observers to in-training surgeons could result in a more accurate self-perception of their real surgical skills and competencies.

Ischaemia–reperfusion injury (IRI) encompasses the deleterious effects on cellular function and survival that result from the restoration of organ perfusion. Despite their unique tolerance to ischaemia and hypoxia, afforded by their dual (pulmonary and bronchial) circulation as well as direct oxygen diffusion from the airways, lungs are particularly susceptible to IRI (LIRI). LIRI may be observed in a variety of clinical settings, including lung transplantation, lung resections, cardiopulmonary bypass during cardiac surgery, aortic cross-clamping for abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, as well as tourniquet application for orthopaedic operations. It is a diagnosis of exclusion, manifesting clinically as acute lung injury (ALI) or acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Ischaemic conditioning (IC) signifies the original paradigm of treating IRI. It entails the application of short, non-lethal ischemia and reperfusion manoeuvres to an organ, tissue, or arterial territory, which activates mechanisms that reduce IRI. Interestingly, there is accumulating experimental and preliminary clinical evidence that IC may ameliorate LIRI in various pathophysiological contexts. Considering the detrimental effects of LIRI, ranging from ALI following lung resections to primary graft dysfunction (PGD) after lung transplantation, the association of these entities with adverse outcomes, as well as the paucity of protective or therapeutic interventions, IC holds promise as a safe and effective strategy to protect the lung. This article aims to provide a narrative review of the existing experimental and clinical evidence regarding the effects of IC on LIRI and prompt further investigation to refine its clinical application.

Esophagectomy has long been considered the standard of care for early-stage (≤ T2N0) esophageal cancer. Minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE), using a combined laparoscopic and thoracoscopic approach, was first performed in the 1990s and showed significant improvements over open approaches. Refinement of MIE arrived in the form of robotic-assisted minimally invasive esophagectomy (RAMIE) in 2004. MIE is a challenging procedure for which consensus on optimal technique is still elusive.Although nonrobotic MIE confers significant advantages over open approaches, MIE remains associated with stubbornly high rates of complications, including pneumonia, aspiration, arrhythmia, anastomotic leakage, surgical site infection, and vocal cord palsy. RAMIE was envisioned to improve operative-associated morbidity while achieving equivalent or superior oncologic outcomes to nonrobotic MIE. However, owing to RAMIE's significant upfront costs, steep learning curve, and other requirements, adoption remains less than widespread and convincing evidence supporting its use from well-designed studies is lacking. In this review, we compare operative, oncologic, and quality-of-life outcomes between open esophagectomy, nonrobotic MIE, and RAMIE. Although RAMIE remains a relatively new and underexplored modality, several studies in the literature show that it is feasible and results in similar outcomes to other MIE approaches. Moreover, RAMIE has been associated with favorable patient satisfaction and quality of life.

No abstract