No abstract

Objective Nonabsorbable nasal packing is often placed for the treatment of epistaxis or after sinonasal or skull base surgery. Antibiotics are often prescribed to prevent toxic shock syndrome (TSS), a rare, potentially fatal occurrence. However, the risk of TSS must be balanced against the major risk of antibiotic use, specifically Clostridium difficile colitis (CDC). The purpose of this study is to evaluate in terms of cost-effectiveness whether antibiotics should be prescribed when nasal packing is placed. Study Design A clinical decision analysis was performed using a Markov model to evaluate whether antibiotics should be given. Setting Patients with nonabsorbable nasal packing placed. Methods Utility scores, probabilities, and costs were obtained from the literature. We assess the cost-effectiveness of antibiotic use when the risk of community-acquired CDC is balanced against the risk of TSS from nasal packing. Sensitivity analysis was performed for assumptions used in the model. Results The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for antibiotic use was 334,493 US dollars (USD)/quality-adjusted life year (QALY). Probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that not prescribing antibiotics was cost-effective in 98.0% of iterations at a willingness to pay of 50,000 USD/QALY. Sensitivity analysis showed that when the risk of CDC from antibiotics was greater than 910/100,000 or when the incidence of TSS after nasal packing was less than 49/100,000 cases, the decision to withhold antibiotics was cost-effective. Conclusions Routine antibiotic prophylaxis in the setting of nasal packing is not cost-effective and should be reconsidered. Even if antibiotics are assumed to prevent TSS, the risk of complications from antibiotic use is of greater consequence. Level of Evidence 3a

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Surgical culture has shifted to recognize the importance of resident well-being. This is the first study to longitudinally track regional surgical resident well-being over 5 years. STUDY DESIGN: An anonymous cross-sectional, multi-institutional survey of New England general surgery residents using novel and published instruments to create three domains: health maintenance, burnout, and work environment. RESULTS: Overall, 75% (15 of 20) of programs participated. The response rate was 44% (250 of 570), and 53% (133 of 250) were women, 94% (234 of 250) were 25 to 34 years old, and 71% (178 of 250) were in a relationship. For health maintenance, 57% (143 of 250) reported having a primary care provider, 26% (64 of 250) had not seen a primary care provider in 2 years, and 59% (147 of 250) endorsed being up to date with age-appropriate health screening, but only 44% (109 of 250) were found to actually be up to date. Only 14% (35 of 250) reported exercising more than 150 minutes/week. The burnout rate was 19% (47 of 250), with 32% (81 of 250) and 25% (63 of 250) reporting high levels of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization, respectively. For program directors and attendings, 90% of residents reported that they cared about resident well-being. Eighty-seven percent of residents believed that it was acceptable to take time off during the workday for a personal appointment, but only 49% reported that they would personally take the time. CONCLUSIONS: The personal health maintenance of general surgery residents has changed little over the past five years, despite an overwhelming majority of residents reporting that attendings and program directors care about their well-being. Further study is needed to understand the barriers to improvement of resident wellbeing.