No abstract

BackgroundFrailty is a predictor of poor outcomes following many types of operations. We measured thoracic surgeons' accuracy in assessing patient frailty using videos of standarized patients demonstrating signs of physical frailty. We compared their performance to that of geriatrics specialists.MethodsWe developed an anchored scale for rating degree of frailty. Reference categories were assigned to 31 videos of standarized patients trained to exhibit five levels of activity ranging from “vigorous” to “frail.” Following an explanation of frailty, thoracic surgeons and geriatrics specialists rated the videos. We evaluated inter-rater agreement and tested differences between ratings and reference categories. The influences of clinical specialty, clinical experience, and self-rated expertise were examined.ResultsInter-rater rank correlation among all participants was high (Kendall's W 0.85) whereas exact agreement (Fleiss' kappa) was only moderate (0.47). Better inter-rater agreement was demonstrated for videos exhibiting extremes of behavior. Exact agreement was better for thoracic surgeons (n = 32) than geriatrics specialists (n = 9; p = 0.045), whereas rank correlation was similar for both groups. More clinical years of experience and self-reported expertise were not associated with better inter-rater agreement.ConclusionsVideos of standarized patients exhibiting varying degrees of frailty are rated with internal consistency by thoracic surgeons as accurately as geriatrics specialists when referenced to an anchored scale. Ratings were less consistent for moderate degrees of frailty, suggesting that physicians require training to recognize early frailty. Such videos may be useful in assessing and teaching frailty recognition.

No abstract

Background Complex procedures often have numerous acceptable approaches; it is unclear how surgical fellows choose between techniques. We used pancreaticoduodenectomy as a model to catalogue variability between surgeons and investigate factors that affect fellows' acquisition of techniques. Materials and methods Semistructured interviews and operative note analysis were conducted to determine techniques of 5 attending surgeons, and these data were mapped to identify variations. Identical interviews and questioning were completed with 4 fellowship graduates whose practice includes pancreaticoduodenectomy. Results All surgeons performed a different operation, both in order and techniques employed. Based on minor variations, there were 21 surgical step data points that differed. Of 5 surgeons, 4 were unable to identify colleagues' techniques. Fellows reported adopting techniques from mentors who had regimented techniques, teaching styles they related to, and with whom they frequently operated. Residency training did not strongly influence their choice of technique; however, senior partners after fellowship did influence technique. Conclusions The number of variants of pancreaticoduodenectomy based on granular, step-by-step differences is larger than previously described. Results hint that variation may be furthered by the fact that surgeons are not aware of the techniques used by colleagues. Fellows choose techniques based on factors not directly related to their own outcomes but rather mentor factors. Whether fellows adopt techniques that will be optimal given their abilities is worthy of further investigation, as are changes in technique over time. Better codification of variation is needed to facilitate these investigations as well as matching of technical variations to patient outcomes.

No abstract