Literature DB >> 24704012

Impact of resident involvement on urological surgery outcomes: an analysis of 40,000 patients from the ACS NSQIP database.

Richard S Matulewicz1, Matthew Pilecki1, Aksharananda Rambachan1, John Y S Kim1, Shilajit D Kundu2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: In addition to excellent patient care, the focus of academic medicine has traditionally been resident training. The changing landscape of health care has placed increased focus on objective outcomes. As a result, the surgical training process has come under scrutiny for its influence on patient care. We elucidated the effect of resident involvement on patient outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from the 2005 to 2011 NSQIP® participant use database. Patients were separated into 2 cohorts by resident participation vs no participation. The cohorts were compared based on preoperative comorbidities, demographic characteristics and intraoperative factors. Confounders were adjusted for by propensity score modification and complications were analyzed using perioperative variables as predictors.
RESULTS: A total of 40,001 patients met study inclusion criteria. Raw data analysis revealed that cases with resident participation had a higher rate of overall complications. However, after propensity score modification there was no significant difference in overall, medical or surgical complications in cases with resident participation. Resident participation was associated with decreased odds of overall complications (0.85). Operative time was significantly longer in cases with resident participation (159 vs 98 minutes).
CONCLUSIONS: Urology resident involvement is not associated with increased overall and surgical complications. It may even be protective when adjusted for appropriate factors such as case mix, complexity and operative time.
Copyright © 2014 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  complications; internship and residency; outcome assessment (health care); quality of health care; urology

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24704012     DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.03.096

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Urol        ISSN: 0022-5347            Impact factor:   7.450


  14 in total

1.  [The GESRU Endo-Training - strategies for the optimization of endourological skills for residents].

Authors:  C P Meyer; J Salem; L A Kluth; N Sanatgar; H Borgmann; P Grange; F-K Chun
Journal:  Urologe A       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 0.639

2.  Increase in Cesarean Operative Time Following Institution of the 80-Hour Workweek.

Authors:  Michael P Smrtka; Ravindu P Gunatilake; Benjamin Harris; Miao Yu; Lan Lan; Leo R Brancazio; Fidel A Valea; Chad A Grotegut; Haywood L Brown
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2015-09

3.  Impact of Fellow Versus Resident Assistance on Outcomes Following Pancreatoduodenectomy.

Authors:  Rosalie A Carr; Catherine W Chung; Christian M Schmidt; Andrea Jester; Molly E Kilbane; Michael G House; Nicholas J Zyromski; Attila Nakeeb; C Max Schmidt; Eugene P Ceppa
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2017-02-13       Impact factor: 3.452

4.  Resident involvement and experience do not affect perioperative complications following robotic prostatectomy.

Authors:  Daniel T McMillan; Anthony J Viera; Jonathan Matthews; Mathew C Raynor; Michael E Woods; Raj S Pruthi; Eric M Wallen; Matthew E Nielsen; Angela B Smith
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2014-07-02       Impact factor: 4.226

5.  Slower but safe? Resident involvement in urological surgeries.

Authors:  Keith Rourke
Journal:  Can Urol Assoc J       Date:  2016 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.862

6.  Outcomes of minimally invasive abdominal sacrocolpopexy with resident operative involvement.

Authors:  Emily A Slopnick; Adonis K Hijaz; J Welles Henderson; Sangeeta T Mahajan; Carvell T Nguyen; Simon P Kim
Journal:  Int Urogynecol J       Date:  2018-02-20       Impact factor: 2.894

7.  Comparison of clinical outcomes and automated performance metrics in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy with and without trainee involvement.

Authors:  Andrew Chen; Saum Ghodoussipour; Micha B Titus; Jessica H Nguyen; Jian Chen; Runzhuo Ma; Andrew J Hung
Journal:  World J Urol       Date:  2019-11-14       Impact factor: 4.226

8.  Resident participation is not associated with postoperative adverse events, reoperation, or prolonged length of stay following craniotomy for brain tumor resection.

Authors:  Nikita Lakomkin; Constantinos G Hadjipanayis
Journal:  J Neurooncol       Date:  2017-08-30       Impact factor: 4.130

9.  Can robot-assisted radical prostatectomy be taught to chief residents and fellows without affecting operative outcomes?

Authors:  Ziho Lee; Andrew J Lightfoot; Phillip Mucksavage; David I Lee
Journal:  Prostate Int       Date:  2015-03-21

10.  Infection following penile prosthesis placement at an academic training center remains low despite involvement of surgeons-in-training.

Authors:  Kara E McAbee; Amy M Pearlman; Ryan P Terlecki
Journal:  Investig Clin Urol       Date:  2018-07-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.