Recent Publications by CFE Educators

This study compares the American Thyroid Association (ATA) classification system with the 2017 American College of Radiology (ACR) Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System (TI-RADS) for predicting cancer risk in thyroid nodules. This is a retrospective review of ultrasound imaging of all adult patients with thyroid nodules >5 mm who underwent thyroidectomy at a tertiary care hospital in 2016. We assessed the ability of either system to predict malignancy based on surgical histopathology. Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive values (NPV) and positive predictive values (PPV), and area-under-the-curve (AUC) were calculated and compared using McNemar's, Fisher exact, or DeLong's tests. Three hundred and twenty-three nodules from 213 adults were included. Median patient age was 55 years; 75.6% were female. 27.2% nodules were malignant. Both ATA and ACR TI-RADS provide effective diagnostic performance, a sensitivity of 77.3% versus 78.4%, respectively, a specificity of 76.6% versus 73.2%, respectively, a PPV of 55.3% versus 52.3%, respectively, and a NPV of 90% for both. The level of agreement between the two classification systems was almost perfect (weighted Kappa statistic = 0.93, AUC 0.77 ATA versus 0.76 TI-RADS [ = .18]). However, of the 40 (TI-RADS level 3) TR3 nodules (2.5 cm), 10% were malignant, and of the 31 (TI-RADS level 4) TR4 nodules (1.5 cm), 38% were malignant. The ATA and TI-RADS classification systems appear to have similar diagnostic value for predicting thyroid cancer. However, subanalysis of TR3 and TR4 nodules with consideration of size criteria showed that there is a higher risk of missing a malignancy if the ACR TI-RADS recommendation is followed. These results should be validated in a different patient cohort with a lower incidence of cancer. = American College of Radiology; = American Thyroid Association; = Fine Needle Aspiration; κ = weighted Kappa statistic; = negative predictive values; = positive predictive values; = Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System; = TI-RADS level 1; = TI-RADS level 2; = TI-RADS level 3; = TI-RADS level 4; = TI-RADS level 5.

BACKGROUND

There is limited literature about physician handoffs between the intensive care unit (ICU) and the ward, and best practices have not been described. These patients are uniquely vulnerable given their medical complexity, diagnostic uncertainty and reduced monitoring intensity. We aimed to characterise the structure, perceptions and processes of ICU-ward handoffs across three teaching hospitals using multimodal methods: by identifying the handoff components involved in communication failures and describing common processes of patient transfer.

METHODS

We conducted a study at three academic medical centres using two methods to characterise the structure, perceptions and processes of ICU-ward transfers: (1) an anonymous resident survey characterising handoff communication during ICU-ward transfer, and (2) comparison of process maps to identify similarities and differences between ICU-ward transfer processes across the three hospitals.

RESULTS

Of the 295 internal medicine residents approached, 175 (59%) completed the survey. 87% of the respondents recalled at least one adverse event related to communication failure during ICU-ward transfer. 95% agreed that a well-structured handoff template would improve ICU-ward transfer. Rehabilitation needs, intravenous access/hardware and risk assessments for readmission to the ICU were the most frequently omitted or incorrectly communicated components of handoff notes. More than 60% of the respondents reported that notes omitted or miscommunicated pending results, active subspecialty consultants, nutrition and intravenous fluids, antibiotics, and healthcare decision-maker information at least twice per month. Despite variable process across the three sites, all process maps demonstrated flaws and potential for harm in critical steps of the ICU-ward transition.

CONCLUSION

In this multisite study, despite significant process variation across sites, almost all resident physicians recalled an adverse event related to the ICU-ward handoff. Future work is needed to determine best practices for ICU-ward handoffs at academic medical centres.

BACKGROUND

Dexamethasone is a standard treatment for cerebral edema after brain tumor surgery. However, its side effects can negatively impact the quality and safety of care provided to patients. Sparse evidence exists in the literature regarding postoperative steroid dosing to guide clinicians. The objective of this study was to determine if a new reduced exogenous steroid taper (REST) protocol would effectively treat postoperative cerebral edema while reducing the incidence of steroid-related side effects including diabetes, hypertension, and insomnia.

METHODS

A REST protocol (dexamethasone 38.5 mg tapered over 10 days) was instituted for patients with postoperative brain tumor of a single surgeon. Historical controls treated with a high-dose taper (dexamethasone 117 mg taper over 17 days) were selected to match for baseline characteristics. Outcomes of new or worsened diabetes, hypertension, and insomnia, as well as length of stay (LOS) and 30-day readmission rates, were compared.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients were included in each group. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics. The REST group received a median of 34.5 mg (interquartile range, 32-41 mg) of dexamethasone, whereas controls received 43 mg (interquartile range, 16-91 mg) (P = 0.04). There was a significant reduction in the incidence of new or worsened hypertension in the REST group (0%) compared with controls (20%, P = 0.02). No difference was seen in the rates of diabetes mellitus, insomnia, LOS, or 30-day readmission rates.

CONCLUSIONS

A reduced steroid taper after brain tumor surgery significantly reduced the incidence of hypertension without increasing LOS or 30-day readmissions compared with controls treated with a high-dose taper.

Most robotic curriculum requires simulation on a console prior to operative exposure. This practice does not permit experiencing the physical collisions with the robotic tools, which occurs during surgery. We designed and evaluated an innovative curriculum to address cognitive components and trouble-shoot robotic collisions when the surgeon lacks haptic feedback. We adapted our previous curriculum, designed to teach and document proficiency of robotic docking and instrument exchange, to include robotic collisions. Participants received a 10-min, didactic presentation describing finger grips, internal and external collisions, and instruction on how to trouble-shoot each type. Residents worked in pairs, one at the console and the other at bedside, to complete two simulation exercises. Participants manipulated the robot to determine how best to resolve the situations. Residents completed retrospective post-course surveys and instructors completed a final survey. For comparison, non-participants, PGY-matched surgical trainees, also completed a survey. All participants demonstrated proficiency in docking and instrument exchange. Compared to pre-session, post-session knowledge and confidence improved in five domains reflecting session objectives (p  0.05). Participants could list and troubleshoot collisions more than the non-participant matched peers (p  0.05). Instructors supported the additional collision components, but noted learners needed more time. Two of three non-participants expressed interest in a teaching session to address these components. Collisions occur using robotic technology and rarely get addressed in surgical training. We describe an opportunity for surgeons to trouble-shoot robotic collisions in a safe, simulated environment. This easily transferable curriculum represents one of the first industry-independent robotic teaching sessions for surgical trainees.