RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Wrong-site surgery is a never event and a serious, preventable patient safety incident. Within the United Kingdom, national guidance has been issued to minimize the risk of such events. The mandate includes preoperative marking of all surgical patients. This study aimed to quantify regional variation in practice within general surgery and opinions of the surgeons, to help guide the formulation and implementation of a regional general surgery preoperative marking protocol. METHODS: A SurveyMonkey questionnaire was designed and distributed to 120 surgeons within the Mersey region, United Kingdom. This included all surgical trainees in Mersey (47 registrars, 56 core trainees), 15 consultants, and 2 surgical care practitioners. This sought to ascertain their routine practice and how they would choose to mark for 12 index procedures in general surgery, if mandated to do so. RESULTS: A total of 72 responses (60%) were obtained to the SurveyMonkey questionnaire. Only 26 (36.1%) said that they routinely marked all of their patients preoperatively. The operating surgeon marked the patient in 69% of responses, with the remainder delegating this task. Markings were visible after draping in only 55.6% of marked cases. CONCLUSIONS: Based on our findings, surgeons may not be adhering to "Good Surgical Practice"; practice is widely variable and surgeons are largely opposed and resistant to marking patients unless laterality is involved. We suggest that all surgeons need to be actively engaged in the design of local marking protocols to gain support, change practice, and reduce errors.
Asunto(s)
Errores Médicos , Cirujanos , Humanos , Pacientes , Cuidados Preoperatorios , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Reino UnidoRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Breast reconstruction is routinely offered to women who undergo mastectomy for breast cancer. However, patient-reported outcomes are mixed. Child abuse has enduring effects on adults' well-being and body image. As part of a study into damaging effects of abuse on adjustment to breast cancer, we examined: (i) whether women with history of abuse would be more likely than other women to opt for reconstruction; and (ii) whether mood problems in women opting for reconstruction can be explained by greater prevalence of abuse. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We recruited 355 women within 2-4 days after surgery for primary breast cancer; 104 had mastectomy alone and 29 opted for reconstruction. Using standardised questionnaires, women self-reported emotional distress and recollections of childhood sexual abuse. Self-report of distress was repeated 12 months later. RESULTS: Women who had reconstruction were younger than those who did not. Controlling for this, they reported greater prevalence of abuse and more distress than those having mastectomy alone. They were also more depressed postoperatively, and this effect remained significant after controlling for abuse. CONCLUSIONS: One interpretation of these findings is that history of abuse influences women's decisions about responding to the threat of mastectomy, but it is premature to draw inferences for practice until the findings are replicated. If they are replicated, it will be important to recognise increased vulnerability of some patients who choose reconstruction. Studying the characteristics and needs of women who opt for immediate reconstruction and examining the implications for women's adjustment should be a priority for research.