Thirty percent of colon cancer diagnoses occur following emergency presentations, often with bowel obstruction or perforation requiring urgent surgery. We sought to compare cancer care quality between patients receiving emergency versus elective surgery. We conducted an institutional retrospective matched (46 elective:23 emergency; n = 69) case control study. Patients who underwent a colon cancer resection from January 2017 to February 2019 were matched by age, sex, and cancer stage. Data were collected through the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program and chart review. Process outcomes of interest included receipt of cross-sectional imaging, CEA testing, pre-operative cancer diagnosis, pre-operative colonoscopy, margin status, nodal yield, pathology reporting, and oncology referral. No differences were found between elective and emergency groups with respect to demographics, margin status, nodal yield, oncology referral times/rates, or time to pathology reporting. Patients undergoing emergency surgery were less likely to have CEA levels, CT staging, and colonoscopy (p = 0.004, p = 0.017, p < 0.001). Emergency cases were less likely to be approached laparoscopically (p = 0.03), and patients had a longer length of stay (p < 0.001) and 30-day readmission rate (p = 0.01). Patients undergoing emergency surgery receive high quality resections and timely post-operative referrals but receive inferior peri-operative workup. The adoption of a hybrid acute care surgery model including short-interval follow-up with a surgical oncologist or colorectal surgeon may improve the quality of care that patients with colon cancer receive after acute presentations. Surgeons treating patients with colon cancer emergently can improve their care quality by ensuring that appropriate and timely disease evaluation is completed.

Background: Surgical program directors (PDs) play an integral role in the well-being and success of postgraduate trainees. Although studies about medical specialties have documented factors contributing to PD burnout, early attrition rates and contributory factors among surgical PDs have not yet been described. We aimed to evaluate Canadian surgical PD satisfaction, stressors in the role and areas institutions could target to improve PD support. Methods: We administered a cross-sectional survey of postgraduate Canadian surgical PDs from all Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada accredited surgical specialties. Domains we assessed included PD demographics and compensation, availability of administrative support, satisfaction with the PD role and factors contributing to PD challenges and burnout. Results: Sixty percent of eligible surgical PDs (81 out of 134) from all 12 surgical specialties responded to the survey. We found significant heterogeneity in PD tenure, compensation models and available administrative support. All respondents reported exceeding their weekly protected time for the PD position, and 66% received less than 0.8 full-time equivalent of administrative support. One-third of respondents were satisfied with overall compensation, whereas 43% were unhappy with compensatory models. Most respondents (70%) enjoyed many aspects of the PD role, including relationships with trainees and shaping the education of future surgeons. Significant stressors included insufficient administrative support, complexities in resident remediation and inadequate compensation, which contributed to 37% of PDs having considered leaving the post prematurely. Interpretation: Most surgical PDs enjoyed the role. However, intersecting factors such as disproportionate time demands, lack of administrative support and inadequate compensation for the role contributed to significant stress and risk of early attrition.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has put enormous pressure on hospital resources, and has affected all aspects of patient care. As operative volumes decrease, cancer surgeries must be triaged and prioritized with careful thought and attention to ensure maximal benefit for the maximum number of patients. Peritoneal malignancies present a unique challenge, as surgical management can be resource intensive, but patients have limited non-surgical treatment options. This review summarizes current data on outcomes and resource utilization to help inform decision-making and case prioritization in times of constrained health care resources. Methods: A rapid literature review was performed, examining surgical and non-surgical outcomes data for peritoneal malignancies. Narrative data synthesis was cross-referenced with relevant societal guidelines. Peritoneal malignancy surgeons and medical oncologists reviewed recommendations to establish a national perspective on case triage and mitigating treatment strategies. Results and Conclusions: Triage of peritoneal malignancies during this time of restricted health care resource is nuanced and requires multidisciplinary discussion with consideration of individual patient factors. Prioritization should be given to patients where delay may compromise resectability of disease, and where alternative treatment options are lacking. Mitigating strategies such as systemic chemotherapy and/or surgical deferral may be utilized with close surveillance for disease stability or progression, which may affect surgical urgency. Unique hospital capacity, and ability to manage the complex post-operative course for these patients must also be considered to ensure patient and system needs are aligned.

The COVID-19 pandemic has substantially affected surgical training and the autonomy of surgical trainees in the clinical setting, with notable decreases in operating room exposure and experience. For trainees who are transitioning into roles as senior residents, these changes have limited opportunities during a critically formative period in their training. We discuss the implementation of a modified case-based instructional curriculum for intermediate-level surgical trainees, and suggest strategies to bridge the gap in clinical and operative decision-making while using a virtual learning format.