Browsing by Author "Pryor, Aurora"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    American Society for Enhanced Recovery and Perioperative Quality Initiative Joint Consensus Statement on Nutrition Screening and Therapy Within a Surgical Enhanced Recovery Pathway.
    (Anesth Analg, 2018-01-23) Wischmeyer, Paul E; Carli, Franco; Evans, David C; Guilbert, Sarah; Kozar, Rosemary; Pryor, Aurora; Thiele, Robert H; Everett, Sotiria; Grocott, Mike; Gan, Tong J; Shaw, Andrew D; Thacker, Julie KM; Miller, Timothy E; Hedrick, Traci L; McEvoy, Matthew D; Mythen, Michael G; Bergamaschi, Roberto; Gupta, Ruchir; Holubar, Stefan D; Senagore, Anthony J; Abola, Ramon E; Bennett-Guerrero, Elliott; Kent, Michael L; Feldman, Liane S; Fiore, Julio F; Perioperative Quality Initiative (POQI) 2 Workgroup
    Perioperative malnutrition has proven to be challenging to define, diagnose, and treat. Despite these challenges, it is well known that suboptimal nutritional status is a strong independent predictor of poor postoperative outcomes. Although perioperative caregivers consistently express recognition of the importance of nutrition screening and optimization in the perioperative period, implementation of evidence-based perioperative nutrition guidelines and pathways in the United States has been quite limited and needs to be addressed in surgery-focused recommendations. The second Perioperative Quality Initiative brought together a group of international experts with the objective of providing consensus recommendations on this important topic with the goal of (1) developing guidelines for screening of nutritional status to identify patients at risk for adverse outcomes due to malnutrition; (2) address optimal methods of providing nutritional support and optimizing nutrition status preoperatively; and (3) identifying when and how to optimize nutrition delivery in the postoperative period. Discussion led to strong recommendations for implementation of routine preoperative nutrition screening to identify patients in need of preoperative nutrition optimization. Postoperatively, nutrition delivery should be restarted immediately after surgery. The key role of oral nutrition supplements, enteral nutrition, and parenteral nutrition (implemented in that order) in most perioperative patients was advocated for with protein delivery being more important than total calorie delivery. Finally, the role of often-inadequate nutrition intake in the posthospital setting was discussed, and the role of postdischarge oral nutrition supplements was emphasized.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    American Society for Enhanced Recovery and Perioperative Quality Initiative Joint Consensus Statement on Patient-Reported Outcomes in an Enhanced Recovery Pathway.
    (Anesthesia and analgesia, 2018-06) Abola, Ramon E; Bennett-Guerrero, Elliott; Kent, Michael L; Feldman, Liane S; Fiore, Julio F; Shaw, Andrew D; Thacker, Julie KM; Gan, Tong J; Miller, Timothy E; Hedrick, Traci L; McEvoy, Matthew D; Mythen, Michael G; Bergamaschi, Roberto; Gupta, Ruchir; Holubar, Stefan D; Senagore, Anthony J; Wischmeyer, Paul E; Carli, Franco; Evans, David C; Guilbert, Sarah; Kozar, Rosemary; Pryor, Aurora; Thiele, Robert H; Everett, Sotiria; Grocott, Mike; Perioperative Quality Initiative (POQI) 2 Workgroup
    Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are measures of health status that come directly from the patient. PROs are an underutilized tool in the perioperative setting. Enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) have primarily focused on traditional measures of health care quality such as complications and hospital length of stay. These measures do not capture postdischarge outcomes that are meaningful to patients such as function or freedom from disability. PROs can be used to facilitate shared decisions between patients and providers before surgery and establish benchmark recovery goals after surgery. PROs can also be utilized in quality improvement initiatives and clinical research studies. An expert panel, the Perioperative Quality Initiative (POQI) workgroup, conducted an extensive literature review to determine best practices for the incorporation of PROs in an ERP. This international group of experienced clinicians from North America and Europe met at Stony Brook, NY, on December 2-3, 2016, to review the evidence supporting the use of PROs in the context of surgical recovery. A modified Delphi method was used to capture the collective expertise of a diverse group to answer clinical questions. During 3 plenary sessions, the POQI PRO subgroup presented clinical questions based on a literature review, presented evidenced-based answers to those questions, and developed recommendations which represented a consensus opinion regarding the use of PROs in the context of an ERP. The POQI workgroup identified key criteria to evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for their incorporation in an ERP. The POQI workgroup agreed on the following recommendations: (1) PROMs in the perioperative setting should be collected in the framework of physical, mental, and social domains. (2) These data should be collected preoperatively at baseline, during the immediate postoperative time period, and after hospital discharge. (3) In the immediate postoperative setting, we recommend using the Quality of Recovery-15 score. After discharge at 30 and 90 days, we recommend the use of the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale 2.0, or a tailored use of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System. (4) Future study that consistently applies PROMs in an ERP will define the role these measures will have evaluating quality and guiding clinical care. Consensus guidelines regarding the incorporation of PRO measures in an ERP were created by the POQI workgroup. The inclusion of PROMs with traditional measures of health care quality after surgery provides an opportunity to improve clinical care.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    American Society for Enhanced Recovery and Perioperative Quality Initiative Joint Consensus Statement on Postoperative Gastrointestinal Dysfunction Within an Enhanced Recovery Pathway for Elective Colorectal Surgery.
    (Anesthesia and analgesia, 2018-06) Hedrick, Traci L; McEvoy, Matthew D; Mythen, Michael Monty G; Bergamaschi, Roberto; Gupta, Ruchir; Holubar, Stefan D; Senagore, Anthony J; Gan, Tong Joo; Shaw, Andrew D; Thacker, Julie KM; Miller, Timothy E; Wischmeyer, Paul E; Carli, Franco; Evans, David C; Guilbert, Sarah; Kozar, Rosemary; Pryor, Aurora; Thiele, Robert H; Everett, Sotiria; Grocott, Mike; Abola, Ramon E; Bennett-Guerrero, Elliott; Kent, Michael L; Feldman, Liane S; Fiore, Julio F; Perioperative Quality Initiative (POQI) 2 Workgroup
    The primary driver of length of stay after bowel surgery, particularly colorectal surgery, is the time to return of gastrointestinal (GI) function. Traditionally, delayed GI recovery was thought to be a routine and unavoidable consequence of surgery, but this has been shown to be false in the modern era owing to the proliferation of enhanced recovery protocols. However, impaired GI function is still common after colorectal surgery, and the current literature is ambiguous with regard to the definition of postoperative GI dysfunction (POGD), or what is typically referred to as ileus. This persistent ambiguity has impeded the ability to ascertain the true incidence of the condition and study it properly within a research setting. Furthermore, a rational and standardized approach to prevention and treatment of POGD is needed. The second Perioperative Quality Initiative brought together a group of international experts to review the published literature and provide consensus recommendations on this important topic with the goal to (1) develop a rational definition for POGD that can serve as a framework for clinical and research efforts; (2) critically review the evidence behind current prevention strategies and provide consensus recommendations; and (3) develop rational treatment strategies that take into account the wide spectrum of impaired GI function in the postoperative period.
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    SAGES perspective: professional medical associations, commercial interests, and conflicts of interest.
    (Surgical endoscopy, 2023-04) Shadduck, Phillip; Sylla, Patricia; Schwarz, Erin; Reinke, Caroline; Denk, Peter; Ginsberg, Shelley; Asbun, Horacio; Pryor, Aurora

    Background

    Professional medical associations (PMAs) have an essential role in advancing medical care and health. PMAs promote skills training, clinical standards, and other important educational activities. Most often, PMAs are not-for-profit entities that rely upon funding from industry to help cover the costs of these valuable activities. Equally important, innovation and progress in surgery require physician collaboration with industry throughout the product development process. SAGES has opined that, with appropriate Conflict of Interest (COI) disclosure and management processes, PMA educational activities can be both scientifically and ethically sound.

    Methods

    SAGES has developed and implemented comprehensive and stringent processes for managing potential COI within the organization, at the annual meeting, and in developing educational offerings. This document reviews the SAGES COI processes and results 2009-2021.

    Results

    Implementation of the SAGES COI disclosure and management processes reduced the reported perceived incidence of bias at the annual meeting from 4.4-6.2% (2008-2010) to 1.2-2.2% (2011-2013). Recent comparison of reported disclosures revealed a rise in number of speakers with financial relationships and an increase in reporting of disclosures in presentations without an associated increase in need for conflict resolution by the COI committee. Despite good overall adherence to COI policies, SAGES was recently cited for non-compliance with ACCME standards related to inclusion of faculty with ownership interest. This experience highlighted the potential for discordance in the interpretation of whether disclosures relate to specific CME content. SAGES COI processes have since been updated to reflect the more stringent 2020 ACCME Standards that exclude speakers and planners with ownership interest from any CME activity.

    Conclusions

    The SAGES experience with disclosure and mitigation of financial relationships highlights the challenges of validating the accuracy of physician disclosures and establishing the relevance of financial relationships to the content of accredited educational activities. SAGES will continue to streamline its COI disclosure process with specific focus on aligning all financial disclosures among the various reporting platforms.