RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Stigma surrounds parental leave during general surgery residency, yet 25% to 29% of general surgery residents have children. Parental leave experiences of non-childbearing general surgery resident parents have not been described. This study aimed to describe the non-childbearing population's parental leave experiences. METHODS: Using a purposive sampling strategy, semi-structured interviews (n = 20) were conducted via Zoom (August 2021-March 2022) with current general surgery residents or fellows who had at least 1 child during residency as the non-childbearing parent. Interviews explored participants' experiences with parental leave policies, timing, structure, motivations/influences for taking leave, career/training impacts, and reflections on their experiences. Transcripts were analyzed using thematic content analysis. Participant demographics were analyzed using univariate analysis. RESULTS: Of the 20 participants, there were 31 unique parental leave experiences. The following 6 themes were identified from interviews: program/professional policies, cultural climate, support (institutional and social), parental leave experiences, impact, and recommendations. Participants cited needing to rely on informal support (eg, the assistance of other residents) to arrange leave and feeling compelled not to take the full time allowed in order to not burden co-residents or because others took less time. Overall, participants felt dissatisfied with their parental leave experiences. CONCLUSION: Non-childbearing general surgery resident parents underuse parental leave due to perceived or actual lack of access to leave and stigma. This results in dissatisfaction with their parental leave experiences and has the potential to lead to negative professional and personal outcomes. There is a critical need for improved support through cultural change and policy revision, implementation, and adherence.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Routine preoperative laboratory testing is not recommended for American Society of Anesthesiologists classification 1 or 2 patients before low-risk ambulatory surgery. METHODS: The 2017 National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data set was retrospectively queried for American Society of Anesthesiologists class 1 and 2 patients who underwent low-risk, elective outpatient anorectal, breast, endocrine, gynecologic, hernia, otolaryngology, oral-maxillofacial, orthopedic, plastic/reconstructive, urologic, and vascular operations. Preoperative laboratory testing was defined as any chemistry, hematology, coagulation, or liver function studies obtained ≤30 days preoperatively. Demographics, comorbidities, and outcomes were compared between those with and without testing. The numbers needed to test to prevent serious morbidity or any complication were calculated. Laboratory testing costs were estimated using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services data. RESULTS: Of 111,589 patients studied, 57,590 (51.6%) received preoperative laboratory testing; 26,709 (46.4%) had at least 1 abnormal result. Factors associated with receiving preoperative laboratory testing included increasing age, female sex, non-White race/ethnicity, American Society of Anesthesiologists class 2, diabetes, dyspnea, hypertension, obesity, and steroid use. Mortality did not differ between patients with and without testing. The complication rate was 2.5% among tested patients and 1.7% among patients without tests (P < .01). The numbers needed to test was 599 for serious morbidity and 133 for any complication. An estimated $373 million annually is spent on preoperative laboratory testing in this population. CONCLUSION: Despite American Society of Anesthesiologists guidelines, a majority of American Society of Anesthesiologists class 1 and 2 patients undergo preoperative laboratory testing before elective low-risk outpatient surgery. The differences in the rates of complications between patients with and without testing is low. Preoperative testing should be used more judiciously in this population, which may lead to cost savings.