Browsing by Author "Johnson, Julie K."

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Barriers and Facilitators to Implementing Patient-Reported Outcome Monitoring in Gastrointestinal Surgery
    (Elsevier, 2023) Iroz, Cassandra B.; Johnson, Julie K.; Ager, Meagan S.; Joung, Rachel Hae-Soo; Brajcich, Brian C.; Cella, David; Franklin, Patricia D.; Holl, Jane L.; Bilimoria, Karl Y.; Merkow, Ryan P.; Surgery, School of Medicine
    Introduction: More than 30% of patients experience complications after major gastrointestinal (GI) surgery, many of which occur after discharge when patients and families must assume responsibility for monitoring. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been proposed as a tool for remote monitoring to identify deviations in recovery, and recognize and manage complications earlier. This study's objective was to characterize barriers and facilitators to the use of PROs as a patient monitoring tool following GI surgery. Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with GI surgery patients and clinicians (surgeons, nurses, and advanced practitioners). Patients and clinicians were asked to describe their experience using a PRO monitoring system in three surgical oncology clinics. Using a phenomenological approach, research team dyads independently coded the transcripts using an inductively developed codebook and the constant comparative approach with differences reconciled by consensus. Results: Ten patients and five clinicians participated in the interviews. We identified four overarching themes related to functionality, workflow, meaningfulness, and actionability. Functionality refers to barriers faced by clinicians and patients in using the PRO technology. Workflow represents problematic integration of PROs into the clinical workflow and need for setting expectations with patients. Meaningfulness refers to lack of patient and clinician understanding of the impact of PROs on patient care. Finally, actionability reflects barriers to follow-up and practical use of PRO data. Conclusions: While use of PRO systems for postoperative patient monitoring have expanded, significant barriers persist for both patients and clinicians. Implementation enhancements are needed to optimize functionality, workflow, meaningfulness, and actionability.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Comparison of pain after prophylactic anticoagulant injections to prevent venous thromboembolism
    (Elsevier, 2024-06-18) Shyu, Margaret; Robinson, Tyler P.; Morgan, Allison M.; Johnson, Julie K.; Shan, Ying; Bilimoria, Karl Y.; Yang, Anthony D.; Surgery, School of Medicine
    Subcutaneous injection of unfractionated heparin (UH) or low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) is frequently utilized for venous thromboembolism chemoprophylaxis. We previously discovered that nurses believe patients experience more pain with UH compared to the LMWH enoxaparin; however, no published studies that are appropriately powered exist comparing pain associated with subcutaneous chemoprophylaxis. Our objective was to assess if differences exist in pain associated with subcutaneous administration of UH and enoxaparin. We conducted an observational study of patients who underwent major abdominal surgery between 11/2017–4/2019. All patients received one of three prophylactic regimens: (1) UH only, (2) Initial dose of UH followed by enoxaparin, or (3) enoxaparin only. Of the 74 patients observed, 40 patients received UH followed by enoxaparin, 17 received UH only, and 17 received enoxaparin only. There was a significant difference in patients' mean perceived pain between subcutaneous UH and enoxaparin injections (mean post-injection pain after UH 3.3 vs. enoxaparin 1.5; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in perceived pain for patients who received consecutive UH or enoxaparin injections. Differences in pain associated with different chemoprophylaxis agents may be an unrecognized driver of patient refusals of VTE chemoprophylaxis and may lead to worse VTE outcomes.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Development of the Illinois Surgical Quality Improvement Collaborative (ISQIC): Implementing 21 Components to Catalyze Statewide Improvement in Surgical Care
    (Wolters Kluwer, 2023) Bilimoria, Karl Y.; McGee, Michael F.; Williams, Mark V.; Johnson, Julie K.; Halverson, Amy L.; O'Leary, Kevin J.; Farrell, Paula; Thomas, Juliana; Love, Remi; Kreutzer, Lindsey; Dahlke, Allison R.; D'Orazio, Brianna; Reinhart, Steven; Dienes, Katelyn; Schumacher, Mark; Shan, Ying; Quinn, Christopher; Prachand, Vivek N.; Sullivan, Susan; Cradock, Kimberly A.; Boyd, Kelsi; Hopkinson, William; Fairman, Colleen; Odell, David; Stulberg, Jonah J.; Barnard, Cindy; Holl, Jane; Merkow, Ryan P.; Yang, Anthony D.; Surgery, School of Medicine
    Introduction: In 2014, 56 Illinois hospitals came together to form a unique learning collaborative, the Illinois Surgical Quality Improvement Collaborative (ISQIC). Our objectives are to provide an overview of the first three years of ISQIC focused on (1) how the collaborative was formed and funded, (2) the 21 strategies implemented to support quality improvement (QI), (3) collaborative sustainment, and (4) how the collaborative acts as a platform for innovative QI research. Methods: ISQIC includes 21 components to facilitate QI that target the hospital, the surgical QI team, and the peri-operative microsystem. The components were developed from available evidence, a detailed needs assessment of the hospitals, reviewing experiences from prior surgical and non-surgical QI Collaboratives, and interviews with QI experts. The components comprise 5 domains: guided implementation (e.g., mentors, coaches, statewide QI projects), education (e.g., process improvement (PI) curriculum), hospital- and surgeon-level comparative performance reports (e.g., process, outcomes, costs), networking (e.g., forums to share QI experiences and best practices), and funding (e.g., for the overall program, pilot grants, and bonus payments for improvement). Results: Through implementation of the 21 novel ISQIC components, hospitals were equipped to use their data to successfully implement QI initiatives and improve care. Formal (QI/PI) training, mentoring, and coaching were undertaken by the hospitals as they worked to implement solutions. Hospitals received funding for the program and were able to work together on statewide quality initiatives. Lessons learned at one hospital were shared with all participating hospitals through conferences, webinars, and toolkits to facilitate learning from each other with a common goal of making care better and safer for the surgical patient in Illinois. Over the first three years, surgical outcomes improved in Illinois. Discussion: The first three years of ISQIC improved care for surgical patients across Illinois and allowed hospitals to see the value of participating in a surgical QI learning collaborative without having to make the initial financial investment themselves. Given the strong support and buy-in from the hospitals, ISQIC has continued beyond the initial three years and continues to support QI across Illinois hospitals.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Evaluation of Emergency Department Treat-and-Release Encounters After Major Gastrointestinal Surgery
    (Wiley, 2023) Brajcich, Brian C.; Johnson, Julie K.; Holl, Jane L.; Bilimoria, Karl Y.; Shallcross, Meagan L.; Chung, Jeanette; Joung, Rachel Hae Soo; Iroz, Cassandra B.; Odell, David D.; Bentrem, David J.; Yang, Anthony D.; Franklin, Patricia D.; Slota, Jennifer M.; Silver, Casey M.; Skolarus, Ted; Merkow, Ryan P.; Surgery, School of Medicine
    Background and objectives: Emergency department (ED) utilization after gastrointestinal cancer operations is poorly characterized. Our study objectives were to determine the incidence of, reasons for, and predictors of ED treat-and-release encounters after gastrointestinal cancer operations. Methods: Patients who underwent elective esophageal, hepatobiliary, gastric, pancreatic, small intestinal, or colorectal operations for cancer were identified in the 2015-2017 Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project State Inpatient and State Emergency Department Databases for New York, Maryland, and Florida. The primary outcomes were the incidence of ED treat-and-release encounters and readmissions within 30 days of discharge. Results: Among 51 527 patients at 406 hospitals, 4047 (7.9%) had an ED treat-and-release encounter, and 5573 (10.8%) had an ED encounter with readmission. In total, 40.7% of ED encounters were treat-and-release encounters. ED treat-and-release encounters were most frequently for pain (12.0%), device/ostomy complaints (11.7%), or wound complaints (11.4%). ED treat-and-release encounters predictors included non-Hispanic Black race/ethnicity (odds ratio [OR] 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-1.37) and Medicare (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.16-1.40) or Medicaid (OR 1.82, 95% CI 1.62-2.40) coverage. Conclusions: ED treat-and-release encounters are common after major gastrointestinal operations, making up nearly half of postdischarge ED encounters. The reasons for ED treat-and-release encounters differ from those for ED encounters with readmissions.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Experiences With Unionization Among General Surgery Resident Physicians, Faculty, and Staff
    (American Medical Association, 2024-07-01) Foote, Darci C.; Rosenblatt, Audrey E.; Amortegui, Daniela; Diaz, Carmen M.; Brajcich, Brian C.; Schlick, Cary Jo R.; Bilimoria, Karl Y.; Hu, Yue-Yung; Johnson, Julie K.; Surgery, School of Medicine
    Importance: Labor unions are a mechanism for employee advocacy, but their role in surgery resident wellness is poorly characterized. Objective: To understand experiences with unionization among general surgery residents and residency program faculty and staff. Design, setting, and participants: This exploratory qualitative study included data from the Surgical Education Culture Optimization Through Targeted Interventions Based on National Comparative Data (SECOND) trial. In the exploratory phase of the SECOND trial (from March 6, 2019, to March 12, 2020), semistructured interviews about wellness were conducted with residents, faculty (attending physicians), and staff (program administrators) at 15 general surgery residency programs. Unionization was identified as an emergent theme in the interviews. Data analysis was performed from March 2019 to May 2023. Main outcomes and measures: The main outcome was resident and faculty experience with resident labor unions. In the qualitative analysis, lexical searches of interview transcripts identified content regarding resident labor unions. A codebook was developed inductively. Transcripts were coded by dyads, using a constant comparative approach, with differences reconciled by consensus. Results: A total of 22 interview transcripts were identified with relevant content. Of these, 19 were individual interviews conducted with residents (n = 10), faculty (n = 4), administrative staff (n = 1), a program director (n = 1), a department chair (n = 1), and designated institutional officials (n = 2), and 3 were from resident focus groups. Residents from all postgraduate year levels, including professional development (ie, research) years, were represented. Interviewees discussed resident unions at 2 programs (1 recently unionized and 1 with a decades-long history). Interviewees described the lack of voice and the lack of agency as drivers of unionization ("Residents…are trying to take control of their well-being"). Increased salary stipends and/or housing stipends were the most concretely identified union benefits. Unanticipated consequences of unionization were described by both residents and faculty, including (1) irrelevance of union-negotiated benefits to surgical residents, (2) paradoxical losses of surgery department-provided benefits, and (3) framing of resident-faculty relationships as adversarial. Union executives were noted to be nonphysician administrators whose participation in discussions about clinical education progression may increase the time and effort to remediate a resident and/or reduce educators' will to meaningfully intervene. Active surgical resident participation within the union allows for an understanding of surgical trainees' unique needs and reduced conflict. Conclusions and relevance: In this qualitative study, unionization was a mechanism for resident voice and agency; the desire to unionize likely highlighted the lack of other such mechanisms in the training environment. However, these findings suggest that unionization may have had unintended consequences on benefits, flexibility, and teaching. Effective advocacy, whether within or outside the context of a union, was facilitated by participation from surgical residents. Future research should expand on this exploratory study by including a greater number of institutions and investigating the evolution of themes over time.