• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

评估外科医生对癌症手术肿瘤委员会手术标准的熟悉程度。

Assessing Surgeon Familiarity with the Commission on Cancer Operative Standards for Cancer Surgery.

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.

Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.

出版信息

Ann Surg Oncol. 2024 Oct;31(10):6378-6386. doi: 10.1245/s10434-024-15624-y. Epub 2024 Aug 1.

DOI:10.1245/s10434-024-15624-y
PMID:39090487
Abstract

BACKGROUND

In response to growing evidence that proper performance of operative techniques during cancer surgery is associated with improved patient outcomes, the American College of Surgeons (ACS) implemented six operative standards as part of Commission on Cancer (CoC) accreditation. This study aimed to assess surgeon familiarity with these standards when first introduced and 2 years after their adoption.

METHODS

The ACS Cancer Surgery Standards Program distributed an anonymous 36-question survey to CoC-accredited cancer programs in 2021 and 2023. Questions specific to operative techniques determined the Surgery Score, and those specific to the accreditation standards determined the Standards Score. Mean scores were compared using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and t tests.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 376 surgeons in 2021 and 380 surgeons in 2023. The Surgery Scores were higher than the Standards Scores in 2021 and 2023. The surgeons who practiced at institutions with CoC accreditation had significantly higher Standards Scores than the surgeons at non-accredited institutions in 2021 (p = 0.005) and 2023 (p = 0.004), but not significantly different Surgery Scores.

CONCLUSIONS

The baseline survey in 2021 demonstrated significant knowledge of technical aspects of cancer surgery among a broad surgeon base, but a need for greater understanding of the accreditation standards. The repeat survey distribution 2 years after rollout of the operative standards and associated educational programing showed increased awareness surrounding the operative standards in 2023 and a trend toward improvement in knowledge of the accreditation standards across all specialties. Further evaluation will be directed toward compliance with the accreditation standards.

摘要

背景

越来越多的证据表明,在癌症手术中正确执行手术技术与改善患者预后有关,因此美国外科医师学院(ACS)将六项手术标准作为癌症委员会(CoC)认证的一部分。本研究旨在评估外科医生在首次引入这些标准以及采用这些标准两年后对这些标准的熟悉程度。

方法

ACS 癌症手术标准计划于 2021 年和 2023 年向 CoC 认证的癌症项目分发了一份匿名的 36 个问题调查。用于确定手术评分的问题是特定于手术技术的,用于确定标准评分的问题是特定于认证标准的。使用单因素方差分析(ANOVA)和 t 检验比较平均分数。

结果

2021 年有 376 名外科医生完成了调查,2023 年有 380 名外科医生完成了调查。2021 年和 2023 年,手术评分均高于标准评分。在 2021 年(p = 0.005)和 2023 年(p = 0.004),与未获得认证的机构相比,在 CoC 认证机构执业的外科医生的标准评分显著更高,但手术评分没有显著差异。

结论

2021 年的基线调查显示,在广泛的外科医生基础上,对癌症手术的技术方面有了显著的了解,但需要进一步了解认证标准。在实施手术标准和相关教育项目两年后进行的重复调查显示,2023 年对手术标准的认识有所提高,所有专业对认证标准的认识都有所提高。进一步的评估将针对对认证标准的遵守情况。

相似文献

1
Assessing Surgeon Familiarity with the Commission on Cancer Operative Standards for Cancer Surgery.评估外科医生对癌症手术肿瘤委员会手术标准的熟悉程度。
Ann Surg Oncol. 2024 Oct;31(10):6378-6386. doi: 10.1245/s10434-024-15624-y. Epub 2024 Aug 1.
2
Do Better Operative Reports Equal Better Surgery? A Comparative Evaluation of Compliance With Operative Standards for Cancer Surgery.手术报告做得更好是否等于手术做得更好?癌症手术操作标准依从性的比较评估。
Am Surg. 2020 Oct;86(10):1281-1288. doi: 10.1177/0003134820964225. Epub 2020 Oct 30.
3
Factors Influencing Implementation of the Commission on Cancer's Breast Synoptic Operative Report (Alliance A20_Pilot9).影响癌症委员会乳腺概要手术报告实施的因素(联盟A20_Pilot9)
Ann Surg Oncol. 2024 Sep;31(9):5888-5895. doi: 10.1245/s10434-024-15515-2. Epub 2024 Jun 11.
4
Cancer Survivorship Care in the United States at Facilities Accredited by the Commission on Cancer.美国癌症委员会认证的医疗机构中的癌症生存护理。
JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Jul 1;7(7):e2418736. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.18736.
5
The role of the American College of Surgeons' cancer program accreditation in influencing oncologic outcomes.美国外科医师学院癌症项目认证在影响肿瘤学结果中的作用。
J Surg Oncol. 2014 Oct;110(5):611-5. doi: 10.1002/jso.23680. Epub 2014 Jul 8.
6
Technical Standards for Cancer Surgery: Commission on Cancer Standards 5.3-5.8.癌症手术技术标准:肿瘤委员会标准 5.3-5.8。
Ann Surg Oncol. 2022 Oct;29(11):6549-6558. doi: 10.1245/s10434-022-11375-w. Epub 2022 Feb 20.
7
Accreditation as a qualified surgeon improves surgical outcomes in laparoscopic distal gastrectomy.认证为合格的外科医生可改善腹腔镜远端胃切除术的手术效果。
Surg Today. 2021 Dec;51(12):1978-1984. doi: 10.1007/s00595-021-02309-2. Epub 2021 May 29.
8
Lessons learned from the metabolic and bariatric surgery accreditation and quality improvement program site surveys: common deficiencies and corrective actions.从代谢与减重手术认证及质量改进项目现场调查中吸取的经验教训:常见缺陷及纠正措施。
Surg Obes Relat Dis. 2024 Feb;20(2):154-159. doi: 10.1016/j.soard.2023.08.017. Epub 2023 Sep 4.
9
Simulation center best practices: A review of ACS-accredited educational institutes' best practices, 2011 to present.模拟中心最佳实践:对 2011 年至今获得 ACS 认证的教育机构最佳实践的回顾。
Surgery. 2018 Apr;163(4):916-920. doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2017.11.004. Epub 2017 Dec 19.
10
Impact of Breast Center Accreditation on Compliance with Breast Quality Performance Measures at Commission on Cancer-Accredited Centers.乳腺中心认证对肿瘤委员会认证中心乳腺质量绩效指标合规性的影响。
Ann Surg Oncol. 2019 May;26(5):1202-1211. doi: 10.1245/s10434-018-07108-7. Epub 2019 Jan 25.

引用本文的文献

1
Importance of social ties in dissemination of Commission on Cancer's synoptic operative report.社会关系在癌症委员会概要手术报告传播中的重要性。
Surg Open Sci. 2025 May 14;26:61-63. doi: 10.1016/j.sopen.2025.05.004. eCollection 2025 Jun.
2
Early Compliance with Commission on Cancer Operative Standards for Breast Cancer Surgery.早期遵循癌症委员会乳腺癌手术操作标准
Ann Surg Oncol. 2025 Feb;32(2):944-951. doi: 10.1245/s10434-024-16477-1. Epub 2024 Nov 10.

本文引用的文献

1
ASO Author Reflections: The Commission on Cancer's Role in Quality Procedures that Govern the National Cancer Database.美国外科医师学会作者反思:癌症委员会在管理国家癌症数据库的质量程序中的作用。
Ann Surg Oncol. 2024 Sep;31(9):5585-5586. doi: 10.1245/s10434-024-15465-9. Epub 2024 May 16.
2
Technical Standards for Cancer Surgery: Commission on Cancer Standards 5.3-5.8.癌症手术技术标准:肿瘤委员会标准 5.3-5.8。
Ann Surg Oncol. 2022 Oct;29(11):6549-6558. doi: 10.1245/s10434-022-11375-w. Epub 2022 Feb 20.
3
Adherence with operative standards in the treatment of gastric cancer in the United States.
美国胃癌治疗中手术标准的遵循情况。
Gastric Cancer. 2020 May;23(3):550-560. doi: 10.1007/s10120-019-01028-5. Epub 2019 Nov 19.
4
Adherence to surgical and oncologic standards improves survival in breast cancer patients.坚持外科手术和肿瘤学标准可提高乳腺癌患者的生存率。
J Surg Oncol. 2019 Aug;120(2):148-159. doi: 10.1002/jso.25506. Epub 2019 Jun 6.
5
Prognostic Value of National Comprehensive Cancer Network Lung Cancer Resection Quality Criteria.美国国立综合癌症网络肺癌切除质量标准的预后价值
Ann Thorac Surg. 2017 May;103(5):1557-1565. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2017.01.098. Epub 2017 Mar 31.
6
Delivering High-Quality Cancer Care: The Critical Role of Quality Measurement.提供高质量癌症护理:质量测量的关键作用。
Healthc (Amst). 2014 Mar 1;2(1):53-62. doi: 10.1016/j.hjdsi.2013.11.003.
7
Implementation Science six years on--our evolving scope and common reasons for rejection without review.实施科学六年--我们不断发展的范围和常见的无评审拒绝原因。
Implement Sci. 2012 Jul 27;7:71. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-71.
8
Diffusion theory and knowledge dissemination, utilization, and integration in public health.扩散理论与公共卫生领域的知识传播、利用及整合
Annu Rev Public Health. 2009;30:151-74. doi: 10.1146/annurev.publhealth.031308.100049.
9
An implementation research agenda.实施研究议程。
Implement Sci. 2009 Apr 7;4:18. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-4-18.
10
Improving the fit between research and practice in health promotion: overcoming structural barriers.改善健康促进研究与实践之间的契合度:克服结构性障碍。
Can J Public Health. 1996 Nov-Dec;87 Suppl 2:S18-23.