Multicentre positive deviance seminar to generate best practice recommendations to reduce anastomotic leak and length of stay for patients undergoing oesophagectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We describe a novel process using positive deviance (PD) with the Canadian Association of Thoracic Surgeons members, to identify perioperative best practice to minimise anastomotic leak (AL) and length of stay (LOS) following oesophagectomy. To our knowledge, this is the first National combination of level 1 evidence with expert opinion (ie, PD seminar) aimed at reducing AL and LOS in oesophageal surgery. Our primary hypothesis is that a multicentre National PD seminar is feasible, and could lead to the generation of best practices recommendations aimed at reducing AL and LOS in patients with oesophageal cancer. METHODS: Adverse events, LOS and AL incidence/severity following oesophagectomy were prospectively collected from seven Canadian thoracic institutions using Thoracic Morbidity and Mortality classification system (2017-2020). Anonymised display of centre's data were presented, with identification of centres demonstrating PD. Surgeons from PD sites discussed principles of care, culminating in the consensus recommendations, anonymously rated by all (5-point Likert scale). RESULTS: Data from 795 esophagectomies were included, with 25 surgeons participating. Two centres were identified as having the lowest AL rates 44/395 (11.1%) (vs five centres 71/400 (17.8%) (p<0.01)) and shortest LOS 8 days 45 (IQR: 6-14) (vs 10 days (IQR: 8-18) (p<0.001)). Recommendations included preoperative (prehabilitation, smoking cessation, chemotherapy for patients with dysphagia, minimise stents/feeding tubes), intraoperative (narrow gastric conduit, intrathoracic anastomosis, avoid routine jejunostomy, use small diameter closed-suction drains), postoperative day (POD) (early (POD 2-3) enteral feeding initiation, avoid routine barium swallow studies, early removal of tubes/drains (POD 2-3)). All ranked above 80% (4/5) in agreement to implement recommendations into their practice. CONCLUSION: We report the feasibility of a National multicentre PD seminar with the generation of best practice recommendations aimed at reducing AL and LOS following oesophagectomy. Further research is required to demonstrate whether National PD seminars can be an effective quality improvement tool.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".