Background: There is limited research on how patients prefer physicians to communicate about the topic of obesity, and there is even less understanding of which terms physicians most commonly use.Methods: In this cross-sectional, nonrandom sampling study, patients who were seeking treatment for weight loss rated the desirability of 12 terms to describe excess weight, and physicians rated the likelihood with which they would use those terms during clinical encounters. Participants rated terms on a 5-point scale, with ؊2 representing "very undesirable" or "definitely would not use" and ؉2 representing "very desirable" or "definitely would use."Results: Patients (n ‫؍‬ 143; mean age, 46.8 years; mean body mass index, 36.9 kg/m 2 ) rated "weight" (mean ؎ SD) as the most desirable term (1.13 ؎ 1.10), although it did not significantly differ from 5 other terms provided. They rated "fatness" (؊1.30 ؎ 1.22) as the most undesirable term, although this rating did not differ significantly from 4 other terms. Physicians affiliated with a community-based medical school (n ‫؍‬ 108; mean age, 48.8 years; 79.6% primary care specialty) were most likely to use "weight" (1.42 ؎ 0.89), which was significantly different from ratings for all other terms. They were least likely to use "fatness" (؊1.74 ؎ 0.59), although this rating did not differ significantly from 3 other terms.Conclusion: Physicians generally reported that they use terminology that patients had rated more favorably, and they tend to avoid terms that patients may find undesirable. Understanding the preferences and terminology used by patients and physicians is an important initial step to ensure that communications related to obesity and weight loss are efficient and effective. The provision of weight loss counseling by physicians in primary care settings offers a potentially effective approach to combating the problem of overweight and obesity.1-4 However, physicians often neglect broaching the topics of obesity and weight loss during primary care encounters. 3,[5][6][7][8] Barriers that may hinder physicians' provision of weight-loss counseling include time constraints, lack of reimbursement, and perceptions that treatment will be ineffective. In addition, physicians may feel ill-equipped to address these issues. 5,9 -12 Despite these barriers, overweight and obese patients may desire greater involvement of their primary care physician in weight-loss counseling and treatment efforts. 6,7 Until recently, however, few studies have examined how patients would prefer their physicians to discuss the topic of obesity. In one study, obese patients rated the term "weight" as significantly more desirable than a variety of terms physicians could use to describe excess weight; they rated "obesity," "excess fat," and "fatness" as the most undesirable terms physicians could use. 13 The parents of pediatric patients overwhelmingly preferred that physicians use the phrase "gaining too much weight" as compared with other options, including "overweight," when discussing their chi...

Background A variety of physician and patient characteristics may influence whether weight loss counseling occurs in primary care encounters. Objectives This study utilized a cross-sectional survey of primary care patients, which examined patient characteristics, physician characteristics, and characteristics of the physician-patient relationship associated with weight loss counseling and recommendations provided by physicians. Participants Participants (N=143, mean age=46.8 years, mean BMI=36.9 kg/m2, 65% Caucasian) were overweight and obese primary care patients participating in a managed care weight loss program. Measures Participants completed self-report surveys in the clinic prior to the initial weight loss session. Surveys included items assessing demographic/background characteristics, weight, height, and a health care questionnaire evaluating whether their physician had recommended weight loss, the frequency of their physicians’ weight loss counseling, and whether their physician had referred them for obesity treatment. Results Patient BMI and physician sex were most consistently associated with physicians’ weight loss counseling practices. Patients seen by female physicians were more likely to be told that they should lose weight, received more frequent obesity counseling, and were more likely to have been referred for obesity treatment by their physician. Length and frequency of physician-patient contacts were unrelated to the likelihood of counseling. Conclusions These findings add to previous evidence suggesting possible differences in the weight loss counseling practices of male and female physicians, although further research is needed to understand this potential difference between physicians.

No abstract

Background Ileus is common after elective colorectal surgery, and is associated with increased adverse events and prolonged hospital stay. The aim was to assess the role of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for reducing ileus after surgery. Methods A prospective multicentre cohort study was delivered by an international, student‐ and trainee‐led collaborative group. Adult patients undergoing elective colorectal resection between January and April 2018 were included. The primary outcome was time to gastrointestinal recovery, measured using a composite measure of bowel function and tolerance to oral intake. The impact of NSAIDs was explored using Cox regression analyses, including the results of a centre‐specific survey of compliance to enhanced recovery principles. Secondary safety outcomes included anastomotic leak rate and acute kidney injury. Results A total of 4164 patients were included, with a median age of 68 (i.q.r. 57–75) years (54·9 per cent men). Some 1153 (27·7 per cent) received NSAIDs on postoperative days 1–3, of whom 1061 (92·0 per cent) received non‐selective cyclo‐oxygenase inhibitors. After adjustment for baseline differences, the mean time to gastrointestinal recovery did not differ significantly between patients who received NSAIDs and those who did not (4·6 versus 4·8 days; hazard ratio 1·04, 95 per cent c.i. 0·96 to 1·12; P = 0·360). There were no significant differences in anastomotic leak rate (5·4 versus 4·6 per cent; P = 0·349) or acute kidney injury (14·3 versus 13·8 per cent; P = 0·666) between the groups. Significantly fewer patients receiving NSAIDs required strong opioid analgesia (35·3 versus 56·7 per cent; P < 0·001). Conclusion NSAIDs did not reduce the time for gastrointestinal recovery after colorectal surgery, but they were safe and associated with reduced postoperative opioid requirement.

No abstract

Background Medical school assessments, clinical placements and teaching have been disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic. The ADAPT consortium was formed to document and analyse the effects of the pandemic on medical education in the United Kingdom (UK), with the aim of capturing current and future snapshots of disruption to inform trends in the future performance of cohorts graduating during COVID-19. Methods Members of the consortium were recruited from various national medical student groups to ensure representation from medical schools across the UK. The groups involved were: Faculty of Medical Leadership and Management Medical Students Group (FMLM MSG); Neurology and Neurosurgery Interest Group (NANSIG); Doctors Association UK (DAUK); Royal Society of Medicine (RSM) Student Members Group and Medical Student Investigators Collaborative (MSICo.org). In total, 29 medical schools are represented by the consortium. Our members reported teaching postponement, examination status, alternative teaching provision, elective status and UK Foundation Programme Office (UKFPO) educational performance measure (EPM) ranking criteria relevant to their medical school during a data collection window (1st April 14:00 to 2nd April 23:59). Results All 29 medical schools began postponement of teaching between the 11th and 17th of March 2020. Changes to assessments were highly variable. Final year examinations had largely been completed before the onset of COVID-19. Of 226 exam sittings between Year 1 and Year 4 across 29 schools: 93 (41%) were cancelled completely; 14 (6%) had elements cancelled; 57 (25%) moved their exam sitting online. 23 exam sittings (10%) were postponed to a future date. 36% of cohorts with cancelled exams and 74% of cohorts with online exams were granted automatic progression to the next academic year. There exist 19 cohorts at 9 medical schools where all examinations (written and practical) were initially cancelled and automatic progression was granted. Conclusions The approaches taken by medical schools have differed substantially, though there has been universal disruption to teaching and assessments. The data presented in this study represent initial responses, which are likely to evolve over time. In particular, the status of future elective cancellations and UK Foundation Programme Office (UKFPO) educational performance measure (EPM) decile calculations remains unclear. The long-term implications of the heterogeneous disruption to medical education remains an area of active research. Differences in specialty recruitment and performance on future postgraduate examinations may be affected and will be a focus of future phases of the ADAPT Study.

Objective. Motor imagery (MI) is widely used to improve technical skills in sports and has been proven to be effective in neurorehabilitation and surgical education. This review aims to identify the key characteristics of MI protocols for implementation into surgical curricula. Design. This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO databases were systematically searched. The primary outcome was the impact of MI training on measured outcomes, and secondary outcomes were study population, MI intervention characteristics, study primary outcome measure and subject rating of MI ability (systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42019121895). Results. 456 records were screened, 60 full texts randomising 2251 participants were reviewed and 39 studies were included in meta-analysis. MI was associated with improved outcome in 35/60 studies, and pooled analysis also showed improved outcome on all studies with a standardised mean difference of .39 (95% CI: .12, .67, P = .005). In studies where MI groups showed improved outcomes, the median duration of training was 24 days (mode 42 days), and the median duration of each individual MI session was 30 minutes (range <1 minute-120 minutes). Conclusions. MI training protocols for use in surgical education could have the following characteristics: MI training delivered in parallel to existing surgical training, in a flexible format; inclusion of a brief period of relaxation, followed by several sets of repetitions of MI and a refocusing period. This is a step towards the development of a surgical MI training programme, as a low-cost, low-risk tool to enhance practical skills.

Ali Serdar Gözen, et al.; Robot-assisted vasovasostomy and vasoepididymostomy: Current status and review of the literature.