Characterizing the general surgery workforce in rural America.

Department of Family Medicine, Washington, Wyoming, Alaska, Montana, Idaho Rural Health Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle 98195-8280, USA.
Archives of Surgery (Impact Factor: 4.3). 02/2005; 140(1):74-9. DOI: 10.1001/archsurg.140.1.74
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT General surgeons form a crucial component of the medical workforce in rural areas of the United States. Any decline in their numbers could have profound effects on access to adequate health care in such areas.
We hypothesize that the rural areas of the United States are relatively undersupplied with general surgeons.
The American Medical Association's Physician Masterfile was used to identify all clinically active general surgeons as well as their locations and characteristics. Their geographic distribution was examined using the ZIP code version of the Rural-Urban Commuting Areas. Surgeons were classified as practicing in urban areas, large rural areas, or small/isolated rural areas.
There are currently 17 243 general surgeons practicing in the United States. Nationally, the number of general surgeons per population of 100 000 varies from 6.53 in urban areas to 7.71 in large rural areas and 4.67 in small/isolated rural areas. Only 10.6% of the nation's general surgeons are female. Wide variations in numbers of general surgeons were found between and within individual states. General surgeons in the smallest rural areas are more likely than those in urban areas to be male (92.7% vs 88.3%, P<.001), 50 years of age or older (51.6% vs 42.1%, P<.001), or international medical graduates (25.2% vs 20.1%, P<.001).
The overall size of the rural general surgical workforce has remained static over the last decade, but its demographic characteristics suggest that numbers will decline. Many rural residents have limited access to surgical services. Steps to reverse this trend are needed to preserve the viability of health care in many parts of rural America.


Available from: Pantipa Tachawachira, Jun 11, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Specialty procedures constitute one eighth of rural surgery practice. Currently, general surgeons intending to practice in rural hospitals may not get adequate training for specialty procedures, which they will be expected to perform. Better definition of these procedures will help guide rural surgery training. METHODS: Current Procedural Terminology codes for all surgical procedures for 81% of North Dakota and South Dakota rural surgeons were entered into the Dakota Database for Rural Surgery. Specialty procedures were analyzed and compared with the Surgical Council on Resident Education curriculum to determine whether general surgery training is adequate preparation for rural surgery practice. RESULTS: The Dakota Database for Rural Surgery included 46,052 procedures, of which 5,666 (12.3%) were specialty procedures. Highest volume specialty categories included vascular, obstetrics and gynecology, orthopedics, cardiothoracic, urology, and otolaryngology. Common procedures in cardiothoracic and vascular surgery are taught in general surgical residency, while common procedures in obstetrics and gynecology, orthopedics, urology, and otolaryngology are usually not taught in general surgery training. CONCLUSIONS: Optimal training for rural surgery practice should include experience in specialty procedures in obstetrics and gynecology, orthopedics, urology, and otolaryngology.
    American journal of surgery 09/2012; 204(6). DOI:10.1016/j.amjsurg.2012.05.023 · 2.41 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A defining quality of professionalism is commitment to a core set of values, regardless of divergent external pressures. The external forces affecting surgical training and practice have grown in recent years. Fortunately, the values and professional commitments of surgeons have not necessarily been in conflict with these outside demands. However, over the past century, the profession has morphed in such a way as to be able to better respond to these pressures, and in turn, the training pathways have changed as well. It is unclear whether this metamorphosis will have a positive or negative effect in the long term, but it clearly will have an impact on issues that affect surgical training, including finance and health care policy, workforce shortages, work-hour restrictions, informed consent, and attending supervision in the operating room (OR).
    Bulletin of the American College of Surgeons 08/2013; 98(8):17-25.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To date, no studies have reported nationwide adoption of acute care surgery (ACS) or identified structural and/or process variations for the care of emergency general surgery (EGS) patients within such models. We surveyed surgeons responsible for EGS coverage at University Health Systems Consortium hospitals using an eight-page postal/e-mail questionnaire querying respondents on hospital and EGS structure/process measures. Survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, univariate comparisons, and multivariable regression models. Of 319 potential respondents, 258 (81%) completed the surveys. A total of 81 hospitals (31%) had implemented ACS, while 134 (52%) had a traditional general surgeon on-call (GSOC) model. Thirty-eight hospitals (15%) had another model (hybrid). Larger-bed, university-based, teaching hospitals with Level 1 trauma center verification status located in urban areas were more likely to have adopted ACS. In multivariable modeling, hospital type, setting, and trauma center verification predicted ACS implementation. EGS processes of care varied, with 28% of the GSOC hospitals having block time versus 67% of the ACS hospitals (p < 0.0001), 45% of the GSOC hospitals providing ICU [intensive care unit] care to EGS patients in a surgical/trauma ICU versus 93% of the ACS hospitals (p < 0.0001), 5.7 ± 3.2 surgeons sharing call at GSOC hospitals versus 7.9 ± 2.3 surgeons at ACS hospitals (p < 0.0001), and 13% of the GSOC hospitals requiring in-house EGS call versus 75% of the ACS hospitals (p < 0.0001). Among ACS hospitals, there were variations in patient cohorting (EGS patients alone, 25%; EGS + trauma, 21%; EGS + elective, 17%; and EGS + trauma + elective, 30%), data collection (26% had prospective EGS registries), patient hand-offs (56% had attending surgeon presence), and call responsibilities (averaging 4.8 ± 1.3 calls per month, with 60% providing extra call stipend and 40% with no postcall clinical duties). The potential of the ACS on the national crisis in access to EGS care is not fully met. Variations in EGS processes of care among adopters of ACS suggest that standardized criteria for ACS implementation, much like trauma center verification criteria, may be beneficial.
    Journal of Trauma and Acute Care Surgery 01/2015; 78(1):60-8. DOI:10.1097/TA.0000000000000492 · 1.97 Impact Factor