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.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine casemix adjusted hospital level utilization of minimally invasive surgery for four common surgical procedures (appendectomy, colectomy, total abdominal hysterectomy, and lung lobectomy) in the United States.
    BMJ Clinical Research 07/2014; 349:g4198. · 14.09 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction The competition for Core Surgical Training (CST) positions and subsequent Surgical Specialty Training (ST3) posts throughout the UK is fierce. Our aim was to conduct a pilot study to assess whether current foundation year doctors were considering pursuing a career in surgery and the reasons guiding their decisions. Methods A ten-item questionnaire was voluntarily completed by foundation doctors at a large acute teaching trust. Factors evaluated included: experience working within a surgical rotation; previous consideration of a career in surgery; whether they found a career in surgery appealing; reasons guiding their decision and would they be applying to CST. Results All 67 foundation doctors approached agreed to participate: of which 56 (83.6%) had experience working within a surgical rotation. Males were significantly more likely to find a career in surgery appealing (p < 0.001). Although 20 (29.9%) had previously considered a surgical career, only 11 (16.4%) would be applying to CST. Reasons for finding a career in surgery appealing included: job satisfaction (84.2%), diversity of work (79.0%) and working environment/colleagues (47.4%). Of those that did not consider a career in surgery to be appealing, reasons included: working hours (75.0%), work/life balance (62.5%), working environment/colleagues (50%). Discussion and conclusion Although only a small proportion of current foundation doctors were surveyed in our study, only 16.4% were considering applying for CST. These figures are lower than previously suggested and would indicate that there will be fewer applicants for CST in future years, which may potentially reduce the current bottleneck of applicants at ST3.
    Annals of Medicine and Surgery. 03/2014; 3(1):13–17.
  • [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. · 2.50 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
Jun 6, 2014