ArticleSurgical endoscopy2018
Barriers to implementation of the FUSE program.
Article in Surgical endoscopy, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- It's better to be lucky.Surgical endoscopy · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) developed The Fundamental Use of Surgical Energy (FUSE) Program to promote safe use of energy devices in the operating room and endoscopy suite. Utilization of the program has been slower than anticipated. This study aims to determine the barriers to implementing FUSE.
methodsAn anonymous survey was distributed to a surgery department at an academic teaching hospital (n = 256). Participants indicated their level of training. Answers were measured using a 5-point Likert scale.
resultsThere were 94 (36.7%) respondents to the survey from September 7 to 20, 2016. Fifteen surveys were incomplete, leaving 79 responses for analysis. Most respondents were at the faculty level (45/79, 57.0%). The majority had heard of FUSE (62/79, 78.5%), but only 19 had completed the certification (19/62, 32.3%). There was no difference in the completion rate between faculty and trainees (26.7 vs. 20.6%, OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.49-4.06, p = 0.53). The most common reasons for not taking the exam were lack of time to study (26/43, 60.5%) and lack of time to take the exam (28/43, 62.1%); however, cost was not a barrier (12/43, 27.9%). The majority identified a personal learning gap regarding the safe use of surgical energy (30/43, 69.7%). Of the 19 FUSE-certified respondents, reasons cited for completing the exam included wanting to prevent adverse events to patients and in the operating room (17/19, 89.5% and 17/19, 89.5%), and the belief that the course would make them a safer surgeon (16/19, 84.2%).
conclusionsFUSE teaches the proper use of radiofrequency energy, how to prevent unnecessary injury, and promotes safe practice. Close to three out of every four surgeons self-identified a personal knowledge gap regarding the safe use of surgical energy. Time restraints were cited most commonly as the barrier to starting and completing FUSE. Integrating the FUSE program into resident educational conferences, faculty grand rounds, or national conferences may help improve participation and drive adoption of FUSE certification.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.