Background

Optimizing the surgeon-nurse relationship to improve interprofessional communication is increasingly recognized as an essential component of patient care. The increasing number of women surgeons has altered the surgeon-nurse dynamic, which has traditionally been a male-female relationship. In particular, this shift has raised the issue of whether implicit perceptions regarding gender and demeanor influence the interactions between surgeons and nurses. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to understand nurses' implicit perceptions of surgeons, with a particular focus on gender and gender-normative demeanor. We defined two types of demeanor: communal, which is classically associated with women and includes being supportive and nurturing, and agentic, which is a male-associated trait that includes being direct and assertive.

Methods

We administered surveys to 1701 nurses at the main campus of our institution. Each survey had one of eight possible scenarios; all began with a short description of a surgeon who was described as accomplished and well-trained, then varied by surgeon gender (male/female), surgeon demeanor (agentic/communal) and type of surgery (breast cancer/lung cancer). Using a 0 to 5 scale, respondents rated their perception of the surgeon through five questions. These five items were averaged to create a composite perception score scaled from 0 to 5.

Results

We received 493 surveys. The overall average perception score was 3.8±0.99. Respondents had a statistically significant preference for the communal surgeon (4.1±0.91) versus the agentic surgeon (3.6±1.0, p<0.001). There were no significant main effects of surgeon gender or surgery type.

Conclusion

Nurses demonstrated a significant preference for communal surgeons, regardless of surgeon gender.

Objective

During the COVID-19 pandemic, quaternary-care facilities continue to provide care for patients in need of urgent and emergent invasive procedures. Perioperative protocols are needed to streamline care for these patients notwithstanding capacity and resource constraints.

Methods

A multidisciplinary panel was assembled at the University of California, San Francisco, with 26 leaders across 10 academic departments, including 7 department chairpersons, the chief medical officer, the chief operating officer, infection control officers, nursing leaders, and resident house staff champions. An epidemiologist, an ethicist, and a statistician were also consulted. A modified two-round, blinded Delphi method based on 18 agree/disagree statements was used to build consensus. Significant disagreement for each statement was tested using a one-sided exact binomial test against an expected outcome of 95% consensus using a significance threshold of p < 0.05. Final triage protocols were developed with unblinded group-level discussion.

Results

Overall, 15 of 18 statements achieved consensus in the first round of the Delphi method; the 3 statements with significant disagreement (p < 0.01) were modified and iteratively resubmitted to the expert panel to achieve consensus. Consensus-based protocols were developed using unblinded multidisciplinary panel discussions. The final algorithms 1) quantified outbreak level, 2) triaged patients based on acuity, 3) provided a checklist for urgent/emergent invasive procedures, and 4) created a novel scoring system for the allocation of personal protective equipment. In particular, the authors modified the American College of Surgeons three-tiered triage system to incorporate more urgent cases, as are often encountered in neurosurgery and spine surgery.

Conclusions

Urgent and emergent invasive procedures need to be performed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The consensus-based protocols in this study may assist healthcare providers to optimize perioperative care during the pandemic.