Atul A. Gawande

Bio: Atul A. Gawande is an academic researcher from Brigham and Women's Hospital. The author has contributed to research in topics: Checklist & Population. The author has an hindex of 78, co-authored 281 publications receiving 33928 citations. Previous affiliations of Atul A. Gawande include University of Maryland, Baltimore & Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary.

Essential Surgery: Key Messages of This Volume

Abstract: Conditions that are treated primarily or frequently by surgery constitute a significant portion of the global burden of disease. In 2011, injuries killed nearly 5 million people; 270,000 women died from complications of pregnancy (WHO 2014). Many of these injury- and obstetric-related deaths, as well as deaths from other causes such as abdominal emergencies and congenital anomalies, could be prevented by improved access to surgical care.Despite this substantial burden, surgical services are not being delivered to many of those who need them most. An estimated 2 billion people lack access to even the most basic surgical care (Funk and others 2010). This need has not been widely acknowledged, and priorities for investing in health systems’ surgical capacities have only recently been investigated. Indeed, until the 1990s, health policy in resource-constrained settings focused sharply on infectious diseases and undernutrition, especially in children. Surgical capacity was developing in urban areas but was often viewed as a secondary priority that principally served those who were better off.In the 1990s, a number of studies began to question the perception that surgery was costly and low in effectiveness. Economic evaluations of cataract surgery found the procedure to be cost-effective, even under resource-constrained circumstances; Javitt pioneered cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) for surgery, including his chapter on cataract in Disease Control Priorities, first edition (DCP1) in 1993 (Javitt 1993). In 2003, McCord and Chowdhury enriched the approach to economic evaluation in surgery in a paper looking at the overall cost-effectiveness of a surgical platform in Bangladesh (McCord and Chowdhury 2003). By design, DCP2, published in 2006, placed much more emphasis on surgery than had previous health policy documents. DCP2 included a dedicated chapter on surgery that amplified the approach of McCord and Chowdhury and provided an initial estimate of the amount of disease burden that could be addressed by surgical intervention in LMICs (Debas and others 2006). DCP3 places still greater emphasis on surgery by dedicating this entire volume (out of a total of nine volumes) to the topic. There is also a growing academic literature on surgery’s importance in health system development; for example, Paul Farmer and Jim Kim’s paper observes that “surgery may be thought of as the neglected stepchild of global public health” (Farmer and Kim 2008, 533). The WHO is paying increasing attention to surgical care through such vehicles as its Global Initiative for Emergency and Essential Surgical Care. Finally, the creation of The Lancet Commission on Global Surgery, now well into its work, points to a major change in the perceived importance of surgery.The chapter seeks to do the following:Box 1.1 describes the history, objectives, and contents of DCP3 (Jamison 2015).

The use of information technology in improving medical performance. Part II. Physician-support tools.

Abstract: Increasing data from a few sites demonstrate that information technologies can improve physician decision making and clinical effectiveness. For example, computer-based physician order entry systems, automated laboratory alert systems, and artificial neural networks have demonstrated significant reductions in medical errors. In addition, Internet services to disseminate new knowledge and safety alerts to physicians more rationally and effectively are rapidly developing, and telemedicine to improve rural access to specialty services is undergoing substantial growth. However, even technologies demonstrated to yield beneficial effects have not yet achieved widespread adoption, though the pace of change appears to be increasing as the Internet takes hold. Scientific evaluation of many technologies is also lacking, and the dangers of some of these technologies may be underappreciated. Research on the effects of specific technologies should be a priority. Policies should be developed to press information technology companies, such as pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers, to recognize the importance of clinical evaluation. Research could also analyze the characteristics of effective technologies and of physicians and organizations who implement these technologies effectively.

Conversations about Treatment Preferences before High-Risk Surgery: A Pilot Study in the Preoperative Testing Center

Abstract: Background: It is important to engage patients and surrogates in conversations about goals and preferences for medical treatment before high-risk surgery. However, few interventions have been tested to facilitate these discussions. Objective: To assess the acceptability and feasibility of a facilitated, structured conversation with patients and surrogates about patient goals and preferences for medical treatment during their visit to a preoperative testing center before high-risk surgery. Design: A randomized controlled pilot study in the preoperative testing center at a tertiary academic hospital over a 4-month period. Measurements: We used baseline and preoperative surveys to assess feasibility, and to compare differences in worry, surrogate burden, and patient–surrogate concordance about treatment preferences in conversation and control groups. We assessed acceptability of the conversation qualitatively and through surveys. Results: Of 146 eligible patients, 79 were approached, and 65 declined...

Outcomes of a Coaching-based WHO Safe Childbirth Checklist Program in India

Abstract: BackgroundThe prevalence of facility-based childbirth in low-resource settings has increased dramatically during the past two decades, yet gaps in the quality of care persist and mortality remains high. The World Health Organization (WHO) Safe Childbirth Checklist, a quality-improvement tool, promotes systematic adherence to practices that have been associated with improved childbirth outcomes. MethodsWe conducted a matched-pair, cluster-randomized, controlled trial in 60 pairs of facilities across 24 districts of Uttar Pradesh, India, testing the effect of the BetterBirth program, an 8-month coaching-based implementation of the Safe Childbirth Checklist, on a composite outcome of perinatal death, maternal death, or maternal severe complications within 7 days after delivery. Outcomes — assessed 8 to 42 days after delivery — were compared between the intervention group and the control group with adjustment for clustering and matching. We also compared birth attendants’ adherence to 18 essential birth pract...

Classification of surgical complications: a new proposal with evaluation in a cohort of 6336 patients and results of a survey.

Abstract: Growing demand for health care, rising costs, constrained resources, and evidence of variations in clinical practice have triggered interest in measuring and improving the quality of health care delivery. For a valuable quality assessment, relevant data on outcome must be obtained in a standardized and reproducible manner to allow comparison among different centers, between different therapies and within a center over time.1–3 Objective and reliable outcome data are increasingly requested by patients and payers (government or private insurance) to assess quality and costs of health care. Moreover, health policy makers point out that the availability of comparative data on individual hospital's and physician's performance represents a powerful market force, which may contribute to limit the costs of health care while improving quality.4 Conclusive assessments of surgical procedures remain limited by the lack of consensus on how to define complications and to stratify them by severity.1,5–8 In 1992, we proposed general principles to classify complications of surgery based on a therapy-oriented, 4-level severity grading.1 Subsequently, the severity grading was refined and applied to compare the results of laparoscopic versus open cholecystectomy9 and liver transplantation.10 This classification has also been used by others11–13 and was recently suggested to serve as the basis to assess the outcome of living related liver transplantation in the United States (J. Trotter, personal communication). However, the classification system has not yet been widely used in the surgical literature. The strength of the previous classification relied on the principle of grading complications based on the therapy used to treat the complication. This approach allows identification of most complications and prevents down-rating of major negative outcomes. This is particularly important in retrospective analyses. However, we felt that modifications were necessary, particularly in grading life-threatening complications and long-term disability due to a complication. We also felt that the duration of the hospital stay can no longer be used as a criterion to grade complications. Although definitions of negative outcomes rely to a large extend on subjective “value” appraisals, the grading system must be tested in a large cohort of patients. Finally, a classification is useful only if widely accepted and applied throughout different countries and surgical cultures. Such a validation was not done with the previous classification. Therefore, the aim of the current study was 3-fold: first, to propose an improved classification of surgical complications based on our experience gained with the previous classification1; second, to test this classification in a large cohort of patients who underwent general surgery; and third, to assess the reproducibility and acceptability of the classification through an international survey.

Cancer statistics, 2019.

Abstract: Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths that will occur in the United States and compiles the most recent data on cancer incidence, mortality, and survival. Incidence data, available through 2015, were collected by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data, available through 2016, were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2019, 1,762,450 new cancer cases and 606,880 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States. Over the past decade of data, the cancer incidence rate (2006-2015) was stable in women and declined by approximately 2% per year in men, whereas the cancer death rate (2007-2016) declined annually by 1.4% and 1.8%, respectively. The overall cancer death rate dropped continuously from 1991 to 2016 by a total of 27%, translating into approximately 2,629,200 fewer cancer deaths than would have been expected if death rates had remained at their peak. Although the racial gap in cancer mortality is slowly narrowing, socioeconomic inequalities are widening, with the most notable gaps for the most preventable cancers. For example, compared with the most affluent counties, mortality rates in the poorest counties were 2-fold higher for cervical cancer and 40% higher for male lung and liver cancers during 2012-2016. Some states are home to both the wealthiest and the poorest counties, suggesting the opportunity for more equitable dissemination of effective cancer prevention, early detection, and treatment strategies. A broader application of existing cancer control knowledge with an emphasis on disadvantaged groups would undoubtedly accelerate progress against cancer.

Cancer statistics, 2020.

Abstract: Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths that will occur in the United States and compiles the most recent data on population-based cancer occurrence. Incidence data (through 2016) were collected by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data (through 2017) were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2020, 1,806,590 new cancer cases and 606,520 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States. The cancer death rate rose until 1991, then fell continuously through 2017, resulting in an overall decline of 29% that translates into an estimated 2.9 million fewer cancer deaths than would have occurred if peak rates had persisted. This progress is driven by long-term declines in death rates for the 4 leading cancers (lung, colorectal, breast, prostate); however, over the past decade (2008-2017), reductions slowed for female breast and colorectal cancers, and halted for prostate cancer. In contrast, declines accelerated for lung cancer, from 3% annually during 2008 through 2013 to 5% during 2013 through 2017 in men and from 2% to almost 4% in women, spurring the largest ever single-year drop in overall cancer mortality of 2.2% from 2016 to 2017. Yet lung cancer still caused more deaths in 2017 than breast, prostate, colorectal, and brain cancers combined. Recent mortality declines were also dramatic for melanoma of the skin in the wake of US Food and Drug Administration approval of new therapies for metastatic disease, escalating to 7% annually during 2013 through 2017 from 1% during 2006 through 2010 in men and women aged 50 to 64 years and from 2% to 3% in those aged 20 to 49 years; annual declines of 5% to 6% in individuals aged 65 years and older are particularly striking because rates in this age group were increasing prior to 2013. It is also notable that long-term rapid increases in liver cancer mortality have attenuated in women and stabilized in men. In summary, slowing momentum for some cancers amenable to early detection is juxtaposed with notable gains for other common cancers.

Cancer statistics, 2018

Abstract: Each year, the American Cancer Society estimates the numbers of new cancer cases and deaths that will occur in the United States and compiles the most recent data on cancer incidence, mortality, and survival. Incidence data, available through 2014, were collected by the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program; the National Program of Cancer Registries; and the North American Association of Central Cancer Registries. Mortality data, available through 2015, were collected by the National Center for Health Statistics. In 2018, 1,735,350 new cancer cases and 609,640 cancer deaths are projected to occur in the United States. Over the past decade of data, the cancer incidence rate (2005-2014) was stable in women and declined by approximately 2% annually in men, while the cancer death rate (2006-2015) declined by about 1.5% annually in both men and women. The combined cancer death rate dropped continuously from 1991 to 2015 by a total of 26%, translating to approximately 2,378,600 fewer cancer deaths than would have been expected if death rates had remained at their peak. Of the 10 leading causes of death, only cancer declined from 2014 to 2015. In 2015, the cancer death rate was 14% higher in non-Hispanic blacks (NHBs) than non-Hispanic whites (NHWs) overall (death rate ratio [DRR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.13-1.15), but the racial disparity was much larger for individuals aged <65 years (DRR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.29-1.32) compared with those aged ≥65 years (DRR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.06-1.09) and varied substantially by state. For example, the cancer death rate was lower in NHBs than NHWs in Massachusetts for all ages and in New York for individuals aged ≥65 years, whereas for those aged <65 years, it was 3 times higher in NHBs in the District of Columbia (DRR, 2.89; 95% CI, 2.16-3.91) and about 50% higher in Wisconsin (DRR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.56-2.02), Kansas (DRR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.25-1.81), Louisiana (DRR, 1.49; 95% CI, 1.38-1.60), Illinois (DRR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.39-1.57), and California (DRR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.38-1.54). Larger racial inequalities in young and middle-aged adults probably partly reflect less access to high-quality health care. CA Cancer J Clin 2018;68:7-30. © 2018 American Cancer Society.

2015 American Thyroid Association Management Guidelines for Adult Patients with Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer: The American Thyroid Association Guidelines Task Force on Thyroid Nodules and Differentiated Thyroid Cancer.

Abstract: Background: Thyroid nodules are a common clinical problem, and differentiated thyroid cancer is becoming increasingly prevalent. Since the American Thyroid Association's (ATA's) guidelines for the management of these disorders were revised in 2009, significant scientific advances have occurred in the field. The aim of these guidelines is to inform clinicians, patients, researchers, and health policy makers on published evidence relating to the diagnosis and management of thyroid nodules and differentiated thyroid cancer. Methods: The specific clinical questions addressed in these guidelines were based on prior versions of the guidelines, stakeholder input, and input of task force members. Task force panel members were educated on knowledge synthesis methods, including electronic database searching, review and selection of relevant citations, and critical appraisal of selected studies. Published English language articles on adults were eligible for inclusion. The American College of Physicians Guideline Gr...