Related Experiment Videos
Do surgeons have a role as infectious disease consultants?
1Department of Surgery, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn., USA.
Background:
Antibiotic drug restriction policies have become widespread in North America hospitals mandating medical infectious disease consultation for use of routine antimicrobial agents.
Objective:
To determine physician and institutional attitudes regarding the credibility of surgeons in the area of infectious disease.
Design:
A survey of the Surgical Infectious Disease Society (SIS) membership.
Participants:
Members of the SIS practicing in the United States and Canada (n = 464) were sent a simple opinion poll regarding surgical infectious disease specialists. After receiving the survey, the SIS members were given approximately 4 weeks to anonymously complete the questionnaire and return it to our office.
Results:
Responses were received from 198 SIS members (43%). Most were from large (> 400 bed) institutions (63%), and the majority of them were from university centers (76%). Predictably, 86% of the respondents were in full-time academic practice. Some SIS respondents (21%) had undergone special training in infectious disease, and of these, 63% actually had completed a formal surgical infectious disease fellowship. Antibiotic restriction policies were nearly universal and required in 87% of institutions. Only 44% of surgeons in these hospitals, however, were privileged to release antibiotic drugs. Medical infectious disease physicians recognized surgical expertise in infectious disease in few instances (32%). The great majority of responding SIS members (81%) believed that an examination or certification in infectious disease for surgeons was not warranted.
Conclusions:
Antibiotic drug restriction is prevalent in North America, and medical infectious disease specialists do not generally recognize surgical expertise in the area of infectious disease. Despite this environment, responding SIS members believe that special credentialing of surgeons in the area of infectious disease is unnecessary.
Insights
Antibiotic restriction policies are common in North American hospitals. However, most surgeons surveyed do not believe specialized infectious disease (ID) certification is needed for surgeons, despite limited recognition of surgical ID expertise by medical ID specialists.
Area of Science:
- Infectious Diseases
- Surgical Specialties
- Healthcare Policy
Background:
- Widespread implementation of antibiotic restriction policies in North American hospitals.
- Mandatory infectious disease consultation for routine antimicrobial agent use.
- Need to assess physician and institutional perspectives on surgical expertise in infectious diseases.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate physician and institutional attitudes towards the credibility of surgeons in infectious disease.
- To understand the perception of surgical infectious disease expertise within the medical community.
Main Methods:
- A survey was distributed to members of the Surgical Infectious Disease Society (SIS) in the United States and Canada.
- An anonymous opinion poll was administered to 464 SIS members.
- A response rate of 43% (198 members) was achieved, with most respondents from large university centers.
Main Results:
- Antibiotic restriction policies were nearly universal (87% of institutions), yet only 44% of surgeons could release antibiotic drugs.
- Medical infectious disease physicians recognized surgical expertise in only 32% of cases.
- 81% of responding surgeons believed a formal examination or certification in infectious disease for surgeons was unwarranted.
Conclusions:
- Despite prevalent antibiotic restrictions and limited recognition of surgical expertise by medical infectious disease specialists, surgeons do not see a need for specialized credentialing.
- A disconnect exists between institutional policies, interdisciplinary recognition, and surgeon self-perception regarding infectious disease expertise.