MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W3184711783 · doi:10.1097/tp.0000000000003711

Training Experiences of American Society of Transplant Surgeons Fellows in Deceased Donor Organ Procurement

2021· article· en· W3184711783 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Christopher Connelly, Ralph C. Quillin, Ben E. Biesterveld, Alexandra Highet, Austin Schenk, Shareef Syed, Advaith Bongu, Seth A. Waits

Notice bibliographique

RevueTransplantation · 2021
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésOrgan procurementCurriculumMedicineProcurementMedical educationOrgan donationCompetence (human resources)AccreditationTransplantationPsychologySurgeryPedagogyBusiness

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Safe and efficient deceased donor organ recovery is paramount to success in solid organ transplantation. A core training mission of the American Society of Transplant Surgeons (ASTS) is to ensure that graduates of accredited transplant surgery fellowships achieve competence in multiorgan procurement. Despite the importance of sound technique in organ recovery, training paradigms across fellowships are not well defined or described. Currently, formal educational requirements are limited to 2 short videos within the core curriculum available through the ASTS Academic Universe and performance of 25 multiorgan procurements.1,2 To our knowledge, no additional, standardized curriculum has been implemented to teach this skill. To characterize current training models and trainee comfort in multiorgan procurement, we administered a cross-sectional survey, in the spring of 2019, to all current ASTS fellows and ASTS member surgeons who had completed fellowship in 2017 or 2018. Respondents answered objective questions and also provided qualitative feedback on training program strengths and weaknesses. Surveys were distributed to 182 current fellows and recent graduates with a 38% response rate. Respondents were predominantly male individuals, aged 30–40 years, and represented all United Network for Organ Sharing regions. Most performed multiorgan procurements independently during their first year, after 15 or fewer proctored cases. Only 19% received formal didactic curricula about organ procurement as part of fellowship training. Most felt comfortable performing brain dead liver and kidney donor operations before independence, but only 65% felt comfortable with pancreas procurement. Volume and instruction in donation after circulatory death (DCD) and pancreas donors varied widely. Fifty-two percent of respondents performed 10 or fewer DCD procurements, and only 65% of respondents procured a pancreas graft independently during fellowship. Eighty-one percent of respondents felt the pancreas was the most difficult organ to assess for transplant suitability (Table 1). Several themes were evident from the free-text responses. Strengths included fellow autonomy and fellow-to-fellow instruction. Weaknesses included absence of faculty oversight and formal didactic education and perpetuation of bad habits through fellow-to-fellow teaching. Finally, lack of donor pancreatectomy and DCD experience were cited as major deficiencies. TABLE 1. - ASTS fellowship trainee survey results Question Response (n = 69) Number (%)a Age (y) 25–29 1 (1.43) 30–34 19 (27.14) 35–40 40 (57.14) 41–50 7 (10.00) Not reported 3 (4.35) Gender Female 24 (34.29) Male 44 (64.29) Not reported 1 (1.43) Region of fellowship training program Region 1 2 (3.23) Region 2 9 (14.52) Region 3 5 (8.06) Region 4 4 (3.23) Region 5 9 (14.52) Region 6 1 (1.61) Region 7 11 (17.74) Region 8 5 (8.06) Region 9 5 (8.06) Region 10 6 (9.68) Region 11 2 (3.23) Canada 5 (8.06) Year of first independent procurement Year 1 47 (90.38) Year 2 5 (9.62) No. of procurements performed before independent procurement 0 1 (1.92) 1–5 3 (5.77) 6–10 12 (23.08) 11–15 16 (30.77) 16–20 10 (19.23) 21–25 4 (7.69) >25 6 (11.54) Presence of formal didactic education during fellowship Yes 12 (19.35) No 50 (80.65) I felt adequately trained to perform the technical aspects of the procurement procedure before my first independent procurementb Liver: strongly agree or agree 47 (90.38) Kidney: strongly agree or agree 48 (92.31) Pancreas: strongly agree or agree 34 (65.38) No. of DCD procurements performed (proctored and independent) in fellowship 0 3 (5.17) 1–5 16 (27.59) 6–10 11 (18.97) 11–15 6 (10.34) 16–20 9 (15.52) 21–25 3 (5.17) >25 10 (17.24) Who taught the DCD donor operationc Senior fellow 26 (44.83) Attending transplant surgeon 31 (53.45 Physician assistant/surgical tech 7 (10.45) Nonaccredited transplant fellow 0 (0) Other 1 (1.49) Did not perform DCD procurement 2 (3.45) Independent DCD organ procurement during fellowship Yes 49 (84.18) No 9 (15.52) Independent pancreas procurement during fellowship Yes 33 (63.46) No 19 (36.54) Have you ever felt unsure about your ability to assess the quality of an organ in situ? Yes 33 (64.71) No 18 (35.29) During independent procurements as a fellow, which organ or organs do you find, or did you find, to be the most difficult to assess quality or suitability for transplant?c Liver 14 (26.92) Pancreas 42 (80.77) Intestine 4 (7.69) Kidney 0 (0) None 3 (5.77) aVaried response numbers are due to missingness.bQuestion answered on 7-point Likert scale with following answer possibilities: strongly agree, agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, disagree, and strongly disagree.c“Select all that apply” question.DCD, donation after circulatory death. Although limited by a relatively low response rate and potential for bias through overrepresentation of certain regions, our results demonstrate significant variability in multiorgan procurement training and education across ASTS-accredited programs. Respondents felt adequately prepared to perform brain dead donor hepatectomy and nephrectomy, but educational deficiencies existed in DCD and pancreas donor experience. Furthermore, few fellows received formal multiorgan procurement didactics, and fellow-to-fellow instruction was the prevalent training model. These findings suggest an opportunity for an ASTS-led educational quality improvement effort. A standardized, hands-on curriculum, with a competency-based assessment and certification pathway, could be developed to ensure uniform skill attainment for all fellows. A mandatory workshop for first-year fellows at the existing ASTS Comprehensive DCD Workshop, with creation of a similar, simultaneous pancreas donor workshop, could provide a potential platform to institute such a change.3 Regardless of the approach, a thoughtful adjustment of current fellowship training paradigms should be considered, especially in light of national efforts to increase organ availability through broader sharing and utilization of marginal organs.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,006
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,025

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,013
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0010,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,036
Tête enseignante GPT0,292
Écart entre enseignants0,256 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations7
Publié2021
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueTransplantationMême sujetOrgan Donation and TransplantationTravaux en français237 207