Surgical Education

A Five-Year Gender-Based Analysis of Entrustable Professional Activities among General Surgery Residents Desmond L Layne, MD, Ila Sethi, BA, Sarah Jung, PhD, Qiuyu Yang, MS, BS, Patrick R Varley, MD, Ann P O’Rourke, MD, FACS, Rebecca M Minter, MD, FACS University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI; Renaissance School of Medicine at Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY Introduction: Entrustable professional activities (EPAs) are a competency-based framework for assessing progressive entrustment. EPAs provide behavioral descriptors of actions displayed by trainees based on levels of increasing autonomy in perioperative care. During the initial EPA implementation, we found that female surgical residents underestimated their performance, particularly as PGY1s and PGY4s. We aimed to characterize potential gender differences in EPA assessments over five years. Methods: From July 2018-June 2023, 2,409 faculty assessments of residents were collected from 78 faculty and 2,357 resident self-assessments were collected from 84 residents across five EPAs: Right Lower Quadrant Pain, Gallbladder Disease, Inguinal Hernia, Trauma, and General Surgery Consultation. EPA data were collected via the SEPA app at a single institution. Effects of gender were determined through univariate and multivariate linear regression. Results: On multivariate analysis, no significant differences were seen between faculty assessments of male and female residents (p = 0.08) after controlling for variables such as faculty gender, EPA type, and years of experience, Analysis of resident self-assessments demonstrated female residents underestimate their autonomy level compared to matched faculty assessments, unlike their male peers (estimate=-0.28, p < 0.001). Significant differences persisted between male and female intraoperative self-assessments at all PGY1-5 levels (p = .024, p < .001, p = .005, p = .001, p = .023). Conclusion: Despite no differences in faculty assessments of residents by gender, female residents rated themselves significantly lower on intraoperative autonomy than male peers during PGY1-5. This pattern of significant differences was not found for non-operative care, indicating important perceived differences in intraoperative skills throughout the progression of surgical training that warrant careful consideration and attention. A Survey on Disabilities and Disability Awareness in General Surgery Residents Aditya Kotla, BS, Kathryn N Wittrock, BS, Erik Davis, BS, Ana McCraken, MD, Darren Gordon, MD, Hassan Aziz, MD University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA Introduction: This novel study aims to investigate the social and cultural factors that prevent surgery residents from openly disclosing their disabilities to program directors, assess the presence of a robust disability policy in residency programs, and compare the training experience of residents with disabilities compared with their non-disabled colleagues. Methods: A cross sectional questionnaire survey was distributed to United States general surgery resident physicians. The survey contained questions about basic demographics, participant disability status, program accommodations, and the presence of disability training and policies in their programs. Results: A total of 176 responses were recorded. Out of all respondents, 21.59% of respondents have a mental disability, 9.09% have a physical disability, and 0.57% have both forms of disability. Of the respondents with a disability, 71.15% have not informed their program directors about their disability for reasons shown in Figure 1. Of all respondents, most (78.61%) were unaware of their program’s policies regarding disability, and only 17.34% of the programs provided training regarding disability awareness. Additionally, only 25% of respondents believe there is transparency in the process of requesting disability accommodations, and just 38.7% believe they are involved in the process of developing residency requirements and policies.Figure 1Conclusion: This study demonstrates that several barriers prevent residency programs from adequately addressing the needs and concerns of residents with disabilities. It serves as a call for reform in disability policies and improved adherence to the disability guidelines set forth by the ACGME. Assessment of Operative Surgical Coaching for Residents Vic Velanovich, MD, FACS, Adham R Saad, MD, FACS University of South Florida, Tampa, FL Introduction: To assess a program on resident surgical coaching. Methods: A surgical coach observed surgical residents performing operations. The SIMPL questionnaire (1. How much guidance did you provide for the majority of the critical portion of this procedure? [best score 4, worst score 1]. What was this resident’s performance for the majority of the critical portion of this procedure? [best score 5, worst score 1]. How complex was this case relative to similar procedures? [hardest 1/3 3, easiest ½ 1]); and the Ottawa Competency Scale (1. Preprocedure plan, 2. Case preparation, 3. Knowledge of specific procedure steps, 4. Technical performance, 5. Visuospatial skills, 6. Postprocedure plan, 7. Efficiency and flow, and 8. Communication [best score 5, worst score 1]) were completed. The coach would discuss specific observations of the resident’s performance. A survey was completed by residents and faculty assessing the program’s value. Results: 48 surgical residents with 26 faculty completed 111 sessions. The median number of sessions for an individual resident was 2 (range 1-5). The table shows the median scores for each of the questions. Resident survey results: 100% thought sessions were valuable, with an open exchange, skills improved, and ergonomics was most improved, the most common suggestion for improvement was more often coaching. Faculty survey results: 93% coach was not a distraction, 69% improvement in resident skills, 79% sought feedback on teaching, and 93% continue the program (Table). Conclusion: The instruments could distinguish resident level. Participants felt coaching was valuable and should continue and be done more often. Table 1. - Ottawa Score Competency Scores by Resident Year 5th and 4th years 3rd and 2nd years 1st years p-value Q#1 5 (4.5-5)5 (4.25-5) 3.5 (3-4)3 (3-4) 2 (2-3) <0.00001 Q#2 5 (5)5 (4.25-5) 4 (3-4.25)4 (3-4) 2.5 (2-3) <0.00001 Q#3 5 (4.25-5)5 (4-5) 3 (3-4)3 (2-4) 2 (2) <0.00001 Q#4 5 (4-5)5 (4-5) 3 (3-4)3 (3-4) 2 (2-3) <0.00001 Q#5 5 (4-5)4.75 (4-5) 4 (3-4)3 (3-4) 3 (2-3) <0.00001 Q#6 5 (5)5 (5) 5 (4-5)5 (4.75-5) 4 (3-5) 0.01175 Q#7 5 (4-5)4 (4-4.75) 3 (2-3.5)3 (3-3.5) 2 (2-3) <0.00001 Q#8 5 (5)5 (5) 5 (4-5)4 (4-5) 4 (3-4) <0.00001 SIMPL #1 3 (3-3.5)3 (3-3.75) 2 (2-3)2.25 (2-3) 2 (2) 0.00001 Bowel Anastomosis Simulation Trainer: A Novel Surgical Simulation Device Designed to Enhance Surgical Education Diane Gillis, BS, Michael Sestito, MD, Alice Race, MD, Salim S Abunnaja, MBChB, FACS, Lawrence E Tabone, MD, FACS, Eric M Ritter, MD, FACS, Lauren M Dudas, MD, FACS, Nova Szoka, MD, FACS West Virginia University, Morgantown, WV; Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN Introduction: Surgical simulation is a staple of general surgery training. Bowel anastomosis requires substantial practice and there are few simulators available. This study evaluated resident performance of hand sewn bowel anastomosis using a Bowel Anastomosis Training Simulator (BATS). Methods: BATS is a 3D-printed base and stand mounted with a commercially available three-layer bowel that of the general surgery residents all levels of training from a single were a of a hand sewn anastomosis using BATS the did the a A simulation survey regarding of BATS was with a Results: for residents to the anastomosis was was The significantly their anastomosis compared to the p = was no between in the and p = scores for questions were Conclusion: The novel BATS is a for and of surgical residents in hand sewn bowel simulation performance. the skills using BATS should be for to the Surgical and in Surgical Sarah E MD, FACS, MD, MD, N BS, BS, FACS University of School of City, Introduction: in of and surgical is to and a of The Surgical program was to provide to and surgical and among all Methods: a of surgical coaching and for at an residents and Results: During the surgical and across Of the that as as and as in were in and of were to a faculty resident and (p < of their to (p < 0.001). Conclusion: for and surgical among across surgical of such the potential to by increasing surgical and an are in the of on surgical of during of Surgery to MD, MD, FACS, PhD, MD, FACS University of Introduction: skills training is in general with the of feedback in often to We observed of of Surgery to common of Methods: and with were by residents from a general surgery as during the training was observed and recorded. and were and and common of feedback with for each Results: Residents on of feedback over for and feedback over for of feedback during and for were common in have specific feedback for the on the more complex specific feedback for of single of the Conclusion: Residents feedback during of of with in specific across residents and the and of observations trainees of common to to and the of skills particularly an is not available. - from of During of of Participants by by for - both at 100% for of 100% a pattern for to 100% for 100% with over and set 100% 100% to 100% and over to 100% to with open for 100% 100% of Training on Technical in A and A MD, A MD, M MD, FACS of Surgical The University of Introduction: training in surgery using are by to the regarding in training we an and to compare with Methods: and were for with was as was for Results: We and surgical of the analysis, skills to p = by was significantly in the no significant differences were in to p = and score to p = Conclusion: that is with scores skills and no between regarding and the of in Surgical A Survey of M BS, A BA, BA, BS, MD University of Introduction: experience significant compared to and have and cultural needs the surgical there is on surgical training programs are to for this Methods: We a survey to the of in residency training programs using and 2023, we distributed the survey to all program of residency programs in the with responses to the Results: We distributed survey to surgical programs general surgery and surgery surgery and surgery We have responses The number of to of in surgical programs is with that provide gender to a median of training to the of and Conclusion: survey is data on surgical are residents to for by the and of in programs. of for Residents in General Surgery MD, M MD, MD, MD, MD, FACS University, Introduction: The Resident as a between a residency program’s and the resident physicians. as an is an and a significant professional there is no data available regarding for the of in general surgery Methods: We a survey in program from general surgery residency programs were questions regarding the and We with programs for this of were Results: Of the programs have the of in their Of programs the The of was in 100% of programs and from - in and program were not significantly with Table 1. - of by and for for p - Residents = = - Residents = = Residents = = of Residents = = University = = = = Conclusion: Residents to be an have demonstrated performance, and professional The is a practice and in the of and is the to of for in general The of this are to questions regarding for and and we to continue this by all general surgery residency programs to assess the of A Analysis of During BA, MD, BS, M MD, FACS, S MD, MS, FACS University of School of of University of NY Introduction: To the of there are no that the of in We a of the experience to for the Methods: We with at The of the such as the of the the and with the We sought on to the were and was by were was Results: completed preparation, the majority from their of female a for a female were to the experience did not they were were Conclusion: and the (2) to and and of the for practice guidelines and to for of Surgical and Faculty to for MD, MD, FACS, MD, MD, L MD, FACS, MD, PhD, MD, MD, FACS School of University of Introduction: intraoperative is an for at of in is by training for surgical are we the of a novel for to surgical trainees and to Methods: Participants a on by a were to and in and the of female Residents completed and and on both Faculty using and completed a Participants were Results: surgical and 3 completed sessions with 5 were completed. the in and performing significantly (p < trainees and all faculty they could with faculty that they to and of 1Conclusion: a novel in and performing significantly is a that be to at level of data on in practice is A Novel for of and MD, MD, FACS, MD, FACS, MD University, Introduction: feedback is in of feedback is to directors and feedback is this we evaluated feedback was to feedback in and Methods: We a to individual feedback and a and surgical faculty rated and feedback for were to assess of the and of the Faculty were to they for and feedback was Results: feedback was rated as than feedback = median p = were for in of for and feedback 100% of the of were rated as to be for and specific 1Conclusion: significantly feedback by more and and and for potential as a in feedback across From to of Surgical via MD, MD, BA, MD, MD, MD, M MD, FACS, MD, FACS, MD, FACS, MD, FACS NY Introduction: is to skills in We the of with surgical experience to in with Methods: = surgery residents = = 5, = 5, and surgery = and of with using a and general and were with Results: scores for and residents in all on the score was = p < for scores from to with seen in between and in demonstrated to in for and general skills were significantly across all (p < 0.001). Conclusion: surgical experience the and on the and for scores potential in across of is to the of for and coaching in of Surgical A MD, MD, L MD, FACS Introduction: from trainees are an important of shown a female gender, were on was to provide a of differences by Methods: This was a of of faculty from surgical was from questions about faculty and for the responses using was data were to Results: A total of from female and male surgical were Table shows five and We found no significant gender differences in to skills and we found differences regarding the of in the faculty were as and and skills were and resident autonomy to be provided by female were more female particularly at a level. Table - and skills at the and in the a to provide important and with on to skills in the residents are to through with that we thought of on the a presence about with a be and to with the and skills feedback throughout in a that you you are you could be is residents and autonomy in and and autonomy in the not provide autonomy in the is not was a on to be was a in the and as a in that Conclusion: This study shows that gender differences in faculty in specific on and differences in based on gender and in Surgical and MD, MD, MD, Rebecca A MD, MS, MD, Sarah MD, MD, MD, MD, Ann A University at University, University of University of Ann University at University of City, University, for Introduction: by social as about an is in surgical residency programs. This study sought to the of in surgical residency and through the of surgical Methods: We residents from surgical training programs through the of Surgical Education a of surgical resident in a using social and the Results: We were were to a process for in surgical residency the of is both and to a be to be as a of transparency is and is across a lower on the of potential and Conclusion: This study to this social and as a framework to study and and at the and with a to in Surgical MD, MS, MD, BS, MD, FACS, R MD, FACS University University School of Introduction: of in surgical care. is no training in to provide trainees with to this a was the surgical at a single This study evaluated the of this on and perceived to and in surgical Methods: 2023, a was by and the surgical and addressing factors that to surgical The of a and and responses were compared using Results: Of in the completed the and of completed the most care. only felt they to all that p < and about would a Additionally, most felt they a framework for p < and and to p < Conclusion: a the surgical perceived and to in surgical School an to in Surgery BA, MD, BA, MD, MD, A MD, FACS, MD, FACS University, University, NY Introduction: To in programs provide and for from in program and surgical through and Methods: We a for from an program based on in The program of and and were distributed to assess and program Results: of in the Of 5 were 4 2 no of the to the Of the 100% the program provided with to in a in they are they a to the the responses about 1. to 2. in 3. and 4. 1Conclusion: in the program more in a and a in of the across in this program of a the Surgical Simulation on and Technical BA, MD, MD, M MS, Kathryn MD, FACS, MD, FACS, Michael MD, FACS, MD, FACS University University of Introduction: for and surgical simulation an of We of an to surgical skills simulation for Methods: A simulation was for all using the completed a of the to This was by and were evaluated with a and Results: A total of completed the were significant in and performance of skills from to in all and basic skills (Table). with more practice in and as as experience in the were more and on skills on < differences were no significant on The was with with the portion to be and of the as Conclusion: The the to surgical simulation practice is an and to are to assess the as residency training. - Scores = p Survey 3.5 of and on Surgical Simulation in MD, MS, MD, BA, Kathryn MD, FACS, MD, FACS, Michael MD, FACS, MD, FACS University of University Introduction: Simulation an of training. and in and surgical training with potential on perceived and the We aimed to gender and surgical skills among Methods: A simulation was for on basic surgical were evaluated using a a and forms for the and after of the Results: A total of completed the of as and male similar scores on the and skills performance Despite similar scores on and skills performance, male levels p = in performing the procedure on a 4 3 p = were more scores in skills performance on and p < and p = improved compared to the p < 0.001). Conclusion: gender did not performance, male demonstrated be with the between gender, and in surgical training. to and BA, R MD, FACS University in School of University School of Introduction: a perceived gender in the perioperative The of this study were the in the and the of the perioperative at a Methods: were via The were and and the were in was for Results: were of are common and (2) and of the and of the A is and and and of a perioperative on the is to from Table 1. - and of are common and and of the and of the A is and and of a perioperative on the is to from in the in the in the in the of the perioperative of the perioperative Conclusion: Participants gender, and that to mental the perioperative was perceived to have we and improved as to and for in Surgical MD, Rebecca MD, FACS, PhD, M MS, Lauren School of Introduction: surgical feedback The of this study was to and the of in feedback provided to during their surgical Methods: A study was a of responses to for provided to the surgical a with was feedback were by and by were to Results: were to for of were from an from a FL and of and only was on The of is in the Of the most = and = the respondents significantly p = and p < the for p < 1Conclusion: of in feedback is for for specific of and the of their between and During the of Surgery Simulator Training BS, R BS, PhD, BS, PhD, PhD, MD, FACS The for and School of Medicine at University of NY Introduction: for surgical We a novel that and a with performance to Methods: and were to five a on each data was recorded. was using cross to The was and individual over Results: A total of were in an of of and of The was significant was seen between and in the in between (p = The an from a was hand linear (p = Conclusion: The of in with provide with an and of based on hand data be an important and in Surgical Residents a Novel MS, BS, MD, Michael MD, M MD, Davis, PhD, PhD, PhD, MD, FACS University of FL Introduction: and among surgical residents the of and have and for assessing and are to We that resident and could be via Methods: and surgical residents during their perceived using the Scale Scale and Scale was with a was for of using novel were and after call for surgical residents and 3 during for Results: across all surgical residents = in and were recorded. = in and were recorded. as by performance for surgical residents by with a of p < 0.001). performance improved for by with a of Conclusion: responses are with with potential in as a Surgical residents a in that in and in Surgical of Operative on Efficiency during MD, MS, BS, PhD, Yang, BS, MS, M MD, PhD, FACS University, Introduction: provide an for to the of We that significantly procedure and during Methods: Participants completed a with of the and just and data were collected for each during the and for the to the were for and Results: Participants = in the completed the with a significantly median than the with and an with = = = p < The differences in were be hand for the was to both their hand = = = p < and hand = = = p < more than the 1Conclusion: This study a significant of on procedure and hand the surgical to surgical this the of for to important for to their performance and their and of the of for A E BS, BS, FACS, MD University in University of Ann Ann University Introduction: from is a significant of in often robust be in this is to and with We compared the of to the training for in Methods: this were with = = training = and = on an was evaluated by and at the no compared of using Results: From 2023, were with was significantly for all to training in during the initial and and in of the at the on (p = and the in (p = Conclusion: demonstrated to training an for in in to prevent and Knowledge and after Education L MD, E MD, Michael MD, L MD, FACS, P MD, FACS, MD, FACS Introduction: - open and - is an important in and in of Entrustable Professional Activities for General as the for single We a a with and simulation to critical skills in a single and aimed to and Methods: in a for training. Participants to a simulation of and in between the of and was in by the scores were Results: were observed performing and were observed performing The median score was of across all for with a median score of 26 of 26 for The median score was of across all for with a median score of 26 of 26 for skills Conclusion: A a with and simulation is an for trainees to in open and the in General Surgery Training MD, MD, MD, FACS, A MD, FACS, MD, FACS of Wisconsin, Introduction: The of is for Surgical residents experience barriers to their and The of and as of We the of than resident and is Methods: resident were from the surgical resident were from program and the median was determined for each The of was to the median of This was as a of a residency The of each level was as a of median resident by Results: The median for was of resident in in and in The median was (range to of resident by the of resident was the at 1Conclusion: are than resident and the of care. to resident in of the surgical consideration of is to and in in the Medicine and Surgical Residents the MD, Eric MD, MS, MD, MD, FACS Introduction: We found and ergonomics is among surgical residents and It is is to surgical residents by We is to surgical Methods: This was a single study of surgical and residents completed a survey assessing demographics, and ergonomics Results: The survey was completed by and surgical was in of all Surgery residents were more to as the most p = residents were more to p = as the most Medicine residents more p = surgical residents more p = were no differences in the of between and surgical residents surgical and residents ergonomics and and the majority about ergonomics and Table 1. - Medicine and Surgical Residents Survey Medicine = Surgery = A few the the of on 4 48 N < 5 N < 5 Conclusion: is common in surgical and they experience Despite a of ergonomics is in residency training programs. and is to and prevent the of in the of the BS, MD, BS, MD, R MD, FACS, BS, Michael A MD, MD, MD, FACS, MD, FACS of University School of The University of MD University of of The University of South Introduction: The serves as a critical is for We aimed to characterize differences between of based on the of the Methods: We a study in

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.