The Surgical Program in Innovation (SPIN): A Design and Prototyping Curriculum for Surgical Trainees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PROBLEM: Health professions education does not routinely incorporate training in innovation or creative problem solving. Although some models of innovation education within graduate medical education exist, they often require participants' full-time commitment and removal from clinical training or rely upon participants' existing expertise. There is a need for curricula that teach innovation skills that will enable trainees to identify and solve unmet clinical challenges in everyday practice. To address this gap in surgical graduate education, the authors developed the Surgical Program in Innovation (SPIN). APPROACH: SPIN, a 6-month workshop-based curriculum, was established in 2016 in the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center Department of Surgery to teach surgical trainees the basics of the innovation process, focusing on surgeon-driven problem identification, product design, prototype fabrication, and initial steps in the commercialization process. Participating surgical residents and graduate students attend monthly workshops taught by medical, engineering, and medical technology (MedTech) industry faculty. Participants collaborate in teams to develop a novel device, fabricate a protype, and pitch their product to a panel of judges. OUTCOMES: From academic years 2015-2016 to 2017-2018, 49 trainees, including 41 surgical residents, participated in SPIN. Across this period, 13 teams identified an unmet need, ideated a solution, and designed and pitched a novel device. Ten teams fabricated prototypes. The 22 SPIN participants who responded to both pre- and postcourse surveys reported significant increases in confidence in generating problem statements, computer-aided design, fabrication of a prototype, and initial commercialization steps (product pitching and business planning). NEXT STEPS: Incorporating innovation education and design thinking into clinical training will prove essential in preparing future physicians to be lifelong problem finders and solvers. The authors plan to expand SPIN to additional clinical specialties, as well as to assess its impact in fostering future innovation and collaboration among program participants.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".