BACKGROUND: The Surgical Morbidity and Mortality (M&M) conference is considered the golden hour of surgical education. However, evaluation methods for ensuring that quality M&M presentations efficiently contribute to resident education have not been clearly defined. To provide surgical trainees with the skills required to present a quality M&M presentation it is essential to have a robust tool to measure presentation skill and guide formative feedback. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted to develop an assessment tool for M&M conference. Literature review and expert consensus provided content for tool development. The tool, created using the situation, background, assessment, and recommendation format, was refined successively based on assessor feedback and assessed for reliability (internal consistency, interassessor reliability) and construct validity. RESULTS: Three successive iterations of the tool were developed. Internal consistency and interassessor reliability improved from the first to third versions. A trend also was shown for increasing construct validity with the third iteration of the tool. CONCLUSIONS: A psychometrically robust assessment tool based on the situation, background, assessment, and recommendation format was developed and validated to identify and improve the overall quality and educational value of the surgical M&M conference.
BACKGROUND: The Surgical Morbidity and Mortality (M&M) conference is considered the golden hour of surgical education. However, evaluation methods for ensuring that quality M&M presentations efficiently contribute to resident education have not been clearly defined. To provide surgical trainees with the skills required to present a quality M&M presentation it is essential to have a robust tool to measure presentation skill and guide formative feedback. METHODS: A prospective observational study was conducted to develop an assessment tool for M&M conference. Literature review and expert consensus provided content for tool development. The tool, created using the situation, background, assessment, and recommendation format, was refined successively based on assessor feedback and assessed for reliability (internal consistency, interassessor reliability) and construct validity. RESULTS: Three successive iterations of the tool were developed. Internal consistency and interassessor reliability improved from the first to third versions. A trend also was shown for increasing construct validity with the third iteration of the tool. CONCLUSIONS: A psychometrically robust assessment tool based on the situation, background, assessment, and recommendation format was developed and validated to identify and improve the overall quality and educational value of the surgical M&M conference.