Pritam Singh1, Rajesh Aggarwal2, Philip H Pucher3, Alexandra L Duisberg4, Sonal Arora3, Ara Darzi3. 1. Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, Academic Surgical Unit, 10th Floor QEQM, South Wharf Road, London, W2 1NY, UK. Electronic address: pritam.singh@imperial.ac.uk. 2. Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, Academic Surgical Unit, 10th Floor QEQM, South Wharf Road, London, W2 1NY, UK; Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, Academic Surgical Unit, 10th Floor QEQM, South Wharf Road, London, W2 1NY, UK. 4. Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To improve surgical training standards, it is necessary to first define the elements of high-quality training and methods for measuring them. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with attending (n = 10) and resident (n = 10) general surgeons. An interview topic guide was used to elicit end users' opinions on indicators of training quality and methods to measure them. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded using a framework to identify emergent themes. Sampling ceased once thematic saturation was achieved. RESULTS: Key surgical training quality indicators include continuity (80% of participants) and relationship (95%) between trainee and trainer, level of supervision (85%), and an optimal volume (95%) and mix (90%) of operative cases. All surgeons felt that trainee logbook analysis and feedback was essential. The majority (85%) felt that training analysis should be freely available to create accountability for hospitals and attending surgeons (70%) and encourage competition (70%) to drive up standards. Only 30% felt that all attending surgeons should offer training. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical training quality needs to be robustly assessed. Transparency in training outcomes will create competition and raise standards of surgical education.
BACKGROUND: To improve surgical training standards, it is necessary to first define the elements of high-quality training and methods for measuring them. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with attending (n = 10) and resident (n = 10) general surgeons. An interview topic guide was used to elicit end users' opinions on indicators of training quality and methods to measure them. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and coded using a framework to identify emergent themes. Sampling ceased once thematic saturation was achieved. RESULTS: Key surgical training quality indicators include continuity (80% of participants) and relationship (95%) between trainee and trainer, level of supervision (85%), and an optimal volume (95%) and mix (90%) of operative cases. All surgeons felt that trainee logbook analysis and feedback was essential. The majority (85%) felt that training analysis should be freely available to create accountability for hospitals and attending surgeons (70%) and encourage competition (70%) to drive up standards. Only 30% felt that all attending surgeons should offer training. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical training quality needs to be robustly assessed. Transparency in training outcomes will create competition and raise standards of surgical education.