Yinin Hu1, Joshua S Jolissaint2, Adriana Ramirez1, Ryan Gordon2, Zequan Yang1, Robert G Sawyer3. 1. Department of Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. 2. University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, Virginia. 3. Department of Surgery, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia. Electronic address: rws2k@virginia.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As work hour restrictions increasingly limit some operative experiences, personalized evaluative methods are needed. We prospectively assessed the value of cumulative sum (Cusum) to measure proficiency with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) among surgical trainees. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine postgraduate year 1 surgery residents each underwent a 1-month rotation dedicated to endoscopy. Procedure durations for all PEG insertions were recorded prospectively. Criteria for task failure included need for attending takeover or procedure duration >10 min. Cusum parameters were defined a priori, with acceptable and unacceptable failure rates of 5% and 15%, respectively. Concurrently, expert endoscopists blinded to Cusum results evaluated trainee proficiency weekly using a multicategory, five-point Likert-scale survey. RESULTS: Nine surgical residents performed an average of 21 PEGs each. Expert evaluations and Cusum analyses identified eight and seven participants who attained proficiency after a median of 11.5 and 12 cases, respectively. For four of the residents who achieved proficiency by Cusum criteria, eventual relapses to inadequate performance were identified. These relapses were not detected by expert evaluation. Six participants who attained proficiency by both metrics performed a combined 32 superfluous cases, which could have been redistributed to poor-performing trainees. CONCLUSIONS: Although lacking the granular insight of expert evaluations, Cusum analysis is more sensitive to relapses of subproficient performance. Adding Cusum analysis to expert evaluations can provide longitudinal, formative feedback and promote efficient redistribution of operative experiences.
BACKGROUND: As work hour restrictions increasingly limit some operative experiences, personalized evaluative methods are needed. We prospectively assessed the value of cumulative sum (Cusum) to measure proficiency with percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomy (PEG) among surgical trainees. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Nine postgraduate year 1 surgery residents each underwent a 1-month rotation dedicated to endoscopy. Procedure durations for all PEG insertions were recorded prospectively. Criteria for task failure included need for attending takeover or procedure duration >10 min. Cusum parameters were defined a priori, with acceptable and unacceptable failure rates of 5% and 15%, respectively. Concurrently, expert endoscopists blinded to Cusum results evaluated trainee proficiency weekly using a multicategory, five-point Likert-scale survey. RESULTS: Nine surgical residents performed an average of 21 PEGs each. Expert evaluations and Cusum analyses identified eight and seven participants who attained proficiency after a median of 11.5 and 12 cases, respectively. For four of the residents who achieved proficiency by Cusum criteria, eventual relapses to inadequate performance were identified. These relapses were not detected by expert evaluation. Six participants who attained proficiency by both metrics performed a combined 32 superfluous cases, which could have been redistributed to poor-performing trainees. CONCLUSIONS: Although lacking the granular insight of expert evaluations, Cusum analysis is more sensitive to relapses of subproficient performance. Adding Cusum analysis to expert evaluations can provide longitudinal, formative feedback and promote efficient redistribution of operative experiences.
Authors: Anke Ende; Yurdaguel Zopf; Peter Konturek; Andreas Naegel; Eckhart G Hahn; Kai Matthes; Juergen Maiss Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Melina C Vassiliou; Pepa A Kaneva; Benjamin K Poulose; Brian J Dunkin; Jeffrey M Marks; Riadh Sadik; Gideon Sroka; Mehran Anvari; Klaus Thaler; Gina L Adrales; Jeffrey W Hazey; Jenifer R Lightdale; Vic Velanovich; Lee L Swanstrom; John D Mellinger; Gerald M Fried Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2010-01-29 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Robert E Sedlack; Walter J Coyle; Keith L Obstein; Mohammad A Al-Haddad; Gennadiy Bakis; Jennifer A Christie; Raquel E Davila; Barry DeGregorio; Christoper J DiMaio; Brintha K Enestvedt; Jennifer Jorgensen; Daniel K Mullady; Liz Rajan Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2013-11-14 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Melina C Vassiliou; Brian J Dunkin; Gerald M Fried; John D Mellinger; Thadeus Trus; Pepa Kaneva; Calvin Lyons; James R Korndorffer; Michael Ujiki; Vic Velanovich; Michael L Kochman; Shawn Tsuda; Jose Martinez; Daniel J Scott; Gary Korus; Adrian Park; Jeffrey M Marks Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2013-11-20 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: William W Hope; W Borden Hooks; S Nicole Kilbourne; Ashley Adams; Cyrus A Kotwall; Thomas V Clancy Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2012-12-18 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Murtaza Shakir; Brian A Boone; Patricio M Polanco; Mazen S Zenati; Melissa E Hogg; Allan Tsung; Haroon A Choudry; A James Moser; David L Bartlett; Herbert J Zeh; Amer H Zureikat Journal: HPB (Oxford) Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 3.647
Authors: Christopher A Guidry; Timothy E Newhook; Florence E Turrentine; Min-Woong Sohn; Robert G Sawyer; R Scott Jones Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2016-03 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Yinin Hu; Robyn N Goodrich; Ivy A Le; Kendall D Brooks; Robert G Sawyer; Philip W Smith; Anneke T Schroen; Sara K Rasmussen Journal: J Surg Res Date: 2015-01-29 Impact factor: 2.192