Pritam Singh1, Rajesh Aggarwal2, Boris Zevin3, Teodor Grantcharov3, Ara Darzi4. 1. Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, London, UK. Electronic address: pritam.singh@imperial.ac.uk. 2. Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, London, UK; Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 3. Division of General Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Division of Surgery, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, St Mary's Hospital, London, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that patient outcomes can be associated with the quality of surgical training. To raise the standards of surgical training, a tool to measure training quality is needed. The objective of this study was to define the elements of high-quality surgical training and methods to measure them. STUDY DESIGN: Modified Delphi methodology was used to achieve international expert consensus. Seventy statements about indicators and measures of training quality were developed based on themes from semi-structured interviews of surgeons. Eighty-three experts in surgical education from 13 countries were invited to complete an online survey ranking each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was predefined as Cronbach's α ≥0.80. Once consensus was achieved, statements ranked ≥4 by ≥80% of experts were used as themes to develop the Surgical Training Quality Assessment Tool (S-QAT). RESULTS: Fifty-three (64%) experts from 11 countries responded. Consensus was achieved after 2 rounds of voting (Cronbach's α = 0.930). Thirty-five statements were selected as themes for the Surgical Training Quality Assessment Tool. Statements defining training quality covered the following subjects: relationship between the trainer and trainee, operative exposure, supervision, feedback, structure and organization, and structured teaching programs. Consensus statements on measuring training quality included trainee feedback, trainer feedback, timetable structure, and trainee improvement. There was agreement that measuring training quality would have a positive effect on training. CONCLUSIONS: International expert consensus was achieved on defining and measuring high-quality surgical training. This has been translated into the (S-QAT) to evaluate surgical training programs. Competition created by comparing training quality might raise the standards of surgical education.
BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that patient outcomes can be associated with the quality of surgical training. To raise the standards of surgical training, a tool to measure training quality is needed. The objective of this study was to define the elements of high-quality surgical training and methods to measure them. STUDY DESIGN: Modified Delphi methodology was used to achieve international expert consensus. Seventy statements about indicators and measures of training quality were developed based on themes from semi-structured interviews of surgeons. Eighty-three experts in surgical education from 13 countries were invited to complete an online survey ranking each statement on a 5-point Likert scale. Consensus was predefined as Cronbach's α ≥0.80. Once consensus was achieved, statements ranked ≥4 by ≥80% of experts were used as themes to develop the Surgical Training Quality Assessment Tool (S-QAT). RESULTS: Fifty-three (64%) experts from 11 countries responded. Consensus was achieved after 2 rounds of voting (Cronbach's α = 0.930). Thirty-five statements were selected as themes for the Surgical Training Quality Assessment Tool. Statements defining training quality covered the following subjects: relationship between the trainer and trainee, operative exposure, supervision, feedback, structure and organization, and structured teaching programs. Consensus statements on measuring training quality included trainee feedback, trainer feedback, timetable structure, and trainee improvement. There was agreement that measuring training quality would have a positive effect on training. CONCLUSIONS: International expert consensus was achieved on defining and measuring high-quality surgical training. This has been translated into the (S-QAT) to evaluate surgical training programs. Competition created by comparing training quality might raise the standards of surgical education.
Authors: Juan C Rodríguez-Sanjuán; Marcos Gómez-Ruiz; Soledad Trugeda-Carrera; Carlos Manuel-Palazuelos; Antonio López-Useros; Manuel Gómez-Fleitas Journal: World J Gastroenterol Date: 2016-02-14 Impact factor: 5.742
Authors: Jose Quezada; Pablo Achurra; Cristian Jarry; Domenech Asbun; Rodrigo Tejos; Martín Inzunza; Gabriel Ulloa; Andres Neyem; Carlos Martínez; Carlo Marino; Gabriel Escalona; Julian Varas Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2019-07-30 Impact factor: 4.584
Authors: Sachin Wani; Samuel Han; Violette Simon; Matthew Hall; Dayna Early; Eva Aagaard; Wasif M Abidi; Subhas Banerjee; Todd H Baron; Michael Bartel; Erik Bowman; Brian C Brauer; Jonathan M Buscaglia; Linda Carlin; Amitabh Chak; Hemant Chatrath; Abhishek Choudhary; Bradley Confer; Gregory A Coté; Koushik K Das; Christopher J DiMaio; Andrew M Dries; Steven A Edmundowicz; Abdul Hamid El Chafic; Ihab El Hajj; Swan Ellert; Jason Ferreira; Anthony Gamboa; Ian S Gan; Lisa Gangarosa; Bhargava Gannavarapu; Stuart R Gordon; Nalini M Guda; Hazem T Hammad; Cynthia Harris; Sujai Jalaj; Paul Jowell; Sana Kenshil; Jason Klapman; Michael L Kochman; Sri Komanduri; Gabriel Lang; Linda S Lee; David E Loren; Frank J Lukens; Daniel Mullady; Raman V Muthusamy; Andrew S Nett; Mojtaba S Olyaee; Kavous Pakseresht; Pranith Perera; Patrick Pfau; Cyrus Piraka; John M Poneros; Amit Rastogi; Anthony Razzak; Brian Riff; Shreyas Saligram; James M Scheiman; Isaiah Schuster; Raj J Shah; Rishi Sharma; Joshua P Spaete; Ajaypal Singh; Muhammad Sohail; Jayaprakash Sreenarasimhaiah; Tyler Stevens; James H Tabibian; Demetrios Tzimas; Dushant S Uppal; Shiro Urayama; Domenico Vitterbo; Andrew Y Wang; Wahid Wassef; Patrick Yachimski; Sergio Zepeda-Gomez; Tobias Zuchelli; Rajesh N Keswani Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2019-02-07 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Jeremy R Huddy; Melody Ni; Stella Mavroveli; James Barlow; Doris-Ann Williams; George B Hanna Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2015-07-10 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Alfredo García-Layana; Luis Arias; Marta S Figueroa; Javier Araiz; José María Ruiz-Moreno; José García-Arumí; Francisco Gómez-Ulla; María Isabel López-Gálvez; Francisco Cabrera-López; José Manuel García-Campos; Jordi Monés; Enrique Cervera; Felix Armadá; Roberto Gallego-Pinazo; Antonio Piñero-Bustamante; Miguel Angel Serrano-Garcia Journal: J Ophthalmol Date: 2014-12-21 Impact factor: 1.909
Authors: Sivesh K Kamarajah; Manjunath Siddaiah-Subramanya; Alessandro Parente; Richard P T Evans; Ademola Adeyeye; Alan Ainsworth; Alberto M L Takahashi; Alex Charalabopoulos; Andrew Chang; Atila Eroglue; Bas Wijnhoven; Claire Donohoe; Daniela Molena; Eider Talavera-Urquijo; Flavio Roberto Takeda; Gail Darling; German Rosero; Guillaume Piessen; Hans Mahendran; Hsu Po Kuei; Ines Gockel; Ionut Negoi; Jacopo Weindelmayer; Jari Rasanen; Kebebe Bekele; Guowei Kim; Lieven Depypere; Lorenzo Ferri; Magnus Nilsson; Frederik Klevebro; B Mark Smithers; Mark I van Berge Henegouwen; Peter Grimminger; Paul M Schneider; C S Pramesh; Raza Sayyed; Richard Babor; Shinji Mine; Simon Law; Suzanne Gisbertz; Tim Bright; Xavier Benoit D'Journo; Donald Low; Pritam Singh; Ewen A Griffiths Journal: Ann Surg Open Date: 2022-08-29