Literature DB >> 25175505

What is the future of training in surgery? Needs assessment of national stakeholders.

Sara Kim1, Brian J Dunkin2, John T Paige3, Jane M Eggerstedt4, Cate Nicholas5, Melina C Vassilliou6, Donn H Spight7, Jose F Pliego8, Robert M Rush9, James N Lau10, Robert O Carpenter8, Daniel J Scott11.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Curriculum Committee of the American College of Surgeons-Accredited Educational Institutes conducted a need assessment to (1) identify gaps between ideal and actual practices in areas of surgical care, (2) explore educational solutions for addressing these gaps, and (3) shape a vision to advance the future of training in surgery.
METHODS: National stakeholders were recruited from the committee members' professional network and interviewed via telephone. Interview questions targeted areas for improving surgical patient care, optimal educational solutions for training in surgery including simulation roles, and entities that should primarily bear training costs. We performed an iterative, qualitative analysis including member checking to identify key themes.
RESULTS: Twenty-two interviewees included state/national board representatives, risk managers, multispecialty faculty/program directors, nurses, trainees, an industry representative, and a patient. Surgeons' communication with patients, families, and team members was raised consistently by stakeholders as a way to establish clear expectations regarding pre-, peri-, and postoperative care. Other comments highlighted the surgeon's development and demonstration and maintenance of cognitive and technical skills, including surgical judgment. Stakeholders also reiterated the critical need for surgeons to engage in on-going self-assessment and professional development to identify and remediate recognized limitations. Recommended learning modalities for meeting surgeons' needs included active learning (deliberate practice, diverse patient experiences), experiential learning (simulation), and peer and mentored learning (preceptorship).
CONCLUSION: This first formal needs assessment of education for surgeons points to opportunities for educational programs in patient-centered communication, learning models that match preferences of new generations of trainees, and training in interprofessional/interdisciplinary team communication and teamwork.
Copyright © 2014 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25175505     DOI: 10.1016/j.surg.2014.04.047

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surgery        ISSN: 0039-6060            Impact factor:   3.982


  6 in total

Review 1.  Laparoscopic and robot-assisted laparoscopic digestive surgery: Present and future directions.

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

Review 2.  Educational implications for surgical telementoring: a current review with recommendations for future practice, policy, and research.

Authors:  K M Augestad; H Han; J Paige; T Ponsky; C M Schlachta; B Dunkin; J Mellinger
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2017-06-27       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Measuring intra-operative decision-making during laparoscopic cholecystectomy: validity evidence for a novel interactive Web-based assessment tool.

Authors:  Amin Madani; Yusuke Watanabe; Elif Bilgic; Philip H Pucher; Melina C Vassiliou; Rajesh Aggarwal; Gerald M Fried; Elliot J Mitmaker; Liane S Feldman
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2016-07-13       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Development and implementation of a clinical pathway approach to simulation-based training for foregut surgery.

Authors:  Kiyoyuki W Miyasaka; Joseph Buchholz; Denise LaMarra; Giorgos C Karakousis; Rajesh Aggarwal
Journal:  J Surg Educ       Date:  2015-04-11       Impact factor: 2.891

5.  Hand Motion Analysis Illustrates Differences When Drilling Cadaveric and Printed Temporal Bone.

Authors:  Jordan B Hochman; Justyn Pisa; Katrice Kazmerik; Bertram Unger
Journal:  Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol       Date:  2021-12-07       Impact factor: 1.973

6.  A comparison of a homemade central line simulator to commercial models.

Authors:  Rebecca F Brown; Christopher Tignanelli; Joanna Grudziak; Shelley Summerlin-Long; Jeffrey Laux; Andy Kiser; Sean P Montgomery
Journal:  J Surg Res       Date:  2017-03-06       Impact factor: 2.192

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.