Nasir I Bhatti1, Aadil Ahmed1, Sukgi S Choi2. 1. Department of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, U.S.A. 2. Division of Pediatric Otolaryngology, Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, U.S.A.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Evidence shows a positive association between quality of surgical training received and patient outcomes. Traditionally, improved patient outcomes are linked with increased operative volume. However, generalizing this finding to surgeons in training is unclear. In addition, reduced exposure due to work-hour restrictions calls for alternative methods to determine the quality of training. The purpose of this study was to identify the indicators of high-quality training by surveying the trainees and trainers. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed based on input from faculty and previous studies. The survey was divided into three sections asking about the indicators of quality training, methods to measure them, and interventions for improvement. The questionnaire was administered to program directors (PDs) and senior residents of otolaryngology training programs nationwide. RESULTS: The strongest indicators of quality training that were agreed upon by both residents and PDs were having faculty development as an ideal trainer while having a balanced level of supervision and independence, logbooks for exposure to volume and variety of pathology, continuous evaluation and provision of feedback. However, structured teaching, simulation-based training, and trainee exam scores failed to reach an agreement as a metric of high-quality surgical training. CONCLUSION: Measuring quality of a residency training program is imperative to produce competent surgeons and ensuring patient safety. The results of this study will help the residency programs to better train their residents and improve the quality of their teaching. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.
OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Evidence shows a positive association between quality of surgical training received and patient outcomes. Traditionally, improved patient outcomes are linked with increased operative volume. However, generalizing this finding to surgeons in training is unclear. In addition, reduced exposure due to work-hour restrictions calls for alternative methods to determine the quality of training. The purpose of this study was to identify the indicators of high-quality training by surveying the trainees and trainers. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed based on input from faculty and previous studies. The survey was divided into three sections asking about the indicators of quality training, methods to measure them, and interventions for improvement. The questionnaire was administered to program directors (PDs) and senior residents of otolaryngology training programs nationwide. RESULTS: The strongest indicators of quality training that were agreed upon by both residents and PDs were having faculty development as an ideal trainer while having a balanced level of supervision and independence, logbooks for exposure to volume and variety of pathology, continuous evaluation and provision of feedback. However, structured teaching, simulation-based training, and trainee exam scores failed to reach an agreement as a metric of high-quality surgical training. CONCLUSION: Measuring quality of a residency training program is imperative to produce competent surgeons and ensuring patient safety. The results of this study will help the residency programs to better train their residents and improve the quality of their teaching. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.