OBJECTIVE: Faculty evaluations, ABSITE scores, and operative case volumes often tell little about true resident performance. We developed an objective structured clinical examination called the Surgical X-Games (5 rooms, 15 minutes each, 12-15 tests total, different for each postgraduate [PGY] level). We hypothesized that performance in X-Games will prove more useful in identifying areas of strength or weakness among general surgery (GS) residents than faculty evaluations, ABSITE scores, or operative cases volumes. DESIGN: PGY 2 to 5 GS residents (n = 35) were tested in a semiannual X-Games assessment using multiple simulation tasks: laparoscopic skills, bowel anastomosis, CT/CXR analysis, chest tube placement, etc. over 1 academic year. Resident scores were compared to their ABSITE, in-training evaluation reports, and operating room case numbers. SETTING: Academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: PGY-2, 3, 4, and 5 GS residents at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN. RESULTS: Results varied greatly within each class except for staff evaluations: in-training evaluation reports medians for PGY-2s were 5.3 (range: 5.0-6.0), PGY-3s 5.9 (5.5-6.3), PGY-4s 5.6 (5.0-6.0), and PGY-5s were 6.1 (5.6-6.9). Although ABSITE and operating room case volumes fluctated greatly with each PGY class, only X-Games scores (median: PGY-2 = 82, PGY-3 = 61, PGY-4 = 76, and PGY-5 = 60) correlated positively (p < 0.05) with operative case volume and negatively (p < 0.05) with staff evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: X-Games assessment generated wide differentiation of resident performance quickly, inexpensively, and objectively. Although "Minnesota-nice" surgical staff may feel all GS trainees are "above average," objective assessment tells us otherwise.
OBJECTIVE: Faculty evaluations, ABSITE scores, and operative case volumes often tell little about true resident performance. We developed an objective structured clinical examination called the Surgical X-Games (5 rooms, 15 minutes each, 12-15 tests total, different for each postgraduate [PGY] level). We hypothesized that performance in X-Games will prove more useful in identifying areas of strength or weakness among general surgery (GS) residents than faculty evaluations, ABSITE scores, or operative cases volumes. DESIGN: PGY 2 to 5 GS residents (n = 35) were tested in a semiannual X-Games assessment using multiple simulation tasks: laparoscopic skills, bowel anastomosis, CT/CXR analysis, chest tube placement, etc. over 1 academic year. Resident scores were compared to their ABSITE, in-training evaluation reports, and operating room case numbers. SETTING: Academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: PGY-2, 3, 4, and 5 GS residents at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN. RESULTS: Results varied greatly within each class except for staff evaluations: in-training evaluation reports medians for PGY-2s were 5.3 (range: 5.0-6.0), PGY-3s 5.9 (5.5-6.3), PGY-4s 5.6 (5.0-6.0), and PGY-5s were 6.1 (5.6-6.9). Although ABSITE and operating room case volumes fluctated greatly with each PGY class, only X-Games scores (median: PGY-2 = 82, PGY-3 = 61, PGY-4 = 76, and PGY-5 = 60) correlated positively (p < 0.05) with operative case volume and negatively (p < 0.05) with staff evaluations. CONCLUSIONS: X-Games assessment generated wide differentiation of resident performance quickly, inexpensively, and objectively. Although "Minnesota-nice" surgical staff may feel all GS trainees are "above average," objective assessment tells us otherwise.