| Literature DB >> 30849966 |
Jin Soo A Song1, Connor McGuire2,3, Michael Vaculik1, Alexander Morzycki1, Madelaine Plourde4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to examine how surgery interest groups (SIGs) across Canada function and influence medical students' interest in surgical careers.Entities:
Keywords: And mentors; Competence; Medical education
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 30849966 PMCID: PMC6408764 DOI: 10.1186/s12909-019-1502-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Educ ISSN: 1472-6920 Impact factor: 2.463
Characteristics of participating SIG executives (n = 17)
| Characteristics | Frequency | |
|---|---|---|
| n | (%) | |
| Overall | 17 | 100 |
| Executives Institution | 7 | 75 |
| Memorial University | 1 | 8 |
| Queen’s University | 2 | 15 |
| Northern University | 3 | 23 |
| University of Ottawa | 2 | 15 |
| University of Toronto | 2 | 15 |
| Université de Sherbrooke | 1 | 8 |
| University of Saskatchewan | 1 | 8 |
| University of Alberta | 2 | 15 |
| University of British Columbia | 2 | 15 |
Responses of participating SIG chairs (n = 17)
| Response | Frequency | |
|---|---|---|
| n | (%) | |
| Initial introduction to SIG | ||
| Friend/ Classmate | 8 | 47 |
| Interest Group fair | 7 | 41 |
| 2 | 12 | |
| Route to appointment | 17 | 100 |
| Appointed by previous chairs | 15 | 88 |
| Voted in by students | 2 | 12 |
| What made you first join the SIG? | ||
| Interest in surgery as a career | 17 | 100 |
| Gain exposure/ experience in surgery | 3 | 18 |
| Getting more involved | 2 | 12 |
| To connect with residents/ staff | 1 | 6 |
| Help promote surgery | 1 | 6 |
| Improve medical education in surgery | 1 | 6 |
| Another position fell through | 1 | 6 |
| Staying updated | 1 | 6 |
| What were your roles as SIG executives | ||
| Organize events | 17 | 100 |
| Contact surgeons/ residents | 17 | 100 |
| Organize funding | 13 | 76 |
| Student advocacy | 11 | 65 |
| Educational/ departmental | 4 | 24 |
| Junior medical student mentorship | 5 | 29 |
| Skills teaching | 12 | 71 |
| Organizing SEAD | 4 | 24 |
| Other | 1 | 6 |
| Did you believe you had sufficient funding to run planned events? | ||
| Yes | 12 | 71 |
| No | 5 | 29 |
| What types of events were held throughout the year? | ||
| Lecture series | 10 | 59 |
| Surgeon Q&A/ Surgeon lifestyle night | 15 | 88 |
| Resident Q&A/ Resident lifestyle night | 12 | 71 |
| Residency matching information night | 9 | 53 |
| Scrubbing in to operating room /sterile technique session | 6 | 35 |
| Surgical skills session | 15 | 88 |
| Career night | 12 | 71 |
| Full day events (Eg. ‘Surgery Saturdays’ | 5 | 29 |
| Other | 6 | 35 |
| Who hosted the majority of events? | ||
| Medical students | 8 | 47 |
| Staff surgeons | 2 | 12 |
| Residents | 5 | 29 |
| Other | 2 | 12 |
| Which event was the most successful/ best received? | ||
| Surgical skills sessions | 12 | 71 |
| Scrubbing in to operating room /sterile technique session | 2 | 12 |
| Lecture series | 1 | 6 |
| Surgeon Q&A/ Surgeon lifestyle night | 1 | 6 |
| Which programs did SIG help facilitate? | ||
| SEAD | 4 | 24 |
| Observerships | 5 | 29 |
| Transplant procurement | 0 | 0 |
| On-call shifts | 1 | 6 |
| Mentorship program (with residents) | 5 | 29 |
| Mentorship program (with staff) | 0 | 0 |
| Women in surgery | 7 | 41 |
| Other | 1 | 6 |
| Which advertising methods were used? | ||
| 12 | 71 | |
| Posters | 2 | 12 |
| Class announcements | 12 | 71 |
| Interest group fairs | 6 | 35 |
| Flyers | 0 | 0 |
| Other (Facebook) | 9 | 53 |
| Which form of support did you receive? | ||
| Financial | 13 | 76 |
| Administrative | 8 | 47 |
| Promotional | 2 | 12 |
| Staff surgeon liaison | 10 | 59 |
| Other | 0 | 0 |
| Was interest in your group maintained throughout the year? | ||
| Strongly Agree | 3 | 18 |
| Agree | 11 | 65 |
| Neutral | 3 | 18 |
Barriers faced by participating SIG chairs (n = 17)
| Response | Frequency | |
|---|---|---|
| n | (%) | |
| What barriers did you face as chair? | ||
| Financial | 8 | 47 |
| Trouble booking space for events | 8 | 47 |
| Poor resident involvement | 3 | 18 |
| Poor faculty involvement | 2 | 12 |
| Poor departmental/ university involvement | 0 | 0 |
| Poor student engagement | 2 | 12 |
| Conflicts with other interest groups for time | 13 | 76 |
| Trouble balancing medical school with running the surgery interest group | 4 | 24 |
| Other (Trouble receiving timely responses from staff surgeons regarding attendance) | 1 | 6 |
| What was the single biggest obstacle during your tenure? | ||
| Financial | 8 | 47 |
| Poor faculty involvement | 2 | 12 |
| Poor student involvement | 2 | 12 |
| Poor resident involvement | 3 | 18 |
| Conflicts with other interest groups for time | 13 | 76 |
| Trouble getting space for events | 8 | 47 |
| Trouble balancing medical school and the surgery interest group | 4 | 24 |
| Other | 3 | 18 |
| How do you think your SIG could improve? | ||
| More Funding | 4 | 24 |
| More guidance for events/ teaching skills | 1 | 6 |
| Hosting more events | 2 | 12 |
| Collaboration with other interest groups and SIGs nationally | 3 | 18 |
| More support from faculty | 1 | 6 |
| More resident involvement | 1 | 6 |
| More organizing | 1 | 6 |
| Delegate tasks for effectively | 1 | 6 |
| More chairs | 1 | 6 |
| More defined positions within the group | 1 | 6 |
| More space for events | 1 | 6 |
| Fever events, more higher yield events | 1 | 6 |
| Would you like to see a national, collaborative Canadian Surgery interest group? | ||
| Unsure | 8 | 47 |
| Yes | 8 | 47 |
| No | 1 | 6 |
| In your opinion, what would be some of the benefits of having a national collaborative surgery interest group? | ||
| Access to more funding | 9 | 53 |
| Standardizing events | 8 | 47 |
| Access/ connections to a greater number of surgeons | 11 | 65 |
| Access/ connections to a greater number of students | 7 | 41 |
| Other | 0 | 0 |
| In your opinion, what would be some of the pitfalls of a national surgery interest group be? | ||
| More bureaucratic/ organizational hurdles | 16 | 94 |
| More work | 9 | 53 |
| It wouldn’t work | 3 | 18 |
| It wouldn’t improve our existing model | 3 | 18 |
| Less funding | 0 | 0 |
| Other | 4 | 24 |
Demographic characteristics of participating SIG members (n = 127)
| Characteristics | Frequency | |
|---|---|---|
| n | (%) | |
| Overall | 127 | |
| Gender | ||
| Female | 82 | 65 |
| Male | 45 | 35 |
| Age | ||
| 19–20 | 2 | 2 |
| 21–22 | 33 | 26 |
| 23–24 | 50 | 40 |
| 25–26 | 26 | 21 |
| 27–28 | 8 | 6 |
| 29–30 | 7 | 6 |
| Year of study | ||
| Med 1 | 66 | 52 |
| Med 2 | 55 | 43 |
| Med 3 | 3 | 2 |
| Med 4 | 3 | 2 |
Fig. 1Box and whisker plots of survey responses from SIG members. Ratings are on an ordinal Likert scale, where 1 = Strongly disagree and 5 = Strongly agree. The box represents the interquartile range, and the whiskers the minimum and maximum values. Median values are displayed as separate lines in the box, but often overlap with interquartile values and are not displayed
Survey responses from SIG members
| Mean | SD | |
|---|---|---|
| I attended more than 50% of the events | 3.32 | 1.09 |
| I had an interest in pursuing surgery prior to joining the SIG | 3.31 | 1.09 |
| Skills workshops increased my confidence and competence in basic surgical techniques | 3.89 | 0.70 |
| SIG provided opportunities to gain more exposure to the OR | 3.25 | 0.94 |
| SIG promoted and supplemented the surgical teaching I received in medical school | 3.63 | 0.76 |
| SIG increased my interest in surgical management of diseases | 3.51 | 0.81 |
| SIG promoted collaboration between students interested in surgery | 3.48 | 0.71 |
| SIG helped me prepare for surgical block exams | 2.89 | 0.56 |
| SIG increased my interest in pursuing a surgical specialty | 3.50 | 0.79 |
| SIG helped me narrow my interest in various surgical disciplines | 2.98 | 0.80 |
| SIG helped foster connections and mentorship between students and surgery residents and staff | 3.39 | 0.83 |
| I prefer to learn from senior medical students or resident doctors over staff surgeons | 3.23 | 0.91 |
| Events held by our SIG to be held at times that were accessible to junior medical students | 4.05 | 0.60 |
| I felt the environment of SIG was comfortable enough to learn and ask questions without judgment | 4.02 | 0.60 |
| Overall the SIG helped me prepare for a future in surgery | 3.41 | 0.61 |
| SIG provided opportunities to discuss work and lifestyle factors with surgical residents and staff | 3.88 | 0.75 |
Future events that respondents indicated may be beneficial (n = 42)
| Response | Frequency | |
|---|---|---|
| n | (%) | |
| Overall | 42 | |
| More skills events/ Greater event capacity | 12 | 29 |
| Panel discussion/ Q&A session | 4 | 10 |
| Improved shadowing opportunities | 4 | 10 |
| Career fair | 3 | 7 |
| More information about surgical subspecialty | 3 | 7 |
| OR preparation/ Tour | 2 | 5 |
| More relaxed social events | 2 | 5 |
| Myth busting about a career in surgery | 2 | 5 |
| Anatomy classes | 1 | 2 |
| Hospital based activities during the holidays (Eg. observerships) | 1 | 2 |
| Clerkship tips | 1 | 2 |
| Event with first year residents about matching | 1 | 2 |
| Analyzing surgical videos | 1 | 2 |
| Information about surgeon supply/ demand | 1 | 2 |
| “Meet the surgeons” night | 1 | 2 |
| “Speed dating event” with residents/ surgeons | 1 | 2 |
| Structured mentorship | 1 | 2 |
| Information about technology in surgery | 1 | 2 |