Katherine Elizabeth Hekman1, Max V Wohlauer2, Gregory A Magee3, Christine L Shokrzadeh4, Kellie R Brown5, Christopher G Carsten6, Rabih Chaer7, Omid Jazaeri8, Andy M Lee9, Niten Singh10, Dawn M Coleman11. 1. Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, Ill. 2. Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Colorado School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colo. 3. Division of Vascular Surgery and Endovascular Therapy, Keck Medical Center of University of Southern California, Los Angeles, Calif. 4. Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Texas Medical Branch, Galveston, Tex. 5. Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisc. 6. Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of South Carolina School of Medicine, University of South Carolina, Greenville, SC. 7. Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, Pittsburgh, Pa. 8. Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery Associates, Rocky Vista University, Aurora, Colo. 9. Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Beth Israel Deaconness Medical Center, Boston, Mass. 10. Division of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash. 11. Section of Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. Electronic address: dawnbarn@umich.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Surgical training is constantly adapting to better prepare trainees for an evolving landscape of surgical practice. Training in vascular surgery additionally underwent a paradigm shift with the introduction of the integrated training pathway now more than a decade ago. With this study, we sought to characterize the needs and goals of our current vascular surgery trainee population. METHODS: The Association of Program Directors in Vascular Surgery Issues Committee compiled a survey to assess demographics, current needs, and goals of trainees and to evaluate trainee distress using a validated seven-item Physician Well-Being Index. The survey was distributed electronically to all current vascular surgery trainees and recent graduates in the academic years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, and responses were recorded anonymously. RESULTS: During the 2 years of the survey, the response rate was 30% (n = 367/1196). The respondents were 55% (n = 202) integrated vascular residents and 45% (n = 165) vascular surgery fellows. In each year of the survey, 60% (n = 102/170) and 58% (n = 86/148) of trainees expressed a desire to pursue academics in their careers, whereas 37% (n = 63/174) and 35% (n = 53/152) indicated their program had structured academic development time (2016-2017 and 2017-2018, respectively). Fifty-five percent (n = 96/174) and 52% (n = 79/152) stated that the overall impact of collaborative learners was positive. More than 60% of respondents in both years of the survey indicated experiencing one or more symptoms of distress on a weekly basis. The frequency of distress was associated with older age and with the presence of an advanced degree in both years of the survey. Sex, level of training, presence of collaborative learners, and having protected research time were not associated with frequency of distress in either year of the survey. CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight an opportunity for programs to further evaluate the needs of their trainees for academic development during vascular surgery training to better accommodate trainees' career goals. Further investigation to identify modifiable risk factors for distress among vascular surgery trainees is warranted.
BACKGROUND: Surgical training is constantly adapting to better prepare trainees for an evolving landscape of surgical practice. Training in vascular surgery additionally underwent a paradigm shift with the introduction of the integrated training pathway now more than a decade ago. With this study, we sought to characterize the needs and goals of our current vascular surgery trainee population. METHODS: The Association of Program Directors in Vascular Surgery Issues Committee compiled a survey to assess demographics, current needs, and goals of trainees and to evaluate trainee distress using a validated seven-item Physician Well-Being Index. The survey was distributed electronically to all current vascular surgery trainees and recent graduates in the academic years 2016-2017 and 2017-2018, and responses were recorded anonymously. RESULTS: During the 2 years of the survey, the response rate was 30% (n = 367/1196). The respondents were 55% (n = 202) integrated vascular residents and 45% (n = 165) vascular surgery fellows. In each year of the survey, 60% (n = 102/170) and 58% (n = 86/148) of trainees expressed a desire to pursue academics in their careers, whereas 37% (n = 63/174) and 35% (n = 53/152) indicated their program had structured academic development time (2016-2017 and 2017-2018, respectively). Fifty-five percent (n = 96/174) and 52% (n = 79/152) stated that the overall impact of collaborative learners was positive. More than 60% of respondents in both years of the survey indicated experiencing one or more symptoms of distress on a weekly basis. The frequency of distress was associated with older age and with the presence of an advanced degree in both years of the survey. Sex, level of training, presence of collaborative learners, and having protected research time were not associated with frequency of distress in either year of the survey. CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight an opportunity for programs to further evaluate the needs of their trainees for academic development during vascular surgery training to better accommodate trainees' career goals. Further investigation to identify modifiable risk factors for distress among vascular surgery trainees is warranted.
Authors: Michael C Dalsing; Michel S Makaroun; Linda M Harris; Joseph L Mills; John Eidt; George J Eckert Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2011-11-25 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Carter C Lebares; Hillary J Braun; Ekaterina V Guvva; Elissa S Epel; Frederick M Hecht Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2018-09-03 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: S R Dawe; G N Pena; J A Windsor; J A J L Broeders; P C Cregan; P J Hewett; G J Maddern Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2014-05-15 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Carter C Lebares; Amy O Hershberger; Ekaterina V Guvva; Aditi Desai; James Mitchell; Wen Shen; Linda M Reilly; Kevin L Delucchi; Patricia S O'Sullivan; Nancy L Ascher; Hobart W Harris Journal: JAMA Surg Date: 2018-10-17 Impact factor: 14.766
Authors: Matthew C Chia; Yue-Yung Hu; Ruojia Debbie Li; Elaine O Cheung; Joshua S Eng; Tiannan Zhan; Malachi G Sheahan; Karl Y Bilimoria; Dawn M Coleman Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2021-07-21 Impact factor: 4.268
Authors: Katherine E Hekman; Brian P Sullivan; Michael Bronsert; Kevin Z Chang; Amy Reed; Gabriela Velazquez-Ramirez; Max V Wohlauer Journal: J Vasc Surg Date: 2021-03-03 Impact factor: 4.860