INTRODUCTION: Accurate recording of operative cases is essential during training to demonstrate experience. However, indicative numbers delineating minimum desirable experience may incentivise exaggeration or misrepresentation of experience. This study aimed to determine perceptions of real-world eLogbook use among UK surgeons in training. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An anonymous online questionnaire was disseminated electronically using a pre-planned yield-maximisation strategy, incorporating regional champions, email and social media. Evaluation employed mixed methods in a combined interpretation of quantitative and qualitative data from the questionnaire. Recommendations for development of the eLogbook were itemised from respondents' free text items and a modified Delphi process, conducted within the Council of the UK national trainee representative body, the Association of Surgeons in Training, determined the strength of each recommendation. RESULTS: Analysis included 906 complete responses from training-grade surgeons (34.8% female) from all UK recognised specialties and all grades of training. More than two-thirds (68.5%) believed that overstatement or misrepresentation of case involvement occurs. A fifth (20.8%) reported witnessing trainees logging cases they had not actually participated in and almost a third (32.7%) had witnessed overstatement, yet few (15.1%) had raised such an issue with a supervisor. Most (85.2%) respondents had few or no eLogbook entries validated. More than a quarter of respondents felt pressure to overstate their involvement in cases (28.6%) and the number recorded (28.1%). Almost a third (31.5%) felt the required case number for completion of training was not achievable. Female trainees were less likely to feel well supervised (p = 0.022) and to perceive targets for completion of training were achievable (p = 0.005). Thematic analysis identified four key themes to explain logbook misuse: Pressure to achieve training milestones; eLogbook functionality issues; training deficiencies and probity. CONCLUSIONS: Inaccurate operative recording was widely reported, primarily in response to perceived pressure to achieve targets for career progression. Operative logbooks may not be as accurate as intended. Consensus recommendations are made for improvement in the eLogbook and its use.
INTRODUCTION: Accurate recording of operative cases is essential during training to demonstrate experience. However, indicative numbers delineating minimum desirable experience may incentivise exaggeration or misrepresentation of experience. This study aimed to determine perceptions of real-world eLogbook use among UK surgeons in training. MATERIAL AND METHODS: An anonymous online questionnaire was disseminated electronically using a pre-planned yield-maximisation strategy, incorporating regional champions, email and social media. Evaluation employed mixed methods in a combined interpretation of quantitative and qualitative data from the questionnaire. Recommendations for development of the eLogbook were itemised from respondents' free text items and a modified Delphi process, conducted within the Council of the UK national trainee representative body, the Association of Surgeons in Training, determined the strength of each recommendation. RESULTS: Analysis included 906 complete responses from training-grade surgeons (34.8% female) from all UK recognised specialties and all grades of training. More than two-thirds (68.5%) believed that overstatement or misrepresentation of case involvement occurs. A fifth (20.8%) reported witnessing trainees logging cases they had not actually participated in and almost a third (32.7%) had witnessed overstatement, yet few (15.1%) had raised such an issue with a supervisor. Most (85.2%) respondents had few or no eLogbook entries validated. More than a quarter of respondents felt pressure to overstate their involvement in cases (28.6%) and the number recorded (28.1%). Almost a third (31.5%) felt the required case number for completion of training was not achievable. Female trainees were less likely to feel well supervised (p = 0.022) and to perceive targets for completion of training were achievable (p = 0.005). Thematic analysis identified four key themes to explain logbook misuse: Pressure to achieve training milestones; eLogbook functionality issues; training deficiencies and probity. CONCLUSIONS: Inaccurate operative recording was widely reported, primarily in response to perceived pressure to achieve targets for career progression. Operative logbooks may not be as accurate as intended. Consensus recommendations are made for improvement in the eLogbook and its use.