Literature DB >> 32857160

Assessment of Autonomy in Operative Procedures Among Female and Male New Zealand General Surgery Trainees.

Daniel B Joh1, Bert van der Werf2, Bridget J Watson3, Rowan French4, Simon Bann5, Elizabeth Dennet5,6, Benjamin P T Loveday1,7.   

Abstract

Importance: The need for trainee sex equality within surgical training has resulted in an appraisal of the training experience in the New Zealand general surgery training program. Objective: To investigate the association between trainee sex and surgical autonomy in the operating room in the New Zealand general surgery training program. Design, Setting, and Participants: Retrospective cohort study conducted from December 10, 2012, to December 10, 2017, examining all endoscopic, major, and minor procedures performed by all New Zealand general surgery trainees in every training hospital in New Zealand. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the level of meaningful autonomy by each New Zealand general surgery trainee (ie, trainee as primary operator without the surgeon mentor scrubbed for the case). Outcomes were compared using multivariable analysis.
Results: This study included 120 New Zealand general surgery trainees (42 women [35%] and 78 men [65%]) who were analyzed over 279.5 trainee-years (88.5 trainee-years for women and 191.0 trainee-years for men). Included were 119 380 general surgery procedures (17 465 endoscopic, 56 964 major, and 44 951 minor) in 18 hospitals. By the end of the 5-year training program, female trainees had a lower cumulative mean autonomous caseload than male trainees for endoscopic (284.0 [95% CI, 207.0-361.0] vs 352.2 [95% CI, 282.9-421.6], P = .03), major (139.9 [95% CI, 76.7-203.2] vs 198.1 [95% CI, 142.3-254.0], P = .02), and minor (456.3 [95% CI, 394.8-517.9] vs 519.9 [95% CI, 465.6-574.2], P = .007) procedures. Conclusions and Relevance: After accounting for differences among trainees, hospital type, number of female and male surgeon mentors at each hospital, and trainee seniority, female trainees performed fewer cases with meaningful autonomy compared with male trainees. These findings support the need for pragmatic solutions to address this bias and further investigations on mechanisms contributing to discrepancies.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 32857160      PMCID: PMC7450402          DOI: 10.1001/jamasurg.2020.3021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Surg        ISSN: 2168-6254            Impact factor:   14.766


  24 in total

1.  Motor coordination assessment in practicing surgeons and medical students.

Authors:  A M Szczepanik; M Spieszny; T Klocek; M Szczepanik; D Goroszeniuk; A Kubisz; J Kulig
Journal:  Acta Chir Belg       Date:  2010 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.090

Review 2.  Prevalence of bullying, discrimination and sexual harassment in surgery in Australasia.

Authors:  Wendy Crebbin; Graeme Campbell; David A Hillis; David A Watters
Journal:  ANZ J Surg       Date:  2015-10-29       Impact factor: 1.872

3.  General surgery residency inadequately prepares trainees for fellowship: results of a survey of fellowship program directors.

Authors:  Samer G Mattar; Adnan A Alseidi; Daniel B Jones; D Rohan Jeyarajah; Lee L Swanstrom; Ralph W Aye; Steven D Wexner; José M Martinez; Sharona B Ross; Michael M Awad; Morris E Franklin; Maurice E Arregui; Bruce D Schirmer; Rebecca M Minter
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 12.969

4.  Bridging the gap: The intersection of entrustability and perceived autonomy for surgical residents in the OR.

Authors:  Gurjit Sandhu; Julie Thompson-Burdine; Niki Matusko; Danielle C Sutzko; Vahagn C Nikolian; Anna Boniakowski; Patrick E Georgoff; Kaustubh A Prabhu; Rebecca M Minter
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2018-08-27       Impact factor: 2.565

5.  How much guidance is given in the operating room? Factors influencing faculty self-reports, resident perceptions, and faculty/resident agreement.

Authors:  Laura Torbeck; Reed G Williams; Jennifer Choi; Connie C Schmitz; Jeffrey G Chipman; Gary L Dunnington
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 3.982

Review 6.  Understanding and Overcoming Implicit Gender Bias in Plastic Surgery.

Authors:  Nicole A Phillips; Shruti C Tannan; Loree K Kalliainen
Journal:  Plast Reconstr Surg       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 4.730

7.  The erasure of gender in academic surgery: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Fiona Webster; Kathleen Rice; Jennifer Christian; Natashia Seemann; Nancy Baxter; Carol-Anne Moulton; Tulin Cil
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2016-07-18       Impact factor: 2.565

8.  Attitudes, training experiences, and professional expectations of US general surgery residents: a national survey.

Authors:  Heather Yeo; Kate Viola; David Berg; Zhenqiu Lin; Marcella Nunez-Smith; Cortland Cammann; Richard H Bell; Julie Ann Sosa; Harlan M Krumholz; Leslie A Curry
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2009-09-23       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  The gender gap in a surgical subspecialty: analysis of career and lifestyle factors.

Authors:  Jennifer Rubin Grandis; William E Gooding; Beth A Zamboni; Marilyn M Wagener; Stephanie D Drenning; Lori Miller; Karen Jo Doyle; Susan E Mackinnon; Robin L Wagner
Journal:  Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2004-06

10.  Changing Autonomy in Operative Experience Through UK General Surgery Training: A National Cohort Study.

Authors:  Elizabeth J Elsey; Gareth Griffiths; Joe West; David J Humes
Journal:  Ann Surg       Date:  2019-03       Impact factor: 12.969

View more
  2 in total

1.  Women in Surgery Italia: what are the opportunities in the operatory room? Results from a nationwide interdisciplinary survey.

Authors:  Daniela Lucidi; Sara Parini; Marella Reale; Danila Azzolina; Daunia Verdi; Gaya Spolverato
Journal:  Updates Surg       Date:  2022-06-03

2.  Differences in progression by surgical specialty: a national cohort study.

Authors:  Carla Hope; Jonathan Lund; Gareth Griffiths; David Humes
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-02-09       Impact factor: 2.692

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.