ABSTRACT
Abstract Introduction Facial plastic and reconstructive surgery (FPRS) is a key part of the curriculum for otolaryngology residents. It is important to gain an understanding of the breadth of exposure and level of competence residents feel with these concepts during their residency. Objective To determine the level of FPRS exposure and training otolaryngology residents receive during their residency. Methods A survey was emailed to all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accredited otolaryngology residents. The survey aimed to find the level of exposure to FPRS procedures otolaryngology residents get and how confident they feel with their training in cosmetic FPRS. Results A total of 213 residents responded to the survey for an overall response rate of 13.4%. There was an even mixture of residents from all postgraduate year (PGY) levels, with 58% of respondents being male. Almost all (98%) of the residents felt FPRS was important to otolaryngology residency training. Exposure to procedures varied with 57% performing or assisting with cosmetic minor procedures, 81% performing or assisting with cosmetic major procedures, and 93% performing or assisting with reconstructive procedures. Only 49% of residents felt their programs either very or somewhat adequately prepared them in cosmetic facial plastic surgery. Conclusion There was a wide variability in the FPRS procedure exposure. Most residents felt procedures were a vital part of otolaryngology residency training, but not all were able to participate in them. Only half of the residents felt well-prepared in cosmetic procedures.
ABSTRACT
Introduction: The turnover and inability to consistently retain academic facial plastic surgeons is an issue that many academic departments of otolaryngology face. In addition to the financial costs of staff turnover and gaps in patient care, insufficient exposure of residents to key surgical procedures is a significant problem for residency programs. Objective: To identify themost important reasons that lead faculty members to leave an academic facial plastic surgery (FPS) practice as well as features that may be associated with retention of FPS faculty. Methods: Members of the American Academy of Facial Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (AAFPRS) and the Association of Academic Departments of Otolaryngology (AADO) were administered an anonymous, online survey. For both groups, we evaluated demographic factors, reasons for choosing academic careers, contributors to faculty turnover, as well as strategies for retention. The frequency of the responses was analyzed. Results: A total of 11.3% (135/1,200) of facial plastic surgery faculty responded to the faculty survey, with 59.1% (68/115) of current, academic surgeons participating, and a total of 16.7% (20/120) of department chairs responded to the chairs' survey. If a faculty member had left/was to leave, more control over practice was the most common reason between the two respondent groups. Of the fivemost important ways to increase faculty retention, more control over practice was the number one reason. Conclusion: Chairs and facial plastic surgery faculty should strive to agree upon the amount of control over the academic practice to lead to higher retention, better patient care, and continued resident education (AU)