The Big Sibling program: Impact of a medical student-resident mentorship program during the surgery clerkship.

BACKGROUND: We created a Big Sibling mentorship program for medical students and studied the program effects. METHODS: Between July 2019 to December 2020, students completing their surgery clerkship were paired with a Big Sibling surgical research resident. Participation in and perceptions of the program were assessed by survey. RESULTS: 81 medical students and 25 residents participated with a 79% and 95% survey response rate, respectively. The most valuable topics discussed included ward skills, personal development and career advising. Students who interacted >2 times with their Big Sibling were more likely to perceive the operating room as a positive learning environment, view attendings as role models, and receive mentoring and feedback from residents and attendings (p = 0.03, 0.02, 0.01 respectively). 78% of residents thought the program was a positive experience and no residents found it burdensome. CONCLUSION: The Big Siblings program enhances the surgery clerkship learning environment. Students who engaged with their Big Sibling had a more positive view of the clerkship and the mentorship provided by residents and attendings.

Transfer of virtual reality endoscopy training to live animal colonoscopy: a randomized control trial of proficiency vs. repetition-based training.

BACKGROUND: Low first-time pass rates of the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES) exam stimulated development of virtual reality (VR) simulation curricula for test preparation. This study evaluates the transfer of VR endoscopy training to live porcine endoscopy performance and compares the relative effectiveness of a proficiency-based vs repetition-based VR training curriculum. METHODS: Novice endoscopists completed pretesting including the FES manual skills examination and Global Assessment of GI Endoscopic Skills (GAGES) assessment of porcine upper and lower endoscopy. Participants were randomly assigned one of two curricula: proficiency-based or repetition-based. Following curriculum completion, participants post-tested via repeat FES examination and GAGES porcine endoscopy assessments. The two cohorts pre-to-post-test differences were compared using ANCOVA. RESULTS: Twenty-two residents completed the curricula. There were no differences in demographics or clinical endoscopy experience between the groups. The repetition group spent significantly more time on the simulator (repetition: 242.2 min, SD 48.6) compared to the proficiency group (proficiency: 170.0 min, SD 66.3; p = 0.013). There was a significant improvement in porcine endoscopy (pre: 10.6, SD 2.8, post: 16.6, SD 3.4; p < 0.001) and colonoscopy (pre: 10.4, SD 2.7, post: 16.4, SD 4.2; p < 0.001) GAGES scores as well as FES manual skills performance (pre: 270.9, SD 105.5, post: 477.4, SD 68.9; p < 0.001) for the total cohort. There was no difference in post-test GAGES performance or FES manual skills exam performance between the two groups. Both the proficiency and repetition group had a 100% pass rate on the FES skills exam following VR curriculum completion. CONCLUSION: A VR endoscopy curriculum translates to improved performance in upper and lower endoscopy in a live animal model. VR curricula type did not affect FES manual skills examination or live colonoscopy outcomes; however, a proficiency curriculum is less time-consuming and can provide a structured approach to prepare for both the FES exam and clinical endoscopy.

Challenges of virtual interviewing for surgical fellowships: a qualitative analysis of applicant experiences.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic forced surgical fellowship programs to transition from in-person to remote applicant interviews; the virtual interviewing format presented new and unique challenges. We sought to understand applicants' perceived challenges to virtual interviewing for a surgical fellowship program. METHOD: A grounded theory-based qualitative study was performed utilizing semi-structured interviews with fellowship applicants from the 2020 fellowship match. All Fellowship Council-registered applicants were eligible. We purposefully sampled participants to balance across gender, specialty-choice, and academic versus community-program affiliation. Interviews were inductively analyzed by two researchers for prominent themes. RESULTS: Fifteen interviews were conducted. Participants were 60% male (n = 9), with 33% (n = 5) from non-academic institutions. They applied for the following fellowships: Advanced Gastrointestinal/Minimal Invasive (55%), Bariatric (30%), Hepatopancreatobiliary (10%) and Surgical Oncology (5%). Four main themes emerged to describe virtual interview process challenges: (1) perceived data deficiency, (2) superficial personal connections, (3) magnification of non-professionalism, and (4) logistical frustrations. Applicants recommend program directors provide more information about the fellowship prior to interview day and offer informal independent interactions with current and previous fellows. CONCLUSIONS: According to fellowship applicants, virtual interviews resulted in a lack of information for rank-list decision making ultimately requiring them to rely on other information avenues to base their decisions. These applicants have offered advice to fellowship program directors and future applicants to better optimize this process.

Medical Students and Patients Benefit from Virtual Non-Medical Interactions Due to COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Patient care restrictions created by the COVID-19 pandemic constrained medical students' ability to interact directly with patients. Additionally, organ transplant recipients faced increasing isolation due to the rise of telemedicine, the importance of social distancing and their immunosuppressed state. We created a pilot program to pair students with transplant patients for structured, virtual encounters and studied its impact on medical students and patients. METHODS: In May 2020, medical students conducted virtual visits with patients via telephone or video conferencing. Patients and students were surveyed regarding their experiences and independent focus groups were conducted. The survey responses and focus group discussions were deidentified, transcribed, and analyzed for themes. RESULTS: Ten participating students were in their first, second, or final year of medical school. The 14 patients were liver or kidney transplant recipients or kidney donors. All interactions lasted longer than 30 minutes, with 56% greater than 1 hour. Three themes emerged related to the student experience: improvement of their clinical communication skills, development of knowledge and attitudes related to organ transplantation and donation, and independent management of a patient encounter. Three themes related to the patient experience: appreciation of the opportunity to share their personal patient experience to help educate future physicians, a cathartic and personally illuminating experience and an opportunity to share the message of donation. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot program provided a novel opportunity for virtual student-patient interactions that was feasible, well-received, and mutually beneficial. The use of virtual non-medical patient experiences allowed for experiential learning during which students learned about both clinical medicine and enhanced their communication skills directly from patients. Additionally, patients were able to engage with medical students in a new way, as teachers of clinical interactions, and reported a high level of satisfaction in addition to deriving personal benefit.