Virtual Mentoring: A Novel Approach to Facilitate Medical Student Applications to General Surgery Residency.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic rapidly altered the landscape of medical education, particularly disrupting the residency application process and highlighting the need for structured mentorship programs. This prompted our institution to develop a virtual mentoring program to provide tailored, one-on-one mentoring to medical students applying to general surgery residency. The aim of this study was to examine general surgery applicant perception of a pilot virtual mentoring curriculum. DESIGN: The mentorship program included student-tailored mentoring and advising in 5 domains: resume editing, personal statement composition, requesting letters of recommendation, interview skills, and residency program ranking. Electronic surveys were administered following ERAS application submission to participating applicants. The surveys were distributed and collected via a REDCap database. RESULTS: Eighteen out of 19 participants completed the survey. Confidence in a competitive resume (p = 0.006), interview skills (p < 0.001), obtaining letters of recommendation (p = 0.002), personal statement drafting (p < 0.001), and ranking residency programs (p < 0.001) were all significantly improved following completion of the program. Overall utility of the curriculum and likelihood to participate again and recommend the program to others was rated a median 5/5 on the Likert scale (5 [IQR 4-5]). Confidence in the matching carried a premedian 66.5 (50-65) and a postmedian 84 (75-91) (p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Following the completion of the virtual mentoring program, participants were found to be more confident in all 5 targeted domains. In addition, they were more confident in their overall ability to match. General Surgery applicants find tailored virtual mentoring programs to be a useful tool allowing for continued program development and expansion.

Enhanced recovery in liver transplantation: A value-based approach to complex surgical care.

BACKGROUND: Value-based healthcare focuses on improving outcomes relative to cost. We aimed to study the impact of an enhanced recovery pathway for liver transplant recipients on providing value. METHODS: In total, 379 liver recipients were identified: pre-enhanced recovery pathway (2017, n = 57) and post-enhanced recovery pathway (2018-2020, n = 322). The enhanced recovery pathway bundle was defined through multidisciplinary efforts and included optimal fluid management, end-of-case extubation, multimodal analgesia, and a standardized care pathway. Pre- and post-enhanced recovery pathway patients were compared with regard to extubation rates, lengths of stay, complications, readmissions, survival, and costs. RESULTS: Pre- and post-enhanced recovery pathway recipient model for end-stage liver disease score and balance of risk scores were similar, although post-enhanced recovery pathway recipients had a higher median donor risk index (1.55 vs 1.39, P = .003). End-of-case extubation rates were 78% post-enhanced recovery pathway (including 91% in 2020) versus 5% pre-enhanced recovery pathway, with post-enhanced recovery pathway patients having decreased median intraoperative transfusion requirements (1,500 vs 3,000 mL, P < .001). Post-enhanced recovery pathway recipients had shorter median intensive care unit (1.6 vs 2.3 days, P = .01) and hospital stays (5.4 vs 8.0 days, P < .001). Incidence of severe (Clavien-Dindo ≥3) complications during the index hospitalization were similar between pre-enhanced recovery pathway versus post-enhanced recovery pathway groups (33% vs 23%, P = .13), as were 30-day readmissions (26% vs 33%, P = .44) and 1-year survival (93.0% vs 94.5%, P = .58). The post-enhanced recovery pathway cohort demonstrated a significant reduction in median direct cost per case ($11,406; P < .001). CONCLUSION: Implementation of an enhanced recovery pathway in liver transplantation is feasible, safe, and effective in delivering value, even in the setting of complex surgical care.