Comparing Operative Performance between Independent and Integrated Plastic Surgery Residents.

BACKGROUND: Anecdotally, faculty report that independent residents' operative skills differ from those of their integrated peers. This study compared operative competency between integrated (postgraduate years 4 to 6) and independent plastic surgery residents. METHODS: The authors compared independent (postgraduate years 1 to 3) and integrated (postgraduate years 4 to 6) plastic surgery residents at their institution using operative performance data from the Operative Entrustability Assessment, a validated five-point assessment tool that provides residents with real-time feedback about their operative performance, documenting performance at the point of care. Independent postgraduate year 1, 2, and 3 residents were categorized as postgraduate year 4, 5, and 6 residents, respectively, for comparison. The authors analyzed attending physician (evaluator) Operative Entrustability Assessment scores over time using the independent t test. RESULTS: From July 1, 2013, to June 30, 2018, Operative Entrustability Assessments were completed at one training program for residents in postgraduate years 4 to 6: 1886 (47.4 percent) by independent [n = 12 (37.5 percent)] and 2094 (52.6 percent) by integrated [n = 20 (62.5 percent)] residents. Evaluator scores were lower for independent track residents throughout the first two quarters of postgraduate year 4 (quarter 1 delta, -0.49 point, p < 0.001; quarter 2 delta, -0.36 point, p < 0.001). However, this difference was no longer statistically significant during the third and fourth quarters of postgraduate year 4 (p = 0.192 and p = 0.228, respectively). No difference was detectable at postgraduate year 5 (p = 0.095) or postgraduate year 6 (p = 0.877). CONCLUSIONS: Operative Entrustability Assessment data demonstrate that differences between independent and integrated plastic surgery residents regarding operative skills (0.49 of 5 points) and amount of time needed for independent residents to catch up (6 months) is minimal and resolves during the third quarter of independent postgraduate year 1. Programs can design curricula to facilitate independent residents' plastic surgery skill acquisition during their first two quarters.

Patient-Related Risk Factors for Worsened Abdominal Well-Being after Autologous Breast Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported lower satisfaction with the abdomen preoperatively is a strong predictor of undergoing DIEP flap surgery. The authors evaluated physical well-being of the abdomen before and after flap-based breast reconstruction to determine potential predictors for decreased postoperative abdominal well-being. METHODS: The authors retrospectively analyzed an institutional breast reconstruction registry, selecting patients who underwent abdominally based autologous flap breast reconstruction from 2010 to 2015. The authors' primary outcome was the Physical Well-being of the Abdomen domain from the BREAST-Q, measured preoperatively and at 6- and 12-month follow-up visits after final reconstruction. The authors classified two patient groups: those who experienced a clinically important worsening of Physical Well-being of the Abdomen score and those who did not. The authors used the chi-square test, t test, and Wilcoxon rank sum test, and multivariable logistic regression to identify potential predictors. RESULTS: Of 142 women identified, 74 (52 percent) experienced clinically important worsening of physical well-being of the abdomen, whereas 68 (48 percent) did not. The first group experienced a 25-point (95 percent CI, 22 to 28) decrease and the latter an 8-point (95 percent CI, 5 to 10) decrease in score compared to baseline. Multivariable analysis showed an association between higher baseline score and race, with higher odds of decreased score at the 12-month follow-up. A higher baseline RAND-36 general health score, bilateral reconstruction, and a lower body mass index demonstrated a trend for clinically important worsening of physical well-being of the abdomen. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of flap-based breast reconstruction patients experienced clinically important worsening of abdominal well-being after final breast reconstruction. Clinicians may use these findings to identify patients at higher risk of worsened postoperative abdominal well-being. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, III.

Understanding Surgical Resident and Fellow Perspectives on Their Operative Performance Feedback Needs: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVE: Operative performance feedback is essential for surgical training. We aimed to understand surgical trainees' views on their operative performance feedback needs and to characterize feedback to elucidate factors affecting its value from the resident perspective. DESIGN: Using a qualitative research approach, 2 research fellows conducted semistructured, one-on-one interviews with surgical trainees. We analyzed recurring themes generated during interviews related to feedback characteristics, as well as the extent to which performance rating tools can help meet trainees' operative feedback needs. SETTING: Departments or divisions of general or plastic surgery at 9 US academic institutions. PARTICIPANTS: Surgical residents and clinical fellows in general or plastic surgery. RESULTS: We conducted 30 interviews with 9 junior residents, 14 senior residents, and 7 clinical fellows. Eighteen (60%) participants were in plastic and 12 (40%) were in general surgery. Twenty-four participants (80%) reported feedback as very or extremely important during surgical training. All trainees stated that verbal, face-to-face feedback is the most valuable, especially if occurring during (92%) or immediately after (65%) cases. Of those trainees using performance rating tools (74%), most (57%) expressed positive views about them but wanted the tools to complement and not replace verbal feedback in surgical education. Trainees value feedback more if received within 1 week or the case. CONCLUSIONS: Verbal, face-to-face feedback is very or extremely important to surgical trainees. Residents and fellows prefer to receive feedback during or immediately after a case and continue to value feedback if received within 1 week of the event. Performance rating tools can be useful for providing formative feedback and documentation but should not replace verbal, face-to-face feedback. Considering trainee views on feedback may help reduce perceived gaps in feedback demand-versus-supply in surgical training, which may be essential to overcoming current challenges in surgical education.

The reliability of operative rating tool evaluations: How late is too late to provide operative performance feedback?

BACKGROUND: Operative rating tools can enhance performance assessment in surgical training. However, assessments completed late may have questionable reliability. We evaluated the reliability of assessments according to evaluation time-to-completion. METHODS: We stratified assessments from MileMarker's™ Operative Entrustability Assessment by evaluation time-to-completion, using concordance correlation coefficient (CCC) between self-assessment and evaluator scores as a measure of reliability. RESULTS: Overall, self-assessment and evaluator scores were strongly correlated (CCC = 0.72; p < 0.001) though self-assessments were slightly higher (p = 0.048). Reliability remained stable for evaluations completed within 0 days (CCC = 0.77; p < 0.001), 1-3 days (CCC = 0.73; p < 0.001), and 4-13 days after surgery (CCC = 0.69; p < 0.001), but dropped for evaluations completed within 14-38 days (CCC = 0.60; p < 0.001) and over 38 days (CCC = 0.54; p < 0.001) after surgery. There was strong evidence for an interaction between time-to-completion and reliability (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our data support the reliability of assessments completed until 2 weeks after surgery. This finding may help refine the interpretation of evaluation scores as surgical specialties move toward competency-based accreditation.