The Blue Ribbon Committee II Report and Recommendations on Surgical Education and Training in the United States: 2024.

OBJECTIVE: An expert panel made recommendations to optimize surgical education and training based on the effects of contemporary challenges. BACKGROUND: The inaugural Blue Ribbon Committee (BRC I) proposed sweeping recommendations for surgical education and training in 2004. In light of those findings, a second BRC (BRC II) was convened to make recommendations to optimize surgical training considering the current landscape in medical education. METHODS: BRC II was a panel of 67 experts selected on the basis of experience and leadership in surgical education and training. It was organized into subcommittees which met virtually over the course of a year. They developed recommendations, along with the Steering Committee, based on areas of focus and then presented them to the entire BRC II. The Delphi Method was chosen to obtain consensus, defined as>80% agreement amongst the panel. Cronbach alpha was computed to assess the internal consistency of three Delphi rounds. RESULTS: Of 50 recommendations, 31 obtained consensus in the following aspects of surgical training (# consensus recommendation /# proposed): Workforce (1/5), Medical Student Education (3/8), Work Life Integration (4/6), Resident Education (5/7), Goals, Structure and Financing of Training (5/8), Education Support and Faculty Development (5/6), Research Training (7/9), and Educational Technology and Assessment (1/1). The internal consistency was good in Rounds 1 and 2 and acceptable in Round 3. CONCLUSIONS: BRC II used the Delphi approach to identify and recommend 31 priorities for surgical education in 2024. We advise establishing a multidisciplinary surgical educational group to oversee, monitor and facilitate implementation of these recommendations.

Defining the need for faculty development in assessment.

BACKGROUND: High-quality workplace-based assessments are essential for competency-based surgical education. We explored education leaders' perceptions regarding faculty competence in assessment. METHODS: Surgical education leaders were surveyed regarding which areas faculty needed improvement, and knowledge of assessment tools. Respondents were queried on specific skills regarding (a)importance in resident/medical student education (b)competence of faculty in assessment and feedback. RESULTS: Surveys (n = 636) were emailed, 103 responded most faculty needed improvement in: verbal (86%) and written (83%) feedback, assessing operative skill (49%) and preparation for procedures (50%). Cholecystectomy, trauma laparotomy, inguinal herniorrhaphy were "very-extremely important" in resident education (99%), but 21-24% thought faculty "moderately to not-at-all" competent in assessment. This gap was larger for non-technical skills. Regarding assessment tools, 56% used OSATS, 49% Zwisch; most were unfamiliar with all non-technical tools. SUMMARY: These data demonstrate a significant perceived gap in competence of faculty in assessment and feedback, and unfamiliarity with assessment tools. This can inform faculty development to support competency-based surgical education.

"Taking Training to the Next Level": The American College of Surgeons Committee on Residency Training Survey.

OBJECTIVE: The American College of Surgeons (ACS) appointed a committee of leaders from the ACS, Association of Program Directors in Surgery, Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, and American Board of Surgery to define key challenges facing surgery resident training programs and to explore solutions. The committee wanted to solicit the perspectives of surgery resident program directors (PDs) given their pivotal role in residency training. DESIGN: Two surveys were developed, pilot tested, and administered to PDs following Institutional Review Board approval. PDs from 247 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited general surgery programs were randomized to receive 1 of the 2 surveys. Bias analyses were conducted, and adjusted Pearson χ2 tests were used to test for differences in response patterns by program type and size. SETTING: All accredited general surgery programs in the United States were included in the sampling frame of the survey; 10 programs with initial or withdrawn accreditation were excluded from the sampling frame. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 135 PDs responded, resulting in a 54.7% response rate (Survey A: n = 67 and Survey B: n = 68). The respondent sample was determined to be representative of program type and size. RESULTS: Nearly 52% of PD responses were from university-based programs, and 41% had over 6 residents per graduating cohort. More than 61% of PDs reported that, compared to 10 years ago, both entering and graduating residents are less prepared in technical skills. PDs expressed significant concerns regarding the effect of duty-hour restrictions on the overall preparation of graduating residents (61%) and quality of patient care (57%). The current 5-year training structure was viewed as needing a significant or extensive increase in opportunities for resident autonomy (63%), and the greatest barriers to resident autonomy were viewed to be patient preferences not to be cared for by residents (68%), liability concerns (68%), and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services regulations (65%). Although 64% of PDs believe that moderate or significant changes are needed in the current structure of residency training, 35% believe that no changes in the structure are needed. When asked for their 1 best recommendation regarding the structure of surgical residency, only 22% of PDs selected retaining the current 5-year structure. The greatest percentage of PDs (28%) selected the "4 + 2" model as their 1 best recommendation for the structure to be used. In the area of faculty development, 56% of PDs supported a significant or extensive increase in Train the Teacher programs, and 41% supported a significant or extensive increase in faculty certification in education. CONCLUSIONS: Information regarding the valuable perspectives of PDs gathered through these surveys should help in implementing important changes in residency training and faculty development. These efforts will need to be pursued collaboratively with involvement of key stakeholders, including the organizations represented on this ACS committee.