A Cross-Sectional Study of Emotional Intelligence in Military General Surgery Residents.

OBJECTIVE: Higher emotional Intelligence (EI) is linked to improved doctor-patient relationships, empathy, teamwork, communication skills, stress management, and leadership in medicine. This study analyzes the effects of age, postgraduate year (PGY), gender, and prior military experience on EI in military general surgery residents, and compares these to the general population and civilian surgery residents. DESIGN: This is a retrospective, observational study. Results were analyzed using independent sample t test and linear regression to compare general surgery residents with the normative population and civilian general surgery residents. SETTING: The general surgery department at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center, a single-center, academic institution. PARTICIPANTS: All general surgery residents, PGY 1 to 6, were surveyed at the beginning of academic year, in June 2016. RESULTS: There were no statistically discernable differences in global EI between male (n = 27) and female residents (n = 19), PGY, or prior military experience. Female general surgery residents show higher global EI, and both males and females scored higher in the self-control factor than the normative population. Mid-residency, there is a nonstatistically discernible dip in many factors and facets of EI. CONCLUSIONS: Gender differences in EI present in the general population were not appreciated in our cohort of surgery residents, which confirms the results of previous studies. This may be due to the fact that general surgery residents are a more uniform group than the population at large. Additionally, our cohort of military surgery residents demonstrated similar global EI to civilian surgery residents. While PGY had no statistically discernable affect on global, facet, or factor EI, more studies are needed to longitudinally follow changes in EI over the course of surgery residency.

Preparing for the American Board of Surgery Flexible Endoscopy Curriculum: Development of multi-institutional proficiency-based training standards and pilot testing of a simulation-based mastery learning curriculum for the Endoscopy Training System.

BACKGROUND: The Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES) exam is required for American Board of Surgery certification. The purpose of this study was to develop performance standards for a simulation-based mastery learning (SBML) curriculum for the FES performance exam using the Endoscopy Training System (ETS). METHODS: Experienced endoscopists from multiple institutions and specialties performed each ETS task (scope manipulation (SM), tool targeting (TT), retroflexion (RF), loop management (LM), and mucosal inspection (MI)) with scores used to develop performance standards for a SBML training curriculum. Trainees completed the curriculum to determine feasibility, and effect on FES performance. RESULTS: Task specific training standards were determined (SM-121sec, TT-243sec, RF-159sec, LM-261sec, MI-180-480sec, 7 polyps). Trainees required 29.5 ± 3.7 training trials over 2.75 ± 0.5 training sessions to complete the SBML curriculum. Despite high baseline FES performance, scores improved (pre 73.4 ± 7, post 78.1 ± 5.2; effect size = 0.76, p > 0.1), but this was not statistically discernable. CONCLUSIONS: This SBML curriculum was feasible and improved FES scores in a group of high performers. This curriculum should be applied to novice endoscopists to determine effectiveness for FES exam preparation.

Simulation-based mastery learning for endoscopy using the endoscopy training system: a strategy to improve endoscopic skills and prepare for the fundamentals of endoscopic surgery (FES) manual skills exam.

INTRODUCTION: The fundamentals of endoscopic surgery (FES) program has considerable validity evidence for its use in measuring the knowledge, skills, and abilities required for competency in endoscopy. Beginning in 2018, the American Board of Surgery will require all candidates to have taken and passed the written and performance exams in the FES program. Recent work has shown that the current ACGME/ABS required case volume may not be enough to ensure trainees pass the FES skills exam. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of a simulation-based mastery-learning curriculum delivered on a novel physical simulation platform to prepare trainees to pass the FES manual skills exam. METHODS: The newly developed endoscopy training system (ETS) was used as the training platform. Seventeen PGY 1 (10) and PGY 2 (7) general surgery residents completed a pre-training assessment consisting of all 5 FES tasks on the GI Mentor II. Subjects then trained to previously determined expert performance benchmarks on each of 5 ETS tasks. Once training benchmarks were reached for all tasks, a post-training assessment was performed with all 5 FES tasks. RESULTS: Two subjects were lost to follow-up and never returned for training or post-training assessment. One additional subject failed to complete any portion of the curriculum, but did return for post-training assessment. The group had minimal endoscopy experience (median 0, range 0-67) and minimal prior simulation experience. Three trainees (17.6%) achieved a passing score on the pre-training FES assessment. Training consisted of an average of 48 ± 26 repetitions on the ETS platform distributed over 5.1 ± 2 training sessions. Seventy-one percent achieved proficiency on all 5 ETS tasks. There was dramatic improvement demonstrated on the mean post-training FES assessment when compared to pre-training (74.0 ± 8 vs. 50.4 ± 16, p < 0.0001, effect size = 2.4). The number of ETS tasks trained to proficiency correlated moderately with the score on the post-training assessment (r = 0.57, p = 0.028). Fourteen (100%) subjects who trained to proficiency on at least one ETS task passed the post-training FES manual skills exam. CONCLUSIONS: This simulation-based mastery learning curriculum using the ETS is feasible for training novices and allows for the acquisition of the technical skills required to pass the FES manual skills exam. This curriculum should be strongly considered by programs wishing to ensure that trainees are prepared for the FES exam.

Do Resident Case Logs Meet ACGME Requirements? A Comparison Between Acute Care and Elective Cases.

PURPOSE: Operative experience is at the core of general surgery residency, and recently operative volume requirements for graduating residents were increased. The ACGME has outlined 4 areas of required resident participation and documentation in order for a surgical case to be logged: determination or confirmation of the diagnosis, provision of preoperative care, selection and accomplishment of the operative procedure, and direction of the postoperative care. The purpose of this study was to examine whether general surgery residents are currently meeting the required care participation documentation standard and to examine the effect of acute care vs. elective cases on documentation. METHODS: The operative case logs of 7 PGY-3 and 7 PGY-5 general surgery residents from March 2016 were retrospectively reviewed and compared to the electronic medical record (EMR) to verify documentation of resident participation in each of the 4 required areas. Chart review was also utilized to classify cases as either acute care or elective. RESULTS: A total of 339 cases were reviewed (159 PGY-3 and 180 PGY-5). Of these, 251 cases were classified as elective and 88 were classified as acute care. Overall, documentation of comprehensive care (participation in all four required areas) was found for 44% of cases, with residents reporting participation in a higher percentage of comprehensive care (all 4 domains completed) than was actually documented in the EMR (71.9% vs. 44.4%, t[13] = 2.57, p = 0.023, d = 1.13). Comprehensive care was documented more frequently in elective cases than acute care cases (49.7% vs. 38.3%), and there was less discrepancy between perceived and documented comprehensive care within elective cases (67% vs. 49.7%, t[13] = 1.17, p = 0.27) than acute care cases (80.9% vs. 38.3%, t[13] = 4.40, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Despite ACGME requirements, the majority of cases logged by general surgery residents do not have documentation by the operating resident in the EMR verifying provision of comprehensive care. Elective cases were more likely to meet documentation requirements than acute care cases, and we purport that this is possibly secondary to restricted work hours. We expect that other programs would find similar compliance in the documentation of comprehensive care. These results question whether the requirement for documenting comprehensive care to log a surgical case is practical in surgical residency training, particularly with an increasing demand for operative volume in the setting of limited work hours.

Combined Endoscopic Laparoscopic Surgery Procedures for Colorectal Surgery.

Colonoscopy is the standard of care for screening and surveillance of colorectal cancers. Removal of adenomatous polyps prevents the transformation of adenomas to potential adenocarcinoma. While most polyps are amenable to simple endoscopic polypectomy, difficult polyps that are large, broad-based, or located in haustral folds or in tortuous colon segments can present a challenge for endoscopists. Traditionally, patients with endoscopically unresectable polyps have been referred for oncologic surgical resection due to the underlying risk of malignancy within the polyp; however, the majority of these polyps are benign on final pathology. Combined endoscopic laparoscopic surgery can help facilitate endoscopic removal of difficult lesions, or allow the surgeon to select the correct laparoscopic approach for polyp excision. Current literature suggests that these procedures are safe and effective and can potentially save patients from the morbidity of laparotomy and segmental colectomy.

Cost Comparison of Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery Training Completed With Standard Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery Equipment versus Low-Cost Equipment.

OBJECTIVE: Training for the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) skills test can be expensive. Previous work demonstrated that training on an ergonomically different, low-cost platform does not affect FLS skills test outcomes. This study compares the average training cost with standard FLS equipment and medical-grade consumables versus training on a lower cost platform with non-medical-grade consumables. DESIGN: Subjects were prospectively randomized to either the standard FLS training platform (n = 19) with medical-grade consumables (S-FLS), or the low-cost platform (n = 20) with training-grade products (LC-FLS). Both groups trained to proficiency using previously established mastery learning standards on the 5 FLS tasks. The fixed and consumable cost differences were compared. SETTING: Training occurred in a surgical simulation center. PARTICIPANTS: Laparoscopic novice medical student and resident physician health care professionals who had not completed the national FLS proficiency curriculum and who had performed less than 10 laparoscopic cases. RESULTS: The fixed cost of the platform was considerably higher in the S-FLS group (S-FLS, $3360; LC-FLS, $879), and the average consumable training cost was significantly higher for the S-FLS group (S-FLS, $1384.52; LC-FLS, $153.79; p < 0.001). The LC-FLS group had a statistically discernable cost reduction for each consumable (Gauze $9.24 vs. $0.39, p = 0.002; EndoLoop $540.00 vs. $40.60, p < 0.001; extracorporeal suture $216.45 vs. $25.20, p < 0.001; intracorporeal suture $618.83 vs. $87.60, p < 0.001). The annual fixed and consumable cost to train 5 residents is $10,282.60 in the S-FLS group versus $1647.95 in the LC-FLS group. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that the average cost to train a single trainee to proficiency using a lower fixed-cost platform and non-medical-grade equipment results in significant financial savings. A 5-resident program will save approximately $8500 annually. Residency programs should consider adopting this strategy to reduce the cost of FLS training.

Outcomes of Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) mastery training standards applied to an ergonomically different, lower cost platform.

OBJECTIVE: Using previously established mastery learning standards, this study compares outcomes of training on standard FLS (FLS) equipment with training on an ergonomically different (ED-FLS), but more portable, lower cost platform. METHODS: Subjects completed a pre-training FLS skills test on the standard platform and were then randomized to train on the FLS training platform (n = 20) or the ED-FLS platform (n = 19). A post-training FLS skills test was administered to both groups on the standard FLS platform. RESULTS: Group performance on the pretest was similar. Fifty percent of FLS and 32 % of ED-FLS subjects completed the entire curriculum. 100 % of subjects completing the curriculum achieved passing scores on the post-training test. There was no statistically discernible difference in scores on the final FLS exam (FLS 93.4, ED-FLS 93.3, p = 0.98) or training sessions required to complete the curriculum (FLS 7.4, ED-FLS 9.8, p = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: These results show that when applying mastery learning theory to an ergonomically different platform, skill transfer occurs at a high level and prepares subjects to pass the standard FLS skills test.