TrustEd: A Tool for Developing Intraoperative Entrustment Skills.

OBJECTIVE: Toolkits to assess progressive resident autonomy are integral to the movement toward competency-based surgical education. OpTrust is one such tool validated for intraoperative assessment of both faculty and resident entrustment behaviors. We developed a supplementary tool to OpTrust that would aid faculty and residents in making meaningful improvements in entrustment behavior by providing talking points and reflection items tailored to different motivational styles as defined by Regulatory Focus Theory (RFT). DESIGN: Existing literature about surgical entrustment was used to build a list of sample dialogue and self-reflection items to use in the operating room. This list was distributed as a survey to individuals familiar with OpTrust and RFT, asking them to categorize each item as Promotion-oriented, Prevention-oriented, or Either. The respondents then met to discuss survey items that did not reach a consensus until the group agreed on their categorization. SETTING: University of Wisconsin, School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan PARTICIPANTS: Clinician and education researchers familiar with intraoperative entrustment and RFT RESULTS: Eight respondents completed the survey categorizing the talking points and reflection items by RFT (100% response rate). Six of these respondents attended the additional meeting to discuss discordant items. The input from this panel was used to develop "TrustEd," the supplementary tool that faculty and residents can quickly reference before beginning a case. CONCLUSION: Although tools such as OpTrust allow intraoperative entrustment behaviors to be quantified, TrustEd offers concrete strategies for faculty and residents who are interested in improving those behaviors over time. Further study is needed to assess whether the use of TrustEd does in fact lead to durable behavior change and improvement in OpTrust scores.

Residents' surgical performance during the laboratory years: an analysis of rule-based errors.

BACKGROUND: Nearly one-third of surgical residents will enter into academic development during their surgical residency by dedicating time to a research fellowship for 1-3 y. Major interest lies in understanding how laboratory residents' surgical skills are affected by minimal clinical exposure during academic development. A widely held concern is that the time away from clinical exposure results in surgical skills decay. This study examines the impact of the academic development years on residents' operative performance. We hypothesize that the use of repeated, annual assessments may result in learning even without individual feedback on participants simulated performance. METHODS: Surgical performance data were collected from laboratory residents (postgraduate years 2-5) during the summers of 2014, 2015, and 2016. Residents had 15 min to complete a shortened, simulated laparoscopic ventral hernia repair procedure. Final hernia repair skins from all participants were scored using a previously validated checklist. An analysis of variance test compared the mean performance scores of repeat participants to those of first time participants. RESULTS: Twenty-seven (37% female) laboratory residents provided 2-year assessment data over the 3-year span of the study. Second time performance revealed improvement from a mean score of 14 (standard error = 1.0) in the first year to 17.2 (SD = 0.9) in the second year, (F[1, 52] = 5.6, P = 0.022). Detailed analysis demonstrated improvement in performance for 3 grading criteria that were considered to be rule-based errors. There was no improvement in operative strategy errors. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of longitudinal performance of laboratory residents shows higher scores for repeat participants in the category of rule-based errors. These findings suggest that laboratory residents can learn from rule-based mistakes when provided with annual performance-based assessments. This benefit was not seen with operative strategy errors and has important implications for using assessments not only for performance analysis but also as a learning experience.