Thriving or surviving? A critical examination of funding models for fellowship council fellowships.

BACKGROUND: Since 1997, the Fellowship Council (FC) has evolved into a robust organization responsible for the advanced training of nearly half of the US residency graduates entering general surgery practice. While FC fellowships are competitive (55% match rate) and offer outstanding educational experiences, funding is arguably vulnerable. This study aimed to investigate the current funding models of FC fellowships. METHODS: Under an IRB-approved protocol, an electronic survey was administered to 167 FC programs with subsequent phone interviews to collect data on total cost and funding sources. De-identified data were also obtained via 2020-2021 Foundation for Surgical Fellowships (FSF) grant applications. Means and ranges are reported. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 59 programs (35% response rate) via the FC survey and 116 programs via FSF applications; the average cost to train one fellow per year was $107,957 and $110,816, respectively. Most programs utilized departmental and grants funds. Additionally, 36% (FC data) to 39% (FSF data) of programs indicated billing for their fellow, generating on average $74,824 ($15,000-200,000) and $33,281 ($11,500-66,259), respectively. FC data documented that 14% of programs generated net positive revenue, whereas FSF data documented that all programs were budget-neutral. CONCLUSION: Both data sets yielded similar overall results, supporting the accuracy of our findings. Expenses varied widely, which may, in part, be due to regional cost differences. Most programs relied on multiple funding sources. A minority were able to generate a positive revenue stream. Although fewer than half of programs billed for their fellow, this source accounted for substantial revenue. Institutional support and external grant funding have continued to be important sources for the majority of programs as well. Given the value of these fellowships and inherent vulnerabilities associated with graduate medical education funding, alternative grant funding models and standardization of annual financial reporting are encouraged.

Providing complex GI surgical care with minimally invasive approaches: a survey of the practice patterns of Fellowship Council alumni.

INTRODUCTION: The Fellowship Council (FC) oversees 172 non-ACGME surgical fellowships offering 211 fellowship positions per year. These training programs cover multiple specialties including Advanced gastrointestinal (GI), Advanced GI/MIS, Bariatric, Hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB), Flexible Endoscopy, Colorectal, and Thoracic Surgery. Although some data have been published detailing the practice environments (i.e., urban vs. rural) and yearly total case volumes of FC alumni, there is a lack of granular data regarding the practice patterns of FC graduates. The aim of this study was to gather detailed data on the specific case types performed and surgical approaches employed by recent FC alumni. METHODS: A 21-item survey covering 64 data points was emailed to 835 FC alumni who completed their fellowship between 2013 and 2017. Email addresses were obtained from FC program directors and FC archives. RESULTS: We received 327 responses (39% response rate). HPB, Advanced Colorectal, and Advanced Thoracic alumni appear to establish practices focused on their respective fields. Graduates from Advanced GI, Adv GI/MIS, and Bariatric programs appear to build practices with a mix of several complex GI case types including bariatrics, colorectal, foregut, HPB, and hernia cases. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first large data set to provide granular information on the practice patterns of FC alumni. FC trained surgeons perform impressive volumes of complex procedures, and minimally invasive approaches are extremely prevalent in these practices. Further, many graduates carve out practices with large footprints in robotics and endoscopy.

Ongoing evolution of practice gaps in gastrointestinal and endoscopic surgery: 2014 report from the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Continuing Education Committee.

BACKGROUND: In an effort to fulfill the charge to develop and maintain a comprehensive educational program to serve the members of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES), the SAGES Continuing Education Committee reports a summary of findings related to the evaluation of the 2014 SAGES annual meeting. METHODS: All attendees to the 2014 annual meeting had the opportunity to complete an immediate post-meeting questionnaire as part of their continuing medical education (CME) certification, and identify up to two learning themes, answer questions related to potential practice change items based on these learning themes, and complete a needs assessment for relevant learning topics for future meetings. In addition, participants in the postgraduate and hands-on courses were asked to complete questions about case volume and comfort level related to procedures/topics in those courses. All respondents to this initial survey were sent a 3-month follow-up questionnaire in which they were asked how successful they had been in the implementation of the targeted practice changes and what, if any, barriers were encountered. Descriptive statistical analysis of de-identified data was undertaken. SAGES University attendees respond to a post-test and post-activity evaluation. RESULTS: Response rates were 43 and 31 % for CME-eligible attendees/respondents for the immediate post-meeting and 3-month follow-up questionnaires, respectively. Top learning themes for respondents were foregut, hernia, bariatric, and colorectal. Improving minimally invasive surgical (MIS) technique and managing complications related to MIS procedures were top intended practice changes. Partial implementation was common with top barriers including lack of resources and lack of time. Desired topics for future meetings included management of complications, enhanced recovery after surgery, introduction of new procedures into clinical practice, and re-operative surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The SAGES 2014 annual meeting analysis provides insight into the educational needs among respondents, which is meaningful information for planning future meeting educational content.

A comprehensive process for disclosing and managing conflicts of interest on perceived bias at the SAGES annual meeting.

INTRODUCTION: The relationship between the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) and its industry partners has been longstanding, productive technologically, and beneficial to patient care and education. In order to both maintain this important relationship to honor its responsibility to society for increasing transparency, SAGES established a Conflict of Interest Task Force (CITF) and charged it with identifying and managing potential conflicts of interest (COI) and limiting bias at the SAGES Annual Scientific Meetings. The CITF developed and implemented a comprehensive process for reporting, evaluating, and managing COI in accordance with (and exceeding) Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education guidelines. METHODS: From 2011 to 2013, all presenters, moderators, and session chairs received proactive and progressively increasing levels of education regarding the CITF rationale and processes and were required to disclose all relationships with commercial interests. Disclosures were reviewed and discussed by multiple layers of reviewers, including moderators, chairs, and CITF committee members with tiered, prescribed actions in a standardized, uniform fashion. Meeting attendees were surveyed anonymously after the annual meeting regarding perceived bias. The CITF database was then analyzed and compared to the reports of perceived bias to determine whether the implementation of this comprehensive process had been effective. RESULTS: In 2011, 68 of 484 presenters (14 %) disclosed relationships with commercial interests. In 2012, 173 of 523 presenters (33.5 %) disclosed relationships, with 49 having prior review (9.4 %), and eight required alteration. In 2013, 190 of 454 presenters disclosed relationships (41.9 %), with 93 presentations receiving prior review (20.4 %), and 20 presentations were altered. From 2008 to 2010, the perceived bias among attendees surveyed was 4.7, 6.2, and 4.4 %; and in 2011-2013, was 2.2, 1.2, and 1.5 %. CONCLUSION: It is possible to have a surgical meeting that includes participation of speakers that have industry relationships, and minimize perceived bias.

Evolution of practice gaps in gastrointestinal and endoscopic surgery: 2012 report from the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Continuing Education Committee.

BACKGROUND: In an effort to fulfill its charge to develop and maintain a comprehensive educational program to serve the members of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES), the SAGES Continuing Education Committee (CEC) reports a summary of findings related to its evaluation of the 2012 SAGES annual meeting. METHODS: All attendees to the 2012 annual meeting had the opportunity to complete an immediate postmeeting questionnaire as part of their continuing medical education (CME) certification in which they identified up to two learning themes, answered questions related to potential practice change items that are based on those learning themes, and complete a needs assessment related to important learning topics for future meetings. In addition, participants in the postgraduate and hands-on courses were asked to complete questions about case volume and comfort levels related to procedures/topics in those courses. All respondents to this initial survey were sent a 3-month follow-up questionnaire in which they were asked how successfully they had implemented the intended practice changes and what, if any, barriers they encountered. Postgraduate and hands-on course participants completed case volume and comfort level questions. Descriptive statistical analysis of this deidentified data was undertaken. RESULTS: Response rates were 42% and 56% for CME-eligible attendees/respondents for the immediate postmeeting and 3-month follow-up questionnaires, respectively. Top learning themes for respondents were Bariatric, Hernia, Foregut, and Colorectal. Improving minimally invasive surgical (MIS) technique and managing complications related to MIS procedures were top intended practice changes. Partial implementation was common with top barriers including cost restrictions, lack of institutional support, and lack of time. CONCLUSIONS: The 2012 annual meeting analysis provides insight into educational needs among respondents and will help with planning content for future meetings.