Measuring Impact of Simulation-Based Informed Consent Training on Surgical Intern's Long-Term Confidence

Do Interns Learn On-The-Job How to Obtain Proper Informed Consent for Surgical Procedures?

OBJECTIVE

Obtaining surgical informed consent (SIC) is a critical skill most residents are expected to learn "on-the-job." This study sought to quantify the effect of 1 year of clinical experience on performance obtaining SIC in the absence of formal informed consent education.

DESIGN

In this case-control cohort study, PGY1 and PGY2 surgical residents in an academic program were surveyed regarding their experiences and confidence in obtaining SIC; then assessed obtaining informed consent for a right hemicolectomy from a standardized patient.

SETTING

Single academic general surgery residency program in Buffalo, NY.

PARTICIPANTS

Ten PGY1 and eight PGY2 general surgery residents were included in the study, after excluding residents with additional years of training.

RESULTS

PGY2 residents had significantly more experience obtaining SIC compared to PGY1 residents (median response: ">50" vs "between 6 and 15," p = 0.001), however there was no difference in self-reported confidence in ability obtaining SIC (mean 3.2/5 in PGY1 vs 3.4/5 in PGY2, p = 0.61), self-reported knowledge of SIC (mean 3.1/5 in PGY1 vs 3.6/5 in PGY2, p = 0.15), performance on a test regarding SIC (mean score 9.0/20, SD 3.9 for PGY1 vs mean score 9.6/20, SD 3.5, t = 0.387, p = 0.739) or performance during a standardized patient interview (mean 11.2/20, SD 2.78 for PGY1 vs mean 11.4/20, SD 1.51 for PGY2, p = 0.87). In the interviews all residents addressed general risks (bleeding/infection), however both groups performed worse in addressing procedure-specific risks including anastomotic leak as risk for hemicolectomy.

CONCLUSIONS

A year of clinical training between PGY1 to PGY2 did not improve performance in obtaining surgical informed consent when lacking formal education, despite self-confidence in their ability. A curriculum covering the content, delivery and assessment of informed consent should be initiated for residents upon arrival to surgical training.

Comparing Faculty and Trainee Evaluators of First-Year Resident Skills

OBJECTIVE

To determine if senior residents are comparable to faculty in assessing first-year resident skills on their overall assessment.

BACKGROUND

As resident training moves towards a competency-based model, innovative approaches to evaluation and feedback through simulation need to be developed for both procedural as well as interpersonal and communication skills. In most areas of simulation, the faculty assess resident performance however; in clinical practice, first-year residents are often overseen and taught by senior residents. We aim to explore the agreement between faculty and senior resident assessors to determine if senior residents can be incorporated into a competency-based curriculum as appropriate evaluators of first-year resident skills.

DESIGN

Annual surgical first year resident training for central line placement, obtaining informed consent and breaking bad news at a single institution is assessed through an overall assessment (OA). In previous years, only faculty have been the evaluators for the OA. In this study, select senior residents were asked to participate as evaluators and agreement between groups of evaluators was assessed across the 3 tasks taught during surgical first-year resident training.

SETTING

Vanderbilt University Medical Center, tertiary hospital, Simulation Center.

PARTICIPANTS

Anesthesia and surgery interns, chief residents, anesthesia and surgical faculty.

RESULTS

Agreement between faculty and senior resident assessors was strongest for the central line placement simulation with a faculty average competency score of 10.71 and 9.59 from senior residents (κ = 0.43; 95% CI: -0.2, 0.34). Agreement was less substantial for simulated informed consent (κ = 0.08; 95% CI: -0.19, 0.36) and the breaking bad news simulation (κ = 0.07; 95% CI: -0.2, 0.34).

CONCLUSION

Select senior residents are comparable to faculty evaluators for procedural competency; however, there was less agreement between evaluator groups for interpersonal and communication-based competencies.