Distortions in the Balance Between Teaching and Efficiency in the Operating Room

INTRODUCTION

The balance between teaching and operative efficiency (i.e., continuing operative case progression) is difficult for even the most experienced master surgeon educators. The purpose of this study was to explore influencing factors behind attending surgeons' decisions to break the balance between operative efficiency and teaching in the operating room.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with surgeons across the United States via Web-based video conferencing. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Qualitative analysis using the framework method was utilized, and emergent themes were identified.

RESULTS

Twenty-three attending surgeons from 8 academic institutions and 11 surgical specialties completed interviews (14 men and 9 women). Attending surgeons consider a variety of factors associated with their dual roles (surgeon versus teacher) when balancing operative efficiency and providing appropriate independence for residents with oversight to promote autonomy. These were divided into surgeon-role-related factors (patient safety, financial factors, scheduling factors, preservation of faculty reputation for efficiency, and mode of operation) as well as teacher-role-related factors (preparation, level, and technical skill of the resident). These factors then informed attending surgeons' determinations about how the case was progressing, which prompted them to intervene and reduce resident autonomy or allow the resident to continue.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons consider numerous factors when deciding how to balance resident teaching and autonomy while preserving operative efficiency. These findings provide helpful insights for surgical departments to consider inclusion in faculty-development programs, resident education, and systematic improvements.

Teaching assistant cases in general surgery training - A literature review

BACKGROUND

There is a lack of understanding of the scope and purpose of teaching assistant cases, impact on patients and safety, as well as the facilitators or barriers to resident participation in these cases.

METHODS

Four databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Education Resources Information Center), were searched. The references of identified resources were additionally hand-searched. 10 articles were identified and considered in the literature review.

RESULTS

The TA case literature focuses on case numbers and safety. The discussions of papers allude to perceived benefits of TA cases. The literature review reveals that residents are more likely to be granted TA opportunities if they show themselves worthy of entrustment.

CONCLUSIONS

The work elucidates aspects of TA cases that have not previously been emphasized or highlighted. The literature review can serve to inform attending surgeons and trainees how to optimize the opportunities teaching assistant cases can afford.

Intraoperative Teaching and Evaluation in General Surgery

The operating room continues to be the location where surgical residents develop both technical and nontechnical skills, ultimately culminating with them being capable of safe and independent practice. The process of intraoperative instruction is, by necessity, moving from an apprentice-based model where skills are acquired somewhat randomly through repeated exposure and evaluation is done in a global gestalt fashion. Modern surgical education demands that intraoperative instruction be intentional and that evaluation provides formative and summative feedback. This chapter describes some best practice approaches to intraoperative teaching and evaluation.

Systematic Review of Intraoperative Assessment Tools in Minimally Invasive Gynecologic Surgery

OBJECTIVE

To collect, summarize, and evaluate the currently available intraoperative rating tools used in abdominal minimally invasive gynecologic surgery (MIGS).

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, and Scopus databases from January 1, 2000, to May 12, 2020.

METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION

A systematic search strategy was designed and executed. Published studies evaluating an assessment tool in abdominal MIGS cases were included. Studies focused on simulation, reviews, and abstracts without a published manuscript were excluded. Risk of bias and methodological quality were assessed for each study.

TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Disparate study methods prevented quantitative synthesis of the data. Ten studies were included in the analysis. The tools were grouped into global (n = 4) and procedure-specific assessments (n = 6). Most studies evaluated small numbers of surgeons and lacked a comparison group to evaluate the effectiveness of the tool. All studies demonstrated content validity and at least 1 dimension of reliability, and 2 have external validity. The intraoperative procedure-specific tools have been more thoroughly evaluated than the global scales.

CONCLUSION

Procedure-specific intraoperative assessment tools for MIGS cases are more thoroughly evaluated than global tools; however, poor-quality studies and borderline reliability limit their use. Well-designed, controlled studies evaluating the effectiveness of intraoperative assessment tools in MIGS are needed.