Twelve tips for optimising learning for postgraduate doctors in the operating theatre.

Learning in the operating theatre forms a critical part of postgraduate medical education. Postgraduate doctors present a diverse cohort of learners with a wide range of learning needs that will vary by their level of experience and curriculum requirements. With evidence of both trainee dissatisfaction with the theatre learning experience and reduced time spent in the operating theatre, which has been exacerbated by the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic, it is vital that every visit to the operating theatre is used as a learning opportunity. We have devised 12 tips aimed at both learners and surgeons to optimise learning in the operating theatre, set out into four domains: educational context, preparation, learning in theatre, feedback and reflection. These tips have been created by a process of literature review and acknowledgment of established learning theory, with further discussion amongst surgical trainees, senior surgical faculty, surgical educators and medical education faculty.

Development and Evaluation of a New Formative Assessment of Surgical Performance.

BACKGROUND: Formative assessment of operative performance is a mandatory part of surgical training. Engagement with assessment is limited in part by the time-consuming nature and the high perceived stakes of current assessment tools. OBJECTIVES: Our aims were to develop and collect validity evidence for a new operative assessment tool that addresses barriers to assessment that current trainers and trainees experience. METHODS: We developed the Generic Operative Supervised Learning Event (GOSLE). Orthopedic trainees were invited to complete GOSLEs with their trainers after surgical procedures. Experienced consultants assessed videotaped operations performed by trainees using the GOSLE. Validity evidence for content, relationships to other scores, internal structure, response process, and consequences of testing were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 250 GOSLEs were completed. A strong correlation was found between the GOSLE scores and the Procedure-Based Assessment ratings (r = 0.87, p < 0.001). Rasch analysis confirmed satisfactory internal structure of the rating scale, with sequential increases in rating as performance improved. The reproducibility coefficient was 0.88, with 10 assessments of the same trainee who has to achieve a reliability coefficient of 0.8. Over 90% of users found the GOSLE easy to use, with most preferring it to other assessment methods. Feedback quality was higher using the GOSLE than with current assessments. CONCLUSION: We have collected validity evidence across multiple domains in support of the GOSLE. Its psychometric performance is comparable to that of current assessments. It is preferred by trainers and trainees over existing assessments. It stimulates high-quality, actionable feedback which better supports formative assessment. By addressing issues experienced with existing assessments, we expect engagement among users to be high.