The reliability of resident self-evaluation of operative performance.

BACKGROUND: Self-assessment is critical to professional self-regulation yet many trainees may not reliably self-evaluate. We examine the gap between resident and faculty perceptions of trainee operative performance and contributing factors. METHODS: Surgery resident and faculty evaluations of trainee performance were collected from 14 academic institutions using smartphone-based performance assessments. Differences in resident/faculty ratings evaluating the same procedure were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Bayesian mixed models. RESULTS: Of 7382 evaluations, 46% trainees and faculty performance ratings were discrepant (r = 0.47), with 80% residents rating themselves lower than faculty in those cases. This gap existed regardless of case complexity and widened as trainees gained experience. Trainees who overrated themselves had the lowest mean performance scores from faculty. CONCLUSION: Half of residents perceived their performance differently from faculty, and this difference widened for senior residents. Future focus should be to provide opportunity for trainees to improve skills to reliably assess themselves before graduation.

Operating Room Times For Teaching and Nonteaching Cases are Converging: Less Time for Learning?

OBJECTIVE: To compare differences in operating room (OR) times between teaching and nonteaching cases across calendar years. We hypothesize that time devoted to intraoperative resident education is decreasing, therefore, OR times for teaching and nonteaching cases will be converging. BACKGROUND: Teaching cases take longer than similar nonteaching cases, in part due to intraoperative resident education. Pressures to improve OR efficiency and patient safety may threaten resident education and leave less time for intraoperative learning; however, the magnitude of impact is unknown. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) deidentified national databases from 2006 to 2012, queried for 30 most common General surgery procedures and case teaching status (i.e., teaching vs. nonteaching cases). DESIGN: The NSQIP database was retrospectively reviewed to identify the 30 most common General Surgery procedures. Teaching cases included all operations in which a resident participated. Multivariable regression analyses were constructed to determine the impact of resident involvement on OR times, controlling for year, resident participation, procedure, and patient demographics and comorbidities. Difference-in-difference analysis was performed to assess OR time differences between teaching and nonteaching cases across calendar years and within subpopulations. RESULTS: A total of 693,223 cases met inclusion criteria. Average overall OR times were 98.89 minutes (teaching) vs. 74.22 minutes (nonteaching), with a difference of 24.67 minutes (95% confidence interval [CI] 24.34-24.99 minutes, p < 0.001). In multivariable analyses, the difference between teaching and nonteaching cases was 21.94 minutes (95% CI = 21.11-22.76) in 2006 and 13.95 minutes (95% CI = 10.62-17.28) in 2012, with a difference-in-difference of 7.99 minutes per case. A similar trend was observed across individual PGYs and several individual procedures. CONCLUSIONS: OR times for teaching and nonteaching cases converged by approximately 8 minutes per general surgery procedure during the 7-year study period, representing a 36% reduction in the difference between groups. We must seek to better understand the source of this convergence, and in doing so ensure to preserve and enhance the intraoperative learning experience of surgical trainees.

A Proposed Blueprint for Operative Performance Training, Assessment, and Certification.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to propose an evidence-based blueprint for training, assessment, and certification of operative performance for surgical trainees. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Operative skill is a critical aspect of surgical performance. High-quality assessment of operative skill therefore has profound implications for training, accreditation, certification, and the public trust of the profession. Current methods of operative skill assessment for surgeons rely heavily on global assessment strategies across a very broad domain of procedures. There is no mechanism to assure technical competence for individual procedures. The science and scalability of operative skill assessment has progressed significantly in recent decades, and can inform a much more meaningful strategy for competency-based assessment of operative skill than has been previously achieved. METHODS: The present article reviews the current status and science of operative skill assessment and proposes a template for competency-based assessment which could be used to update training, accreditation, and certification processes. The proposal is made in reference to general surgery but is more generally applicable to other procedural specialties. RESULTS: Streamlined, routine assessment of every procedure performed by surgical trainees is feasible and would enable a more competency-based educational paradigm. In light of the constraints imposed by both clinical volume and assessment bias, trainees should be expected to become proficient and be measured against a mastery learning standard only for the most important and highest-frequency procedures. For less frequently observed procedures, performance can be compared to a norm-referenced standard and, to provide an overall trajectory of performance, analyzed in aggregate. Key factors in implementing this approach are the number of evaluations, the number of raters, the timeliness of evaluation, and evaluation items. CONCLUSIONS: A competency-based operative skill assessment can be incorporated into surgical training, assessment, and certification. The time has come to develop a systematic approach to this issue as a means of demonstrating professional standards worthy of the public trust.

Trainee Autonomy in Minimally Invasive General Surgery in the United States: Establishing a National Benchmark.

OBJECTIVE: Minimally invasive surgery (MIS) is an integral component of General Surgery training and practice. Yet, little is known about how much autonomy General Surgery residents achieve in MIS procedures, and whether that amount is sufficient. This study aims to establish a contemporary benchmark for trainee autonomy in MIS procedures. We hypothesize that trainees achieve progressive autonomy, but fail to achieve meaningful autonomy in a substantial percentage of MIS procedures prior to graduation. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Fifty General Surgery residency programs in the United States, from September 1, 2015 to March 19, 2020. All Categorical General Surgery Residents and Attending Surgeons within these programs were eligible. DESIGN: Data were collected prospectively from attending surgeons and categorical General Surgery residents. Trainee autonomy was assessed using the 4-level Zwisch scale (Show and Tell, Active Help, Passive Help, and Supervision Only) on a smartphone application (SIMPL). MIS procedures included all laparoscopic, thoracoscopic, endoscopic, and endovascular/percutaneous procedures performed by residents during the study. Primary outcomes of interest were "meaningful autonomy" rates (i.e., scores in the top 2 categories of the Zwisch scale) by postgraduate year (PGY), and "progressive autonomy" (i.e., differences in autonomy between PGYs) in MIS procedures, as rated by attending surgeons. Primary outcomes were determined with descriptive statistics, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Z-tests. Secondary analyses compared (i) progressive autonomy between common MIS procedures, and (ii) progressive autonomy in MIS vs. non-MIS procedures. RESULTS: A total of 106,054 evaluations were performed across 50 General Surgery residency programs, of which 38,985 (37%) were for MIS procedures. Attendings performed 44,842 (42%) of all evaluations, including 16,840 (43%) of MIS evaluations, while residents performed the rest. Overall, meaningful autonomy in MIS procedures increased from 14.1% (PGY1s) to 75.9% (PGY5s), with significant (p < 0.001) increases between each PGY level. Meaningful autonomy rates were higher in the MIS vs. non-MIS group [57.2% vs. 48.0%, p < 0.001], and progressed more rapidly in MIS vs. non-MIS, (p < 0.05). The 7 most common MIS procedures accounted for 83.5% (n = 14,058) of all MIS evaluations. Among PGY5s performing these procedures, meaningful autonomy rates (%) were: laparoscopic appendectomy (95%); laparoscopic cholecystectomy (93%); diagnostic laparoscopy (87%); upper/lower endoscopy (85%); laparoscopic hernia repair (72%); laparoscopic partial colectomy (58%); and laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (45%). CONCLUSIONS: US General Surgery residents receive progressive autonomy in MIS procedures, and appear to progress more rapidly in MIS versus non-MIS procedures. However, residents fail to achieve meaningful autonomy in nearly 25% of MIS cases in their final year of residency, with higher rates of meaningful autonomy only achieved in a small subset of basic MIS procedures.

Mind the Gap: The Autonomy Perception Gap in the Operating Room by Surgical Residents and Faculty.

OBJECTIVE: Examine the concordance of perceived operative autonomy between attendings and resident trainees. DESIGN: Faculty and trainees rated trainee operative autonomy using the 4-level Zwisch scale over a variety of cases and training years. The respective ratings were then compared to explore the effects of experience, gender, case complexity, trainee, trainer, and other covariates to perceived autonomy. SETTING: This study was conducted over 14 general surgery programs in the United States, members of the Procedural Learning and Safety Collaborative. PARTICIPANTS: Participants included faculty and categorical trainees from 14 general surgery programs. RESULTS: A total of 8681 observations was obtained. The sample included 619 unique residents and 457 different attendings. A total of 598 distinct procedures was performed. In 60% of the cases, the autonomy ratings between trainees and attendings were concordant, with only 3.5% of cases discrepant by more than 1 level. An autonomy perception gap was modeled based on the discrepancy between the trainee and attending Zwisch ratings for the same case. The mean Zwisch score expected for a trainee was lower than the attending across all scenarios. Trainees were more likely to perceive relatively more autonomy in the second half of the year. The autonomy perception gap decreased with increasing case complexity. As trainees gained experience, the perception gap increased with trainees underestimating autonomy. CONCLUSIONS: Trainees and attendings generally demonstrated concordance on autonomy perception scores. However, in 40% of cases, a perception gap exists between trainee and attending with the trainee generally underestimating autonomy. The gap worsens as the trainee progresses through residency. This perception gap suggests that attendings and trainees could be better aligned on teaching goals and expectations.

Concordance Between Expert and Nonexpert Ratings of Condensed Video-Based Trainee Operative Performance Assessment.

OBJECTIVE: We examined the impact of video editing and rater expertise in surgical resident evaluation on operative performance ratings of surgical trainees. DESIGN: Randomized independent review of intraoperative video. SETTING: Operative video was captured at a single, tertiary hospital in Boston, MA. PARTICIPANTS: Six common general surgery procedures were video recorded of 6 attending-trainee dyads. Full-length and condensed versions (n = 12 videos) were then reviewed by 13 independent surgeon raters (5 evaluation experts, 8 nonexperts) using a crossed design. Trainee performance was rated using the Operative Performance Rating Scale, System for Improving and Measuring Procedural Learning (SIMPL) Performance scale, the Zwisch scale, and ten Cate scale. These ratings were then standardized before being compared using Bayesian mixed models with raters and videos treated as random effects. RESULTS: Editing had no effect on the Operative Performance Rating Scale Overall Performance (-0.10, p = 0.30), SIMPL Performance (0.13, p = 0.71), Zwisch (-0.12, p = 0.27), and ten Cate scale (-0.13, p = 0.29). Additionally, rater expertise (evaluation expert vs. nonexpert) had no effect on the same scales (-0.16 (p = 0.32), 0.18 (p = 0.74), 0.25 (p = 0.81), and 0.25 (p = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: There is little difference in operative performance assessment scores when raters use condensed videos or when raters who are not experts in surgical resident evaluation are used. Future validation studies of operative performance assessment scales may be facilitated by using nonexpert surgeon raters viewing videos condensed using a standardized protocol.

Using smartphones for trainee performance assessment: A SIMPL case study.

Workplace-based assessments are used by raters to evaluate observed performance of trainees in actual clinical practice. These types of assessments are of growing interest, especially because observed performance is prioritized within the larger competency-based medical educational movement. Implementation of workplace-based assessments has, however, been challenging. This article describes the motivations and implications for workplace-based assessments that leverage smartphone technology. It does so in reference to an app called SIMPL (System for Improving and Measuring Procedural Learning) in order to highlight some of the challenges and benefits one might encounter during implementation of similar systems.

Design and Impact of a Novel Surgery-Specific Second Victim Peer Support Program.

BACKGROUND: Surgeons are prone to feelings of sadness, guilt, and anxiety when involved in major adverse events. We aimed to create and evaluate a second victim peer support program for surgeons and surgical trainees. STUDY DESIGN: The second victim peer support program was an intervention performed in the Department of Surgery at a tertiary care academic medical center. Surgical attendings and trainees participated as peer supporters or affected peers. In this article, we describe the design of the program and its 1-year impact, which was evaluated through the number of interventions attempted and realized and feedback received from all participants using an anonymous qualitative and quantitative survey. RESULTS: The program was established using the following 5 steps: creation of a conceptual framework, choice of peer supporters, training of peer supporters, multifaceted identification of major adverse events, and design of a systematic intervention plan. In 1 year, the program had 47 interventions distributed evenly between attendings and trainees; 19% of affected peers opted out of receiving support. Most participants expressed satisfaction with the program's confidentiality, the safe/trusting environment it provided, and the timeliness of the intervention (89%, 73%, and 83%, respectively); 81% suggested that the program had a positive impact on the department's "safety and support" culture and would recommend the program to a colleague. Several areas for improvement were identified, including the need to improve identification of events requiring outreach, and the desire for increased awareness of the program throughout the department. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully designed, implemented, and assessed the impact of the first surgery-specific peer support program in the US. Our 1-year experience suggests that the program is highly used and well received, albeit with opportunities for improvement.

The effect of gender on operative autonomy in general surgery residents.

BACKGROUND: Despite an increasing number of women in the field of surgery, bias regarding cognitive or technical ability may continue to affect the experience of female trainees differently than their male counterparts. This study examines the differences in the degree of operative autonomy given to female compared with male general surgery trainees. METHODS: A smartphone app was used to collect evaluations of operative autonomy measured using the 4-point Zwisch scale, which describes defined steps in the progression from novice ("show and tell") to autonomous surgeon ("supervision only"). Differences in autonomy between male and female residents were compared using hierarchical logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 412 residents and 524 faculty from 14 general surgery training programs evaluated 8,900 cases over a 9-month period. Female residents received less autonomy from faculty than did male residents overall (P < .001). Resident level of training and case complexity were the strongest predictors of autonomy. Even after controlling for potential confounding factors, including level of training, intrinsic procedural difficulty, patient-related case complexity, faculty sex, and training program environment, female residents still received less operative autonomy than their male counterparts. The greatest discrepancy was in the fourth year of training. CONCLUSION: There is a sex-based difference in the autonomy granted to general surgery trainees. This gender gap may affect female residents' experience in training and possibly their preparation for practice. Strategies need to be developed to help faculty and residents work together to overcome this gender gap.

Value and Barriers to Use of the SIMPL Tool for Resident Feedback.

OBJECTIVE: The System for Improving and Measuring Procedural Learning (SIMPL) is a smart-phone application used to provide residents with an evaluation of operative autonomy and feedback. This study investigated the perceived benefits and barriers to app use. DESIGN: A database of previously performed SIMPL evaluations was analyzed to identify high, low, and never users. Potential predisposing factors to use were explored. A survey investigating key areas of value and barriers to use for the SIMPL application was sent to resident and faculty users. Respondents were asked to self-identify how often they used the app. The perceived benefits and barriers were correlated with the level of usage. Qualitative analysis of free text responses was used to determine strategies to increase usage. SETTING: General surgery training programs who are members of the Procedural Learning and Safety Collaborative. PARTICIPANTS: Surgical residents and faculty. RESULTS: At least 1 SIMPL evaluation was created for 411 residents and 524 faculty. Thirty percent of both faculty and residents were high-frequency users. Thirty percent of faculty were never users. One hundred eighty-eight residents and 207 faculty (response rate 46%) completed the survey. High-frequency resident users were more likely to perceive a benefit for both numerical evaluations (76% vs 30%) and dictated feedback (92% vs 30%). Faculty and residents commonly blamed each other for not creating and completing evaluations regularly (87% of residents, 81% of faculty). Suggested strategies to increase usage included reminders and integration with existing data systems. CONTRIBUTIONS: Frequent users perceive value from the application, particularly from dictated feedback and see a positive impact on feedback in their programs. Faculty engagement represents a major barrier to adoption. Mechanisms which automatically remind residents to initiate an evaluation will help improve utilization but programs must work to enhance faculty willingness to respond and dictate feedback.

How Many Observations are Needed to Assess a Surgical Trainee's State of Operative Competency?

OBJECTIVE: To establish the number of operative performance observations needed for reproducible assessments of operative competency. BACKGROUND: Surgical training is transitioning from a time-based to a competency-based approach, but the number of assessments needed to reliably establish operative competency remains unknown. METHODS: Using a smart phone based operative evaluation application (SIMPL), residents from 13 general surgery training programs were evaluated performing common surgical procedures. Two competency metrics were investigated separately: autonomy and overall performance. Analyses were performed for laparoscopic cholecystectomy performances alone and for all operative procedures combined. Variance component analyses determined operative performance score variance attributable to resident operative competency and measurement error. Generalizability and decision studies determined number of assessments needed to achieve desired reliability (0.80 or greater) and determine standard errors of measurement. RESULTS: For laparoscopic cholecystectomy, 23 ratings are needed to achieve reproducible autonomy ratings and 17 ratings are needed to achieve reproducible overall operative performance ratings. For the undifferentiated mix of procedures, 60 ratings are needed to achieve reproducible autonomy ratings and 40 are needed for reproducible overall operative performance ratings. CONCLUSION: The number of observations needed to achieve reproducible assessments of operative competency far exceeds current certification requirements, yet remains an important and achievable goal. Attention should also be paid to the mix of cases and raters in order to assure fair judgments about operative competency and fair comparisons of trainees.

Are surgeons reluctant to accurately report intraoperative adverse events? A prospective study of 1,989 patients.

BACKGROUND: The true incidence of intraoperative adverse events (iAEs) remains unknown. METHODS: All patients undergoing abdominal surgery at an academic institution between January and July 2016 were included in a prospective fashion. At the end of surgery, using a secure REDCap database, the surgeon was given the Institute of Medicine definition of intraoperative adverse events and asked whether an intraoperative adverse event had occurred. Blinded reviewers systematically examined all operative reports for intraoperative adverse events and their severity. The response rate and the intraoperative adverse event rate reported by surgeons were calculated. The latter was compared with the rate of intraoperative adverse events detected by operative report review. The severity of intraoperative adverse events was assessed based on a previously validated intraoperative adverse event classification system. RESULTS: A total of 1,989 operations were included. The surgeons' response rate was 71.9%, reporting intraoperative adverse events in 107 operations (7.5%). Of those intraoperative adverse events, 26 (24.3%) were not described in the operative report. Operative report review revealed intraoperative adverse events in 417 operations (21.0%). Most injuries were of lower severity (85.8% were either class I or II). The surgeons' response rate was similar in operations with and without intraoperative adverse events (69.8% versus 72.5%, P=.28), but they underreported low severity intraoperative adverse events-only 13.2% of class I compared with 35.3%, 36.8%, and 55.6% of injury classes II, III, and IV respectively (P<.001). CONCLUSION: Surgeons are willing to report intraoperative adverse events, but systematically and significantly underreport them, especially if they are of lower severity. This is potentially related to the absence of a clear intraoperative adverse event definition or their personal interpretation of their clinical significance.

A SIMPL application to assess oral medicine residents' performance and level of autonomy.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate a smartphone application, SIMPL, to optimize faculty guidance and oral medicine residents' performance, and to measure resident-faculty agreement for performance and supervision levels. STUDY DESIGN: Raters used the 5-level "Performance" scale to assess resident's readiness for independent practice and the 4-level Zwisch scale to assess faculty guidance, between June 2016 and June 2017. Junior residents were trainees with less than 18 months of training, and senior residents had more than 18 months of training. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze supervision and autonomy. Performance and supervision agreement was estimated as percentage-agreement and measured using κ and 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: A total of 660 evaluations were performed by 6 residents and 6 faculty members. Senior residents received higher performance scores compared with junior residents (P for trend < .01). In terms of complexity of cases and level of supervision, there were no significant differences between juniors and seniors (P = .69 and P = .39, respectively). Residents were "practice ready" or greater than for 80% cases. Residents received meaningful autonomy for 64.8% cases. Faculty-resident concordance was 86.1% for performance (with κ of 0.77 [95% CI 66.1%-87.6%]) and 92.4% for supervision (with κ of 0.84 [95% CI 80%-88%]). CONCLUSIONS: SIMPL can feasibly be used for real-time assessment of residents' performance and autonomy.

Is the operative autonomy granted to a resident consistent with operative performance quality.

BACKGROUND: We investigated attending surgeon decisions regarding resident operative autonomy, including situations where operative autonomy was discordant with performance quality. METHODS: Attending surgeons assessed operative performance and documented operative autonomy granted to residents from 14 general surgery residency programs. Concordance between performance and autonomy was defined as "practice ready performance/meaningfully autonomous" or "not practice ready/not meaningfully autonomous." Discordant circumstances were practice ready/not meaningfully autonomous or not practice ready/meaningfully autonomous. Resident training level, patient-related case complexity, procedure complexity, and procedure commonality were investigated to determine impact on autonomy. RESULTS: A total of 8,798 assessments were collected from 429 unique surgeons assessing 496 unique residents. Practice-ready and exceptional performances were 20 times more likely to be performed under meaningfully autonomous conditions than were other performances. Meaningful autonomy occurred most often with high-volume, easy and common cases, and less complex procedures. Eighty percent of assessments were concordant (38% practice ready/meaningfully autonomous and 42% not practice ready/not meaningfully autonomous). Most discordant assessments (13.8%) were not practice ready/meaningfully autonomous. For fifth-year residents, practice ready/not meaningfully autonomous ratings (9.7%) were more frequent than not practice ready/meaningfully autonomous ratings (7.5%). Ten surgeons (2.3%) failed to afford residents meaningful autonomy on any occasion. CONCLUSION: Resident operative performance quality is the most important determinant in attending surgeon decisions regarding resident autonomy.

Interrupted versus continuous fascial closure in patients undergoing emergent laparotomy: A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The optimal method of fascial closure, interrupted fascial closure (IFC) versus continuous fascial closure (CFC) has never been studied exclusively in the setting of emergency surgery. We hypothesized that IFC decreases postoperative incisional hernia development following emergent laparotomies. METHODS: Between August 2008 and September 2015, patients undergoing emergent laparotomies were consented and randomly assigned to either IFC or CFC. Patients were followed up postoperatively for at least 3 months and assessed for incisional hernia, dehiscence, or wound infection. We excluded those with trauma, elective surgery, mesh in place, primary ventral hernia, previous abdominal surgery within 30 days, or those not expected to survive for more than 48 hours. Our primary endpoint was the incidence of postoperative incisional hernias. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-six patients were randomly assigned to IFC (n = 67) or CFC (n = 69). Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. No difference was noted in the length of the abdominal incision, or the peak inspiratory pressure after the closure. The median time needed for closure was significantly longer in the IFC group (22 minutes vs. 13 minutes, p < 0.001). Thirty-seven (55.2%) IFC and 41 (59.4%) CFC patients completed their follow-up visits. There was no statistically significant difference in baseline and intraoperative characteristics between those who completed follow-ups and those who did not. The median time from the day of surgery to the day of the last follow-up was similar between IFC and CFC (233 days vs. 216 days, p = 0.67), as were the rates of incisional hernia (13.5% versus 22.0%, p = 0.25), dehiscence (2.7% vs. 2.4%, p = 1.0), and surgical site infection (16.2% vs. 12.2%, p = 0.75). CONCLUSION: There was no statistically detectable difference in postoperative hernia development between those undergoing IFC versus CFC after emergent laparotomies. However, this may be due to the relatively low sample size. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management Study, level III.

High-Fidelity Emergency Department Thoracotomy Simulator With Beating-Heart Technology and OSATS Tool Improves Trainee Confidence and Distinguishes Level of Skill.

OBJECTIVE: Resuscitative Thoracotomy or Emergency Department Thoracotomy (EDT) is a time-sensitive and potentially life-saving procedure. Yet, trainee experience with this procedure is often limited in both clinical and simulation settings. We sought to develop a high-fidelity EDT simulation module and assessment tool to facilitate trainee education. DESIGN: Using the Kern model for curricular development, a group of expert trauma surgeons identified EDT as a high-stakes, low-frequency procedure. Task analysis identified 5 key steps of EDT: (1) opening chest/rib spreader utilization; (2) pericardiotomy/cardiac repair; (3) open cardiac massage; (4) clamping aorta; and (5) control of pulmonary hilum. A high-fidelity simulator with beating-heart technology was built. The previously validated Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) was adapted to create the "EDT-OSATS" which assessed performance along several domains: (1) Surgical technique (key steps); (2) general skills; and (3) global rating. A pilot test was performed to compare board-certified trauma surgeons (i.e., Experts) with categorical general surgery interns (i.e., Novices). Each subject received preparatory materials, completed a presimulation quiz, performed a videotaped procedure on the EDT simulator, and completed a postmodule survey. Two independent raters scored performances using the EDT-OSATS. Groups were compared in descriptive and unadjusted analyses. We hypothesized that our EDT simulation module would distinguish between expert vs novice performance and improve trainee confidence. SETTING: Simulation laboratory at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, MA. PARTICIPANTS: Trauma surgeons (Experts, n = 6) and categorical general surgery interns (Novices, n = 8). RESULTS: Experts scored significantly higher than Novices on nearly all components of the EDT-OSATS, including: (1) surgical technique: pericardiotomy (4.2 vs 3.4, p = 0.040), cardiac massage (3.6 vs 2.4, p = 0.028), clamping aorta (4.1 vs 3.3, p = 0.035), control of pulmonary hilum (4.8 vs 3.4, p < 0.001); (2) general skills: time/motion (4.1 vs 2.9, p = 0.011), knowledge and handling of instruments (4.3 vs 3.1, p = 0.004), and (3) global rating (3.9 vs 2.9, p = 0.026). There was no statistical difference between groups on opening chest/rib spreader utilization (3.8 vs 3.3, p = 0.352) or procedure time (204sec vs 227sec, p = 0.401), though Experts scored numerically higher than Novices on every measure. Novices reported significantly increased confidence after the simulation (3.1 vs 1.4, p = 0.001). Ninety-three percent (13/14) of participants found the simulator realistic. CONCLUSIONS: Our novel high-fidelity beating-heart EDT simulator is realistic and improves trainee confidence in this low-frequency, high-stakes emergency procedure. The EDT-OSATS tool differentiates between performances of experienced surgeons vs novice trainees on the beating-heart simulator. This training module and accompanying assessment instrument hold promise as a learning tool for clinicians who may perform emergency department thoracotomy.

Sex Differences in Faculty Rank Among Academic Surgeons in the United States in 2014.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate sex differences in full professorship among a comprehensive, contemporary cohort of US academic surgeons. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Previous work demonstrates that women are less likely than men to be full professors in academic medicine, and in certain surgical subspecialties. Whether sex differences in academic rank exist across all surgical fields, and after adjustment for confounders, is not known. METHODS: A comprehensive list of surgeons with faculty appointments at US medical schools in 2014 was obtained from Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) faculty roster and linked to a comprehensive physician database from Doximity, an online physician networking website, which contained the following data for all physicians: sex, age, years since residency, publication number (total and first/last author), clinical trials participation, National Institutes of Health grants, and surgical subspecialty. A 20% sample of 2013 Medicare payments for care was added to this dataset. Multivariable regression models were used to estimate sex differences in full professorship, adjusting for these variables and medical school-specific fixed effects. RESULTS: Among 11,549 surgeon faculty at US medical schools in 2014, 1692 (14.7%) were women. Women comprised 19.4% of assistant professors (1072/5538), 13.8% of associate professors (404/2931), and 7.0% of full professors (216/3080). After multivariable analysis, women were less likely to be full professors than men (adjusted odds ratio: 0.76, 95% confidence interval: 0.6-0.9). CONCLUSION: Among surgical faculty at US medical schools in 2014, women were less likely than men to be full professors after adjustment for multiple factors known to impact faculty rank.