Reimagining general surgery resident selection: Collaborative innovation through design thinking.

Introduction: The process by which surgery residency programs select applicants is complex, opaque, and susceptible to bias. Despite attempts by program directors and educational researchers to address these issues, residents have limited ability to affect change within the process at present. Here, we present the results of a design thinking brainstorm to improve resident selection and propose this technique as a framework for surgical residents to creatively solve problems and generate actionable changes. Methods: Members of the Collaboration of Surgical Education Fellows (CoSEF) used the design thinking framework to brainstorm ways to improve the resident selection process. Members participated in one virtual focus group focused on identifying pain points and developing divergent solutions to those pain points. Pain points and solutions were subsequently organized into themes. Finally, members participated in a second virtual focus group to design prototypes to test the proposed solutions. Results: Sixteen CoSEF members participated in one or both focus groups. Participants identified twelve pain points and 57 potential solutions. Pain points and solutions were grouped into the three themes of transparency, fairness, and applicant experience. Members subsequently developed five prototype ideas that could be rapidly developed and tested to improve resident selection. Conclusions: The design thinking framework can help surgical residents come up with creative ideas to improve pain points within surgical training. Furthermore, this framework can supplement existing quantitative and qualitative methods within surgical education research. Future work will be needed to implement the prototypes devised during our sessions and turn them into complete interventions. Key message: In this paper, we demonstrate the results of a resident-led design thinking brainstorm on improving resident selection in which our team identified twelve pain points in resident selection, ideated 57 solutions, and developed five prototypes for further testing. In addition to sharing our results, we believe design thinking can be a useful framework for creative problem solving within surgical education.

Teach Design to Surgical Trainees: One Small Step for Surgeons, One Giant Leap for Surgery.

The field of surgery faces complex, systemic challenges that will require new academic frameworks. In this paper, we propose design thinking as a useful problem-solving technique to apply to such challenges. We define design thinking and provide a brief history of this practice. Finally, we offer suggestions to introduce design thinking to surgical trainees, drawing from the experience of innovation programs that have incorporated this technique.

How I GPT It: Development of Custom Artificial Intelligence (AI) Chatbots for Surgical Education.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) chatbots provide a novel format for individuals to interact with large language models (LLMs). Recently released tools allow nontechnical users to develop chatbots using natural language. Surgical education is an exciting area in which chatbots developed in this manner may be rapidly deployed, though additional work will be required to ensure their accuracy and safety. In this paper, we outline our initial experience with AI chatbot creation in surgical education and offer considerations for future use of this technology.

A novel ergonomic simulator for laparoscopic surgery.

Despite the importance of laparoscopic skill development to General Surgery trainees, current laparoscopic simulators are either too expensive or suffer from poor portability or low video quality. Moreover, several trainers without height adjustable platforms and screens do not promote optimal ergonomics. In this paper, we present the design process and initial prototype of a novel ergonomic laparoscopic simulator that addresses these limitations.

Instrument and Supply Variability: An Opportunity to Reduce the Carbon Footprint of the Operating Room.

INTRODUCTION: Reducing costs and carbon footprints are important, parallel priorities for the US health-care system. Within surgery, reducing the number of instruments that are sterilized and disposable supplies that are used for each operation may help achieve both goals. We wanted to measure the existing variability in surgical instrument and supply choices and assess whether standardization could have a meaningful cost and environmental impact. METHODS: We analyzed surgeon preference cards for common general surgery operations at our hospital to measure the number of sterilizable instrument trays and supplies used by each surgeon for each operation. From this data, we calculated supply costs, carbon footprint, and median operative time and studied the variability in each of these metrics. RESULTS: Among the ten operations studied, variability in sterilizable instrument trays requested on surgeon preference cards ranged from one to eight. Variability in disposable supplies requested ranged from 17 to 45. Variability in open supply costs ranged from $104 to $4184. Variability in carbon footprint ranged from 17 to 708 kg CO2e. If the highest-cost surgeon for each operation switched their preference card to that of the median-cost surgeon, $245,343 in open supply costs and 41,708 kg CO2e could be saved. CONCLUSIONS: There is significant variability in the instrument and supply choices of surgeons performing common general surgery operations. Standardizing this variability may lead to meaningful cost savings and carbon footprint reduction, especially if scaled across the entire health system.

Surgically Managed Signet Ring Cell Esophageal Carcinomas in the National Cancer Database.

BACKGROUND: Signet ring cell adenocarcinoma (SRC) is a less common histologic variant of esophageal adenocarcinoma (ACA). The low frequency of SRC limits the ability to make data-driven clinical recommendations for these patients. METHODS: The National Cancer Database was queried for adult patients with clinical stage I, II, or III adenocarcinoma of the noncervical esophagus diagnosed between 2004 and 2015 and stratified by SRC versus all other ACA variants. Cox proportional hazard regression models were adjusted for patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. The role of surgery in SRC was evaluated among patients treated with chemoradiation alone versus chemoradiation with esophagectomy. RESULTS: Of the 681 SRC and 13,543 ACA patients who underwent esophagectomy, no significant differences in age, sex, race, or comorbidities were identified. Patients with SRC were more likely to have high-grade tumors (84% vs 41%, P < .001) and stage III tumors (47% vs 39%, P < .001) compared with patients with ACA. Complete (R0) resection was less common in SRC (81% vs 90%, P < .001). Adjusted 5-year mortality risk from surgery was higher for SRC patients compared with ACA patients (hazard ratio, 1.242; 95% confidence interval, 1.126-1.369; P < .001). Among SRC tumors, chemoradiation with esophagectomy was associated with superior survival (hazard ratio, 0.429; 95% confidence interval, 0.339-0.546; P < .001) compared with chemoradiation alone. CONCLUSIONS: Among surgically managed patients SRC appears to have a worse prognosis than ACA, which may reflect the tendency of SRC tumors to be higher grade and more locally advanced. However SRC histology does not appear to diminish the role of esophagectomy in the management of locoregionally confined esophageal cancer.