Can Deficiencies in Performance Be Identified Earlier in Surgical Residency? An Initial Report of a Surgical Trainee Assessment of Readiness Exam.

OBJECTIVE: Identifying gaps in medical knowledge, patient management, and procedural competence is difficult early in surgical residency. We designed and implemented an end-of-year examination for our postgraduate year 1 residents, entitled Surgical Trainee Assessment of Readiness (STAR). Our objective in this study was to determine whether STAR scores correlated with other available indicators of resident performance, such as the American Board of Surgery in-training exam (ABSITE) and Milestone scores, and if they provided evidence of additional discriminatory value. STUDY DESIGN: Overall and component scores of the STAR exam were compared to the ABSITE and Milestone assessment scores for the 17 categorical residents that took the exam in 2016 and 2017. SETTING: Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, a university-affiliated academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Seventeen categorical general surgery residents. RESULTS: The STAR Total Test Score (ß = 2.77, p = 0.006) was an independent predictor of the ABSITE taken the same year, and components of the STAR were independent predictors of ABSITE taken the following year. The STAR Total Test Score was lowest in the 3 residents who had at least 1 low Milestone score assessed in the same year; and 2 of these 3 residents had at least 1 low Milestone score assigned the next year after STAR. Lastly, the Patient Care 1 and 2 Milestones assessed in the same year as STAR were uniformly scored as appropriate for level of training, yet the corresponding STAR component for those milestones demonstrated 3 residents as having deficiencies. CONCLUSIONS: We have created a multifaceted standardized STAR exam, which correlates with performance on the ABSITE and early milestone scores. It also appears to discriminate resident performance where milestone assessments do not. Further evaluation of the STAR exam with longer term follow-up is needed to confirm these initial findings.

Using simulation to improve root cause analysis of adverse surgical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to develop and test a simulation method of conducting investigation of the causality of adverse surgical outcomes. DESIGN: Six hundred and thirty-one closed claims of a major medical malpractice insurance company were reviewed. Each case had undergone conventional root cause analysis (RCA). Claims were categorized by comparing the predominant underlying cause documented in the case files. Three cases were selected for simulation. SETTING: All records (medical and legal) were analyzed. Simulation scenarios were developed by abstracting data from the records and then developing paper and electronic medical records, choosing appropriate STUDY PARTICIPANTS: including test subjects and confederates, scripting the simulation and choosing the appropriate simulated environment. INTERVENTION: In a simulation center, each case simulation was run 6-7 times and recorded, with participants debriefed at the conclusion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sources of error identified during simulation were compared with those noted in the closed claims. Test subject decision-making was assessed qualitatively. RESULTS: Simulation of adverse outcomes (SAOs) identified more system errors and revealed the way complex decisions were made by test subjects. Compared with conventional RCA, SAO identified root causes less focused on errors by individuals and more on systems-based error. CONCLUSIONS: The use of simulation for investigation of adverse surgical outcomes is feasible and identifies causes that may be more amenable to effective systems changes than conventional RCA. The information that SAO provides may facilitate the implementation of corrective measures, decreasing the risk of recurrence and improving patient safety.

Initial assessment on the impact of crystalloids versus colloids during damage control resuscitation.

BACKGROUND: High ratios of fresh frozen plasma:packed red blood cells in damage control resuscitation (DCR) are associated with increased survival. The impact of volume and type of resuscitative fluid used during high ratio transfusion has not been analyzed. We hypothesize a difference in outcomes based on the type and quantity of resuscitative fluid used in patients that received high ratio DCR. METHODS: A matched case control study of patients who received transfusions of ≥ four units of PRBC during damage control surgery over 4 1/2 y, was conducted at a Level I Trauma Center. All patients received a high ratio DCR, >1:2 of fresh frozen plasma:packed red blood cells. Demographics and outcomes of the type and quantity of resuscitative fluids used in combination with high ratio DCR were compared and analyzed. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was computed among four groups: colloid (median quantity = 1.0 L), <3 L crystalloid, 3-6 L crystalloid, and >6 L crystalloid. RESULTS: There were 56 patients included in the analysis (28 in the crystalloid group and 28 in the colloid group). Demographics were statistically similar. Intraoperative median units of PRBC: crystalloid versus colloid groups was 13 (IQR 8-21) versus 16 (IQR 12-19), P = 0.135; median units of FFP: 12 (IQR 7-18) versus 12 (IQR 10-18), P = 0.440. OR for 10-d mortality in the crystalloid group was 8.41 [95% CI 1.65-42.76 (P = 0.01)]. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrated lowest mortality in the colloid group and higher mortality with increasing amounts of crystalloid (P = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: During high ratio DCR, resuscitation with higher volumes of crystalloids was associated with an overall decreased survival, whereas low volumes of colloid use were associated with increased survival. In order to improve outcomes without diluting the survival benefit of hemostatic resuscitation, guidelines should focus on effective low volume resuscitation when high ratio DCR is used. A multi-institutional analysis is needed in order to validate these results.