Comparison of quantitative internal and external measures of performance for trainees in cytopathology fellowships.

INTRODUCTION: Cytopathology fellowships need measures to assess performance of fellows. We sought to compare several internal quantitative assessment metrics in our fellowship with external metrics, such as performance on the American Society of Cytopathology (ASC) Progressive Evaluation of Competency (PEC) examination and United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE). METHODS: Quantitative parameters generated from our laboratory information system (LIS) on cytopathology fellows were evaluated over 6 years, including case volume and diagnostic discrepancies, in addition to ASC PEC and USMLE scores. For discrepancy reports, interpretations made by the fellow were compared with that of the cytopathologist, and classified as none (concordant), minor (<2-levels) or major (≥2-levels). RESULTS: We evaluated internal and external metrics on 13 fellows over 6 years. The program average diagnostic concordance rate was 89.9%, with an average major discrepancy rate of 1.5%, and an average monthly case volume of 260 cases. More fellows with above-average ASC PEC performance showed above-average concordant diagnoses and lower case volume, while below-average PEC scores were seen more often with higher major discrepancy rates. More fellows with above-average USMLE scores had higher case volumes, while low USMLE scores showed a trend towards higher major discrepancy rates. CONCLUSION: Our fellowship program has used a variety of internal and external measures of performance for cytopathology fellows. Although the findings show no statistically significant finding correlating performance, these quantitative parameters generated from our LIS were helpful to identify areas of improvement, facilitate comparison to peers, and provide case volume documentation.

Meta-analysis of efficacy and safety of fast-track surgery in gastrectomy for gastric cancer.

BACKGROUND: Fast-track surgery (FTS) is a promising program for surgical patients and has been applied to several surgical diseases. FTS is much superior to conventional perioperative care. Our aim was to evaluate and compare the safety and efficacy of FTS and conventional perioperative care for patients undergoing gastrectomy using a systematic review. METHODS: We searched the literature in PubMed, SCOPUS, and EMBASE up to November 2013. No language restriction was applied. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) and odds ratios (ORs) with their 95 % confidence intervals (CIs) were used for analysis by a fixed or a random effects model according to the heterogeneity assumption. RESULTS: In the present meta-analysis, we included five randomized controlled trials and one controlled clinical trial from five studies. Compared with conventional care, FTS shortened the duration of flatus (WMD -21.08; 95 % CI -27.46 to -14.71, z = 6.48, p < 0.00001 in the open surgery group; WMD -8.20; 95 % CI -12.87 to -3.53, z = 3.44, p = 0.0006 in the laparoscopic surgery group), accelerated the decrease in C-reactive protein (WMD -15.56; 95 % CI 21.28 to 9.83, z = 5.33, p < 0.00001), shortened the postoperative stay (WMD -2.00; 95 % CI -2.69 to -1.30, z = 5.64, p < 0.00001), and reduced hospitalization costs (WMD -447.72; 95 % CI -615.92 to -279.51, z = 5.22, p < 0.00001). FTS made no significant difference in operation times (p = 0.93), intraoperative blood loss (p = 0.79), or postoperative complications (p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Based on current evidence, the FTS protocol was feasible for gastric cancer patients who underwent gastrectomy (distal subtotal gastrectomy, proximal subtotal gastrectomy, or radical total gastrectomy) via open or laparoscopic surgery. Larger studies are needed to validate our findings.