The Impact of Simulation Based Training on the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery Performance Examination.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if simulation training is required to pass the FES skills test and assess the relationship between simulation training, clinical training, and FES skills test performance. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: The ABS began requiring completion of the Flexible Endoscopy Curriculum for all applicants beginning in 2018. The role of simulation-based training in FES skills test performance after this requirement has not been evaluated. METHODS: De-identified data from the initial FES skills tests after the Flexible Endoscopy Curriculum requirement was reviewed, and 731 unique participants with reported simulation experience demographics were identified. Self-reported data included sex, upper (UE) and lower (LE) endoscopy experience, and simulator training hours (SE). Final FES skills exam scores and pass/fail designations for each participant were reported by the FES program staff. RESULTS: There was a statistically discernible difference in mean FES total scores between those reporting no SE and more experienced groups ( P = 0.002), and between less and more experienced UE and LE groups ( P < 0.001). There was no statistically discernible difference in FES skills exam pass rates between SE groups ( P = 0.2), but there was a strong relationship between clinical experience (UE & LE) and pass rate ( P < 0.001). Finally, on logistic regression analysis, LE was a discernible predictor of passing [odds ratio (OR) = 1.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-1.8, P = 0.02], while UE [odds ratio (OR) = 1, 95% CI 0.8-1.3, P = 0.9] and SE (OR = 1,95% CI 0.9- 1.3, P = 0.7) were not. CONCLUSIONS: There is no threat to the validity of the FES skills test from a need for simulation training to pass the FES skills test. Similarly, the amount of simulation practice is not predictive of passing, but can improve performance on certain FES tasks.

Evidence-based Surgical Competency Outcomes from the Clinical Readiness Program.

OBJECTIVES: 1) Evaluate the value and strength of a competency framework for identifying and measuring performance requirements for expeditionary surgeons; 2) Verify psychometric integrity of assessment instrumentation for measuring domain knowledge and skills; 3) Identify gaps in knowledge and skills capabilities using assessment strategies; 4) Examine shared variance between knowledge and skills outcomes, and the volume and diversity of routine surgical practice. BACKGROUND: Expeditionary military surgeons provide care for patients with injuries that extend beyond the care requirements of their routine surgical practice. The readiness of these surgeons to independently provide accurate care in expeditionary contexts is important for casualty care in military and civilian situations. Identifying and closing performance gap areas are essential for assuring readiness. METHODS: We implemented evidence-based processes for identifying and measuring the essential performance competencies for expeditionary surgeons. All assessment instrumentation was rigorously examined for psychometric integrity. Performance outcomes were directly measured for expeditionary surgical knowledge and skills and gap areas were identified. Knowledge and skills assessment outcomes were compared, and also compared to the volume and diversity of routine surgical practice to determine shared variance. RESULTS: Outcomes confirmed the integrity of assessment instrumentation and identified significant performance gaps for knowledge and skills in the domain. CONCLUSIONS: Identification of domain competencies and performance benchmarks, combined with best-practices in assessment instrumentation, provided a rigorous and defensible framework for quantifying domain competencies. By identifying and implementing strategies for closing performance gap areas, we provide a positive process for assuring surgical competency and clinical readiness.

The American Board of Surgery flexible endoscopy curriculum prepares individuals to pass the fundamentals of endoscopic surgery manual skills test.

BACKGROUND: The American Board of Surgery (ABS) has required Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES) certification for general surgery applicants since 2018. Flexible Endoscopy Curriculum (FEC) completion is recommended prior to taking the FES exam. The objective of the study was to determine if FEC completion prepares individuals to pass the FES manual skills test. METHODS: Participants included first-attempt FES examinees from June 2014 to February 2019. De-identified data were reviewed, Self-reported data included gender, PGY, glove size, upper (UE) and lower (LE) endoscopy experience, simulation training time, and participation in an endoscopy rotation (ER). FES skills exam performance was reported by FES staff. Those completing all vs. none of the FEC were compared. RESULTS: Of 2023 participants identified, 809 (40.0%) reported completion of all FEC components, 1053 (52.1%) completed of some, and 161 (8.0%) completed none. Men and candidates taking FES later in residency were more likely to complete all FEC requirements (p = 0.002, p < 0.001). FES pass rates were higher for those who completed all FEC components compared to those who completed none (88.4% vs 72.7%, p < 0.001). On logistic regression analysis, completion of all components (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.5-3.7, p < 0.001) and male gender (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.7-5.7, p < 0.001) were predictors of passing, while glove size (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.0-2.5, p = 0.08), simulator time (OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.9-1.4, p = 0.37) and PGY were not (OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.9-1.4, p = 0.38). On multivariate analysis controlling for glove size and gender, completion of all FEC components was still associated with a higher likelihood of passing the FES skills exam (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.1, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Completion of FEC is strongly associated with passing the FES skills test. This study supports the ABS recommendation for completion of FEC prior to taking the FES skills test.

The Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES) skills test: factors associated with first-attempt scores and pass rate.

BACKGROUND: The Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES) program became required for American Board of Surgery certification as part of the Flexible Endoscopy Curriculum (FEC) for residents graduating in 2018. This study expands prior psychometric investigation of the FES skills test. METHODS: We analyzed de-identified first-attempt skills test scores and self-reported demographic characteristics of 2023 general surgery residents who were required to pass FES. RESULTS: The overall pass rate was 83%. "Loop Reduction" was the most difficult sub-task. Subtasks related to one another only modestly (Spearman's ρ ranging from 0.11 to 0.42; coefficient α = .55). Both upper and lower endoscopic procedural experience had modest positive association with scores (ρ = 0.14 and 0.15) and passing. Examinees who tested on the GI Mentor Express simulator had lower total scores and a lower pass rate than those tested on the GI Mentor II (pass rates = 73% vs. 85%). Removing an Express-specific scoring rule that had been applied eliminated these differences. Gender, glove size, and height were closely related. Women scored lower than men (408- vs. 489-point averages) and had a lower first-attempt pass rate (71% vs. 92%). Glove size correlated positively with score (ρ = 0.31) and pass rate. Finally, height correlated positively with score (r = 0.27) and pass rate. Statistically controlling for glove size and height did not eliminate gender differences, with men still having 3.2 times greater odds of passing. CONCLUSIONS: FES skills test scores show both consistencies with the assessment's validity argument and several remarkable findings. Subtasks reflect distinct skills, so passing standards should perhaps be set for each subtask. The Express simulator-specific scoring penalty should be removed. Differences seen by gender are concerning. We argue those differences do not reflect measurement bias, but rather highlight equity concerns in surgical technology, training, and practice.

Video-based assessment for laparoscopic fundoplication: initial development of a robust tool for operative performance assessment.

INTRODUCTION: While better technical performance correlates with improved outcomes, there is a lack of procedure-specific tools to perform video-based assessment (VBA). SAGES is developing a series of VBA tools with enough validity evidence to allow reliable measurement of surgeon competence. A task force was established to develop a VBA tool for laparoscopic fundoplication using an evidence-based process that can be replicated for additional procedures. The first step in this process was to seek content validity evidence. METHODS: Forty-two subject matter experts (SME) in laparoscopic fundoplication were interviewed to obtain consensus on procedural steps, identify potential variations in technique, and to generate an inventory of required skills and common errors. The results of these interviews were used to inform creation of a task inventory questionnaire (TIQ) that was delivered to a larger SME group (n = 188) to quantify the criticality and difficulty of the procedural steps, the impact of potential errors associated with each step, the technical skills required to complete the procedure, and the likelihood that future techniques or technologies may change the presence or importance of any of these factors. Results of the TIQ were used to generate a list of steps, skills, and errors with strong validity evidence. RESULTS: Initial SMEs interviewed included fellowship program directors (45%), recent fellows (24%), international surgeons (19%), and highly experienced super SMEs with quality outcomes data (12%). Qualitative analysis of interview data identified 6 main procedural steps (visualization, hiatal dissection, fundus mobilization, esophageal mobilization, hiatal repair, and wrap creation) each with 2-5 sub steps. Additionally, the TIQ identified 5-10 potential errors for each step and 11 key technical skills required to perform the procedure. Based on the TIQ, the mean criticality and difficulty scores for the 11/21 sub steps included in the final scoring rubric is 4.66/5 (5 = absolutely essential for patient outcomes) and 3.53/5 (5 = difficulty level requires significant experience and use of alternative strategies to accomplish consistently), respectively. The mean criticality and frequency scores for the 9/11 technical skills included is 4.51/5 and 4.51/5 (5 = constantly used ≥ 80% of the time), respectively. The mean impact score of the 42/47 errors incorporated into the final rubric is 3.85/5 (5 = significant error that is unrecoverable, or even if recovered, likely to have a negative impact on patient outcome). CONCLUSIONS: A rigorous, multi-method process has documented the content validity evidence for the SAGES video-based assessment tool for laparoscopic fundoplication. Work is ongoing to pilot the assessment tool on recorded fundoplication procedures to establish reliability and further validity evidence.

The SAGES flexible endoscopy course for fellows: a worthwhile investment in furthering surgical endoscopy.

BACKGROUND: The SAGES flexible endoscopy course for minimally invasive surgery (MIS) fellows improves confidence and skills in performing gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy. This study evaluated the long-term retention of these confidence levels and investigated how fellows changed practices within their fellowships due to the course. METHODS: Participating MIS fellows completed surveys 6 months after the course. Respondents rated their confidence to independently perform 16 endoscopic procedures (1 = not at all; 5 = very), barriers to use of endoscopy, and current uses of endoscopy. Respondents also noted participation in additional skills courses and status of fundamentals of endoscopic surgery (FES) certification. Comparisons of responses from the immediate post-course survey to the 6-month follow-up survey were examined. McNemar and paired t tests were used for analyses. RESULTS: 23 of 57 (40%) course participants returned to the 6-month survey. No major barriers to endoscopy use were identified. Fellows reported less competition with GI providers as a barrier to practice compared to their original post-course expectations (50% vs. 86%, p < 0.01). In addition, confidence was maintained in performing the majority of the 16 endoscopic procedures, although fellows reported significant decreases in confidence in independently performing snare polypectomy (- 26%; p < 0.05), control of variceal bleeding (- 39%; p < 0.05), colonic stenting (- 48%; p < 0.01), BARRX (- 40%; p < 0.05), and TIF (- 31%; p < 0.05). Fewer fellows used the GI suite to manage surgical problems than was anticipated post course (26% vs. 74%, p < 0.01). Fellows who passed FES noted no significant loss of independence, changes in use, or barriers to use. 18% made additional partnerships with industry after the course. 41% stated flexible endoscopy has influenced their post-fellowship job choice. CONCLUSIONS: The SAGES flexible endoscopy course for MIS fellows results in long-term practice changes with participating fellows maintaining confidence to perform the majority of taught endoscopic procedures 6 months later. Additionally, fellows experienced no major barriers to implementing endoscopy into practice.

Simulation Research in Gastrointestinal and Urologic Care-Challenges and Opportunities: Summary of a National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Workshop.

: A workshop on "Simulation Research in Gastrointestinal and Urologic Care: Challenges and Opportunities" was held at the National Institutes of Health in June 2016. The purpose of the workshop was to examine the extent to which simulation approaches have been used by skilled proceduralists (not trainees) caring for patients with gastrointestinal and urologic diseases. The current status of research findings in the use and effectiveness of simulation applications was reviewed, and numerous knowledge gaps and research needs were identified by the faculty and the attendees. The paradigm of "deliberate practice," rather than mere repetition, and the value of coaching by experts was stressed by those who have adopted simulation in music and sports. Models that are most useful for the adoption of simulation by expert clinicians have yet to be fully validated. Initial studies on the impact of simulation on safety and error reduction have demonstrated its value in the training domain, but the role of simulation as a strategy for increased procedural safety remains uncertain in the world of the expert practitioner. Although the basic requirements for experienced physicians to acquire new skills have been explored, the widespread availability of such resources is an unrealized goal, and there is a need for well-designed outcome studies to establish the role of simulation in improving the quality of health care.

Trends in the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery® (FLS) certification exam over the past 9 years.

BACKGROUND: The Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery® (FLS) certification exam assesses both cognitive and manual skills, and has been administered for over a decade. The purpose of this study is to report results over the past 9 years of testing in order to identify trends over time and evaluate the need to update scoring practices. This is a quality initiative of the SAGES FLS committee. METHODS: A representative sample of FLS exam data from 2008 to 2016 was analyzed. The de-identified data included demographics and scores for the cognitive and manual tests. Standard descriptive statistics were used to compare trends over the years, training levels, and to assess the pass/fail rate. RESULTS: A total of 7232 FLS tests were analyzed [64% male, 6.4% junior (postgraduate year-PGY1-2), 84% senior (PGY3-5), 2.8% fellows (PGY6), and 6.7% attending surgeons (PGY7)]. Specialties included 93% general surgery (GS), 6.2% gynecology, and 0.9% urology. The Pearson correlation between cognitive and manual scores was 0.09. For the cognitive exam, there was an increase in scores over the years, and the most junior residents scored the lowest. For the manual skills, there were marginal differences in scores over the years, and junior residents scored the highest. The odds ratio of PGY3+ passing was 1.8 (CI 1.2-2.8) times higher than that of a PGY1-2. The internal consistency between tasks on the manual skills exam was 0.73. If any one of the tasks was removed, the Cronbach's alpha dropped to between 0.65 and 0.71, depending on the task being removed. CONCLUSION: The cognitive and manual components of FLS test different aspects of laparoscopy and demonstrate evidence for reliability and validity. More experienced trainees have a higher likelihood of passing the exam and tend to perform better on the cognitive skills. Each component of the manual skills contributes to the exam and should continue to be part of the test.

Simulation-based mastery learning significantly reduces gender differences on the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery performance exam.

BACKGROUND: Analysis of the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES) performance exam showed higher scores for men than women. Gender differences have been reduced with task-specific practice. We assessed the effect of simulation-based mastery learning (SBML) on FES performance exam differences by gender. METHODS: Forty-seven surgical trainees [29 men (m), 18 women (w)] completed a SBML curriculum and were assessed by FES. Fourteen trained on the GI Mentor 2, 18 on the Endoscopy Training System, and 15 using the Surgical Training for Endoscopic Proficiency curriculum. Performance of male and female trainees was compared. RESULTS: On the pre-training assessment, there were large differences between genders in FES pass rates (m 77%, w 15%, p < 0.001), total scores (m 69 ± 11, w 50 ± 12; p < 0.001), and in four of five FES sub-task scores (Navigation, m 73 ± 19, w 55 ± 22, p = 0.02; Loop reduction, m 34 ± 29, w 14 ± 22, p = 0.02; Retroflexion, m 81 ± 17, w 47 ± 27, p < 0.001; Targeting, m 89 ± 10, w 66 ± 23, p = 0.002). No differences were discernible post training (Pass rate, m 100%, w 94%, p = 0.4; Total score, m 77 ± 8, w 72 ± 12, p = 0.2; Navigation, m 91 ± 13, w 80 ± 13, p = 0.009; Loop reduction, m 49 ± 26, w 46 ± 36, p = 0.7; Retroflexion, m 82 ± 18, w 81 ± 15, p = 0.9; Targeting, m 92 ± 15, w 86 ± 12, p = 0.12). Time needed to complete curricula was not discernably different by gender (m 3.8 ± 1.7 h, w 5.0 ± 2.6 h, p = 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: Gender-based differences are nearly eliminated through task-specific SBML training. This lends further evidence to the validity argument for the FES performance exam as a measure of basic endoscopic skills.

Simulation-based mastery learning for endoscopy using the endoscopy training system: a strategy to improve endoscopic skills and prepare for the fundamentals of endoscopic surgery (FES) manual skills exam.

INTRODUCTION: The fundamentals of endoscopic surgery (FES) program has considerable validity evidence for its use in measuring the knowledge, skills, and abilities required for competency in endoscopy. Beginning in 2018, the American Board of Surgery will require all candidates to have taken and passed the written and performance exams in the FES program. Recent work has shown that the current ACGME/ABS required case volume may not be enough to ensure trainees pass the FES skills exam. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of a simulation-based mastery-learning curriculum delivered on a novel physical simulation platform to prepare trainees to pass the FES manual skills exam. METHODS: The newly developed endoscopy training system (ETS) was used as the training platform. Seventeen PGY 1 (10) and PGY 2 (7) general surgery residents completed a pre-training assessment consisting of all 5 FES tasks on the GI Mentor II. Subjects then trained to previously determined expert performance benchmarks on each of 5 ETS tasks. Once training benchmarks were reached for all tasks, a post-training assessment was performed with all 5 FES tasks. RESULTS: Two subjects were lost to follow-up and never returned for training or post-training assessment. One additional subject failed to complete any portion of the curriculum, but did return for post-training assessment. The group had minimal endoscopy experience (median 0, range 0-67) and minimal prior simulation experience. Three trainees (17.6%) achieved a passing score on the pre-training FES assessment. Training consisted of an average of 48 ± 26 repetitions on the ETS platform distributed over 5.1 ± 2 training sessions. Seventy-one percent achieved proficiency on all 5 ETS tasks. There was dramatic improvement demonstrated on the mean post-training FES assessment when compared to pre-training (74.0 ± 8 vs. 50.4 ± 16, p < 0.0001, effect size = 2.4). The number of ETS tasks trained to proficiency correlated moderately with the score on the post-training assessment (r = 0.57, p = 0.028). Fourteen (100%) subjects who trained to proficiency on at least one ETS task passed the post-training FES manual skills exam. CONCLUSIONS: This simulation-based mastery learning curriculum using the ETS is feasible for training novices and allows for the acquisition of the technical skills required to pass the FES manual skills exam. This curriculum should be strongly considered by programs wishing to ensure that trainees are prepared for the FES exam.

Simulation Research in Gastrointestinal and Urologic Care-Challenges and Opportunities: Summary of a National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Workshop.

A workshop on ''Simulation Research in Gastrointestinal and Urologic Care: Challenges and Opportunities'' was held at the National Institutes of Health in June 2016. The purpose of the workshop was to examine the extent to which simulation approaches have been used by skilled proceduralists (not trainees) caring for patients with gastrointestinal and urologic diseases. The current status of research findings in the use and effectiveness of simulation applications was reviewed, and numerous knowledge gaps and research needs were identified by the faculty and the attendees. The paradigm of ''deliberate practice,'' rather than mere repetition, and the value of coaching by experts was stressed by those who have adopted simulation in music and sports. Models that are most useful for the adoption of simulation by expert clinicians have yet to be fully validated. Initial studies on the impact of simulation on safety and error reduction have demonstrated its value in the training domain, but the role of simulation as a strategy for increased procedural safety remains uncertain in the world of the expert practitioner. Although the basic requirements for experienced physicians to acquire new skills have been explored, the widespread availability of such resources is an unrealized goal, and there is a need for well-designed outcome studies to establish the role of simulation in improving the quality of health care.

Neuropsychological Differences Between Surgery Interns and Age-Matched Adults.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess how neuropsychological factors differ between general surgery interns and normative data from age-matched adults in the general population. DESIGN: Participants completed a comprehensive neuropsychological assessment battery. Neuropsychological factors assessed included: executive function (Behavioral Rating Inventory of Executive Function, BRIEF), working memory (Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, or WAIS, digit span), psychomotor speed (WAIS coding, Trails A and B), selective attention (D2 Test of Attention), and problem solving (Tower of London, TOL). Data for all measures was compared to previously published normative data for age-matched, healthy adults in the general population using one-sample t-tests. SETTING: This study was completed at Indiana University School of Medicine in Indianapolis, IN, which is a large academic healthcare training institution. PARTICIPANTS: Postgraduate year 1 general surgery residents (PGY1s) voluntarily participated in this study. RESULTS: Twenty-six general surgery PGY1s completed all measures. We found that PGY1s had significantly better behavioral inhibition, working memory, selective attention, problem solving, and psychomotor speed than their counterparts in the general population (Table 1). Conversely, we found that PGY1s had significantly lower cognitive flexibility (p = 0.02) and ability to monitor task progress (p = 0.006) than the general population. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this study indicate that there are several neuropsychological factors that may help explain the high achievement of general surgery PGY1s. Assessment of these factors could aid general surgery programs in the selection and training of high-caliber residents. However, there are indicators that PGY1s struggle from cognitive inflexibility and task monitoring compared to the general population. These skills are needed to manage the complex and dynamic nature of surgical performance, so educators should consider methods to enhance junior residents' development of these characteristics.

Relationship between stress and resident non-technical skills during interdisciplinary trauma simulations.

BACKGROUND: Non-technical skills, such as communication and situation awareness, are vital for patient care and effective surgical team performance. Previous research has found that residents' perceived stress is associated with poorer non-technical skills; however, few studies have investigated the relationship between objectively assessed stress and non-technical skills. Accordingly, the purpose of this study was to assess the relationship between objectively assessed stress and non-technical skills. METHODS: Emergency medicine and surgery residents voluntarily participated in this study. Residents were randomly assigned to trauma teams to manage critically ill patients. Acute stress was assessed objectively using a chest-strap heart rate monitor, which measured average heart rate and heart rate variability. Participants also evaluated perceived stress and workload using the 6-item version of the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and the Surgery Task Load Index. Non-technical skills were assessed by faculty raters using the non-technical skills scale for trauma. Pearson's correlation coefficients were used to examine relationships between all variables. RESULTS: Forty-one residents participated in our study. Heart rate variability (where higher values reflect lower stress) was positively correlated with residents' non-technical skills overall and leadership, communication, and decision-making. Average heart rate was negatively correlated with residents' communication. CONCLUSION: Higher objectively assessed stress was associated with poorer non-technical skills in general and nearly all non-technical skills domains of the T-NOTECHS. Clearly, stress has a deleterious effect on residents' non-technical skills during trauma situations, and given the importance of non-technical skills in surgical care, educators should consider implementing mental skills training to reduce residents' stress and optimize non-technical skills during trauma situations.

The association between specialty match and third-year clerkship performance.

PURPOSE: The United States is experiencing an accelerating physician shortage, especially within primary care. Medical educators are actively seeking ways to predict student specialty match and workforce requirements. Previous studies investigating specialty match have focused on factors known at the time of matriculation. This study examined whether third-year clerkship performance could be used to predict specialty match later in medical school. METHOD: The authors evaluated the clerkship performance of 802 students graduating from the Uniformed Services University between 2007 and 2011. They examined the relationship of students' clerkship grades and National Board of Medical Examiners' clinical subject examination scores to specialty match. In addition, the authors combined student performance in family medicine, internal medicine, and pediatrics to create composite variables and assessed their associations with the match. RESULTS: Among 802 students, 339 (42.4%) students matched to primary care specialties. There was a positive association between higher family medicine (Odds ratio [OR] 1.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05, 2.59), general surgery (OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.22, 2.99), internal medicine (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.35, 3.49), and pediatrics (OR 2.59, 95% CI 1.52, 4.43) clerkship grades and students matching into family medicine, general surgery, internal medicine, and pediatrics, respectively. Only family medicine showed a weak correlation between higher National Board of Medical Examiners' scores and specialty match. CONCLUSIONS: Higher clerkship performance in four of six Uniformed Services University third-year clerkships is associated with matching into the corresponding specialty. Clerkship performance provides a potential tool for educators in counseling students and predicting future specialty match.

Early implementation of Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery training using a simulation-based mastery learning curriculum.

BACKGROUND: After the American Board of Surgery announcement of the Flexible Endoscopy Curriculum requirement in 2014, we implemented a dedicated endoscopy rotation at the post graduate year (PGY)2 level including a simulation curriculum for Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery skills. Here we evaluate the outcomes of this implementation. METHODS: Beginning in 2015, we developed a clinical endoscopy and simulation-based rotation to prepare for Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery testing. Originally, our curriculum was based on the published Texas Association of Surgical Skills Laboratories curriculum using the GI Mentor and transitioned to a mastery learning curriculum using the Endoscopy Training System in 2016. We evaluated the success of the curriculum in terms of first-time pass rates, training time required, and comparison to previously published benchmarks based on clinical experience. RESULTS: Since 2015, a total of 37 general surgery residents in our program were Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery tested (PGY2 = 24, PGY3 = 4, PGY5 = 9); 84% (31) completed the Endoscopy Training System curriculum. At the time of testing, 73% (27) had performed <25 esophagogastroduodenoscopies, and 46% had performed <25 colonoscopies. Ninety-two percent (34) spent 10 hours or less completing the curriculum. The first-time pass rate for those completing the Endoscopy Training System curriculum was 97% vs 67% for those not completing the Endoscopy Training System curriculum (P = .01). For residents completing the Endoscopy Training System curriculum, total Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery scores were discernibly higher (472 vs 389, P < .01), as were 3/5 task scores (Nav1 80 vs 67, P = .02; Loop2 36 vs 8, P = .02; Retro3 89 vs 71, P = .02). Despite clinical inexperience (<25 esophagogastroduodenoscopies and <50 colonoscopies), PGY2s yielded a mean score of 454 and a pass rate of 92%. This was similar to PGY5s (427, 89%; P = .3) and compares to benchmark data of endoscopists with >300 cases. CONCLUSION: Early implementation of flexible endoscopy training with a simulation-based curriculum results in Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery performance equal to a clinical experience not often gained during surgical residency. Often requiring <10 hours, this represents a fantastic return on investment for this training.

Piloting the FIRE: A Novel Error Management Training Simulation Curriculum for Fasciotomy Instruction.

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have demonstrated poor performance of lower extremity fasciotomy (LEF), highlighted by missed and/or inadequately released compartments. Incorporating error management training (EMT) into surgical simulation has been promoted as a way to gain deeper understanding of procedural errors and overall performance. The purpose of this study was to evaluate LEF performance using a Fasciotomy Improvement through Recognition of Errors (FIRE) simulation training curriculum to train novice surgical trainees. METHODS: A mastery learning-based EMT curriculum was developed, and surgical residents were enrolled and pretested with a multiple-choice question (MCQ) written test, and a simulated fasciotomy using a lower leg model. Each trainee then watched a 15-minute narrated presentation followed by 2 rounds of fasciotomy error recognition and management training exercises to a mastery standard. During each round, trainees performed hands-on assessment of unique premade fasciotomy leg models containing a variable number of procedural errors. They were required to identify and propose corrective action for all errors. Serial rounds of remediation were implemented until the mastery standard was attained on both error identification rounds. All trainees were post-tested with the same MCQ and another simulated fasciotomy. RESULTS: All 14 residents had minimal experience with only 0.3 ± 0.6 fasciotomies performed prior to instruction. There were 3 ± 1.6 missed or inadequately released compartments on the pretest. Residents examined 14 ± 2.5 legs, including 2 ± 2.5 legs during remediation to attain mastery. All residents demonstrated significant improvement following the FIRE of Error curriculum for the MCQ (57% ± 16% vs 78% ± 13%; p = 0.01; Cohen's d = 1.4), fasciotomy score (10 ± 7.1 vs 28 ± 1.9; p < 0.001; Cohen's d = 3.6), and achieving a complete fasciotomy (14% ± 36% vs 93% ± 27%; p < 0.001; Cohen's d = 2.5). Only a single cumulative compartment was missed on post-testing. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of a mastery learning-based EMT curriculum for fasciotomy simulation training results in significant improvement in fasciotomy technique without reliance on repeated procedure performance nor clinical fasciotomy exposure. This curriculum is a highly effective option for surgical trainees lacking fasciotomy training during residency.

Teaching breaking bad news using mixed reality simulation.

BACKGROUND: Our novel teaching approach involved having students actively participate in an unsuccessful resuscitation of a high fidelity human patient simulator with a gun shot wound to the chest, followed immediately by breaking bad news (BBN) to a standardized patient wife (SPW) portrayed by an actress. METHODS: Brief education interventions to include viewing a brief video on the SPIKES protocol on how to break bad news, a didactic lecture plus a demonstration, or both, was compared to no pretraining by dividing 553 students into four groups prior to their BBN to the SPW. The students then self-assessed their abilities, and were also evaluated by the SPW on 21 items related to appearance, communication skills, and emotional affect. All received cross-over training. RESULTS: Groups were equal in prior training (2 h) and belief that this was an important skill to be learned. Students rated the experience highly, and demonstrated marked improvement of self-assessed skills over baseline, which was maintained for the duration of the 12-wk clerkship. Additionally, students who received any of the above training prior to BBN were rated superior to those who had no training on several communication skills, and the observation of the video seemed to offer the most efficient way of teaching this skill in a time delimited curriculum. CONCLUSION: This novel approach was well received and resulted in improvement over baseline. Lessons learned from this study have enhanced our curricular approach to this vital component of medical education.

Fact or Fiction? Practice on a Simulator is Not Required to Pass the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES)TM Skills Exam.

PURPOSE: Initial work on the validity evidence used to support the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES) performance exam as a measure of technical competency showed a strong relationship to clinical experience. Despite this evidence, there is a perception among some program directors that the exam cannot be successfully passed without practice on a simulator. We assess the validity of this perception. METHODS: Deidentified data from the initial FES skills examination (prior to the 2014 FEC requirement) was reviewed, and 335 unique participants with reported simulation experience demographics were identified. Self reported data analyzed included gender, total clinical endoscopy procedure experience (1-150, 151-300, >300), and endoscopy simulator training hours (0, 1-5, 6-10, 11-20, >20). Final FES skills exam scores, and pass/fail designations for each participant were reported by the FES program staff. Continuous variables were compared between groups using one-way analysis of variance with post-hoc analysis where appropriate. Categorical variables were compared using Pearson Chi-Squared. The effect of variables on pass rate was assessed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Simulation training experience (SE) was categorically reported in hours(n,%): 0 (98, 29%), 1-5 (135, 40%), 6-10 (52, 16%), 11-20 (24, 7%), and >20 (26, 8%). Clinical endoscopy experience (CE), reported categorically as total cases performed (n,%), was available for 323 of 355 identified participants: 1-150 (126, 39%), 151-300 (99, 31%), >300 (98, 30%). There was no statistically discernible differences in mean FES total or task scores across the SE groups (total score 0:72 ± 15, 1-5:72 ± 13, 6-10:71 ± 14, 11-20:71 ± 16, 20:78 ± 13; p = 0.28), while both total score and task scores were discernibly higher in the more experienced CE groups (>151) compared to the least experienced group (total score; <150:67 ± 15, 151-300:75 ± 1, >300:77 ± 14; p < 0.01). Similarly, there was no statistically discernible difference in FES skills exam pass rates between SE groups (0: 80%, 1-5: 82%, 6-10: 79%, 11-20: 75%, >20: 85%; x2 = 2.5, p = 0.6), but there was a strong relationship between clinical experience and pass rate (<150: 70%, 151-300: 87%, >300: 89%; x2 = 15.8, p < 0.001). Finally, on both univariate and multivariate logistic regression, CE remained a discernible predictor of passing, even when controlling for SE (odds ratio = 2, 95% confidence interval 1.4-2.9, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: FES skills examination data collected on participants completing the examination before the FEC requirement shows no demonstrable relationship with self-reported training experience on a simulator but confirms a strong relationship with clinical endoscopy experience. This lends further evidence to the validity of the FES exam as a marker of clinical endoscopic skill.

Fundamentals of Anorectal Technical Skills: A Concise Surgical Skills Course.

INTRODUCTION: Anorectal diseases, among the most common surgical conditions, are underrepresented in medical training. The Fundamentals of Anorectal Technical Skills course was developed to provide cost-effective formal training in diagnosis of common anorectal conditions and in commonly performed anorectal procedures using the theories of deliberative practice and perceptual and adaptive learning. MATERIALS AND METHODS: First- through third-year general surgery and internal medicine residents and third- and fourth-year medical students participated in a course consisting of didactic instruction and hands on skills stations. The course covered common anorectal conditions, including internal and external hemorrhoids, fissures, condylomata, abscesses, fistula-in-ano, rectal prolapse, pilonidal disease, pruritis ani, and anal and rectal cancer, as well as common procedures such as anoscopy, excision of thrombosed external hemorrhoids, banding of internal hemorrhoids, rigid proctoscopy, incision and drainage of an abscess, administration of local anesthesia, and reduction of rectal prolapse. Before the course, participants completed a questionnaire consisting of demographics; previous anorectal experience, as measured by procedural case volume; confidence diagnosing and treating anorectal conditions; and a clinical knowledge multiple-choice quiz. Immediately following the course, participants took an additional survey reassessing their confidence and testing their clinical knowledge. This study was granted an educational exception by the Institutional Review Board at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center. RESULTS: Forty-three learners participated in this course. Forty-six percent of participants had not participated in any anorectal cases, 26% had participated in 1 to 5 cases, 17% had participated in 6 to 10 cases, 6% had been involved with 11 to15 cases, and 6% had been involved with more than 15 cases. For learners who had no prior experience, 1 to 5 prior cases, or 6 to 10 cases, there were statistically and educationally significant increases in confidence for all diagnoses and procedures. Additionally, there were statistically and educationally significant increases between pre-course and post-course quiz scores for learners who had no prior experience (7.8 ± 2.0 vs. 11.8 ± 2.5, P < 0.01, Cohen's d = 1.8) and for those who had only participated in 1 to 5 cases (11.0 ± 3.7 vs. 14.2 ± 2.0, P = 0.04, Cohen's d = 1.1). The changes in quiz scores for learners who previously had been involved with six or more cases were not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: This course provides a cost-effective training that significantly boosts learners' confidence in diagnosis of common anorectal procedures and confidence in performance of common anorectal procedures, in addition to improving objectively measured anorectal clinical knowledge.