The development of anti-bullying, discrimination and harassment guidance: a survey among the Association of Surgeons in Training (ASiT) council members.

INTRODUCTION: Surgical trainees have a reasonable expectation to feel safe and valued in their workplace. Previous reports proved that poor behaviour and misconduct existed in national health systems. This study aimed to conduct a survey among the Association of Surgeons in Training (ASiT) council members to identify the need for guidance to report bullying, discrimination and harassment for trainees who experienced any type of poor behaviour in the workplace. METHODS: Data among executive and council members were collected. Questions were related to trainee demographics, level of training, specialties, and experience of, witnessed or reported poor behaviours including bullying, discrimination and harassment. We asked if participants lacked direction when experiencing poor behaviours, and if support strategies were needed such as a standardised guidance for reports. RESULTS: A total of 58 survey responses were received: 55.17% of participants experienced bullying, 77.58% witnessed it and 67.25% did not report the incidents. Furthermore, 37.93% experienced discrimination, 62.07% witnessed it and 68.97% did not report. A total of 24.14% experienced sexual harassment, 29.69% witnessed it, while 72.41% did not report. Over 80% mentioned they need more guidance to support trainees. Almost all participants (98%) agreed that surgical trainees should be made aware of routes for reporting, and 88% agreed that ASiT should develop the guidance to support trainees against poor behaviours. CONCLUSION: Most of the trainees who experienced or witnessed poor behaviours did not report the incidents. A new standardised anti-bullying, anti-discrimination and anti-harassment guidance was developed based on our study results. We envisage that its use may play a role in eliminating misconduct in surgical training.

Surgical trainee burnout during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has been particularly significant for surgical trainees. The aim of this study was to systematically review the prevalence of burnout in surgical trainees during the pandemic, to compare rates of burnout between different specialties and to identify factors that may modify the risk of burnout. METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist to identify articles related to the keywords "surgeons burnout COVID-19" and "surgical trainees burnout COVID-19". A search was carried out on the PubMed/MEDLINE® and ScienceDirect® databases for articles published from January 2020 to August 2022. RESULTS: A total of 19 articles met the inclusion criteria, with 3,866 surgical trainees included across all the studies. The overall prevalence of burnout in surgical trainees across the globe during the pandemic was between 9.1% and 95.2%. Burnout rates were higher in general surgery (33.1-95.2%) than in urology (17.6-54.6%), neurosurgery (16.2-44.1%) and orthopaedic surgery (9.1-44.1%). Otolaryngology trainees had the lowest burnout rate (10.9%). Factors associated with an increased risk of burnout included being a female trainee, being a more junior trainee and increased working hours. CONCLUSIONS: There has been a high level of burnout among surgical trainees across the globe during the pandemic. In light of the devastating effect of COVID-19 on surgical training and the serious consequences of surgeon burnout (both for the individual and for the patients), targetted interventions for the prevention and treatment of burnout in surgical trainees are urgently needed, and must be prioritised by healthcare institutions and training programmes.

Academic requirements for Certificate of Completion of Training in surgical training: Consensus recommendations from the Association of Surgeons in Training/National Research Collaborative Consensus Group.

BACKGROUND: Surgical trainees are expected to demonstrate academic achievement in order to obtain their certificate of completion of training (CCT). These standards are set by the Joint Committee on Surgical Training (JCST) and specialty advisory committees (SAC). The standards are not equivalent across all surgical specialties and recognise different achievements as evidence. They do not recognise changes in models of research and focus on outcomes rather than process. The Association of Surgeons in Training (ASiT) and National Research Collaborative (NRC) set out to develop progressive, consistent and flexible evidence set for academic requirements at CCT. METHODS: A modified-Delphi approach was used. An expert group consisting of representatives from the ASiT and the NRC undertook iterative review of a document proposing changes to requirements. This was circulated amongst wider stakeholders. After ten iterations, an open meeting was held to discuss these proposals. Voting on statements was performed using a 5-point Likert Scale. Each statement was voted on twice, with ≥80% of votes in agreement meaning the statement was approved. The results of this vote were used to propose core and optional academic requirements for CCT. RESULTS: Online discussion concluded after ten rounds. At the consensus meeting, statements were voted on by 25 delegates from across surgical specialties and training-grades. The group strongly favoured acquisition of 'Good Clinical Practice' training and research methodology training as CCT requirements. The group agreed that higher degrees, publications in any author position (including collaborative authorship), recruiting patients to a study or multicentre audit and presentation at a national or international meeting could be used as evidence for the purpose of CCT. The group agreed on two essential 'core' requirements (GCP and methodology training) and two of a menu of four 'additional' requirements (publication with any authorship position, presentation, recruitment of patients to a multicentre study and completion of a higher degree), which should be completed in order to attain CCT. CONCLUSION: This approach has engaged stakeholders to produce a progressive set of academic requirements for CCT, which are applicable across surgical specialties. Flexibility in requirements whilst retaining a high standard of evidence is desirable.