Elective Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy as an Entrustable Professional Activity (EPA) for General Surgical Trainees in Australia.

INTRODUCTION: To evaluate the operation time and surgical outcomes of elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed by surgical trainees at different levels of training at Eastern health and hence, to establish the efficacy and safety of elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy as an Entrustable Professional Activity for surgical trainees in general surgery. OBJECTIVE: Elective laparoscopic cholecystectomies performed at our institution between January 2018 and January 2019 were included. Analyses were divided among three groups - consultants (C), fellows (F) and registrars (R). Standard technique with critical view of safety was used. RESULTS: A total of 592 patients was included, with a mean age of 54 ± 63 years old. The average operation time was 84 ± 51 minutes. Surgical education and training (SET) 2 trainees took significantly longer when compared to their SET3 and above counterparts as a primary operator (SET2: 131 ± 32 min, Reference; SET3: 78 ± 21 min, p = 0.003; SET4: 80 ± 33 min, p = 0.004; SET5: 77 ± 28 min, p = 0.003; F: 93 ± 77 min, p = 0.036; C: 85 ± 59 min; p = 0.007). Consultant primary operators took an average of 15 minutes longer to complete the operation when assisted by a SET trainee compared to the non-SET registrars (p = 0.03). The overall complication rate was 3.2% and was not significantly different among all three groups (p = 0.17). No death was recorded during the study period. The readmission and return to theatre rates were 7.8% and 0.8% respectively and were not significantly different among the groups (p-values = 0.61 and 0.69). All conversion to open were performed by the consultant primary operator. CONCLUSIONS: Elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy can be safely performed by surgical trainees at all SET levels when under appropriate supervision, although junior surgical trainees that is SET 2 took longer to complete the procedure. This operation seems to have a steep, but relatively short, learning curve and it may be broken down into various components. These components, with the addition of time, may be suitable as an Entrustable Professional Activity tool for assessing the competency of early SET trainees.

Variation in documented inhalation injury rates following burn injury in Australia and New Zealand.

INTRODUCTION: The negative impact of inhalation injuries on in-hospital outcomes for burn patients is well known, but the burns community is yet to form a consensus on diagnostic criteria and clinical definitions. The diagnosis of inhalation injuries is consequently highly subjective. This study aimed to assess the variation in the rate of documented inhalation injury for adult patients in Australian and New Zealand burn units. METHODS: Data for sequential admissions collected from eight adult burn centres across Australia and New Zealand between July 2009 and June 2016 were extracted from the Burns Registry of Australia and New Zealand (BRANZ). Inhalation injury was classified in two ways: (i) a field in the BRANZ data dictionary, and (ii) through a series of International Classification of Disease 10th Revision Australian Modification (ICD-10-AM) codes. Variation in inhalation injury prevalence was assessed using descriptive statistics, funnel plots, logistic regression, and predicted probabilities. RESULTS: There were 11,206 admissions to BRANZ sites over the study period. Inhalation injury prevalence was the highest at Site D (13.1% for the BRANZ field and 11.8% for the ICD-10-AM codes), but there was significant variation between the contributing sites and the inhalation injury classification methods. CONCLUSION: There is significant variation in the prevalence of documented inhalation injury among Australian and New Zealand burns units. The variation in the prevalence of documented inhalation injury across Australian and New Zealand sites reinforces the need for a consensus definition in the diagnosis of these injuries. Further work is required to improve data quality and reconcile the differences between clinical and ICD-10-AM coding prevalence before changes in clinical practice can be recommended from these data.