RESUMO
CONTEXT.: To provide high-quality, safe training during the COVID-19 pandemic, our anatomic pathology fellowship program implemented a hybrid virtual/in-person training model with supplemental digital material. OBJECTIVE.: To evaluate the impact of this model. DESIGN.: We examined Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education survey results and board pass rates for fellows before the pandemic (group 1); during the pandemic peak (group 2); and early and late after the pandemic peak (groups 3 and 4). Additionally, we distributed an online survey including questions related to performance as attending physicians and fellowship experience to recent graduates. RESULTS.: Information loss during handover, supervision and teaching by faculty, and having at least 4 free days a month exhibited the greatest score declines between group 1 and groups 2, 3, and 4 on the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education surveys. No differences were seen in board passing rates between groups. The groups did not differ in responses regarding preparation for role as attending, confidence in role as attending, or overall impression of the fellowship program. The pandemic-affected groups responded more positively on the perceived utility of supplemental digital material, impact of digital pathology on quality of education, and impact of supplemental digital material on familiarity with digital pathology. The difference was particularly large between group 1 and combined groups 3 and 4. CONCLUSIONS.: Despite the limitations noted, the hybrid training model was effective and successfully prepared fellows for their role as attending physicians. Similar studies can be informative for the implementation of similar programs or for the meaningful integration of digital pathology into training curricula.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: The study aims to determine the influence of trainee gender on assessments of coronary anastomosis performance. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Understanding the impact of gender bias on the evaluation of trainees may enable us to identify and utilize assessment tools that are less susceptible to potential bias. METHODS: Cardiothoracic surgeons were randomized to review the video performance of trainees who were described by either male or female pronouns. All participants viewed the same video of a coronary anastomosis and were asked to grade technique using either a Checklist or Global Rating Scale (GRS). Effect of trainee gender on scores by respondent demographic was evaluated using regression analyses. Inter-rater reliability was assessed using the Cronbach's alpha. RESULTS: 103 cardiothoracic surgeons completed the Checklist (trainee gender: male n=50, female n=53) and 112 completed the GRS (trainee gender: male n=56, female n=56). For the Checklist, male cardiothoracic surgeons who were in practice <10 years ( P = 0.036) and involved in training residents ( P = 0.049) were more likely to score male trainees higher than female trainees. The GRS demonstrated high inter-rater reliability across male and female trainees by years and scope of practice for the respondent (alpha >0.900) when compared to the Checklist assessment tool. CONCLUSIONS: Early career male surgeons may exhibit gender bias against women when evaluating trainee performance of coronary anastomoses. The GRS demonstrates higher interrater reliability and robustness against gender bias in the assessment of technical performance than the Checklist, and such scales should be emphasized in educational evaluations.
