RESUMO
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The objective of general surgery residency is to produce competent surgeons. At a minimum this requires being procedurally and clinically capable and able to pass the board exams. Recruitment is designed to select those residents who can successfully do so. But there is more to being a successful resident than that. In this review, we attempt to define a "successful resident" and how to attract them to your program. RECENT FINDINGS: Resident applicants are still most concerned with matching to a program that will prepare them for a surgery career. Though there is variation of importance for different applicants, resident life, comradery, and relationships with faculty or mentors do factor into residency ranking. The program website remains the most utilized resource for applicants. However, social media (SM) has an increasing role in applicants' evaluation of a program. SM and the preinterview gathering seem to expose the subjective aspects of a program most effectively. Additional assessments evaluating personality, grit or career goals may assist in screening applicants for good "fit." SUMMARY: In order to recruit successful residents, it is necessary to determine which applicant attributes are important to the program. Additionally, a program must maintain an updated website with clearly delineated resident expectations and program strengths. The screening and interview process must be maximized to target residents with career goals complimentary to available program opportunities. If SM is utilized, post should be frequent with relevant information pertaining to both resident life and educational or clinical opportunities.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The ACGME mandates that residency programs provide training related to high value care (HVC). The purpose of this study was to explore HVC education in general surgery residency programs. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to general surgery residents in geographically diverse programs. RESULTS: The response rate was 29% (181/619). Residents reported various HVC components in their curricula. Less than half felt HVC is very important for their future practice (44%) and only 15% felt confident they could lead a QI initiative in practice. Only 20% of residents reported participating in a root cause analysis and less than one-third of residents (30%) were frequently exposed to cost considerations. CONCLUSION: Few residents feel prepared to lead quality improvement initiatives, have participated in patient safety processes, or are aware of patients' costs of care. This underscores the need for improved scope and quality of HVC education and establishment of formal curricula.