The remedial year in the general surgery board certification process: how effective is it?

BACKGROUND: The American Board of Surgery (ABS) intends to assure high standards for knowledge and experience in every graduate from an approved general surgery program. They have gone to great lengths to devise an optimal remediation process for every candidate failing to reach these standards. But what is the effectiveness of the remediation process? METHODS: ABS data outlined the history and development of the remediation process up to its current form. A core component of this process is a specifically structured additional year of training at selected institutions. Ten institutions, which were classified as outstanding by the ABS, received a standardized confidential questionnaire to collect data that included the institution's impetus to administer a remedial year (RY), organization of their RY, specific emphasis points, role of advisors, funding, and choice of RY candidates. Each institution was asked to mail a letter to their RY graduates, asking for their participation in a follow-up study aimed at characterizing the failing candidate. RESULTS: ABS data have been available since 1980. Pass rates for the qualifying written examination (QE) improved steadily from about 63% in 1985 to 78% in 2003. Pass rates for the certifying oral examination (CE) have been consistently around 75% since 1985 with improvement to just above 80% within the last 4 years. In 1995, a new ABS policy was announced requiring an additional year of structured training with specific elements. For the QE, the general pool pass rates continued their steady improvement. Although the results for RY candidates did reveal a 20% improved pass rate, they were still 30 percentage points lower when compared with the general pass rates. No improvement was noted in the CE results. In 2003, ABS enacted the latest policy change, which consists of an alternative pathway for QE. The initial experience for 2003 is disappointing. Less than 10 candidates have taken advantage of this alternative, and pass rates have not improved. The policy for CE was changed to allow 5 attempts (up from 3 attempts) in 5 years, and currently it is too early to determine the impact of this change. Nine of 10 institutions agreed to participate in our study. They identified the essential elements of a successful RY. They also emphasized that CE remediation has to go beyond correction of simple knowledge deficits. And they characterized the ideal candidate for remediation. No RY graduates agreed to participate in the planned follow-up study to characterize the failing candidate. CONCLUSION: The RY process seems to have a valid potential if specific conditions are met. We do believe that differentiation is needed between the QE and the CE remedial year programs. Because the CE incorporates rhetorical skills, an emphasis should be placed on public speaking and presentation skills in a remedial year for the CE. We recommend several possible avenues for consideration: identifying the resident at risk and intervening during residency, incorporating the RY process into the ongoing practice routine of the individual candidate, and actively recruiting participation of candidates in a needs assessment study.

Tracheostomy after anterior cervical spine fixation.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cervical spine injury may require both anterior cervical spine fusion and tracheostomy, particularly in the setting of associated cervical spinal cord injury (SCI). Despite the close proximity of the two surgical incisions, we postulated that tracheostomy could be safely performed after anterior spine fixation. In addition, we postulated that the severity of motor deficits in patients with cervical spine injury would correlate with the need for tracheostomy. METHODS: A retrospective review was undertaken of all adult trauma patients diagnosed with cervical spine fractures or cervical SCI admitted between June 1996 and June 2001 at our university Level I trauma center. Demographic data, severity of neurologic injury based on the classification of the American Spinal Injury Association (ASIA), complications, and use and type of tracheostomy were collected. In the subgroup of patients with unstable cervical spine injury that underwent anterior stabilization and tracheostomy, data regarding timing and technique of these procedures and wound outcomes were also collected. Categorical data were analyzed using chi analysis using Yates correction when appropriate, with p <0.05 considered significant. RESULTS: During this time period, 275 adult survivors were diagnosed with cervical spinal cord or bony injury. Forty-five percent of patients with SCI (27 of 60) and 14% of patients without SCI (30 of 215) underwent tracheostomy (p <0.001). Moreover, on the basis of the ASIA classification system, 76% of ASIA A and B patients, 38% of ASIA C patients, 23% of ASIA D patients, and 14% of ASIA E patients were treated with tracheostomy (p <0.001). In the subgroup that underwent both anterior spine fixation and tracheostomy (n=17), the median time interval from spine fixation to airway placement was 7 days (interquartile range, 6-10 days), with 71% of these tracheostomies performed percutaneously. No patient developed a wound infection or nonunion as a consequence of tracheostomy placement, and there were no deaths because of complications of either procedure. CONCLUSION: These data support the safety of tracheostomy insertion 6 to 10 days after anterior cervical spine fixation, particularly in the presence of cervical SCI. The presence of severe motor neurologic deficits was strongly associated with the use of tracheostomy in patients with cervical spine injury. Percutaneous tracheostomy, which is our technique of choice, may be advantageous in this setting by virtue of creating only a small wound. The optimal timing and use of tracheostomy in patients with cervical spine injury requires further study.

Cricothyroidotomy for elective airway management in critically ill trauma patients with technically challenging neck anatomy.

INTRODUCTION: To assess the value of elective cricothyroidotomy for airway management in critically ill trauma patients with technically challenging neck anatomy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective chart review of patients admitted to the Trauma Service at a Level I Trauma Center who underwent cricothyroidotomy for elective airway management over a 40-month period from January 1997 to April 2000. Comparison was made with a cohort of Trauma Service patients who received a tracheostomy. RESULTS: Eighteen patients met study criteria, and an unpaired t test revealed significance (P < 0.05) for age only. There was no difference with Injury Severity Score, number of days in the intensive care unit, number of days requiring ventilation post procedure or number of days intubated prior to procedure. The major difference was the more technically challenging neck anatomy in the patients undergoing cricothyroidotomy. Five out of 18 patients undergoing cricothyroidotomy died prior to discharge and two out of 18 died after discharge from complications unrelated to their airway. Two out of 18 patients undergoing tracheostomy died prior to discharge from complications unrelated to their airway. For a period of 1 week-15 months (average, 5.5 months), notes in subsequent clinic appointments were reviewed for subjective assessment of wound healing, breathing and swallowing difficulties, and voice changes. One patient with a cricothyroidotomy required silver nitrate to treat some granulation tissue. Otherwise, no complications were identified. Telephone interviews were conducted with eight of the 11 surviving cricothyroidotomy patients and nine of the 16 surviving tracheostomy patients. One tracheostomy patient required surgical closure 3 months after discharge; otherwise, the only noted change was minor voice changes in three patients in each group. All six of these patients denied that this compromised them in any way. CONCLUSION: Elective cricothyroidotomy has a low complication rate and is a reasonable, technically less demanding option in critically ill patients with challenging neck anatomy requiring a surgical airway.