Introduction to the Contemporary Assessment and Recommendations to Enhance Surgical Education and Training: Reports of the Subcommittees of the Blue Ribbon Committee II.

BACKGROUND: The BRC II was a panel of 67 experts selected on the basis of experience and leadership in surgical education and training. METHODS: It was organized into subcommittees, each of which was asked to prepare a manuscript on their findings and recommendations. The BRC II Subcommittees were: Blue Ribbon Committee 1 Review and Assessment; Surgical Workforce; Medical Student Education; Work Life Integration; Resident Education; Goals, Structure and Financing of Training; Education Support and Faculty Development; Research Training; Educational Technology and Assessment. BRC II used the Delphi approach with consensus defined as equal to or greater than 80% and identified and recommended 31 priorities for surgical education in 2024. RESULTS: The initial findings were presented to a general surgery and related specialty resident and fellow focus group for comments and written feedback, and they were asked to prepare a manuscript as well. CONCLUSIONS: The reports of the Subcommittees of the BRC II provide an assessment and key recommendations concerning surgical education and training in 2024.

Blue Ribbon Committee I Review: Findings and Impact.

OBJECTIVE: Review the subsequent impact of recommendations made by the 2004 American Surgical Association Blue Ribbon Committee (BRC I) Report on Surgical Education. BACKGROUND: Current leaders of the American College of Surgeons and the American Surgical Association convened an expert panel to review the impact of the BRC I report and make recommendations for future improvements in surgical education. METHODS: BRC I members reviewed the 2004 recommendations in light of the current status of surgical education. RESULTS: Some of the recommendations of BRC I have gained traction and have been implemented. There is a well-organized national curriculum and numerous educational offerings. There has been greater emphasis on preparing faculty to teach and there are ample opportunities for professional advancement as an educator. The number of residents has grown, although not at a pace to meet the country's needs either by total number or geographic distribution. The number of women in the profession has increased. There is greater awareness and attention to resident (and faculty) well-being. The anticipated radical change in the educational scheme has not been adopted. Training in surgical research still depends on the resources and interests of individual programs. Financing student and graduate medical education remains a challenge. CONCLUSIONS: The medical landscape has changed considerably since BRC I published its findings in 2005. A contemporary assessment of surgical education and training is needed to meet the future needs of the profession and our patients.

The Blue Ribbon Committee II Report and Recommendations on Surgical Education and Training in the United States: 2024.

OBJECTIVE: An expert panel made recommendations to optimize surgical education and training based on the effects of contemporary challenges. BACKGROUND: The inaugural Blue Ribbon Committee (BRC I) proposed sweeping recommendations for surgical education and training in 2004. In light of those findings, a second BRC (BRC II) was convened to make recommendations to optimize surgical training considering the current landscape in medical education. METHODS: BRC II was a panel of 67 experts selected on the basis of experience and leadership in surgical education and training. It was organized into subcommittees which met virtually over the course of a year. They developed recommendations, along with the Steering Committee, based on areas of focus and then presented them to the entire BRC II. The Delphi Method was chosen to obtain consensus, defined as>80% agreement amongst the panel. Cronbach alpha was computed to assess the internal consistency of three Delphi rounds. RESULTS: Of 50 recommendations, 31 obtained consensus in the following aspects of surgical training (# consensus recommendation /# proposed): Workforce (1/5), Medical Student Education (3/8), Work Life Integration (4/6), Resident Education (5/7), Goals, Structure and Financing of Training (5/8), Education Support and Faculty Development (5/6), Research Training (7/9), and Educational Technology and Assessment (1/1). The internal consistency was good in Rounds 1 and 2 and acceptable in Round 3. CONCLUSIONS: BRC II used the Delphi approach to identify and recommend 31 priorities for surgical education in 2024. We advise establishing a multidisciplinary surgical educational group to oversee, monitor and facilitate implementation of these recommendations.

Measuring Chief Resident Skill and Entrustment Progression in An Operative Coaching Program: Four Years' Experience.

OBJECTIVE: Operative coaching (OC) may facilitate improvement of surgery residents' competencies by optimizing learning and teaching. We investigated how residents' operative skills and prospective entrustment (PE) progress throughout the chief year in our OC program, how OC is perceived by participants, and how OC may facilitate learning and teaching. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This is a mixed-methods study conducted within the Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center General Surgery residency. Validated performance evaluations with procedural-specific skill, general skill (GS), step-specific guidance required (SSG) (an autonomy measure), and PE measures completed by chiefs, faculty coaches, and attending surgeons from 7/2018 to 6/2022 were reviewed. We also interviewed OC participants to understand their experience. Descriptive statistical and qualitative content analysis were applied. RESULTS: 441 evaluations from 147 OC cases completed by 22 chiefs, 5 faculty coaches, and 24 attendings were included. Overall, resident GS (p = 0.036), SSG (p = 0.023), and PE (p = 0.002) significantly improved throughout the year. PE significantly correlated (all p < 0.0001) with SSG (r = 0.73), followed by procedural-specific skill (r = 0.59), then GS (r = 0.57). On average, chiefs underestimated their surgical skills while attendings overestimated autonomy they permitted to residents. Chiefs, coaches, and attendings reached consensus on chiefs' PE upon graduation. Five graduated chiefs and 5 attendings were interviewed. Chiefs described OC as effective in improving their self-regulated learning and particularly valued 3 OC elements: neutral authentic feedback, third-party real-time observation, and actionable feedback. Attendings noted OC promoted their engagement in skills assessment and teaching. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest chief residents' skills, autonomy, and PE progress steadily along their OC journey. Despite differences in residents', coaches', and attendings' perceptions of skill, measures of autonomy reliably correlate with entrustment. OC promotes resident learning, faculty teaching, and assessment of resident skills, autonomy, and PE in the OR.