1 / 19

Bittner JG, 1 Fryer JP, 2 Cofer JB, 3 Mellinger JD, 4 Wynn JJ, 1 Fuhrman GM, 5 Borman KR 6

Perceived Impact of Resident Travel on Transplant Surgery Experience during General Surgery Residency Training. Bittner JG, 1 Fryer JP, 2 Cofer JB, 3 Mellinger JD, 4 Wynn JJ, 1 Fuhrman GM, 5 Borman KR 6.

lydia-robles
Download Presentation

Bittner JG, 1 Fryer JP, 2 Cofer JB, 3 Mellinger JD, 4 Wynn JJ, 1 Fuhrman GM, 5 Borman KR 6

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Perceived Impact of Resident Travel on Transplant Surgery Experience during General Surgery Residency Training Bittner JG,1 Fryer JP,2Cofer JB,3Mellinger JD,4 Wynn JJ,1 Fuhrman GM,5Borman KR6 • Departments of Surgery, 1Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA; 2Northwestern University, Chicago, IL; 3University of Tennessee, Chattanooga, TN; 4Southern Illinois University, Springfield, IL; 5Atlanta Medical Center, Atlanta, GA; 6Abington Memorial Hospital, Abington, PA

  2. Disclosures • No related conflicts of interest

  3. Introduction • Current status of transplant surgery • Essential content area of residency training • Negative feedback from program directors (PDs) and residents prompted action. • High service-to-education ratio • Poor operative experience • Low educational benefit • Rare/negative interactions with attendings • Resident travel to transplant centers • Concern for equivalent educational experience • Associated costs / inconvenience

  4. Introduction • RRC-S proposed to eliminate transplant as a requirement during residency training. • ABS asked the RRC-S to stay this action and requested involvement of ASTS through TAC. • ASTS issued a call to action • Involve general surgery leadership • Reevaluate the role of surgical residents on a transplant rotation • Immediately address concerns of the RRC-S • Commit to immediate and long-term educational excellence within transplant surgery

  5. Purpose • To investigate the perceived impact of resident travel on transplant experience by comparing opinions of PDs who have transplant rotations at integrated (home) compared to non-integrated (away) hospitals.

  6. Methods • A comprehensive survey was created on behalf of the APDS and ASTS. • Instrument was IRB-approved. • Content was validated by a focus group. • Internet-based survey • Administered anonymously via email to 251 PDs • Resent two weeks after first administration • Supported by the President of the APDS • Data analyzed using appropriate statistics • Significance set at α = 0.05

  7. Results • 131 of 251 PDs (52%) responded • Sample size achieves a 5.9% confidence interval assuming 50% response distribution. • Response rates by program type similar to expected distribution • University (52%) • University-affiliated/Community (31%) • Community (17%)

  8. Results • University PDs represent more chief residents on average (p<0.001) • 5.7 ± 1.9 University • 3.7 ± 1.0 University-affiliated / Community • 3.1 ± 1.1 Community • ASTS approved fellowships similar to expected distribution (p=0.439) • 20% responding PDs • 24% all US residency programs

  9. Results • Disproportionate response from PDs with home transplant rotations • 66% of PDs use integrated (home) hospitals • 30% use non-integrated (away) hospitals • 80% of these feel the educational needs of all residents are given equal priority • 48% require resident commuting (<30 extra miles/day) • 52% purchase temporary housing • 43% of transplant services provide experience for visiting residents

  10. Results

  11. Results

  12. Results

  13. Results

  14. Discussion • PDs and transplant surgeons might • Decide how many residents might rotate on a transplant service with or without a fellow. • 38% believed service > education • Assess ways to protect operative experience. • 53% claimed experience was less than excellent. • Share accountability for education outcomes. • 59% felt transplant offers a good educational value. • Address the burden of resident travel. • 78% felt travel is a poor/very poor aspect.

  15. Discussion • PDs and transplant surgeons might • Guarantee visiting residents are treated the same as home residents. • 80% felt visiting residents have similar experience • Ensure duty-hours compliance. • 71% stated rotations were compliant. • Consider making transplant optional. • 60% believed transplant should become optional.

  16. Discussion • ASTS action plan • Transplant programs need to: • Designate a transplant surgeon working alongside a PD to oversee the education of surgery residents • Change the transplant rotation structure to ensure residents have adequate time for education • Reeducate attending and resident surgeons about educational expectations • Establish a relevant operative experience • Create a feedback system to allow for improving the educational milieu.

  17. Limitations • 52% response rate • Biased toward opinions of PDs with home transplant rotations • Not possible to tell if PDs also served as transplant fellowship director • No temporal survey administration

  18. Conclusions • More PDs at Community / smaller programs use away hospitals. • PDs sending residents to away hospitals face educational, logistical, and financial burdens. • Most PDs challenge the paradigm of transplant as essential content. • More PDs employing away rotations felt transplant should be eliminated.

  19. Thank You! • APDS Board of Directors • ASTS administrative staff • Responding Program Directors • Bruce V. MacFadyen, Jr., MD, FACS

More Related