Overcoming Complications Through Pre-patient Surgical Training in Otolaryngology
ABSTRACT Planning a balanced academic and practical surgical curriculum that is parallel to the constant innovations in surgical fields is the cornerstone of surgical education. Current training methods have coinciding benefits and drawbacks. In this study, we compare the efficacy of two learning models: pre-patient training outside the operating room versus step-by-step training on real patients in the operating room. Facial nerve preservation in superficial parotidectomy is the surgical model used in the study. Five otolaryngology residents in the third year of their residency participated in this study. They were divided into two groups: a treatment group which underwent a pre-patient training program by cadaver dissection and a control group which followed a step-by-step training model. At the end of the study, significant differences were apparent between two groups in the ability to find facial nerve trunk, microdissection of facial nerve branches, and the mean duration of total operating time. Pre-patient training programs outside the operating room provide surgical residents the opportunity to learn by trial and error without fear of complications.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Changes in training are likely to affect the professionalization process, but such complex social phenomena are poorly studied by quantitative research methodologies. In contrast, qualitative research designs are more effective in exploring complex social processes. The objective of this study was to use a qualitative methodology to explore how professional responsibilities are perceived by surgical trainees and faculty in the current academic environment. Semi-structured individual interviews of 43 surgical residents and faculty (ranging from second year residents to senior faculty) were conducted at 2 academic institutions. The interviews consisted of open-ended questions, followed by discussion of 4 written, case-based scenarios on specific issues related to professional responsibilities. All interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed, and then analyzed for emergent themes by 3 researchers using a grounded theory approach. In discussing professional responsibilities, the motivations that shaped participants' responses reflected a balance between 4 major factors: (1) patient care, (2) education, (3) self, and (4) collegial relationships. Patient care was described as being at the center of professional responsibility, but it did not necessarily supersede other factors. Rather, patient care was described as a collective responsibility, operationalized through teamwork, communication, and trust. Traditional medical ethics have largely focused on professional responsibility from the standpoint of individual healthcare providers. Our findings suggest it is a much more complex construct characterized by competing responsibilities and an evolving perception of patient care as a collective responsibility. Explicit acknowledgment of this framework sets the stage for educational interventions to support residents' professional development and enhance cooperative behavior among participants.Surgery 08/2007; 142(1):111-8. DOI:10.1016/j.surg.2007.02.008 · 3.11 Impact Factor
Article: Teaching Procedural Skills[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Procedures are an important component of the practice of medicine. Students and residents must be trained to perform procedures safely and well. Simultaneously, we must seek consensus on what procedures should be taught, and we must develop better, safer techniques to teach them. Finally, we must develop objective measures of initial and continuing competency for those who perform procedures. We must try to overcome the “turf” battles in this area and focus on what is best for patients, students, and residents.Journal of General Internal Medicine 01/2003; 12(s2):64 - 70. DOI:10.1046/j.1525-1497.12.s2.9.x · 3.42 Impact Factor
New England Journal of Medicine 01/2007; 355(25):2664-9. DOI:10.1056/NEJMra054785 · 54.42 Impact Factor