What Is the Percentage of Use of Surgical Skills Assessment Tools in Orthopedic and Traumatology Residencies in Argentina?
Article Sidebar
Published:
Dec 16, 2021
Keywords:
Residency, Orthopedics, surgical competencies, assessment tools, Argentina
Main Article Content
Abstract
Objective: The primary objective was to evaluate the current application of surgical competency (SC) assessment tools in residencies accredited by the AAOT. There was also interest in knowing the types of assessment tools used, the knowledge of the different evaluation instruments and what type of evaluation they use for the promotion of the year. We analyzed whether there were differences in the characteristics between the residencies that evaluate SCs and those that do not.
Materials and Methods: A descriptive study was carried out, for which a survey was developed focused on assessing how many residencies evaluate the SCs with a formal tool. In addition, through the survey it was possible to answer the secondary objectives. It was sent to the chief of residency of the 123 accredited residencies.
Results: 105 (85.4%) responses were obtained, 59% (62) used some type of tool for the evaluation of SC. Only 12.9% (8/62) of the tools used evaluate the SC in a specific way but the majority assessed them with a general score. 61% (64/105) are aware of the tools available. For the promotion of the year, the majority use multiple periodic evaluations for clinical and surgical competencies (63.8% and 67.6% respectively). No significant differences were found in the characteristics of the residencies that evaluate SC and those that do not.
Conclusions: 59% of the residencies implement some score or tool for the evaluation of SC, the majority perform the evaluation with a subjective global score. Only the 12.9% evaluate SC specifically.
Materials and Methods: A descriptive study was carried out, for which a survey was developed focused on assessing how many residencies evaluate the SCs with a formal tool. In addition, through the survey it was possible to answer the secondary objectives. It was sent to the chief of residency of the 123 accredited residencies.
Results: 105 (85.4%) responses were obtained, 59% (62) used some type of tool for the evaluation of SC. Only 12.9% (8/62) of the tools used evaluate the SC in a specific way but the majority assessed them with a general score. 61% (64/105) are aware of the tools available. For the promotion of the year, the majority use multiple periodic evaluations for clinical and surgical competencies (63.8% and 67.6% respectively). No significant differences were found in the characteristics of the residencies that evaluate SC and those that do not.
Conclusions: 59% of the residencies implement some score or tool for the evaluation of SC, the majority perform the evaluation with a subjective global score. Only the 12.9% evaluate SC specifically.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Metrics
Metrics Loading ...
Article Details
How to Cite
Cafruni, V. M., Romagnoli, J., Barcia, S., Dello Russo, B., Vivas, M., Sixto Herrera, H., Piantoni, L., Remondino, R., & Santini Araujo, M. G. (2021). What Is the Percentage of Use of Surgical Skills Assessment Tools in Orthopedic and Traumatology Residencies in Argentina?. Revista De La Asociación Argentina De Ortopedia Y Traumatología, 86(6), 850-857. https://doi.org/10.15417/issn.1852-7434.2021.86.6.1294
Issue
Section
Basic Research
Copyright (c) 2021 Revista de la Asociación Argentina de Ortopedia y Traumatología
Manuscript acceptance by the Journal implies the simultaneous non-submission to any other journal or publishing house. The RAAOT is under the Licencia Creative Commnos Atribución-NoComercial-Compartir Obras Derivadas Igual 4.0 Internacional (CC-BY-NC.SA 4.0) (http://creativecommons.org/licences/by-nc-sa/4.0/deed.es). Articles can be shared, copied, distributed, modified, altered, transformed into a derivative work, executed and publicly communicated, provided a) the authors and the original publication (Journal, Publisher and URL) are mentioned, b) they are not used for commercial purposes, c) the same terms of the license are maintained.
In the event that the manuscript is approved for its next publication, the authors retain the copyright and will assign to the journal the rights of publication, edition, reproduction, distribution, exhibition and communication at a national and international level in the different databases. data, repositories and portals.
It is hereby stated that the mentioned manuscript has not been published and that it is not being printed in any other national or foreign journal.
The authors hereby accept the necessary modifications, suggested by the reviewers, in order to adapt the manuscript to the style and publication rules of this Journal.
References
1. Rodríguez Weber FL, Ramírez Arias JL. ¿Tenemos claro lo que es la residencia médica? Acta Médica Grupo
Ángeles 2016;14(3):183-4. Disponible en: https://www.medigraphic.com/cgi-bin/new/resumen.cgi?IDARTICULO=67802
2. Silberman F. Educación médica de posgrado. Residencias médicas. Rev Asoc Argent Ortop Traumatol
2010;75(1):88-96. Disponible en: https://www.aaot.org.ar/revista/2010/n1/art10.pdf
3. Ministerio de Salud. Programa docente de la residencia de cirugía general con orientación en ortopedia y
traumatología. Gobierno de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, 2017. [Consulta: 16 de julio, 2020.] Disponible
en: https://www.buenosaires.gob.ar/sites/gcaba/files/programa_o_y_t-final_2017_web.pdf
4. Listado de Residencias. Asociación Argentina de Ortopedia y Traumatología. [Consulta: 16 de julio, 2020.]
Disponible en: https://aaot.org.ar/residencias/residencias-acreditadas.
5. Fritz T, Stachel N, Braun BJ. Evidence in surgical training - a review. Innov Surg Sci 2019;4(1):7-13.
https://doi.org/10.1515/iss-2018-0026
6. Frank JR, Snell LS, Cate OT, Holmboe ES, Carraccio C, Swing SR, et al. Competency-based medical education:
theory to practice. Med Teach 2010;32(8):638-45. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2010.501190
7. Frank JR, Danoff D. The CanMEDS initiative: implementing an outcomes-based framework of physician
competencies. Med Teach 2007;29(7):642-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590701746983
8. Sidhu RS, Grober ED, Musselman LJ, Reznick RK. Assessing competency in surgery: where to begin? Surgery
2004;135(1):6-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039-6060(03)00154-5
9. Gofton WT, Dudek NL, Wood TJ, Balaa F, Hamstra SJ. The Ottawa Surgical Competency Operating Room
Evaluation (O-SCORE): a tool to assess surgical competence. Acad Med 2012;87(10):1401-7.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182677805
10. Larson JL, Williams RG, Ketchum J, Boehler ML, Dunnington GL. Feasibility, reliability and validity of an
operative performance rating system for evaluating surgery residents. Surgery 2005;138(4):640-7; discussion 647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2005.07.017
11. George BC, Teitelbaum EN, Meyerson SL, Schuller MC, DaRosa DA, Petrusa ER, et al. Reliability, validity, and
feasibility of the Zwisch scale for the assessment of intraoperative performance. J Surg Educ 2014;71(6):e90-6.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2014.06.018
12. Naeem N. Validity, reliability, feasibility, acceptability and educational impact of direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS). J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2013;23(1):77-82. PMID: 23286629
13. Reznick RK, MacRae H. Teaching surgical skills--changes in the wind. N Engl J Med 2006;355(25):2664-9.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra054785
14. Niitsu H, Hirabayashi N, Yoshimitsu M, Mimura T, Taomoto J, Sugiyama Y, et al. Using the Objective Structured
Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) global rating scale to evaluate the skills of surgical trainees in the
operating room. Surg Today 2013;43(3):271-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-012-0313-7
15. Jensen AR, Wright AS, Kim S, Horvath KD, Calhoun KE. Educational feedback in the operating room: a gap
between resident and faculty perceptions. Am J Surg 2012;204(2):248-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2011.08.019
16. Cook MR, Watters JM, Barton JS, Kamin C, Brown SN, Deveney KE, et al. A flexible postoperative debriefing
process can effectively provide formative resident feedback. J Am Coll Surg 2015;220(5):959-67.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.12.048
17. McKendy KM, Watanabe Y, Lee L, Bilgic E, Enani G, Feldman LS, et al. Perioperative feedback in surgical
training: A systematic review. Am J Surg 2017;214(1):117-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2016.12.014
18. Ode GE, Buck JS, Wally M, Scannell BP, Patt JC. Obstacles affecting the implementation of the O-SCORE for
assessment of orthopedic surgical skills competency. J Surg Educ 2019;76(3):881-92.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2018.11.002
19. Darzi A, Mackay S. Assessment of surgical competence. Qual Health Care 2001;10 Suppl 2:ii64-9.
https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.0100064
20. Van Heest A, Putnam M, Agel J, Shanedling J, McPherson S, Schmitz C. Assessment of technical skills
of orthopaedic surgery residents performing open carpal tunnel release surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am
2009;91(12):2811-7. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.I.00024
21. Bernard JA, Dattilo JR, Srikumaran U, Zikria BA, Jain A, LaPorte DM. Reliability and validity of 3 methods of
assessing orthopedic resident skill in shoulder surgery. J Surg Educ 2016;73(6):1020-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.04.023
Ángeles 2016;14(3):183-4. Disponible en: https://www.medigraphic.com/cgi-bin/new/resumen.cgi?IDARTICULO=67802
2. Silberman F. Educación médica de posgrado. Residencias médicas. Rev Asoc Argent Ortop Traumatol
2010;75(1):88-96. Disponible en: https://www.aaot.org.ar/revista/2010/n1/art10.pdf
3. Ministerio de Salud. Programa docente de la residencia de cirugía general con orientación en ortopedia y
traumatología. Gobierno de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, 2017. [Consulta: 16 de julio, 2020.] Disponible
en: https://www.buenosaires.gob.ar/sites/gcaba/files/programa_o_y_t-final_2017_web.pdf
4. Listado de Residencias. Asociación Argentina de Ortopedia y Traumatología. [Consulta: 16 de julio, 2020.]
Disponible en: https://aaot.org.ar/residencias/residencias-acreditadas.
5. Fritz T, Stachel N, Braun BJ. Evidence in surgical training - a review. Innov Surg Sci 2019;4(1):7-13.
https://doi.org/10.1515/iss-2018-0026
6. Frank JR, Snell LS, Cate OT, Holmboe ES, Carraccio C, Swing SR, et al. Competency-based medical education:
theory to practice. Med Teach 2010;32(8):638-45. https://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2010.501190
7. Frank JR, Danoff D. The CanMEDS initiative: implementing an outcomes-based framework of physician
competencies. Med Teach 2007;29(7):642-7. https://doi.org/10.1080/01421590701746983
8. Sidhu RS, Grober ED, Musselman LJ, Reznick RK. Assessing competency in surgery: where to begin? Surgery
2004;135(1):6-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0039-6060(03)00154-5
9. Gofton WT, Dudek NL, Wood TJ, Balaa F, Hamstra SJ. The Ottawa Surgical Competency Operating Room
Evaluation (O-SCORE): a tool to assess surgical competence. Acad Med 2012;87(10):1401-7.
https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182677805
10. Larson JL, Williams RG, Ketchum J, Boehler ML, Dunnington GL. Feasibility, reliability and validity of an
operative performance rating system for evaluating surgery residents. Surgery 2005;138(4):640-7; discussion 647. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.surg.2005.07.017
11. George BC, Teitelbaum EN, Meyerson SL, Schuller MC, DaRosa DA, Petrusa ER, et al. Reliability, validity, and
feasibility of the Zwisch scale for the assessment of intraoperative performance. J Surg Educ 2014;71(6):e90-6.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2014.06.018
12. Naeem N. Validity, reliability, feasibility, acceptability and educational impact of direct observation of procedural skills (DOPS). J Coll Physicians Surg Pak 2013;23(1):77-82. PMID: 23286629
13. Reznick RK, MacRae H. Teaching surgical skills--changes in the wind. N Engl J Med 2006;355(25):2664-9.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra054785
14. Niitsu H, Hirabayashi N, Yoshimitsu M, Mimura T, Taomoto J, Sugiyama Y, et al. Using the Objective Structured
Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS) global rating scale to evaluate the skills of surgical trainees in the
operating room. Surg Today 2013;43(3):271-5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-012-0313-7
15. Jensen AR, Wright AS, Kim S, Horvath KD, Calhoun KE. Educational feedback in the operating room: a gap
between resident and faculty perceptions. Am J Surg 2012;204(2):248-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2011.08.019
16. Cook MR, Watters JM, Barton JS, Kamin C, Brown SN, Deveney KE, et al. A flexible postoperative debriefing
process can effectively provide formative resident feedback. J Am Coll Surg 2015;220(5):959-67.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2014.12.048
17. McKendy KM, Watanabe Y, Lee L, Bilgic E, Enani G, Feldman LS, et al. Perioperative feedback in surgical
training: A systematic review. Am J Surg 2017;214(1):117-26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2016.12.014
18. Ode GE, Buck JS, Wally M, Scannell BP, Patt JC. Obstacles affecting the implementation of the O-SCORE for
assessment of orthopedic surgical skills competency. J Surg Educ 2019;76(3):881-92.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2018.11.002
19. Darzi A, Mackay S. Assessment of surgical competence. Qual Health Care 2001;10 Suppl 2:ii64-9.
https://doi.org/10.1136/qhc.0100064
20. Van Heest A, Putnam M, Agel J, Shanedling J, McPherson S, Schmitz C. Assessment of technical skills
of orthopaedic surgery residents performing open carpal tunnel release surgery. J Bone Joint Surg Am
2009;91(12):2811-7. https://doi.org/10.2106/JBJS.I.00024
21. Bernard JA, Dattilo JR, Srikumaran U, Zikria BA, Jain A, LaPorte DM. Reliability and validity of 3 methods of
assessing orthopedic resident skill in shoulder surgery. J Surg Educ 2016;73(6):1020-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.04.023