Teaching assistant cases in general surgery training – A literature review

Author(s):  
Alaina D. Geary ◽  
Hilary Sanfey ◽  
Loretto Glynn ◽  
Luise I. Pernar
2021 ◽  
pp. 155335062110080
Author(s):  
Ravin R. Patel ◽  
Daniel Nel ◽  
Anna Coccia ◽  
Shreya Rayamajhi

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1993 ◽  
Vol 92 (4) ◽  
pp. 618-621
Author(s):  
C. Everett Koop

Before 1946, when I completed my training in general surgery, I knew very little about the field that eventually became known as pediatric surgery. I knew that children did not get a fair shake in surgery; that was amply proved during my internship and residency. Surgical patients came from the adult world, and children had a difficult time competing with them. Surgeons in general were frightened of children, and they distrusted the ability of anesthetists to wake children up after putting them to sleep, a position not far from that of many anesthetists. The younger and smaller the patient, the more significant the hazard. I knew, also, that in the United States and in Europe, where some surgery of children was more successfully carried out, it fell usually into one of the specialties, especially orthopedics. In those days there was a need for such specialization in the treatment of diseases that are no longer problems: tuberculosis of the bone, osteomyelitis, and polio. I wish I could say that my knowledge of the sad state of child surgery as I saw it in Philadelphia made me determined to bring about changes for the better. Actually, during the last year of my general surgery training at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, I was invited to become surgeon in chief of the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Pediatric surgery was thrust upon me. Nevertheless, I was excited about the chance to make surgery safer for children, and I entered my career with that goal.


2011 ◽  
Vol 93 (9) ◽  
pp. 1-10 ◽  
Author(s):  
PM Lamont ◽  
G Griffiths ◽  
L Cochrane

General surgery training in England ceased to run through to completion of training from specialty training level one (ST1) as of August 2010. Instead, a second competitive interview to enter ST3 has been introduced. As a result, up to 180 ST3 vacancies in general surgery should become available for recruitment each year in England, according to figures obtained from Medical Specialty Training (England), the successor to Modernising Medical Careers (MMC) (personal communication). The general surgery specialist advisory committee (SAC) was asked in 2008 by MMC to consider how best to appoint to these ST3 posts. Experience from other surgical specialties has shown that a national selection process offers the potential to recruit the best core surgical trainees.


1998 ◽  
Vol 77 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia C. Bergen ◽  
Richard H. Turnage ◽  
C.James Carrico

2010 ◽  
Vol 76 (6) ◽  
pp. 578-582 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lindsay M. Fairfax ◽  
A. Britton Christmas ◽  
John M. Green ◽  
William S. Miles ◽  
Ronald F. Sing

Since the institution of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) resident work hour restrictions, conflicting evidence exists regarding the impact on resident case volume with most data from single-institution studies. We examined the effect of restrictions on national resident operative experience. After permission from the ACGME, we reviewed the publicly available national resident case log data (1999 through 2008) maintained on the ACGME web site ( www.acgme.org ), including total major cases with subanalysis of the ACGME-specified categories. The mean cases per resident were compared before (1999 to 2003) and after (2003 to 2008) restrictions. After the implementation of duty hour restrictions, the mean number of total cases per resident significantly decreased (949 ± 18 vs 911 ± 14, P = 0.004). Subanalysis showed a significant increase in alimentary tract (217 ± 7 vs 229 ± 3, P = 0.004), skin/soft tissue (31 ± 3 vs 36 ± 1, P = 0.01), and endocrine (26 ± 2 vs 31 ± 2, P = 0.006) cases. However, we observed a significant decrease in head and neck (21 ± 0.3 vs 20 ± 0.3, P = 0.01), vascular (164 ± 29 vs 126 ± 5, P = 0.01), pediatric (41 ± 1 vs 37 ± 2, P = 0.006), genitourinary (10 ± 2 vs 7 ± 1, P = 0.004), gynecologic surgery (5 ± 1 vs 3 ± 0.6, P = 0.002), plastics (16 ± 0.3 vs 15 ± 0.7, P = 0.03), and endoscopy (91 ± 3 vs 82 ± 2, P < 0.001) procedures. Analysis of the ACGME-compiled national data confirms that duty hour restrictions have significantly impacted resident operative experience. Importantly, experience in specialty areas, including vascular and endoscopy, appears to have been sacrificed for consolidation of resources into general surgery services as indicated by the increase in alimentary tract and endocrine cases. These findings raise the following question: Is the era of truly broad-based general surgery training coming to an end?


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document