Promoting Resident Involvement in Quality Improvement Initiatives Through Faculty Involvement and Curriculum

OBJECT This study evaluates the impact of resident presence in the operating room on postoperative outcomes in neurosurgery. METHODS The authors retrospectively reviewed the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (ACS-NSQIP) and identified all cases treated in a neurosurgery service in 2011. Propensity scoring analysis and multiple logistic regression models were used to reduce patient bias and to assess independent effect of resident involvement. RESULTS Of the 8748 neurosurgery cases identified, residents were present in 4529 cases. Residents were more likely to be involved in complex procedures with longer operative duration. The multivariate analysis found that resident involvement was not a statistically significant factor for overall complications (OR 1.116, 95% CI 0.961–1.297), surgical complications (OR 1.132, 95% CI 0.825–1.554), medical complications (OR 1.146, 95% CI 0.979–1.343), reoperation (OR 1.250, 95% CI 0.984–1.589), mortality (OR 1.164, 95% CI 0.780–1.737), or unplanned readmission (OR 1.148, 95% CI 0.946–1.393). CONCLUSIONS In this multicenter study, the authors demonstrated that resident involvement in the operating room was not a significant factor for postoperative complications in neurosurgery service. This analysis also showed that much of the observed difference in postoperative complication rates was attributable to other confounding factors. This is a quality indicator for resident trainees and current medical education. Maintaining high standards in postgraduate training is imperative in enhancing patient care and reducing postoperative complications.

Download Full-text

Resident Involvement in Microsurgery: An American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Analysis

Journal of Surgical Education ◽

10.1016/j.jsurg.2017.05.017 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 74 (6) ◽

pp. 1124-1132 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

Kevin T. Jubbal ◽

Daniel Chang ◽

Shayan A. Izaddoost ◽

William Pederson ◽

Dmitry Zavlin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Quality Improvement ◽

Program Analysis ◽

Quality Improvement Program ◽

Improvement Program ◽

Surgical Quality ◽

Resident Involvement ◽

American College Of Surgeons

Download Full-text

Frameworks for Radiation Oncology Global Health Initiatives in US Residency Programs

JCO Global Oncology ◽

10.1200/go.20.00315 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 233-241

Author(s):

Benjamin C. Li ◽

Jessica Chew ◽

Daniel V. Wakefield ◽

Ankit Agarwal ◽

Anuja Jhingran

Keyword(s):

Global Health ◽

Radiation Oncology ◽

Department Chair ◽

Clinical Care ◽

Tumor Board ◽

Innovative Technology ◽

Faculty Involvement ◽

Residency Programs ◽

Resident Involvement ◽

Medical Physicists

PURPOSE To understand trends, pathways, and experiences and to establish a framework for radiation oncology (RO) programs interested in developing global health (GH) initiatives. METHODS An in-depth interview was conducted of all US RO programs with established GH initiatives. Programs were identified by reviewing results of the 2018 Association of Residents in Radiation Oncology Global Health Resident Survey and individualized outreach to screen for additional programs meeting the following criteria: (1) active resident involvement in RO-specific GH opportunities, (2) active faculty involvement in these initiatives, and (3) department chair or program director awareness and support for ongoing opportunities. Among 88 residency programs, 11 were identified. Standardized questions explored the type of initiative, planning, staff and resident involvement, challenges, components to success, and history of programs through December 2018. RESULTS Between 2010 and 2018, 11 programs started initiatives. Total resident participants ranged from one to 13 (median = 3) in each program's history. Initiatives spanned education (n = 9 [82%]), clinical mentorship (73%), innovative technology (55%), bilateral hosting programs (45%), clinical development and equipment (45%), promotion of local research (36%), clinical care (36%), industry partnerships (27%), and remote tumor board (18%). Faculty involvement included radiation oncologists (91%), medical physicists (55%), and non-RO department faculty (27%). Six programs (55%) had faculty with prior GH experience. Four (36%) programs reported medical student involvement in projects. Barriers included international communication (36%), time for faculty (18%), funding (9%), and legal (9%) concerns. Commonest components of success included fostering relationships with international sites and identifying needs before solutions. CONCLUSION RO GH initiatives were reported as positive, educational, and feasible across 11 US residency programs. Growth is expected, representing opportunities for innovation and service among US programs.

Download Full-text