Search

Introduction: Providing medical students with effective study strategies is paramount in fostering their success on the NBME Clinical Science Surgery exam. As of yet, there has not been a comprehensive inquiry into a study strategy for this exam. We aim to identify if the following are associated with higher NBME raw exam scores: (1) the use of popular study materials, (2) the number of study materials used, and (3) the amount of time spent studying throughout the clerkship., Methods: Over the period of 1 academic year, third-year medical students at our institution were administered a survey during their surgical clerkship inquiring about study materials used and hours spent studying per week. The data were then matched to students' raw NBME scores and then depersonalized. A total of 82 of 193 (42%) students responded with an overall average raw score of 76.74 on the NBME Clinical Science Surgery exam. By comparing our data to the NBME national average of 70 with a standard deviation of 8, a z test was used to compare the population mean to our sample means., Results: When investigating resources used, the combination of using an online question bank and a high yield review book yielded a high z score (6.23) and using 4 resources yielded the highest z score (6.28). Regarding study hours, the highest z scores were seen when students studied for 6 to 10 hours per week during the first half of the clerkship, and 11 to 15 hours per week during the second half of the clerkship (5.76 and 6.02, respectively)., Conclusions: In conclusion, higher NBME Clinical Science Surgery exam scores were correlated with the use of multiple and varied types of resources and increasing study time closer to the exam date. The resources and methods utilized by students achieving the highest exam scores can be recommended by surgical educators and employed by other medical students to foster academic success., (Copyright © 2019 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: We hypothesize that students exposed to both academic and community surgery clerkship sites will have higher National Board of Medical Examiners Subject Exam in Surgery (NBME SES) scores and be more likely to pursue a career in a surgical specialty., Design: The NBME surgery subject exam scores and National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) results were collected for all medical students rotating through the surgery clerkship over 4 years. Permutations of sites were analyzed against exam scores and match rates into surgical and nonsurgical specialties., Setting: This study was performed at the Tulane University School of Medicine, in New Orleans, Louisiana, United States of America., Participants: Data for a total of 910 students rotating through the surgery clerkship over a period of 4 years was collected and analyzed., Results: There was no statistical difference in NBME subject exam scores (p = 0.44) or match rates into a surgical specialty (p = 0.13) as stratified by site placement. Average NBME surgery subject exam scores were higher for those pursuing a surgical specialty (p < 0.001)., Conclusions: The combination of sites experienced during the surgery clerkship did not affect NBME surgery subject exam scores nor lead to a tendency to match into a surgical specialty., (Copyright © 2019 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Residents often make career decisions regarding future practice without adequate knowledge to the realities of professional life. Currently there is a paucity of data regarding economic differences between practice models. This study seeks to illuminate the financial differences of surgical subspecialties between academic and private practice., Design: Data were collected from the Association of American Medical College (AAMC) and the Medical Group Management Association's (MGMA) 2015 reports of average annual salaries. Salaries were analyzed for general surgery and 7 subspecialties. Fixed time of practice was set at 30 years. Assumptions included 5 years as assistant professor, 10 years as associate professor, and 15 years as full professor. Formula used: (average yearly salary) × [years of practice (30 yrs - fellowship/research yrs)] + ($50,000 × yrs of fellowship/research) = total adjusted lifetime revenue., Results: As a full professor, academic surgeons in all subspecialties make significantly less than their private practice counterparts. The largest discrepancy is in vascular and cardiothoracic surgery, with full professors earning 16% and 14% less than private practitioners. Plastic surgery and general surgery are the only 2 disciplines that have similar lifetime revenues to private practitioners, earning 2% and 6% less than their counterparts' lifetime revenue., Conclusions: Academic surgeons in all surgical subspecialties examined earn less lifetime revenue compared to those in private practice. This difference in earnings decreases but remains substantial as an academic surgeon advances. With limited exposure to the diversity of professional arenas, residents must be aware of this discrepancy., (Copyright © 2018 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The success of an academic surgeon's career is often viewed as directly related to academic appointment; therefore, the sequence of promotion is a demanding, rigorous process. This paper seeks to define the financial implication of academic advancement across different surgical subspecialties., Study Design: Data was collected from the Association of American Medical College's 2015 report of average annual salaries. Assumptions included 30 years of practice, 5 years as assistant professor, and 10 years as associate professor before advancement. The base formula used was: (average annual salary) × (years of practice [30 years - fellowship/research years]) + ($50,000 × years of fellowship/research) = total adjusted lifetime salary income., Results: There was a significant increase in lifetime salary income with advancement from assistant to associate professor in all subspecialties when compared to an increase from associate to full professor. The greatest increase in income from assistant to associate professor was seen in transplant and cardiothoracic surgery (35% and 27%, respectively). Trauma surgery and surgical oncology had the smallest increases of 8% and 9%, respectively. With advancement to full professor, the increase in lifetime salary income was significantly less across all subspecialties, ranging from 1% in plastic surgery to 8% in pediatric surgery., Conclusion: When analyzing the economics of career advancement in academic surgery, there is a substantial financial benefit in lifetime income to becoming an associate professor in all fields; whereas, advancement to full professor is associated with a drastically reduced economic benefit., (Copyright © 2017 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: It is believed that spending additional years gaining expertise in surgical subspecialization leads to higher lifetime revenue. Literature shows that more surgeons are pursuing fellowship training and dedicated research years; however, there are no data looking at the aggregate economic impact when training time is accounted for. It is hypothesized that there will be a discrepancy in lifetime income when delay to practice is considered., Design: Data were collected from the Medical Group Management Association's 2015 report of average annual salaries. Fixed time of practice was set at 30 years, and total adjusted revenue was calculated based on variable years spent in research and fellowship. All total revenue outcomes were compared to general surgery and calculated in US dollars., Participants: The financial data on general surgeons and 9 surgical specialties (vascular, pediatric, plastic, breast, surgical oncology, cardiothoracic, thoracic primary, transplant, and trauma) were examined., Results: With fellowship and no research, breast and surgical oncology made significantly less than general surgery (-$1,561,441, -$1,704,958), with a difference in opportunity cost equivalent to approximately 4 years of work. Pediatric and cardiothoracic surgeons made significantly more than general surgeons, with an increase of opportunity cost equivalent to $5,301,985 and $3,718,632, respectively. With 1 research year, trauma surgeons ended up netting less than a general surgeon by $325,665. With 2 research years, plastic and transplant surgeons had total lifetime revenues approximately equivalent to that of a general surgeon., Conclusions: Significant disparities exist in lifetime total revenue between surgical subspecialties and in comparison, to general surgery. Although most specialists do gross more than general surgeons, breast and surgical oncologists end up netting significantly less over their lifetime as well as trauma surgeons if they do 1 year of research. Thus, the economic advantage of completing additional training is dependent on surgical field and duration of research., (Copyright © 2017 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)