Search

Abstract Objective Robotic surgical approaches are increasingly utilized; however, standard medical school curricula omit this topic. This study examines the need for robotic-specific surgical education from the medical students' perspective. Design A 10-question web-based survey was designed to assess factors including class year, intended specialty, exposure to robotic surgery, and perceived necessity for robotic surgery education. The survey was validated by small group of surgical residents. Setting This study was conducted at a busy tertiary academic center. Participants Survey was distributed to 425 post-core clerkship medical students. Results Out of 79 respondents (18.5% response rate), 71% had some exposure to robotic surgery. The majority (72%) of respondents, regardless of their intended specialty, agreed on the necessity to learn about robotic surgery. Respondents identified terminology, proper patient counseling, and bedside assisting skills as potential topics to incorporate in robotic surgery medical school curricula. Conclusions Medical students irrespective of their intended specialty favor robotic surgery specific education. These findings underscore the need to incorporate robotics education into core medical school curricula.

Abstract Background Workplace-based assessment (WBA) can facilitate evaluation of operative performance; however, implementation of WBA is sometimes unsuccessful. The American Board of Surgery Entrustable Professional Activities WBA project was launched in July 2023. Some programs will face the challenge of re-implementation of a WBA following previous failures. It is unknown what interventions are most effective for WBA re-implementation. Our goal is to identify barriers and facilitators to re-implementing SIMPL, an operative performance WBA. Methods The System for Improving and Measuring Procedural Learning (SIMPL) was implemented at our residency in 2018, but usage rates were low. We interviewed residents and faculty to identify barriers to usage and opportunities for improvement. Residents reported that SIMPL usage declined because of several factors, including a low faculty response rate, while some faculty reported not responding because they were unable to login to the app and because usage was not mandated. We then re-implemented SIMPL using a plan based on Kotter’s Model of Change. To evaluate impact, we analyzed rates of SIMPL usage when it was first implemented, as well as before and after the date of re-implementation. Results In September 2022, we re-implemented SIMPL at our program with measures addressing the identified barriers. We found that, in the six months after re-implementation, an average of 145.8 evaluations were submitted by residents per month, compared with 47 evaluations per month at the start of the original implementation and 5.8 evaluations per month just prior to re-implementation. Faculty completed 60.6% of evaluations and dictated feedback for 59.1% of these evaluations, compared with 69.1% at implementation (44% dictated) and 43% prior to re-implementation (53% dictated). Conclusions After identifying barriers to implementation of a WBA, we re-implemented it with significantly higher usage by faculty and residents. Future opportunities exist to implement or re-implement assessment tools within general surgery programs. These opportunities may have a significant impact in the setting of national standardization of workplace-based assessment among general surgery residencies.

Introduction: A 2014 consensus statement from the Society of Surgical Oncology and American Society for Radiation Oncology supported “no ink on tumor” as an adequate margin for breast conserving therapy (BCT). This study evaluates this statement in a multi-institution cohort. Methods: A retrospective review of BCT cases at 3 comprehensive cancer centers was performed. Women age >18 receiving BCT for T1-2 breast cancer from 2008-2012 were included. Pre-2014, all sites considered 2 mm adequate. Estimated re-excision rates using the 2014 guidelines were calculated and factors predictive of re-excision were analyzed. Results: 542 patients (545 lumpectomies) were eligible. Using a ≥2 mm margin standard, 32.8% of patients underwent re-excision compared to 14.1% after 2014 (p < 0.0001). Tumor size (p= 0.003), grade (p=0.015), and lymphovascular invasion (p=0.021) were predictive of re-excision. Patients with additional intraoperative margins excised were less likely to require reoperation (p=0.002). Local recurrence was unaffected by re-excision after mean followup of 66 months. Conclusions: The 2014 margin guidelines markedly reduce re-excision rates. There is no difference in local recurrence for patients after re-excision for a close margin versus without Powered.