Search

OBJECTIVE: An expert panel made recommendations to optimize surgical education and training based on the effects of contemporary challenges. BACKGROUND: The inaugural Blue Ribbon Committee (BRC I) proposed sweeping recommendations for surgical education and training in 2004. In light of those findings, a second BRC (BRC II) was convened to make recommendations to optimize surgical training considering the current landscape in medical education. METHODS: BRC II was a panel of 67 experts selected on the basis of experience and leadership in surgical education and training. It was organized into subcommittees which met virtually over the course of a year. They developed recommendations, along with the Steering Committee, based on areas of focus and then presented them to the entire BRC II. The Delphi method was chosen to obtain consensus, defined as ≥80% agreement among the panel. Cronbach α was computed to assess the internal consistency of 3 Delphi rounds. RESULTS: Of the 50 recommendations, 31 obtained consensus in the following aspects of surgical training (# of consensus recommendation/# of proposed): Workforce (1/5); Medical Student Education (3/8); Work Life Integration (4/6); Resident Education (5/7); Goals, Structure, and Financing of Training (5/8); Education Support and Faculty Development (5/6); Research Training (7/9); and Educational Technology and Assessment (1/1). The internal consistency was good in Rounds 1 and 2 and acceptable in Round 3. CONCLUSIONS: BRC II used the Delphi approach to identify and recommend 31 priorities for surgical education in 2024. We advise establishing a multidisciplinary surgical educational group to oversee, monitor, and facilitate implementation of these recommendations.

Purpose: School-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) face uniquely complex webs of guidelines and criteria that can undermine their ability to move toward disability-affirming practices. The purpose of this clinical focus article is to present a contrast between ableist and disability-affirming practices in school-based stuttering therapy while highlighting the critical perspectives of students who stutter. Practical examples of disability-affirming stuttering therapy in public school settings are provided. Conclusions: This clinical focus article outlines practical guidelines and specific examples of affirming collaboration, eligibility decisions, goal choice, and accommodations for students who stutter. These discussions demonstrate how SLPs can adopt updated assessment therapy planning and institutional practices to affirm students who stutter while informing school cultures and society about the dignity and value of stuttered voices.

Purpose: Live oral or recorded video presentations on stuttering were delivered to high school students in order to determine the extent to which their attitudes toward stuttering could be improved. Methods: A classroom teacher administered the "Public Opinion Survey of Human Attributes-Stuttering" ("POSHA-S") to two health classes before and after an oral live presentation by a person who stutters. She also gave the "POSHA-S" to two other similar classes before and after a "True Life[R]": I Stutter video presentation. The stuttering person in the oral condition was one of three people featured in the video. Also, following the video condition, students filled out the "POSHA-S" a third time after a short oral presentation by the same person who stutters. Results: Measured attitudes improved overall on the "POSHA-S" and on selected items. Conclusions: High school students hold similar attitudes toward stuttering and stutterers as adults, and these attitudes can be improved, at least temporarily, by a presentation on stuttering but more via a live presentation than a professionally prepared video. (Contains 1 table and 3 figures.)