Feedback and Assessment Methods in Microsurgery Education: A Scoping Review.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q2 SURGERY
Muhammad Yaseen Abbas, Justin Haas, Elena Huang, Victoria McKinnon, Christopher Coroneos, Anita Acai
{"title":"Feedback and Assessment Methods in Microsurgery Education: A Scoping Review.","authors":"Muhammad Yaseen Abbas, Justin Haas, Elena Huang, Victoria McKinnon, Christopher Coroneos, Anita Acai","doi":"10.1055/a-2616-4370","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>With distinctive instrumentation, challenges, and training, the unique nature of microsurgery necessitates the provision of feedback and assessment for trainees. The uncertain applicability of feedback or assessment methods may lead to poor trainee satisfaction and operative outcomes. We conducted a scoping review of the feedback and assessment methods in microsurgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The Medline, EMBASE, ERIC, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies discussing feedback and/or assessment of microsurgery trainees. Study characteristics, feedback methods, assessment methods, and all other relevant data were extracted. The Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) was used to critically appraise the quantitative studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From 2,440 articles, 99 were included. 65% of articles were published since 2015. Plastic surgery, neurosurgery, and ophthalmology were the most common surgical specialties. 90% of articles discussed exclusively assessment methods, with only 10% discussing both feedback and assessment. Microvascular anastomosis was the most common task (55%), with ex vivo synthetic, (20%) chicken (16%), and rat models (11%) being widely used. Global rating scales (GRSs) providing holistic evaluation based on multiple competency domains were the most common assessment methods (73%), followed by checklists (23%), and device-derived metrics (21%). Parameters included suture placement (53.5%), dexterity (50.5%), and tissue handling (48.5%). Real-time verbal, one-to-one feedback was the most common method among relevant studies (80%), while delayed written video reviewed (20%) was also used. No structured feedback methods were used.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This review identified a variety of feedback and assessment methods specific to microsurgery. GRSs continue to be popular; however, with increasing accessibility, device-derived metrics continue to increase in prevalence. A juxtaposition between named, structured, and validated assessment methods and informal feedback methods was evident. Particularly, the lack of standardized feedback methods may act as a barrier to the implementation of feedback across microsurgical education.</p>","PeriodicalId":16949,"journal":{"name":"Journal of reconstructive microsurgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of reconstructive microsurgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2616-4370","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: With distinctive instrumentation, challenges, and training, the unique nature of microsurgery necessitates the provision of feedback and assessment for trainees. The uncertain applicability of feedback or assessment methods may lead to poor trainee satisfaction and operative outcomes. We conducted a scoping review of the feedback and assessment methods in microsurgery.

Methods: The Medline, EMBASE, ERIC, and Web of Science databases were searched for studies discussing feedback and/or assessment of microsurgery trainees. Study characteristics, feedback methods, assessment methods, and all other relevant data were extracted. The Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument (MERSQI) was used to critically appraise the quantitative studies.

Results: From 2,440 articles, 99 were included. 65% of articles were published since 2015. Plastic surgery, neurosurgery, and ophthalmology were the most common surgical specialties. 90% of articles discussed exclusively assessment methods, with only 10% discussing both feedback and assessment. Microvascular anastomosis was the most common task (55%), with ex vivo synthetic, (20%) chicken (16%), and rat models (11%) being widely used. Global rating scales (GRSs) providing holistic evaluation based on multiple competency domains were the most common assessment methods (73%), followed by checklists (23%), and device-derived metrics (21%). Parameters included suture placement (53.5%), dexterity (50.5%), and tissue handling (48.5%). Real-time verbal, one-to-one feedback was the most common method among relevant studies (80%), while delayed written video reviewed (20%) was also used. No structured feedback methods were used.

Conclusion: This review identified a variety of feedback and assessment methods specific to microsurgery. GRSs continue to be popular; however, with increasing accessibility, device-derived metrics continue to increase in prevalence. A juxtaposition between named, structured, and validated assessment methods and informal feedback methods was evident. Particularly, the lack of standardized feedback methods may act as a barrier to the implementation of feedback across microsurgical education.

显微外科教育的反馈与评估方法:范围综述。
背景:显微外科具有独特的仪器、挑战和训练,其独特的性质要求为受训者提供反馈和评估。反馈或评估方法的不确定适用性可能导致受训人员满意度和手术结果不佳。我们对显微外科的反馈和评估方法进行了范围综述。方法:检索Medline、EMBASE、ERIC和Web of Science数据库,检索讨论显微外科学员反馈和/或评估的研究。提取研究特征、反馈方法、评价方法等所有相关数据。采用医学教育研究质量工具(MERSQI)对定量研究进行批判性评价。结果:在2440篇文献中,纳入99篇。65%的文章发表于2015年以后。整形外科、神经外科和眼科是最常见的外科专业。90%的文章专门讨论了评估方法,只有10%的文章同时讨论了反馈和评估。微血管吻合是最常见的任务(55%),体外合成(20%)鸡(16%)和大鼠模型(11%)被广泛使用。基于多个能力领域提供整体评估的全球评级量表(GRSs)是最常见的评估方法(73%),其次是清单(23%)和设备衍生指标(21%)。参数包括缝线放置(53.5%)、灵巧性(50.5%)和组织处理(48.5%)。在相关研究中,实时口头一对一反馈是最常见的方法(80%),而延迟书面视频评论(20%)也被使用。未采用结构化反馈方法。结论:本综述确定了多种针对显微外科的反馈和评估方法。grs继续流行;然而,随着可访问性的提高,设备派生的度量继续增加。命名的、结构化的、经过验证的评估方法和非正式的反馈方法之间的并置是显而易见的。特别是,缺乏标准化的反馈方法可能会成为在显微外科教育中实施反馈的障碍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
28.60%
发文量
80
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery is a peer-reviewed, indexed journal that provides an international forum for the publication of articles focusing on reconstructive microsurgery and complex reconstructive surgery. The journal was originally established in 1984 for the microsurgical community to publish and share academic papers. The Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery provides the latest in original research spanning basic laboratory, translational, and clinical investigations. Review papers cover current topics in complex reconstruction and microsurgery. In addition, special sections discuss new technologies, innovations, materials, and significant problem cases. The journal welcomes controversial topics, editorial comments, book reviews, and letters to the Editor, in order to complete the balanced spectrum of information available in the Journal of Reconstructive Microsurgery. All articles undergo stringent peer review by international experts in the specialty.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信