Is Plastic Surgery Resident Learning and Assessment Consistent? A Comparison of American Society of Plastic Surgery Educational Network Topics, In-Service Examinations, and Residency Core Curriculums.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 SURGERY
Daniel Najafali, Farrah C Liu, Thomas M Johnstone, Shannon Choi, Paige M Fox
{"title":"Is Plastic Surgery Resident Learning and Assessment Consistent? A Comparison of American Society of Plastic Surgery Educational Network Topics, In-Service Examinations, and Residency Core Curriculums.","authors":"Daniel Najafali, Farrah C Liu, Thomas M Johnstone, Shannon Choi, Paige M Fox","doi":"10.1097/SAP.0000000000004433","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The Plastic Surgery In-Service Examination (PSISE) objectively compares plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) residents' knowledge, while the ASPS' Education Network (EdNet) is a \"gold standard,\" which programs use to design their curricula. This study aims to quantify the degree to which critical PRS learning modalities align. We also sought to understand the rationale behind how program leadership designed PRS residency core curricula.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Questions from ASPS EdNet resident courses and 2018 to 2022 PSISEs were tabulated and assigned to EdNet topics. Then, curricula from 15 PRS residencies were assigned to EdNet topics. Topic alignment between curricula, PSISEs, and EdNet courses was tested with Pearson's χ2 and Fisher's exact tests. Program directors (PDs) and associate program directors (APDs) from PRS residencies were surveyed and/or interviewed regarding their PRS residency core curricula design.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 2038 questions corresponding to 102 topics were queried from EdNet. A total of 1170 PSISE questions and 910 curricula lectures were assigned to these topics. Program curricula taught 30 topics at significantly different frequencies than those taught by EdNet. The past 5 PSISEs tested 28 topics at significantly different frequencies than those taught by EdNet.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>One-third of gold-standard EdNet topics are taught and tested at significantly different frequencies. Comparison of these teaching tools shows that progress can be made to further align PRS educational modalities to improve resident learning and assessment.</p>","PeriodicalId":8060,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Plastic Surgery","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Plastic Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0000000000004433","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The Plastic Surgery In-Service Examination (PSISE) objectively compares plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) residents' knowledge, while the ASPS' Education Network (EdNet) is a "gold standard," which programs use to design their curricula. This study aims to quantify the degree to which critical PRS learning modalities align. We also sought to understand the rationale behind how program leadership designed PRS residency core curricula.

Methods: Questions from ASPS EdNet resident courses and 2018 to 2022 PSISEs were tabulated and assigned to EdNet topics. Then, curricula from 15 PRS residencies were assigned to EdNet topics. Topic alignment between curricula, PSISEs, and EdNet courses was tested with Pearson's χ2 and Fisher's exact tests. Program directors (PDs) and associate program directors (APDs) from PRS residencies were surveyed and/or interviewed regarding their PRS residency core curricula design.

Results: A total of 2038 questions corresponding to 102 topics were queried from EdNet. A total of 1170 PSISE questions and 910 curricula lectures were assigned to these topics. Program curricula taught 30 topics at significantly different frequencies than those taught by EdNet. The past 5 PSISEs tested 28 topics at significantly different frequencies than those taught by EdNet.

Conclusions: One-third of gold-standard EdNet topics are taught and tested at significantly different frequencies. Comparison of these teaching tools shows that progress can be made to further align PRS educational modalities to improve resident learning and assessment.

整形外科住院医师的学习和评估是否一致?美国整形外科学会教育网络主题、在职考试及住院医师核心课程之比较。
简介:整形外科在职考试(PSISE)客观地比较了整形外科和重建外科(PRS)住院医生的知识,而美国整形外科学会的教育网络(EdNet)是一个“黄金标准”,项目使用它来设计课程。本研究旨在量化关键的PRS学习模式对齐的程度。我们还试图了解项目领导如何设计PRS住院医师核心课程背后的基本原理。方法:将asp EdNet常住课程和2018年至2022年psse的问题制成表格,并分配给EdNet主题。然后,将15个PRS住院医师的课程分配给EdNet主题。课程、pses和EdNet课程之间的主题一致性用Pearson χ2和Fisher精确检验进行检验。来自PRS住院医师的项目主任(pd)和副项目主任(apd)就其PRS住院医师核心课程设计进行了调查和/或访谈。结果:EdNet共查询102个主题2038个问题。共有1170个PSISE问题和910个课程讲座分配给这些主题。与EdNet教学相比,项目课程以明显不同的频率教授30个主题。过去的5次psse测试了28个主题,其频率与EdNet教学的频率明显不同。结论:三分之一的金标准EdNet主题以显著不同的频率进行教学和测试。这些教学工具的比较表明,可以进一步调整PRS教育模式,以改善住院医生的学习和评估。
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
2.70
自引率
13.30%
发文量
584
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The only independent journal devoted to general plastic and reconstructive surgery, Annals of Plastic Surgery serves as a forum for current scientific and clinical advances in the field and a sounding board for ideas and perspectives on its future. The journal publishes peer-reviewed original articles, brief communications, case reports, and notes in all areas of interest to the practicing plastic surgeon. There are also historical and current reviews, descriptions of surgical technique, and lively editorials and letters to the editor.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信