蓝带第二委员会关于优化美国外科教育和培训的建议:外科学员的观点。

IF 7.5 1区 医学 Q1 SURGERY
Annals of surgery Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-07 DOI:10.1097/SLA.0000000000006483
Wali R Johnson, Bigyan B Mainali, Xiaodong Chen, Wilson Alobuia, Erik M Anderson, Rebecca Martin, Katharine E Caldwell, Kwesi Dawson-Amoah, Kathleen Doyle, Danielle Ellis, Brian Fazzone, Michael Ghio, Caroline M Godfrey, Camilla Gomes, Lea Hoefer, LaDonna Kearse, Hannah Niehaus, Hannah Phelps, Andrea N Riner, Cimarron Sharon, Thomas H Shin, Kirbi Yelorda, Julia R Coleman
{"title":"蓝带第二委员会关于优化美国外科教育和培训的建议:外科学员的观点。","authors":"Wali R Johnson, Bigyan B Mainali, Xiaodong Chen, Wilson Alobuia, Erik M Anderson, Rebecca Martin, Katharine E Caldwell, Kwesi Dawson-Amoah, Kathleen Doyle, Danielle Ellis, Brian Fazzone, Michael Ghio, Caroline M Godfrey, Camilla Gomes, Lea Hoefer, LaDonna Kearse, Hannah Niehaus, Hannah Phelps, Andrea N Riner, Cimarron Sharon, Thomas H Shin, Kirbi Yelorda, Julia R Coleman","doi":"10.1097/SLA.0000000000006483","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to appraise recommendations from an expert panel of surgical educators on optimizing surgical education and training in the setting of contemporary challenges.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>The Blue Ribbon Committee (BRC II), a group of surgical educators, was convened to make recommendations to optimize surgical training, considering the current changes in the landscape of surgical education. Surgical trainees were recruited to assess their impressions of the recommendations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed-methods study design was employed, with a survey, followed by focus group interviews. Participating residents and fellows were recruited through a purposeful sampling approach. Descriptive statistics were applied to analyze the survey data, and a thematic data analysis on interview transcripts was employed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The majority of trainee respondents (n=16) thought that all of the subcommittee recommendations should be included in the final BRC II recommendations and paper. According to the interviews, overall, the feedback from the trainees was positive, with particular excitement around work-life integration, education support and faculty development, and funding pitfalls. Some themes about concerns included a lack of clarity about the recommendations, concern about some recommendations being in conflict with one another, and a disconnect between the initial BRC II survey and the subsequent recommendations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The residents gathered for this focus group were encouraged by the thought, effort, and intention that gathered the surgical leaders across the country to make the recommendations. While the trainees wanted clarity on some areas, the overall opinion was in agreement with the recommendations.</p>","PeriodicalId":8017,"journal":{"name":"Annals of surgery","volume":" ","pages":"40-45"},"PeriodicalIF":7.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Committee II for the Optimization of Surgical Education and Training in the United States: The Surgical Trainee Perspective.\",\"authors\":\"Wali R Johnson, Bigyan B Mainali, Xiaodong Chen, Wilson Alobuia, Erik M Anderson, Rebecca Martin, Katharine E Caldwell, Kwesi Dawson-Amoah, Kathleen Doyle, Danielle Ellis, Brian Fazzone, Michael Ghio, Caroline M Godfrey, Camilla Gomes, Lea Hoefer, LaDonna Kearse, Hannah Niehaus, Hannah Phelps, Andrea N Riner, Cimarron Sharon, Thomas H Shin, Kirbi Yelorda, Julia R Coleman\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/SLA.0000000000006483\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to appraise recommendations from an expert panel of surgical educators on optimizing surgical education and training in the setting of contemporary challenges.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>The Blue Ribbon Committee (BRC II), a group of surgical educators, was convened to make recommendations to optimize surgical training, considering the current changes in the landscape of surgical education. Surgical trainees were recruited to assess their impressions of the recommendations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A mixed-methods study design was employed, with a survey, followed by focus group interviews. Participating residents and fellows were recruited through a purposeful sampling approach. Descriptive statistics were applied to analyze the survey data, and a thematic data analysis on interview transcripts was employed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The majority of trainee respondents (n=16) thought that all of the subcommittee recommendations should be included in the final BRC II recommendations and paper. According to the interviews, overall, the feedback from the trainees was positive, with particular excitement around work-life integration, education support and faculty development, and funding pitfalls. Some themes about concerns included a lack of clarity about the recommendations, concern about some recommendations being in conflict with one another, and a disconnect between the initial BRC II survey and the subsequent recommendations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The residents gathered for this focus group were encouraged by the thought, effort, and intention that gathered the surgical leaders across the country to make the recommendations. While the trainees wanted clarity on some areas, the overall opinion was in agreement with the recommendations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8017,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of surgery\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"40-45\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000006483\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/7 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SURGERY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of surgery","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000006483","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究旨在评估外科教育专家小组关于在当代挑战下优化外科教育和培训的建议:本研究旨在评估外科教育工作者专家小组就在当代挑战背景下优化外科教育和培训提出的建议:背景:蓝丝带委员会(BRC II)是一个由外科教育工作者组成的小组,其目的是根据当前外科教育环境的变化提出优化外科培训的建议。我们招募了外科学员来评估他们对这些建议的印象:采用混合方法研究设计,先进行调查,再进行焦点小组访谈。通过有目的的抽样方法招募了参与调查的住院医师和进修医师。调查数据采用描述性统计方法进行分析,访谈记录采用主题数据分析方法:大多数受访学员(n=16)认为分会的所有建议都应纳入BRC II的最终建议和文件中。根据访谈结果,总体而言,受训人员的反馈是积极的,尤其是在工作与生活的融合、教育支持和教师发展以及资金隐患方面。一些令人担忧的问题包括:建议不明确、一些建议相互冲突、最初的 BRC II 调查与随后的建议之间存在脱节:参加此次焦点小组讨论的住院医师对全国各地外科领导者为提出建议而付出的思考、努力和意图感到鼓舞。虽然受训者希望对某些方面进行澄清,但总体意见与建议一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Recommendations of the Blue Ribbon Committee II for the Optimization of Surgical Education and Training in the United States: The Surgical Trainee Perspective.

Objective: This study aims to appraise recommendations from an expert panel of surgical educators on optimizing surgical education and training in the setting of contemporary challenges.

Background: The Blue Ribbon Committee (BRC II), a group of surgical educators, was convened to make recommendations to optimize surgical training, considering the current changes in the landscape of surgical education. Surgical trainees were recruited to assess their impressions of the recommendations.

Methods: A mixed-methods study design was employed, with a survey, followed by focus group interviews. Participating residents and fellows were recruited through a purposeful sampling approach. Descriptive statistics were applied to analyze the survey data, and a thematic data analysis on interview transcripts was employed.

Results: The majority of trainee respondents (n=16) thought that all of the subcommittee recommendations should be included in the final BRC II recommendations and paper. According to the interviews, overall, the feedback from the trainees was positive, with particular excitement around work-life integration, education support and faculty development, and funding pitfalls. Some themes about concerns included a lack of clarity about the recommendations, concern about some recommendations being in conflict with one another, and a disconnect between the initial BRC II survey and the subsequent recommendations.

Conclusions: The residents gathered for this focus group were encouraged by the thought, effort, and intention that gathered the surgical leaders across the country to make the recommendations. While the trainees wanted clarity on some areas, the overall opinion was in agreement with the recommendations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of surgery
Annals of surgery 医学-外科
CiteScore
14.40
自引率
4.40%
发文量
687
审稿时长
4 months
期刊介绍: The Annals of Surgery is a renowned surgery journal, recognized globally for its extensive scholarly references. It serves as a valuable resource for the international medical community by disseminating knowledge regarding important developments in surgical science and practice. Surgeons regularly turn to the Annals of Surgery to stay updated on innovative practices and techniques. The journal also offers special editorial features such as "Advances in Surgical Technique," offering timely coverage of ongoing clinical issues. Additionally, the journal publishes monthly review articles that address the latest concerns in surgical practice.
×
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