Cheryl I. Anderson

Disparities between resident and attending surgeon perceptions of intraoperative teaching.

BACKGROUND This study aimed to assess attending surgeon and resident recall of good and poor intraoperative teaching experiences and how often these experiences occur at present. METHODS By web-based survey, we asked US surgeons and residents to describe their best and worst intraoperative teaching experiences during training and how often 26 common intraoperative teaching behaviors occur in their current environment. RESULTS A total of 346 residents and 196 surgeons responded (51 programs; 26 states). Surgeons and residents consistently identified trainee autonomy, teacher confidence, and communication as positive, while recalling negatively contemptuous, arrogant, accusatory, or uncommunicative teachers. Residents described intraoperative teaching behaviors by faculty as substantially less frequent than faculty self-reports. Neither sex nor seniority explained these results, although women reported communicative behaviors more frequently than men. CONCLUSIONS Although veteran surgeons and current trainees agree on what constitutes effective and ineffective teaching in the operating room, they disagree on how often these behaviors occur, leaving substantial room for improvement.

Disorganized care: the findings of an iterative, in-depth analysis of surgical morbidity and mortality.

INTRODUCTION Performance improvement driven by the review of surgical morbidity and mortality is often limited to critiques of individual cases with a focus on individual errors. Little attention has been given to an analysis of why a decision seemed right at the time or to lower-level root causes. The application of scientific performance improvement has the potential to bring to light deeper levels of understanding of surgical decision-making, care processes, and physician psychology. METHODS A comprehensive retrospective chart review of previously discussed morbidity and mortality cases was performed with an attempt to identify areas where we could better understand or influence behavior or systems. We avoided focusing on traditional sources of human error such as lapses of vigilance or memory. An iterative process was used to refine the practical areas for possible intervention. Definitions were then created for the major categories and subcategories. RESULTS Of a sample of 152 presented cases, the root cause for 96 (63%) patient-related events was identified as uni-factorial in origin, with 51 (34%) cases strictly related to patient disease with no other contributing causes. Fifty-six cases (37%) had multiple causes. The remaining 101 cases (66%) were categorized into two areas where the ability to influence outcomes appeared possible. Technical issues were found in 27 (18%) of these cases and 74 (74%) were related to disorganized care problems. Of the 74 cases identified with disorganized care, 42 (42%) were related to failures in critical thinking, 18 (18%) to undisciplined treatment strategies, 8 (8%) to structural failures, and 6 (6%) were related to failures in situational awareness. CONCLUSIONS On a comprehensive review of cases presented at the morbidity and mortality conference, disorganized care played a large role in the cases presented and may have implications for future curriculum changes. The failure to think critically, to deliver disciplined treatment strategies, to recognize structural failures, and to achieve situational awareness contributed to the morbidities and mortalities. Future research may determine if focused training in these areas improves patient outcomes.

Patient Misunderstanding of The Academic Hierarchy is Prevalent and Predictable

BACKGROUND Medical personnel introduce themselves to patients using titles that reflect their level of training, although these titles may not be inherently obvious to the patient. This study explored patient understanding of commonly used physician and student titles. MATERIALS AND METHODS A survey was developed asking patients to match six mutually exclusive medical titles to six levels of training. Categories included attending physician, chief resident, resident, intern, medical student, and pre-medical student. Respondent age, gender, medical training, employment in a healthcare field, educational level, income, and number of visits to a physician per y were requested. A brief intervention was then performed in which a second group of patients were advised of the designations and then asked to match the same categories. RESULTS A total of 365 surveys were collected from the first group and 102 from the second group. Respondents accurately identified the level of training required for all six titles in only 44.5% of surveys collected, and in 52.0% after the intervention. Patients with at least some college education or income>

Impact of objectively assessing surgeons' teaching on effective perioperative instructional behaviors

50,000 per y were more likely to answer correctly (P<0.001). On the other hand, even respondents with graduate degrees or incomes>

Assessing the competencies in general surgery residency training

100,000 per y had difficulty correctly identifying the training of all team members. CONCLUSIONS Patients do not understand the distinctions in training of surgical team members, especially those patients with decreased income or education; therefore, clinicians may wish to pay particular attention to these introductions. The survey did identify this as being important to patients.