• Nimesh D Naik, Eduardo F Abbott, Johnathon M Aho, T K Pandian, Cornelius A Thiels, Stephanie F Heller, and David R Farley.
• Department of Surgery, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota.
• J Surg Educ. 2017 Nov 1; 74 (6): e106-e110.

ObjectiveTo assess if the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) case log system accurately captures operative experience of our postgraduate year 1 (PGY-1) residents.DesignACGME case log information was retrospectively obtained for 5 cohorts of PGY-1 residents (2011-2015) and compared to the number of operative cases captured by an institutional automated operative case report system, Surgical Access Utility System (SAUS). SAUS automatically captures all surgical team members who are listed in the operative dictation for a given case, including interns. A paired t-test analysis was used to compare number of cases coded between the 2 systems.SettingAcademic, tertiary care referral center with a large general surgery training program.ParticipantsPGY-1 general surgery trainees (interns) from the years 2011-2015.ResultsForty-nine PGY-1 general surgery residents were identified over a 5-year period. Mean operative case volume per intern, per year, captured by the automated SAUS was 176.5 ± 28.1 (SD) compared to 126.3 ± 58.0 ACGME cases logged (mean difference = 50.2 cases, p < 0.001).ConclusionsACGME case log data may not accurately reflect the actual operative experience of our PGY-1 residents. If such data holds true for other general surgery training programs, the true impact of duty hour regulations on operative volume may be unclear when using the ACGME case log data. This current standard approach for using ACGME case logs as a representation of operative experience requires further scrutiny and potential revision to more accurately determine operative experience for accreditation purposes.Copyright © 2017 Association of Program Directors in Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

33 keywords...

hide…