Journal of surgical education
-
The objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) can be used to evaluate the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Core Competencies of Professionalism and Interpersonal and Communication Skills. The aim of this study was to describe general surgery resident performance on a "difficult conversation" OSCE. ⋯ We found that residents perform difficult conversations well, that subjective and objective skills are correlated, and that skills-based training is needed across all residency levels. This well-received method may be used to observe, document, and provide resident feedback for these important skills.
-
Teaching and assessing professionalism and interpersonal communication skills can be more difficult for surgical residency programs than teaching medical knowledge or patient care, for which many structured educational curricula and assessment tools exist. Residents often learn these skills indirectly, by observing the behavior of their attendings when communicating with patients and colleagues. The purpose of this study was to assess the results of an educational curriculum we created to teach and assess our residents in professionalism and communication. ⋯ The lack of correlation between comfort in delivering bad news and prior education on the subject may indicate the difficulty in imparting communication and professionalism skills to residents effectively. Understanding communication style differences between our residents and the general population can help us teach professionalism and communication skills more effectively. With the next accreditation system, residency programs would need to demonstrate that residents are acquiring these skills in their training. SP encounters are effective in teaching and assessing these skills.
-
Residents seek postresidency fellowship training to increase competency with novel surgical techniques and augment their fund of knowledge. Research productivity is a vital component of advancement in academic urology. Our objectives were to use the h-index (an objective and readily available bibliometric that has been repeatedly shown to correlate with scholarly impact, funding procurement, and academic promotion in urology as well as other specialties) to determine whether any relationship exists between fellowship training and scholarly impact among academic urologists. Additional examination was performed to determine whether any differences in scholarly influence are present among practitioners in the major urologic subspecialties. ⋯ No difference in h-index existed between fellowship-trained and nonfellowship-trained urologists, although practitioners in the subspecialty cohorts with the highest research productivity (nonfellowship-trained and urologic oncologists) comprised 70% of department chairpersons. This relationship suggests that a strong research profile is highly valued during selection for academic promotion. Differences existed on further comparison by subspecialty. Fellowship training may represent another potential opportunity to introduce structured research experiences for trainees.