Continuing Medical Education, Maintenance of Certification, and Physician Reentry

Luchtefeld, Martin; Kerwel, Therese G.

doi:10.1055/s-0032-1322546

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Improved teaching and application of the new technology leads to decreased complications in laparoscopic procedures; however, surgeons are still solely responsible for determining their competence in performing new procedures [12]. Our study demonstrates a lack of agreement between self-assessment and expert assessment of surgical technical skills thereby indicating that current selfassessment measures are inadequate.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

Comparing self-assessment of laparoscopic technical skills with expert opinion for gynecological surgeons in an operative setting

Kilani

2018

Gynecol Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Competence in laparoscopic skills is important for all gynaecological surgeons. Most residency programmes teach technical skills in the operating room and through lectures, where the evaluation of surgical skills is usually done through subjective evaluation. After graduating residency, most surgeons depend on themselves to decide if they are competent in performing a certain procedure. The objective of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of surgeon self-assessment compared with expert assessment of competence in laparoscopic surgical skills. A double-blind prospective cohort study was undertaken at Prince Hamza Hospital between January 2016 and April 2016 in Amman, Jordan. Eight practicing gynecologists and obstetricians performed and recorded 88 laparoscopic procedures including ovarian cystectomy, salpingectomy for ectopic pregnancy, salpingoophorectomy, resection of endometriosis, adhesiolysis and ovarian drilling. Participating gynecologists recorded the procedures and were asked to complete a Global Rating Index of Technical Skills (GRITS) evaluation after the surgery testing across multiple areas with a lowest score of 8 and a highest score of 40. Two well-versed laparoscopic experts in objective structured assessment of technical skills (OSATS) also independently scored all procedures using the same parameters. The correlation coefficient and internal consistency were calculated. Results: The GRITS score was calculated for each participant with a mean assessment score of 3.47 for each parameter. Participants self-assessment scores were significantly higher than expert assessment scores (p<0.05). The correlation coefficient was calculated and it can be seen that there was high inter-expert correlation in assessment across all participants evaluations (ICC > 0.90). Conclusion: Self-assessment of surgical laparoscopic skills is higher than expert evaluation of these technical skills. Quality assurance measures need to be revisited and restructured through more frequent assessments using peer and expert assessment alongside self-assessment. Gynecologists also need to undergo proper assessment prior to starting independently performing procedures that require new skills.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 73%

Comparing self-assessment of laparoscopic technical skills with expert opinion for gynecological surgeons in an operative setting

Kilani

2018

Gynecol Surg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Both high-stakes simulation assessments 19,20 and individualized or advanced specialty training programs that include supervised practice 21,22 were used to certify that anesthesiologists were ready to return to clinical practice. A review article focusing on the reentry of surgeons suggested continuing medical education as an opportunity to assist reentry for general surgeons, 23 and another review article focusing on gastroenterologists advocated for skills retraining for procedural competence prior to a return to clinical practice. 24 At the time of writing, there was no reentry program specifically designed for emergency physicians.…”

Section: Specialty Specific Programsmentioning

confidence: 99%