Strategic organisational skills predict surgical training success

Abstract

IntroductionSurgical career progression is determined by examination success and Annual Review of Competence Progression (ARCP) outcome, yet data on organisational skills are sparse. This study aimed to determine whether organisational skills related to Core Surgical Training (CST) outcome. Primary outcome measures include operative experience, publications, examination success (Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons or the Diploma in Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery (MRCS/DO-HNS)) and ARCP outcome.MethodsThe study was conducted prospectively at three consecutive CST induction boot camps (2017–2019) providing clinical and simulation training for 125 trainees. Arrival time at course registration was the selected surrogate for organisational skills. Trainees were advised to arrive promptly at 8:45 for registration and that the course would start at 9:00. Trainee arrival times were grouped as follows: early (before 8:45), on time (8:45–8:59am) or late (after 9:00). Arrival times were compared with primary outcome measures.SettingHealth Education and Improvement Wales’ School of Surgery, UK.ResultsMedian arrival time was 8:53 (range 7:55–10:03), with 29 trainees (23.2%) arriving early, 63 (50.4%) on-time and 33 (26.4%) late. Arrival time was associated with operative experience (early vs late; 206 vs 164 cases, p=0.012), publication (63.2% vs 18.5%, p=0.005), MRCS/DO-HNS success (44.8% vs 15.2%, p=0.029), ARCP outcome (86.2% vs 60.6% Outcome 1, p=0.053), but not National Training Number success (60.0% vs 53.3%, p=0.772).ConclusionsBetter-prepared trainees achieved 25% more operative experience, were four-fold more likely to publish and pass MRCS, which aligned with consistent desirable ARCP outcome. Timely arrival at training events represents a skills-composite of travel planning and is a useful marker of strategic organisational skills.

FRCS differential attainment related to region and specialty: retrospective cohort study

“…FRCS performance alone takes no account of covert confounding variables including operative ability, academic reach, hospital rota intensity, and other hidden curriculum factors such as burnout, sleep deprivation, dignity at work, geographical deprivation and inequality, and trainer variation. Many other factors have been reported to influence examination performance, including demographics, earlier education, and organizational skills 4 . Interpreting SEB-related examination performance as a surrogate marker of training quality assurance must therefore be made with caution.…”