Is the operative autonomy granted to a resident consistent with operative performance quality

Abstract

BackgroundWe investigated attending surgeon decisions regarding resident operative autonomy, including situations where operative autonomy was discordant with performance quality. MethodsAttending surgeons assessed operative performance and documented operative autonomy granted to residents from 14 general surgery residency programs. Concordance between performance and autonomy was defined as “practice ready performance/meaningfully autonomous” or “not practice ready/not meaningfully autonomous.” Discordant circumstances were practice ready/not meaningfully autonomous or not practice ready/meaningfully autonomous. Resident training level, patient-related case complexity, procedure complexity, and procedure commonality were investigated to determine impact on autonomy. ResultsA total of 8,798 assessments were collected from 429 unique surgeons assessing 496 unique residents. Practice-ready and exceptional performances were 20 times more likely to be performed under meaningfully autonomous conditions than were other performances. Meaningful autonomy occurred most often with high-volume, easy and common cases, and less complex procedures. Eighty percent of assessments were concordant (38% practice ready/meaningfully autonomous and 42% not practice ready/not meaningfully autonomous). Most discordant assessments (13.8%) were not practice ready/meaningfully autonomous. For fifth-year residents, practice ready/not meaningfully autonomous ratings (9.7%) were more frequent than not practice ready/meaningfully autonomous ratings (7.5%). Ten surgeons (2.3%) failed to afford residents meaningful autonomy on any occasion. ConclusionResident operative performance quality is the most important determinant in attending surgeon decisions regarding resident autonomy.