urgical residency training is undergoing a forced metamorhosis in the 80-hour workweek era. Prior surgical residents ained knowledge, technical skill, and judgment through an immersion model,” working 100 to 120 hours per week in a uccessful but unstructured educational model. Newer trainng models like the “mentorship model,” “case-based model,” nd “night float model” offer new ideas aimed at improving fficacy of surgical residency training to accommodate the 80our workweek. In developing new models, care must be aken not to optimize resident training at the expense of patient are. Continuity of care has been recognized by the Surgery esidency Review Committee (SRRC) as an “essential” part of urgical residency training. The literature lends support to he idea of continuity of care improving patient care through ecreased complications in hospitalized patients. The SRRC has taken the poorly defined term continuity of are and defined 6 elements in which the same surgery resident ust be involved: (1) Determine or confirm a diagnosis, (2) rovide preoperative care, (3) discuss the case with the attendng physician, (4) select and accomplish the appropriate proceure, (5) direct postoperative care, and (6) follow up after disharge. Compliance with continuity of care is important at ll levels of training, especially for senior-level residents. To ur knowledge Anderson and Sidhu are the only other 2 roups closely analyzing compliance rates of surgical residents ith each of the 6 elements of patient care defined by the RRC. The goals of surgical training should strive for “perfect ontinuity,” in which the same resident maintains involvement ith the same patient through all 6 elements of care. Anderon and Sidhu attained perfect continuity rates of 23.7% and 0%, respectively. Our objective is to provide updated data on