Surgery In-Training Examination Research Articles

Flipping the Classroom in Residency Didactics Leads to Higher American Board of Surgery in-Training Examination Scores

Didactic education in General Surgery (GS) residency typically follows a nationally standardized curriculum; however, instructional format varies by institution. In recent years, GS residents at our institution expressed discontentment with weekly didactics and were not meeting their goals on the American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination (ABSITE). We sought to develop improvements in our didactic curriculum to increase resident satisfaction and ABSITE scores of GS junior residents (Jrs). In a quality improvement project, we changed the weekly didactic curriculum format from hour-long lectures in the 2018 to 2019 academic year (AY) to a partially-flipped classroom in the 2019 to 2020 AY, involving a 30-minute faculty-led presentation followed by 30 minutes of resident-led practice questions. The outcomes measured were ABSITE scores taken in 2019 and 2020 and resident opinions via an anonymous survey. This study was conducted at the University of Minnesota (Minneapolis, MN). The cohort for this study included all GS Jrs in our GS residency program, including postgraduate year (PGY) 1 nondesignated preliminary, PGY1 to 3 categorical GS residents, and residents in their lab time. Senior residents attended a separate didactics session. After curriculum changes, the ABSITE percentile scores for GS Jrs rose from 52% ± 5% to 66% ± 4% (p = 0.03). No categorical GS Jr scored <30% in 2020, compared to 20% (6/30) of categorical General Surgery residents in 2019. All residents preferred the new format overall and reported greater engagement in and preparation for didactics. After changing didactic education from hour-long lectures in the 2018 to 2019 AY to a flipped classroom model in the 2019 to 2020 AY including 30 minutes of faculty-led lecture followed by 30 minutes of resident-led practice questions, ABSITE scores and resident satisfaction at the University of Minnesota General Surgery Program improved.

ChatGPT Earns American Board Certification in Hand Surgery

PurposeArtificial Intelligence (AI), and specifically ChatGPT, has shown potential in healthcare, yet its performance in specialized medical examinations such as the Orthopaedic Surgery In-Training Examination and European Board Hand Surgery diploma has been inconsistent. This study aims to evaluate the capability of ChatGPT-4 to pass the American Hand Surgery Certifying Examination. MethodsChatGPT-4 was tested on the 2019 American Society for Surgery of the Hand (ASSH) Self-Assessment Exam. All 200 questions available online (https://onlinecme.assh.org) were retrieved. All media-containing questions were flagged and carefully reviewed. Eight media-containing questions were excluded as they either relied purely on videos or could not be rationalized from the presented information. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the performance (% correct) of ChatGPT-4. The ASSH report was used to compare ChatGPT-4’s performance to that of the 322 physicians who completed the 2019 ASSH self-assessment. ResultsChatGPT-4 answered 192 questions with an overall score of 61.98%. Performance on media-containing questions was 55.56%, while on non-media questions it was 65.83%, with no statistical difference in performance based on media inclusion. Despite scoring below the average physician’s performance, ChatGPT-4 outperformed in the ‘vascular’ section with 81.82%. Its performance was lower in the ‘bone and joint’ (48.54%) and ‘neuromuscular’ (56.25%) sections. ConclusionsChatGPT-4 achieved a good overall score of 61.98%. This AI language model demonstrates significant capability in processing and answering specialized medical examination questions, albeit with room for improvement in areas requiring complex clinical judgment and nuanced interpretation. ChatGPT-4’s proficiency is influenced by the structure and language of the examination, with no replacement for the depth of trained medical specialists. This study underscores the supportive role of AI in medical education and clinical decision-making while highlighting the current limitations in nuanced fields such as hand surgery.

Structured Textbook Review and Individualized Learning Plans Successfully Remediate Underperforming Residents and Improve General Surgery Program Performance on the ABSITE.

We endeavored to create an evidence-based curriculum to improve general surgery resident fund of knowledge. Global and resident-specific interventions were employed to this end. These interventions were monitored via multiple choice question results on a weekly basis and American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination (ABSITE) performance. This study was performed in a prospective manner over a 2-year period. A structured textbook review with testing was implemented for all residents. A focused textbook question-writing assignment and a Surgical Council on Resident Education (SCORE)-based individualized learning plan (ILP) were implemented for residents scoring below the 35th percentile on the ABSITE. Curriculum implementation resulted in a statistically significant reduction in the number of residents scoring below the 35th percentile, from 50% to 30.8% (P = .023). One hundred percent of residents initially scoring below the 35th percentile were successfully remediated over the study period. Average overall program ABSITE percentile scores increased from 38.5% to 51.4% over a 2-year period. Structured textbook review and testing combined with a question-writing assignment and a SCORE-focused ILP successfully remediated residents scoring below the 35th percentile and improved general surgery residency ABSITE performance.

National ABSITE Preparation Practices: A Survey of General Surgery Residency Program Directors

The American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination (ABSITE) was designed as a low-stakes, medical knowledge examination for US general surgery residency programs. However, in practice, this exam has been utilized for higher stakes purposes, such as resident promotion or remediation, and fellowship selection. Several studies have demonstrated the efficacy of ABSITE preparation resources, but best practices for ABSITE preparation and national preparatory habits are currently unknown. The aim of this work was to determine current residency programs' strategies for ABSITE preparation. We distributed an electronic survey to program directors or program coordinators of US general surgery programs asking them to anonymously report program ABSITE educational practices and ABSITE scores. We analyzed the proportion of responses using descriptive statistics and compared the effect of various strategies using the Mann-Whitney testing for nonparametric data. An average ABSITE percentile score was calculated for each residency based on program self-reported scores. Association of Program Directors (APDS) Listserv PARTICIPANTS: General surgery residency programs participating at the time of distribution (278). Response rate was 24% (66/278); 41 programs (62.1%) identified as university-affiliated, and 25 (37.9%) were community-based. Median intern class size was 8 (range: 3-14), including preliminary interns. Average ABSITE percentile score was 52.8% (range 36.9%-67.6%). There were no significant differences in ABSITE scores based on affiliation or program size. Educational resources utilized for ABSITE preparation included SCORE (89.3%), Q-banks (50%), and surgical textbooks (25.8%). The majority (56.1%) of programs reported using a year-long curriculum for ABSITE preparation, and 66.6% used a time-limited curriculum completed in the months immediately prior to ABSITE. Most programs reported that ABSITE scores were a low priority (63.6%) or not a priority (13.6%). The existence of a year-long curriculum for ABSITE was positively correlated with score as compared to programs without a year-long curricula (53.9% vs 48.5%, p <0.01). Programs using a time-limited curriculum demonstrated lower scores as compared to programs without time-limited curricula (51.3% v 56.1%, p < 0.01). General surgery programs use a variety of strategies to prepare residents for the ABSITE. Despite reporting that they utilize ABSITE scores for a variety of high stakes purposes including evaluation for promotion and as a predictor of the preparedness for the ABS QE, many programs reported that they consider ABSITE scores as a low priority. A year-long focused curriculum was the only strategy correlated with increased scores, which may reflect the value of encouraging consistent studying and spaced repetition. Additional work is needed to guide programs in optimal utilization of ABSITE scores for remediation and resident evaluation, as well as understanding how ABSITE preparatory strategies correlate with clinical performance.

The domino effect: the impact of gender on operative self-efficacy.

Studies suggest that there are key differences in operative experience based on a trainee's gender. A large-scale self-efficacy (SE) survey, distributed to general surgery residents after the American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination in 2020, found that female gender was associated with decreased SE in graduating PGY5 residents for all 4 laparoscopic procedures included on the survey (cholecystectomy, appendectomy, right hemicolectomy, and diagnostic laparoscopy). We sought to determine whether these differences were reflected at the case level when considering operative performance and supervision using an operative assessment tool (SIMPL OR). Supervision and performance data reported through the SIMPL OR platform for the same 4 laparoscopic procedures included in the SE survey were aggregated for residents who were PGY5s in 2020. Independent t-tests and multiple linear regression were used to determine the relationship between trainee gender and supervision/performance ratings. For laparoscopic cases in aggregate (n = 2708), male residents rated their performance higher than females (3.57 vs. 3.26, p < 0.001, 1 = critical deficiency, 5 = exceptional performance) and reported less supervision (3.15 vs. 2.85, p < 0.001, 1 = show and tell, 4 = supervision only); similar findings were seen when looking at attending reports of resident supervision and performance. A multiple linear regression model showed that attending gender did not significantly predict resident-reported supervision or performance levels, while case complexity and trainee gender significantly affected both supervision and performance (p < 0.001). Female residents perceive themselves to be less self-efficacious at core laparoscopic procedures compared to their male colleagues. Comparison to more case-specific data confirm that female residents receive more supervision and lower performance ratings. This may create a domino effect in which female residents receive less operative independence, preventing the opportunity to establish SE. Further research should identify opportunities to break this cycle and consider gender identity beyond the male/female construct.

The Association of ACGME Milestones With Performance on American Board of Surgery Assessments: A National Investigation of Surgical Trainees.

To determine the relationship between, and predictive utility of, milestone ratings and subsequent American Board of Surgery (ABS) vascular surgery in-training examination (VSITE), vascular qualifying examination (VQE), and vascular certifying examination (VCE) performance in a national cohort of vascular surgery trainees. Specialty board certification is an important indicator of physician competence. However, predicting future board certification examination performance during training continues to be challenging. This is a national longitudinal cohort study examining relational and predictive associations between Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Milestone ratings and performance on VSITE, VQE, and VCE for all vascular surgery trainees from 2015 to 2021. Predictive associations between milestone ratings and VSITE were conducted using cross-classified random-effects regression. Cross-classified random-effects logistic regression was used to identify predictive associations between milestone ratings and VQE and VCE. Milestone ratings were obtained for all residents and fellows(n=1,118) from 164 programs during the study period (from July 2015 to June 2021), including 145,959 total trainee assessments. Medical knowledge (MK) and patient care (PC) milestone ratings were strongly predictive of VSITE performance across all postgraduate years (PGYs) of training, with MK ratings demonstrating a slightly stronger predictive association overall (MK coefficient 17.26 to 35.76, β = 0.15 to 0.23). All core competency ratings were predictive of VSITE performance in PGYs 4 and 5. PGY 5 MK was highly predictive of VQE performance [OR 4.73, (95% CI, 3.87-5.78), P <0.001]. PC subcompetencies were also highly predictive of VQE performance in the final year of training [OR 4.14, (95% CI, 3.17-5.41), P <0.001]. All other competencies were also significantly predictive of first-attempt VQE pass with ORs of 1.53 and higher. PGY 4 ICS ratings [OR 4.0, (95% CI, 3.06-5.21), P <0.001] emerged as the strongest predictor of VCE first-attempt pass. Again, all subcompetency ratings remained significant predictors of first-attempt pass on CE with ORs of 1.48 and higher. ACGME Milestone ratings are highly predictive of future VSITE performance, and first-attempt pass achievement on VQE and VCE in a national cohort of surgical trainees.

Reported Pain at Work Is a Risk Factor for Vascular Surgery Trainee Burnout

Work-related pain is a known risk factor for vascular surgeon burnout. It risks early attrition from our workforce and is a recognized threat to the specialty. Our study aimed to understand whether work-related pain similarly contributed to vascular surgery trainee well-being. A confidential, voluntary survey was administered after the 2022 Vascular Surgery In-Training Exam. Trainees in all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited vascular surgery programs were asked to complete a modified, abbreviated Maslach Burnout Inventory. Pain after a full day of work was measured using a 10-point Likert scale and dichotomized into none to mild pain (0-2) vs moderate to severe pain (3-9). Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were used to assess associations of pain with well-being indicators such as burnout, thoughts of attrition, and career change. Pain management strategies were included as covariables in our study. There were 527 who trainees completed the survey (82.2% response rate). After a full day of working, 38% reported moderate to severe discomfort/pain. Among those who reported moderate to severe pain, 73.6% reported using ergonomic adjustments and 67.0% over-the-counter medications. More women tended to report moderate to severe pain than men (44.3% vs 34.5%; P < .01) (Table I). After adjusting for gender, training level, race/ethnicity, mistreatment, and lack of operative autonomy (a proxy for loss of meaning in work), moderate-to-severe pain (odds ratio, 2.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.48-4.26) and using physiotherapy as pain management (odds ratio, 3.06; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-9.14) were risk factors for burnout. Moderate to severe pain was not a risk factor for thoughts of attrition or career change following adjustment (Table II). Physical pain is prevalent among vascular surgery trainees and represents a risk factor for trainee burnout. Programs should provide ergonomic education and adjuncts, such as posture awareness and microbreaks during surgery, early and throughout training.Table IUnivariable associations of vascular surgery trainee characteristics and well-being with moderate to severe painModerate to severe painP valueYes (n = 200, %)No (n = 327, %)Male118 (34.5)224 (65.6)Female82 (44.3)103 (55.7).03Race/ethnicity Non-Hispanic White109 (41.8)152 (58.4) Non-Hispanic Black10 (35.7)18 (64.3) Hispanic/Latinx14 (33.3)28 (66.7) Asian45 (33.8)88 (66.2) Other12 (41.4)17 (58.6) Prefer not to say10 (37.0)17 (63.0).69Postgraduate year 123 (36.5)40(63.5) 2-344 (34.7)83 (65.3) 5-7133 (39.5)204 (60.5).62Did not feel they had appropriate level of OR autonomy16 (59.3)11 (40.7).06Thoughts of attrition29 (54.7)164 (40.4).047Thoughts of career change28 (14.5)21 (7.8).02Burnout125 (54.1)75 (25.3)<.001Mistreatment147 (79.9)132 (54.1)<.001 Open table in a new tab Table IIMultivariable associations of risk factors with burnout, thoughts of attrition, and thoughts of career change in vascular surgery traineesBurnoutAttritionCareer changeOR95% CIP valueOR95% CIP valueOR95% CIP valueModerate to severe pain2.521.48-4.260.0011.690.77-3.700.192.100.92-4.820.08Gender MaleRefRefRef Female0.960.53-2.740.900.540.22-1.320.180.540.22-1.360.19Race NH WhiteRefRefRef NH Black1.040.29-3.740.950.330.02-4.510.411.470.22-9.720.69Hispanic/Latinx0.430.16-1.180.100.850.20-3.650.830.650.12-3.450.62 Asian0.800.43-1.490.491.540.62-3.820.360.910.32-2.610.84 Other0.590.36-4.060.361.640.31-8.570.561.790.33-9.720.50 Prefer not to say1.210.36-4.060.761.140.25-5.110.872.330.56-9.620.24Postgraduate year level 1RefRefRef 2-31.760.70-4.410.230.690.20-2.400.560.810.21-3.110.76 4-71.150.50-2.640.740.670.22-2.040.490.910.27-3.020.88Pain management OTC medications1.270.75-2.170.370.540.24-1.200.130.590.26-1.350.21Orthotics (eg, brace, footware, etc)1.350.72-2.530.350.910.37-2.200.832.200.77-6.320.14 Yoga/Pilates0.790.43-1.450.440.950.39-2.290.910.510.21-1.240.14 Physiotherapy3.061.02-9.140.0453.950.44-35.40.223.650.41-32.700.25Massage/chiropractic/acupuncture0.770.43-1.400.400.540.23-1.270.160.830.35-1.980.67Ergonomic adjustments0.700.40-1.230.211.520.68-3.410.310.980.42-2.310.96Did not feel they had appropriate level of operative autonomy9.892.02-48.40.0111.856.07-35.54<0.0019.993.31-30.11<0.001Any form of mistreatment2.621.42-4.800.0025.201.40-19.310.015.501.21-25.080.03CI, Confidence interval; OR, odds ratio; Ref, reference; OTC, over the counter; NH, non-Hispanic/Latinx. Open table in a new tab

Defining sources and ramifications of mistreatment among female vascular surgery trainees

ObjectiveMistreatment among vascular surgery trainees is a known risk factor for physician burnout. This study aims to characterize forms of and identify sources of mistreatment. MethodsThis is a cross-sectional study of United States vascular surgery trainees who voluntarily participated in an anonymous survey administered after the 2021 Vascular Surgery In-Training Examination. The primary outcome measures were self-reported mistreatment and sources of mistreatment between genders. Logistic regression was used for multivariable analysis. ResultsRepresenting all 125 vascular surgery training programs, 510 trainees (66.9% male) participated in the survey (83.6% response rate). Mistreatment was reported by 54.8% of trainees, with twice as many women reporting as men (82.3% vs 41.0%; P < .001). Women reported higher rates of being shouted at (44.1% vs 21.1%; P < .001); repeatedly reminded of errors (24.3% vs 16.1%; P = .04); ignored/treated hostilely (28.9% vs 10.5%; P < .001); subjected to crude/sexually demeaning remarks, stories, jokes (19.2% vs 2.1%; P < .001); evaluated by different standards (29.3% vs 2.1%; P < .001); and mistaken for a non-physician (75.2% vs 3.5%; P < .001). Among trainees reporting bullying, attendings were the most common source (68.5%). Patients and their families were the most common source of sexual harassment (66.7%), gender discrimination (90.4%), and racial discrimination (74.4%). Compared with men, women identified more patients and families as the source of bullying (50.0% vs 29.7%; P = .005), gender discrimination (97.2% vs 50.0%; P < .001), and sexual harassment (78.4% vs 27.3%; P = .003). Compared with men, women more frequently felt unprepared to respond to the behavior in the moment (10.4% vs 4.6%; P = .002), did not know how to report mistreatment at their institution (7.6% vs 3.2%; P = .04), and did not believe that their institution would take their mistreatment report seriously (9.0% vs 3.9%; P = .002). On multivariable analysis, female gender was an independent risk factor for both gender discrimination (odds ratio, 56.62; 95% confidence interval, 27.89-115) and sexual harassment (odds ratio, 26.2; 95% confidence interval, 3.34-14.8) when adjusting for children, training year, relationship status, and training program location. ConclusionsA majority of vascular surgery trainees experience mistreatment during training. Sources and forms of abuse are varied. Understanding the sources of mistreatment is critical to guide intervention strategies such as faculty remediation and/or sanctions; allyship training for staff, residents, and faculty; and institutional procedures for patient-initiated abuse.

Predictive factors of first-time failure on the American Board of Colorectal Surgery certifying and qualifying examinations

Objective To discover if first-attempt failure of the American Board of Colon and Rectal Surgery (ABCRS) board examination is associated with surgical training or personal demographic characteristics. Methods Current colon and rectal surgery program directors in the United States were contacted via email. Deidentified records of trainees from 2011 to 2019 were requested. Analysis was performed to identify associations between individual risk factors and failure on the ABCRS board examination on the first attempt. Results Seven programs contributed data, totaling 67 trainees. The overall first-time pass rate was 88% (n = 59). Several variables demonstrated potential for association, including Colon and Rectal Surgery In-Training Examination (CARSITE) percentile (74.5 vs 68.0, P = 0.09), number of major cases in colorectal residency (245.0 vs 219.2, P = 0.16), >5 publications during colorectal residency (75.0% vs 25.0%, P = 0.19), and first-time passage of the American Board of Surgery certifying examination (92.5% vs 7.5%, P = 0.18). Conclusion The ABCRS board examination is a high-stakes test, and training program factors may be predictive of failure. Although several factors showed potential for association, none reached statistical significance. Our hope is that by increasing our data set, we will identify statistically significant associations that can potentially benefit future trainees in colon and rectal surgery.

Vascular Surgery In-Training Examination performance following implementation of the Vascular Surgical Council on Resident Education curriculum

ObjectiveThe Vascular Surgery Surgical Council on Resident Education (VSCORE) program is a standardized curriculum intended to prepare Vascular Surgery trainees for the annual Vascular Surgery In-Training Examination (VSITE). This study evaluated the performance of 0+5 and 5+2 Vascular Surgery trainees on the VSITE prior to and following implementation of the VSCORE curriculum. MethodsVSITE scores, measured as percentage of questions correct, were collected for Vascular Surgery trainees at a United States academic medical center between 2015 and 2022. The VSITE scores were compared for the periods prior to (2015-2021) and following (2022) implementation of the VSCORE curriculum. ResultsFifty-seven VSITE scores were evaluated, including 46 examinations completed prior to and 11 after the implementation of the VSCORE curriculum. The mean VSITE score across all training levels (post-graduate year [PGY] 1-7) increased significantly from 68.4% ± 1.5% prior to implementation of VSCORE curriculum to 76.5% ± 3.1% following implementation (P = .03). Two-way analysis of variance identified pre- and post-VSCORE implementation as a statistically significant categorical variable when residents were stratified into junior (PGY 1-2), senior (PGY 3-5), and fellow (PGY 6-7) training levels (P < .001). The mean change in score between consecutive years also increased following VSCORE implementation (14.1% ± 2.3%) compared with the pre-VSCORE era (5.7% ± 1.7%; P = .002) ConclusionsThe implementation of the VSCORE curriculum at an academic medical center improved VSITE scores across vascular surgery trainees at all levels.

The Program Director Perspective: Perceptions of PGY5 Residents' Operative Self-Efficacy and Entrustment.

A 2020 survey of post-graduate year 5 (PGY5) general surgery residents linked to the American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination (ABSITE) revealed significant deficits in self-efficacy (SE), or personal judgment of one's ability to complete a task, for 10 commonly performed operations. Identifying whether this deficit is similarly perceived by program directors (PDs) has not been well established. We hypothesized that PDs would perceive higher levels of operative SE compared to PGY5s. A survey was distributed through the Association of Program Directors in Surgery listserv; PDs were queried about their PGY5 residents' ability to perform the same 10 operations independently and their accuracy of patient assessments and operative plans for components of several core entrustable professional activities (EPAs). Results of this survey were compared to PGY5 residents' perception of their SE and entrustment based on the 2020 post-ABSITE survey. Chi-squared tests were used for statistical analysis. 108 responses were received, representing ∼32% (108/342) of general surgery programs. Perceptions from PDs of PGY5 residents' operative SE were highly concordant with resident perceptions; no significant differences were observed for 9 of 10 procedures. Both PGY5 residents and PDs perceived adequate levels of entrustment; no significant differences were observed for 6 of 8 EPA components. These findings show concordance between PDs and PGY5 residents in their perceptions of operative SE and entrustment. Though both groups perceive adequate levels of entrustment, PDs corroborate the previously described operative SE deficit, illustrating the importance of improved preparation for independent practice.

Persistent racial discrimination among vascular surgery trainees threatens wellness.

Racial/ethnic discrimination is one form of mistreatment and a known risk factor for physician burnout. In the present study, we aimed to characterize the forms and identify the sources of racial/ethnic discrimination among vascular surgery trainees. We performed a cross-sectional study of U.S. vascular surgery trainees who had voluntarily participated in an anonymous survey administered after the 2021 Vascular Surgery In-Training Examination. The primary outcome measures were self-reported mistreatment and sources of mistreatment between race and ethnicity groups. We used χ2 tests and logistic regression for bivariate and multivariable analyses, respectively. Representing all 123 vascular surgery training programs, 510 trainees (66.9% men) participated in the survey (83.6% response rate). Most of the trainees had self-identified as White (53.1%), followed by Asian (24.4%), Hispanic/Latinx (7.6%), Black (4.2%), and other/prefer not to say (10.8%). No significant differences were found in the self-reported duty hour violations among the groups. Black (56.3%) and Asian (36.3%) trainees reported higher rates of racial/ethnic discrimination compared with the White, Hispanic/Latinx, and other/prefer not to say groups (P< .001). Patients and their families were reported as the most common source (74.7%). Other reported sources of discrimination included nurses or staff (60%), attendings (37.4%), co-residents (31.3%), and administration (16.9%). Regarding specific forms of racial discrimination, Black and Asian trainees reported the highest rates of different standards of evaluation (20% and 5.9%, respectively), being mistaken for a nonphysician (50.0% and 5.9%, respectively), slurs and/or hurtful comments (13.3% and 5.9%, respectively), social isolation (13.0% and 1.0%, respectively), and being mistaken for another trainee of the same race/ethnicity (60.0% and 33.7%, respectively). Only 62.5% of Black trainees reported their program/institution would take their mistreatment report seriously compared with the White (88.9%), Hispanic/Latinx (88.2%), Asian (83.2%), and other/prefer not to say (71.4%) trainees (P= .01). On multivariable analysis, female gender (odds ratio [OR], 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.44-4.33), Asian race (OR, 6.9; 95% CI, 3.53-13.3), Black race (OR, 13.6; 95% CI, 4.25-43.4), and training in the Southeastern United States (OR, 3.8; 95% CI, 1.17-12.80) were risk factors for racial/ethnic discrimination. The results from the survey revealed that racial/ethnic discrimination persists in surgical training programs, with Asian and Black trainees reporting higher rates than other racial and ethnic groups. Overall, patients and family members were the most common source of racial/ethnic discrimination. However, faculty, staff, and co-trainees also contributed to racial/ethnic discrimination. Further interventions that optimize diversity, equity, and inclusion strategies and policies to address all forms of racial/ethnic discrimination with faculty, staff, and patients within the hospital are critically needed.

ChatGPT Performs at the Level of a Third-Year Orthopaedic Surgery Resident on the Orthopaedic In-Training Examination.

Publicly available AI language models such as ChatGPT have demonstrated utility in text generation and even problem-solving when provided with clear instructions. Amidst this transformative shift, the aim of this study is to assess ChatGPT's performance on the orthopaedic surgery in-training examination (OITE). All 213 OITE 2021 web-based questions were retrieved from the AAOS-ResStudy website (https://www.aaos.org/education/examinations/ResStudy). Two independent reviewers copied and pasted the questions and response options into ChatGPT Plus (version 4.0) and recorded the generated answers. All media-containing questions were flagged and carefully examined. Twelve OITE media-containing questions that relied purely on images (clinical pictures, radiographs, MRIs, CT scans) and could not be rationalized from the clinical presentation were excluded. Cohen's Kappa coefficient was used to examine the agreement of ChatGPT-generated responses between reviewers. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the performance (% correct) of ChatGPT Plus. The 2021 norm table was used to compare ChatGPT Plus' performance on the OITE to national orthopaedic surgery residents in that same year. A total of 201 questions were evaluated by ChatGPT Plus. Excellent agreement was observed between raters for the 201 ChatGPT-generated responses, with a Cohen's Kappa coefficient of 0.947. 45.8% (92/201) were media-containing questions. ChatGPT had an average overall score of 61.2% (123/201). Its score was 64.2% (70/109) on non-media questions. When compared to the performance of all national orthopaedic surgery residents in 2021, ChatGPT Plus performed at the level of an average PGY3. ChatGPT Plus is able to pass the OITE with an overall score of 61.2%, ranking at the level of a third-year orthopaedic surgery resident. It provided logical reasoning and justifications that may help residents improve their understanding of OITE cases and general orthopaedic principles. Further studies are still needed to examine their efficacy and impact on long-term learning and OITE/ABOS performance.

Assessing Resident Well-Being After the ABSITE: A Bad Time to Ask?

An annual survey evaluating surgical resident well-being is administered following the American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination (ABSITE). One concern about administering a survey after the ABSITE is that stress from the exam may influence their responses. A survey was administered to all general surgery residents following the 2018 ABSITE assessing positive and negative emotions (scales range from 0 to 12), as well as burnout, suicidality over the past 12 months, and mistreatment (discrimination, sexual harassment verbal/emotional or physical abuse) in the past academic year. Multivariable hierarchical regressions assessed the associations of exam performance and emotions with burnout, suicidality, and mistreatment. Residents from 262 programs provided complete responses (N = 6987, 93.6% response rate). Residents reported high mean positive emotion (M = 7.54, SD = 2.35) and low mean negative emotion (M = 5.33, SD = 2.43). While residents in the bottom ABSITE score quartile reported lower positive and higher negative emotion than residents in the top 2 and 3 quartiles, respectively (P < 0.005), exam performance was not associated with the reported likelihood of burnout, suicidality, or mistreatment. Residents' emotions after the ABSITE are largely positive. Although poor exam performance may be associated with lower positive and higher negative emotion, it does not seem to be associated with the likelihood of reporting burnout, suicidality, or mistreatment. After adjusting for exam performance and emotions, mistreatment remained independently associated with burnout and suicidality. These findings support existing evidence demonstrating that burnout and suicidality are stable constructs that are robust to transient stress and/or emotions.

The vascular surgery in-training examination predicts performance on qualifying examination.

Vascular surgery trainees participate in the vascular surgery in-training examination (VSITE) during each year of their training. Although the VSITE was developed as a low-stakes, formative examination, performance on that examination might correlate with the pass rates for the Vascular Surgery Board written qualifying examination (VQE) and oral certifying examination (VCE) and might, therefore, guide both trainees and program directors. The present study was designed to examine the ability of the VSITE to predict trainees' performance on the VQE and VCE. All first-time candidates of the Vascular Surgery Board VQE and VCE were analyzed from 2016 to 2020, including those from both the integrated and independent training pathways. VSITE scores from the final year of training were associated with the VQE scores and the probability of passing the VQE and VCE both. Linear and logistic regression models were used to determine the ability of VSITE results to predict the VQE scores and the probability of passing each board examination. VSITE scores available for the 559 candidates (69.3% male; 30.7% female) who had completed the VQE and 369 candidates (66.7% male; 33.3% female) who had completed both the VQE and the VCE. The linear regression model results for the final year of training showed that the VSITE scores explained 34% of the variance in the VQE scores (29% for the integrated and 37% for the independent trainees). Logistic regression demonstrated that the final year VSITE scores were a significant predictor of passing the VQE for both integrated and independent trainees (P< .001). A VSITE score of 500 during the final year of training predicted a VQE passing probability of >90% for each group of candidates. The probability of passing the VQE decreased to 73% for candidates from integrated programs, 61% for candidates from independent programs, and 64% for the whole cohort when the score was 400. The VSITE scores were a significant predictor of passing the VCE only for the candidates from independent programs (odds ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.02; P< .01), for whom a VSITE score of 400 correlated with an 82% probability of passing the VCE. VSITE performance is predictive of passing the VQE for trainees from both integrated and independent training paradigms. Vascular surgery trainees and training programs should optimize their preparation and educational efforts to maximize performance on the VSITE during their final year of training to improve the likelihood of passing the VQE. Further analysis of the predictive value of VSITE scores during the earlier years of training might allow the board certification examinations to be administered earlier in the final year of training.

Improving American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination Scores Through a Team-Based Approach

Improving American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination Scores Through a Team-Based Approach

National Comparison of Program Director Perceptions vs. Resident Reports of the Learning Environment and Well-Being

Our research objectives were to (1) assess the correlation between PD perceptions and their residents' reported experiences and (2) identify PD and program characteristics associated with alignment between PD perceptions and their residents' reports. A survey was administered to US general surgery residents following the 2019 American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination (ABSITE) to study wellness (burnout, thoughts of attrition, and suicidality) and mistreatment (gender discrimination, sexual harassment, racial/ethnic/religious discrimination, bullying). General surgery program directors (PDs) were surveyed about the degree to which they perceived mistreatment and wellness within their programs. Concordance between PDs' perceptions and their residents' reports was assessed using Spearman correlations. Multivariable logistic regression models examined factors associated with alignment between PDs and residents. Of 6,126 residents training at SECOND Trial-enrolled programs, 5,240 (85.5%) responded to the ABSITE survey. All 212 PDs of programs enrolled in the SECOND Trial (100%) responded to the PD survey. Nationally, the proportion of PDs perceiving wellness issues was similar to the proportion of residents reporting them (e.g., 54.9% of PDs perceive that burnout is a problem vs. 40.1% of residents experience at least one burnout symptom weekly); however, the proportion of PDs perceiving mistreatment vastly underestimated the proportion of residents reporting it (e.g., 9.3% of all PDs perceive vs. 65.9% of all residents report bullying). Correlations between PDs' perceptions of problems within their program and their residents' reports were weak for racial/ethnic/religious discrimination (r = 0.176, p = 0.019), sexual harassment (r = 0.180, p = 0.019), burnout (r = 0.198, p = 0.007), and thoughts of attrition (r = 0.193, p = 0.007), and non-existent for gender discrimination, bullying, or suicidality. Multivariable regression models did not identify any program or PD characteristics that were consistently associated with improved resident-program director alignment. Resident and PD perceptions were generally disparate regarding mistreatment, burnout, thoughts of attrition, and suicidality. Reconciling this discrepancy is critical to enacting meaningful change to improve the learning environment and resident well-being.

The fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery in general surgery residency: fundamental for junior residents' self-efficacy.

Implementation of the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) by the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) has served a need for educational structure for laparoscopic skill within General Surgery training since 2004. This study looks at how FLS affects resident self-efficacy (SE) with laparoscopic procedures. We conducted a national survey, linked to the 2020 American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination (ABSITE), in which 9275 residents from 325 US General Surgery Training Programs participated. The online survey included multimodal questions that analyzed whether participants felt they could perform the most commonly-logged laparoscopic operationsamong residents [Laparoscopic Appendectomy (LA), Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy (LC), Laparoscopic Right Hemicolectomy (LRH), Diagnostic Laparoscopy (DL)] without faculty assistance. This used a 5-point scaled assessment, ranging from "not able to" to "definitely able to." Multivariate analyses determined if completion of FLS made a difference for resident self-efficacy, stratified by post-graduate year (PGY). At the time of the survey, 2300 reported completion of FLS. The percentage of FLS completion increased from PGY1 to PGY5 (4.2% n = 59 vs 85.8% n = 893). PGY1 residents who completed FLS, from 48 diverse institutions, demonstrated the most significant increases in SE (p < 0.05) with significantly higher perceived self-efficacy in LA (p = 0.001) and LRH (p = 0.012). PGY2 and PGY3 residents indicated increased SE in DL (p = 0.037, p = 0.015, respectively), based on FLS completion. These FLS effects were less evident in the more senior classes. Completion of FLS arguably has the greatest benefits for more junior residents, as it establishes a foundation of laparoscopic knowledge and skill, upon which further residency training can build. Successful completion of the curriculum and assessment offered by the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery leads to greater sense of ability in early trainees.

Bridging the Gap: How to Get Osteopathic Residents Into Fellowships.

IntroductionThe fellowship match process is convoluted, with each specialty having its match on its timeline- with some programs having a Post Graduate Year (PGY) 4th-year or 5th-year match.This study aims to identify tangible recommendations for osteopathic surgery residents to use to improve their applications and, ultimately, the success rate for matching into post-graduate fellowship training.MethodsIn October 2021, as a part of the American College of Osteopathic Surgeons (ACOS) Strategic Planning efforts, the ACOS Resident Student Section sent a questionnaire to the listed email contact for each surgical fellowship program. Fellowship coordinators and program directors were included in the survey. The programs that were included in the study were vascular, thoracic (which included cardiothoracic), surgical critical care, endocrine, hepatobiliary, transplant, pediatric, surgical oncology, breast, minimally invasive, and colorectal surgery.ResultsOf the 108 programs that answered the survey, 36% of them reported they currently had an osteopathic fellow, and another 29% said they had an osteopathic fellow in the past. 35% of the programs listed that they had never had an osteopathic fellow in their program.In regards to how residents can improve their application for fellowship matches the most common answer was research in the field, they were trying to match into. They wanted to see high scores on the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) and American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination (ABSITE) exams. They also noted that they wanted candidates from more well know residency programs, where they knew the residents would have gotten good training.ConclusionWe recommend that any potential fellowship applicant focus on the following three areas increase competitiveness for matching into fellowship training: publication in the desired field, increased overall scholarly activity, and increased ABSITE scores.

Factors influencing American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination score: resident perception vs. reality

Factors influencing American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination score: resident perception vs. reality