Advertisement

World Journal of Surgery

, Volume 36, Issue 9, pp 2011–2014 | Cite as

Participation of Surgical Residents in Operations: Challenging a Common Classification

  • Jeff Bezemer
  • Alexandra Cope
  • Omar Faiz
  • Roger Kneebone
Article

Abstract

Background

One important form of surgical training for residents is their participation in actual operations, for instance as an assistant or supervised surgeon. The aim of this study was to explore what participation in operations entails and how it might be described and analyzed.

Methods

A qualitative study was undertaken in a major teaching hospital in London. A total of 122 general surgical operations were observed. A subsample of 14 laparoscopic cholecystectomies involving one or more residents was analyzed in detail. Audio and video recordings of eight operations were transcribed and analyzed linguistically.

Results

The degree of participation of trainees frequently shifted as the operation progressed to the next stage. Participation also varied within each stage. When trainees operated under supervision, the supervisors constantly adjusted their degree of control over the resident’s operative maneuvers.

Conclusions

Classifications such as “assistant” and “supervised surgeon” describing a trainee’s overall participation in an operation potentially misrepresent the varying involvement of resident and supervisor. Video recordings provide a useful alternative for documenting and analyzing actual participation in operations.

Keywords

Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy Operative Maneuver Junior Trainee National Health Service Research Wireless Microphone 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The research was supported by the Royal College of Surgeons of England, which funded a research fellowship (2009–2010), and the London Deanery, which granted an award under the Simulation and Technology-Enhanced Learning Initiative (2009–2011).

Conflicts of interest

None.

References

  1. 1.
    Eubanks TR, Clements RH, Pohl D et al (1999) An objective scoring system for laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Am Coll Surg 189:566–574CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bezemer J, Jewitt C (2009) Multimodal analysis: key issues. In: Litosseliti L (ed) Research methods in linguistics. Continuum, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moore A, Butt D, Ellis-Clarke J et al (2010) Linguistic analysis of verbal and non-verbal communication in the operating room. ANZ J Surg 80:925–929PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sethi G, Hammermeister K, Oprian C et al (1991) Impact of resident training on postoperative morbidity in patients undergoing single valve replacement. Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study on Valvular Heart Disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 101:1053–1059PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Acun Z, Cihan A, Ulukent SC et al (2004) A randomized prospective study of complications between general surgery residents and attending surgeons in near-total thyroidectomies. Surg Today 34:997–1001PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rijbroek A, Wisselink W, Rauwerda JA (2003) The impact of training in unselected patients on mortality and morbidity in carotid endarterectomy in a vascular training center and the recommendations of the European Board of Surgery Qualification in Vascular Surgery. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 26:256–261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Société Internationale de Chirurgie 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeff Bezemer
    • 1
  • Alexandra Cope
    • 1
  • Omar Faiz
    • 1
  • Roger Kneebone
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of SurgeryImperial College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations