Advertisement

Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics

, Volume 300, Issue 5, pp 1353–1366 | Cite as

Gynecology-obstetric resident surgery training: a national evaluation

  • M. M. Gac
  • L. Duminil
  • S. Bonneau
  • R. Gabriel
  • O. Graesslin
  • Emilie RaimondEmail author
Gynecologic Oncology
  • 29 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

The main objective of this study was to evaluate surgery training and evaluation of French gynecology-obstetrics residents. The second objective was to evaluate using simulation during residency.

Study design

This national descriptive study, utilized a questionnaire to survey all interns in French gynecology and obstetrics. At the end of a study, 129 responses of residents were analyzed.

Results

The participation rate was 12%. The majority of residents were women (84%) and the highest response rate was from the Ile-de-France region (36%). The lowest rate was from the Southern region. The majority of residents were in the eighth semester (20%). Residents reported surgical and obstetric orientations in 53% (n = 68) and 44% (n = 57) of cases, respectively. Registration for cancer oncology was reported by 22% (n = 28) of respondents. Evaluation of oncologic surgery training was mostly considered “good” by the surgical group and “passable” by the obstetrics group. Access to simulators was usually restricted and most often utilized the pelvitrainer. Sessions were typically not mandatory and numbered between zero and five per semester. Three types of simulators were accessible in the Ile-de-France, North-West, West and Rhône-Alpes. The North-East did not have access to animal models, and the South-West did not have access to corpses. Surgical classes were more common in the Rhône-Alpes, North-East, Ile-de-France and North-West regions. To improve their training in oncological surgery, 64% (n = 18) of residents planned to do an inter-university exchange and 54% had completed additional specialized training. Measures that were most expected to improve training were increased training in surgery (96% of respondents, n = 27) and more intensive coaching (96%, n = 27).

Conclusions

Companionship is a pillar of residents training, but its effectiveness is variable. One solution could be to implement better use of simulation methods.

Keywords

Assessment Surgical training Internal Gynecology-obstetrics 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no confict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Granry JC, Moll MC (2012) Rapport de mission : état de l’art (national et international) en matièrre de pratiques de simulation dans le domaine de la santé. Haute Autorité de santé. [Internet]. Disponible sur: Rapport accessible sur http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-01/simulation_en_sante_-_rapport.pdf
  2. 2.
    Crochet P, Aggarwal R, Berdah S, Yaribakht S, Boubli L, Gamerre M et al (2014) Utilisation des simulateurs pour former les internes de chirurgie gynécologique en France : un état des lieux en 2013. J Gynécologie Obstétrique Biol Reprod 43(5):379–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Botchorishvili R, Rabischong B, Larraín D, Khoo CK, Gaia G, Jardon K et al (2012) Educational value of an intensive and structured interval practice laparoscopic training course for residents in obstetrics and gynecology: a four-year prospective, multi-institutional recruitment study. J Surg Educ 69(2):173–179CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Philippe A-C, Botchorishvili R, Pereira B, Canis M, Bourdel N, Mage G et al (2013) Intérêt d’un enseignement structuré de la cœlioscopie en centre de simulation: enquête d’opinion auprès des internes. J Gynécologie Obstétrique Biol Reprod 42(3):238–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rathat G, Hoa D, Gagnayre R, Hoffet M, Mares P (2008) Formation chirurgicale des internes, spécialistes en gynécologie-obstétrique : résultats d’une enquête électronique nationale. J Gynécologie Obstétrique Biol Reprod 37(7):672–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tranchart H, Aurégan JC, Gaillard M, Giocanti-Aurégan A (2015) Évaluation des compétences techniques des internes de chirurgie ophtalmologique, orthopédique et digestive français: état actuel et perspectives. J Fr Ophtalmol 38(8):679–688CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Postes et rangs en gynécologie-obstétrique [Internet]. Disponible sur. https://www.remede.org/internat/cartes-enc/index.html. Accessed 26 May 2019
  8. 8.
    Fournié A, Descamps P (2006) La formation des internes de gynécologie obstétrique À propos d’une expérience de visites sur sites. J Gynécol Obstét Biol Reprod 35:538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Appleton S, Huguelet P (2016) Laparoscopy skills simulation for the obstetrics and gynecology resident. MedEdPORTAL Publ [cité 26 mai 2019];12. Disponible sur. https://www.mededportal.org/publication/10460. Accessed 26 May 2019
  10. 10.
    Jordan A, El Haloui O, Breaud J, Chevalier D, Antomarchi J, Bongain A et al (2015) Formation des internes de gynécologie obstétrique: évaluation d’un programme pédagogique intégrant cours théoriques et sessions pratiques sur simulateurs. Gynécol Obstét Fertil 43(7–8):560–567CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Danion J, Delpech P-O, Breque C, Oriot D, Richer J-P, Faure J-P (2017) Simlife: un nouveau dispositif de simulation à très haut degré de réalisme en médecine interventionnelle. Morphologie 101(335):182–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fazel A, Fauvet R, Bats A-S (2019) Evaluation de la formation chirurgicale pratique des internes DES de Gynécologie-Obstétrique. Disponible sur: https://www.edu.upmc.fr/medecine/pedagogie/memoire/Memoires%202011/2011%20PDF/Bats-Fauvet-Fazel.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2019
  13. 13.
    Acosta D, Castillo-Angeles M, Garces-Descovich A, Watkins AA, Gupta A, Critchlow JF et al (2018) Surgical practical skills learning curriculum: implementation and interns’ confidence perceptions. J Surg Educ 75(2):263–270CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Shore EM, Lefebvre GG, Grantcharov TP (2015) Gynecology resident laparoscopy training: present and future. Am J Obstet Gynecol 212(3):298–301.e1CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département de Gynécologie-ObstétriqueHôpital Maison BlancheReims CedexFrance
  2. 2.Université de Reims-Champagne-ArdennesReimsFrance

Personalised recommendations