Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Laparoscopy influences hiring practices within academic surgical departments

  • Published:
Surgical Endoscopy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

This study aimed to determine whether the increasing emphasis on minimally invasive surgery (MIS) influences hiring practices within academic surgical departments.

Methods

A questionnaire was mailed to chairs of surgery departments and divisions of general surgery at the 16 Canadian academic institutions. Nonresponders were identified and contacted directly. The survey consisted of 34 questions, including Likert scales, single answers, and multiple-choice questions. Data were collected on demographics, perceptions of MIS, and recruitment/hiring. At the time of the survey, two department chair positions were vacant.

Results

A response rate of 87% (26/30) was obtained, with representation from 94% of departments (15/16). Of those surveyed, 88% intend to increase the importance of MIS at their institution within 5 years, and 87% intend to achieve this objective through new hirings. Networking (73%) and retention of recent graduates (89%) were cited most frequently as recruitment strategies. Strengthening the division, research, and education were considered important or extremely important by more than 90% of the respondents with respect to recruitment goals, whereas strengthening MIS was considered important or extremely important by 50%. Within 5 years, surgical departments intend to hire a median of four general surgeons, 50% of whom will have formal MIS training. In comparison, over the past 10 years, only 25% of new recruits had formal MIS training. More than 90% of the respondents considered formal MIS fellowship, MIS fellowship plus a second fellowship, and proctorship to be adequate training for performing advanced MIS, whereas traditional methods were considered inadequate. Lack of operative time and resource issues were considered most limiting in the hiring of new MIS surgeons.

Conclusion

Minimally invasive surgery is growing in importance within academic surgical departments, but it remains an intermediate recruitment priority. Formal MIS training appears to be important in the recruiting of new surgeons, whereas traditional training methods are considered inadequate.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mühe E (1986) Die erste: cholecystecktomie durch das laparoskop (The first laparoscopic cholecystectomy). Langenbecks Arch Surg 369:804

    Google Scholar 

  2. Glasgow RE, Yee LF, Mulvihill SJ (1997) Laparoscopic splenectomy: the emerging standard. Surg Endosc 11:108–112

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Smith CD, Weber CJ, Amerson JR (1999) Laparoscopic adrenalectomy: new gold standard. World J Surg 23:389–396

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Kuo PC, Johnson LB, Sitzmann JV (2000) Laparoscopic donor nephrectomy with a 23-hour stay: a new standard for transplantation surgery. Ann Surg 231:772–779

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Salminen PT, Hiekkanen HI, Rantala AP, Ovaska JT (2007) Comparison of long-term outcome of laparoscopic and conventional Nissen fundoplication: a prospective randomized study with an 11-year follow-up. Ann Surg 246:201–206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. The Clinical Outcomes of Surgical Therapy Study Group (2004) A comparison of laparoscopically assisted and open colectomy for colon cancer. N Engl J Med 350:2050–2059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Colon Cancer Laparoscopic or Open Resection Study Group (COLOR) (2005) Laparoscopic surgery versus open surgery for colon cancer: short-term outcomes of a randomized trial. Lancet Oncol 6:477–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Guillou PJ, Quirke P, Thorpe H, Walker J, Jayne DG, Smith AM, Heath RM, Brown JM, MRC CLASICC Trial Group (2005) Short-term end points of conventional versus laparoscopic-assisted surgery in patients with colorectal cancer (MRC CLASICC trial): multicentre, randomized controlled trial. Lancet 365:1718–1726

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Jayne DG, Guillou PJ, Thorpe H, Quirke P, Copeland J, Smith AMH, Heath RM, Brown JM, UK MRC CLASICC Trial Group (2007) Randomized trial of laparoscopic-assisted resection of colorectal carcinoma: 3-year results of the UK MRC CLASICC trial group. J Clin Oncol 25:3061–3068

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Koffron AJ, Auffenberg G, Kung R, Abecassis M (2007) Evaluation of 300 minimally invasive liver resections at a single institution: less is more. Ann Surg 246:385–392

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Palanivelu C, Jani K, Senthilnathan P, Parthasarathi R, Rajapandian S, Madhanjumar MV (2007) Laparoscopic pancreaticoduodenectomy: technique and outcomes. J Am Coll Surg 205:222–230

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Poulin EC, Gagné JP, Boushey RP (2006) Advanced laparoscopic skills acquisition: the case of laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Surg Clin North Am 86:987–1004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Society of American Gastrointestinal Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) (1998) Integrating advanced laparoscopy into surgical residency training. Surg Endosc 12:374–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Birch DW, Asiri AH, de Gara CJ (2007) The impact of a formal mentoring program for minimally invasive surgery on surgeon practice and patient outcomes. Am J Surg 193:589–591

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hutter MM, Kellogg KC, Ferguson CM, Abbott WM, Warshaw AL (2006) The impact of the 80-hour resident workweek on surgical residents and attending surgeons. Ann Surg 243:864–871

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Chiasson PM, Pace DE, Schlachta CM, Mamazza J, Poulin EC (2003) Minimally invasive surgery training in Canada: a survey of general surgery. Surg Endosc 17:371–377

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Jamieson S (2004) Likert scales: how to (ab)use them. Med Educ 38:1212–1218

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rattner DW, Apelgren KN, Eubanks WS (2001) The need for training opportunities in advanced laparoscopic surgery: the residents’ perspective. Surg Endosc 15:1066–1070

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Raymond E, Ternamian A, Leyland N, Tolomiczenko G (2006) Endoscopy teaching in Canada: a survey of obstetrics and gynecology program directors and graduating residents. J Minim Invasive Gynecol 13:10–16

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Duchene DA, Moinzadeh A, Gill IS, Clayman RV, Winfield HN (2006) Survey of residency training in laparoscopic and robotic surgery. J Urol 176:2158–2166

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Fried GM, Feldman LS, Vassiliou MC, Fraser SA, Stanbridge D, Ghitulescu G, Andrew CG (2004) Proving the value of simulation in laparoscopic surgery. Ann Surg 240:518–525

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Aggarwal R, Grantcharov TP, Eriksen JR, Blirup D, Kristiansen VB, Funch-Jensen P, Darzi A (2006) An evidence-based virtual reality training program for novice laparoscopic surgeons. Ann Surg 244:310–314

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to R. P. Boushey.

Additional information

Poster presentation at the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) annual meeting, Las Vegas, NV, 18–22 April 2007.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Martel, G., Poulin, É.C., Mamazza, J. et al. Laparoscopy influences hiring practices within academic surgical departments. Surg Endosc 23, 341–346 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-9934-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00464-008-9934-8

Keywords

Navigation