Advertisement

Skill Maintenance, Remediation, and Reentry

  • Marlin Wayne Causey
  • Robert M. RushJr.
Chapter
Part of the Comprehensive Healthcare Simulation book series (CHS)

Abstract

For practicing surgeons, maintaining surgical skills and/or acquiring new procedural ability depend on many factors and are accomplished in several ways. Maintenance of certification programs for the American Board of Medical Specialties lays out some of those requirements. None at this point involve demonstration of procedural or technical skill competency in the surgical specialties, though reporting of caseloads, maintaining good standing/privileges at a hospital or health system, and submitting surgical patient cases to an outcomes database are accepted surrogates. Acquiring and performing new procedures are hospital-dependent, based on medical staff bylaws and credentialing policies. Reentering a surgical practice and remediating surgical skills due to specific deficiencies are difficult based on a surgeon’s caseload, the duration of absences from the practice of surgery, and the experience and the circumstances related to absences. While continuing medical education (CME) programs/credit is used for knowledge and skill maintenance, as of 2018, high-stakes procedural skill assessment verifying that practicing surgeons meet minimum criteria to be safe is lacking. While FLS, FES, and the developing FRS and FUSE programs are required for graduating residents to show procedural competency prior to graduation from residency and initial board certification, none are required for maintenance of certification. Studies from military programmed absences, for example, demonstrated that a greater than 6-month absence leads to self-perceived skill decrement. Surgeons are significantly impacted based on the stage of their career development, with junior surgeons likely sustaining the most profound impact due to non-solidification of experience/practice, disruption of the cognitive to technical interface, and a need for surgical skills refinement. For a surgeon to reenter clinical practice, programs need to focus on simulation and mental skills curriculum to bring to baseline technical skills while also developing coping skills and determining the impact of potential external stressors. Programs designed for reentering the surgical workforce should seek to solidify the cognitive to technical skill interface, refine technical skills learned during formal training, and build upon existing surgical skills. A structured and surgeon-specific reentry program focusing on both cognitive and procedural-related skills is necessary, enhanced through inanimate simulation, specific live tissue/cadaveric skills practice/assessment, and cognitive/mental skill scenario training followed by or in parallel to supervised clinical reintegration.

Keywords

Remedial surgical training Surgery refresher training Low-volume surgery Mental skills Reentry into surgical practice Absence from surgical practice Skill decrement Crowdsourced assessments 

References

  1. 1.
    Enter DH, Lee R, Fann JI, Hicks GL Jr, Verrier ED, Mark R, et al. “Top gun” competition: motivation and practice narrows the technical skill gap among new cardiothoracic surgery residents. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015;99(3):870–5; discussion 875–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    O’Connor A, Schwaitzberg SD, Cao CG. How much feedback is necessary for learning to suture? Surg Endosc. 2008;22(7):1614–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cogbill TH. The general surgery milestone project. 2015 [cited 2017]; Available from: https://www.acgme.org/Portals/0/PDFs/Milestones/SurgeryMilestones.pdf.
  4. 4.
    Quillin RC 3rd, Cortez AR, Pritts TA, Hanseman DJ, Edwards MJ, Davis BR. Operative variability among residents has increased since implementation of the 80-hour workweek. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;222(6):1201–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Drake FT, Horvath KD, Goldin AB, Gow KW. The general surgery chief resident operative experience: 23 years of national ACGME case logs. JAMA Surg. 2013;148(9):841–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gupta N, Dragovic K, Trester R, Blankstein J. The changing scenario of obstetrics and gynecology residency training. J Grad Med Educ. 2015;7(3):401–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Obi A, Chung J, Chen R, Lin W, Sun S, Pozehl W, et al. Achieving Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education duty hours compliance within advanced surgical training: a simulation-based feasibility assessment. Am J Surg. 2015;210(5):947–50.e1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shore EM, Lefebvre GG, Husslein H, Bjerrum F, Sorensen JL, Grantcharov TP. Designing a standardized laparoscopy curriculum for gynecology residents: a delphi approach. J Grad Med Educ. 2015;7(2):197–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shore EM, Grantcharov TP, Husslein H, Shirreff L, Dedy NJ, McDermott CD, et al. Validating a standardized laparoscopy curriculum for gynecology residents: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;215:204.e1–e11.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Okrainec A, Soper NJ, Swanstrom LL, Fried GM. Trends and results of the first 5 years of fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) certification testing. Surg Endosc. 2011;25(4):1192–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Buyske J. The role of simulation in certification. Surg Clin North Am. 2010;90(3):619–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Yan H, Maximus S, Koopmann M, Keeley J, Smith B, Virgilio C, et al. Vascular trauma operative experience is inadequate in general surgery programs. Ann Vasc Surg. 2016;33:94–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kansier N, Varghese TK Jr, Verrier ED, Drake FT, Gow KW. Accreditation council for graduate medical education case log: general surgery resident thoracic surgery experience. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014;98(2):459–64; discussion 645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). Available from: www.acgme.org.
  15. 15.
    Dreyfus S, Dreyfus H. A five-stage model of the mental activities involved in directed skill acquisition. Washington D.C.: University of California, Berkley; 1980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wong JA, Matsumoto ED. Primer: cognitive motor learning for teaching surgical skill--how are surgical skills taught and assessed? Nat Clin Pract Urol. 2008;5(1):47–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hu YY, Parker SH, Lipsitz SR, Arriaga AF, Peyre SE, Corso KA, et al. Surgeons’ leadership styles and team behavior in the operating room. J Am Coll Surg. 2016;222(1):41–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hu YY, Peyre SE, Arriaga AF, Osteen RT, Corso KA, Weiser TG, et al. Postgame analysis: using video-based coaching for continuous professional development. J Am Coll Surg. 2012;214(1):115–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Waljee JF, Greenfield LJ, Dimick JB, Birkmeyer JD. Surgeon age and operative mortality in the United States. Ann Surg. 2006;244(3):353–62.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee HJ, Drag LL, Bieliauskas LA, Langenecker SA, Graver C, O'Neill J, et al. Results from the cognitive changes and retirement among senior surgeons self-report survey. J Am Coll Surg. 2009;209(5):668–71.e2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    McDonough PS, Tausch TJ, Peterson AC, Brand TC. Initial validation of the ProMIS surgical simulator as an objective measure of robotic task performance. J Robot Surg. 2011;5(3):195–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Blasier RB. The problem of the aging surgeon: when surgeon age becomes a surgical risk factor. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009;467(2):402–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schoenthaler M, Avcil T, Sevcenco S, Nagele U, Hermann TE, Kuehhas FE, et al. Single-Incision Transumbilical Surgery (SITUS) versus Single-Port Laparoscopic Surgery and conventional laparoscopic surgery: a prospective randomized comparative study of performance with novices in a dry laboratory. World J Urol. 2015;33(1):51–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fann JI, Feins RH, Hicks GL Jr, Nesbitt JC, Hammon JW, Crawford FA Jr. Evaluation of simulation training in cardiothoracic surgery: the senior tour perspective. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012;143(2):264–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Drag LL, Bieliauskas LA, Langenecker SA, Greenfield LJ. Cognitive functioning, retirement status, and age: results from the cognitive changes and retirement among senior surgeons study. J Am Coll Surg. 2010;211(3):303–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Connor EV, Raker C, Wohlrab KJ. Effects of repetition and inactivity on laparoscopic skills training. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 2016;23(2):194–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Deering SH, Rush RM Jr, Lesperance RN, Roth BJ. Perceived effects of deployments on surgeon and physician skills in the US Army medical department. Am J Surg. 2011;201(5):666–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Thorson CM, Dubose JJ, Rhee P, Knuth TE, Dorlac WC, Bailey JA, et al. Military trauma training at civilian centers: a decade of advancements. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2012;73(6 Suppl 5):S483–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Tausch TJ, Kowalewski TM, White LW, McDonough PS, Brand TC, Lendvay TS. Content and construct validation of a robotic surgery curriculum using an electromagnetic instrument tracker. J Urol. 2012;188(3):919–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wright AS. Validity in educational research: critically important but frequently misunderstood. Arch Surg. 2010;145(2):201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Steigerwald SN, Park J, Hardy KM, Gillman L, Vergis AS. Establishing the concurrent validity of general and technique-specific skills assessments in surgical education. Am J Surg. 2016;211(1):268–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Deal SBLT, Haque MI, Brand T, Comstock B, Warren J, Alseidi A. Crawd-sourced asessment of technical skills: an oppurtunity for improvment in the assessment of laparoscopic surgical skills. Am J Surg. 2015;211:398–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Ghani KR, Miller DC, Linsell S, Brachulis A, Lane B, Sarle R, et al. Measuring to improve: peer and crowd-sourced assessments of technical skill with robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Eur Urol. 2016;69(4):547–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kruskal J, Eisenberg R. Focused professional performance evaluation of a radiologist--a centers for medicare and medicaid services and joint commission requirement. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2016;45(2):87–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ongoing Professional Practic Evaluation (OPPE)- Intent. The joint commission; Available from: http://jointcommission.org/.
  36. 36.
    Hunt JL. Assessing physician competency: an update on the joint commission requirement for ongoing and focused professional practice evaluation. Adv Anat Pathol. 2012;19(6):388–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Gorrindo T, Goldfarb E, Birnbaum RJ, Chevalier L, Meller B, Alpert J, et al. Simulation-based ongoing professional practice evaluation in psychiatry: a novel tool for performance assessment. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2013;39(7):319–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Ehrenfeld JM, Henneman JP, Peterfreund RA, Sheehan TD, Xue F, Spring S, et al. Ongoing professional performance evaluation (OPPE) using automatically captured electronic anesthesia data. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2012;38(2):73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Steele JR, Hovsepian DM, Schomer DF. The joint commission practice performance evaluation: a primer for radiologists. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7(6):425–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Catalano EW Jr, Ruby SG, Talbert ML, Knapman DG. College of American Pathologists considerations for the delineation of pathology clinical privileges. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2009;133(4):613–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Levine AI, Schwartz AD, Bryson EO, Demaria S Jr. Role of simulation in U.S. physician licensure and certification. Mt Sinai J Med. 2012;79(1):140–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Pereira BM, Ryan ML, Ogilvie MP, Gomez-Rodriguez JC, McAndrew P, Garcia GD, et al. Predeployment mass casualty and clinical trauma training for US Army forward surgical teams. J Craniofac Surg. 2010;21(4):982–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Siriratsivawong K, Kang J, Riffenburgh R, Hoang TN. Immersion team training in a realistic environment improves team performance in trauma resuscitation. Surgery. 2016;160:586–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Pena G, Altree M, Babidge W, Field J, Hewett P, Maddern G. Mobile simulation unit: taking simulation to the surgical trainee. ANZ J Surg. 2015;85(5):339–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kellicut DC, Kuncir EJ, Williamson HM, Masella PC, Nielsen PE. Surgical team assessment training: improving surgical teams during deployment. Am J Surg. 2014;208(2):275–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Martinou E, Allan H, Vig S. Personality differences among junior postgraduate trainees in the United Kingdom. J Surg Educ. 2015;72(1):122–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ibrahim EF, Richardson MD, Nestel D. Mental imagery and learning: a qualitative study in orthopaedic trauma surgery. Med Educ. 2015;49(9):888–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sroka G, Arnon Z, Laniado M, Schiff E, Matter I. Hypnosis-induced mental training improves performance on the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery (FLS) simulator. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(5):1024–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Eldred-Evans D, Grange P, Cheang A, Yamamoto H, Ayis S, Mulla M, et al. Using the mind as a simulator: a randomized controlled trial of mental training. J Surg Educ. 2013;70(4):544–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Paige JT, Yu Q, Hunt JP, Marr AB, Stuke LE. Thinking it through: mental rehearsal and performance on 2 types of laparoscopic cholecystectomy simulators. J Surg Educ. 2015;72(4):740–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Sattelmayer M, Elsig S, Hilfiker R, Baer G. A systematic review and meta-analysis of selected motor learning principles in physiotherapy and medical education. BMC Med Educ. 2016;16:15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Stefanidis D, Anton NE, Howley LD, Bean E, Yurco A, Pimentel ME, Davis CK. Effectiveness of a comprehensive mental skills curriculum in enhancing surgical performance: results of a randomized controlled trial. Am J Surg. 2017;213(2):318–24.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Anton NE, Beane J, Yurco AM, Howley LD, Bean E, Myers EM, Stefanidis D. Mental skills training effectively minimizes operative performance deterioration under stressful conditions: results of a randomized controlled study. Am J Surg. 2018;215(2):214–21.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Pluyter JR, Rutkowski AF, Jakimowicz JJ. Immersive training: breaking the bubble and measuring the heat. Surg Endosc. 2014;28(5):1545–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Vascular SurgerySan Antonio Military Medical CenterSan AntonioUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryMadigan Healthcare SystemTacomaUSA
  3. 3.PeaceHealth St Joseph Medical CenterBellinghamUSA
  4. 4.Madigan Army Medical CenterTacomaUSA

Personalised recommendations