Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Strategic organisational skills predict surgical training success
  1. Osian Penri James1,
  2. David Bryan Thomas Robinson1,
  3. Luke Hopkins1,
  4. Chris Bowman1,
  5. Arfon Powell2,
  6. Chris Brown1,
  7. Sarah Hemington-Gorse1,3,
  8. Richard John Egan4,
  9. Wyn G Lewis1
  1. 1 School of Surgery, NHS Wales Health Education and Improvement Wales, Nantgarw, UK
  2. 2 Division of Cancer and Genetics, Cardiff University School of Medicine, Cardiff, UK
  3. 3 Department of Plastic Surgery, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK
  4. 4 Department of Surgery, Morriston Hospital, Swansea, UK
  1. Correspondence to Osian Penri James, Health Education and Improvement Wales’ School of Surgery, Tŷ Dysgu, Cefn Coed, Nantgarw CF15 7QQ, UK; osianpjames{at}gmail.com

Abstract

Introduction Surgical career progression is determined by examination success and Annual Review of Competence Progression (ARCP) outcome, yet data on organisational skills are sparse. This study aimed to determine whether organisational skills related to Core Surgical Training (CST) outcome. Primary outcome measures include operative experience, publications, examination success (Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons or the Diploma in Otolaryngology—Head and Neck Surgery (MRCS/DO-HNS)) and ARCP outcome.

Methods The study was conducted prospectively at three consecutive CST induction boot camps (2017–2019) providing clinical and simulation training for 125 trainees. Arrival time at course registration was the selected surrogate for organisational skills. Trainees were advised to arrive promptly at 8:45 for registration and that the course would start at 9:00. Trainee arrival times were grouped as follows: early (before 8:45), on time (8:45–8:59am) or late (after 9:00). Arrival times were compared with primary outcome measures.

Setting Health Education and Improvement Wales’ School of Surgery, UK.

Results Median arrival time was 8:53 (range 7:55–10:03), with 29 trainees (23.2%) arriving early, 63 (50.4%) on-time and 33 (26.4%) late. Arrival time was associated with operative experience (early vs late; 206 vs 164 cases, p=0.012), publication (63.2% vs 18.5%, p=0.005), MRCS/DO-HNS success (44.8% vs 15.2%, p=0.029), ARCP outcome (86.2% vs 60.6% Outcome 1, p=0.053), but not National Training Number success (60.0% vs 53.3%, p=0.772).

Conclusions Better-prepared trainees achieved 25% more operative experience, were four-fold more likely to publish and pass MRCS, which aligned with consistent desirable ARCP outcome. Timely arrival at training events represents a skills-composite of travel planning and is a useful marker of strategic organisational skills.

  • Surgery
  • Medical education & training

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors OPJ participated in research design, data collection, analysis, writing the paper and approved the final manuscript for submission. DBTR, LH and CBo participated in data collection, analysis, writing the paper and approved the final manuscript for submission. AP and WGL participated in research design, analysis, writing the paper and approved the final manuscript for submission. CBr participated in writing the paper and approved the final manuscript for submission. SH-G participated in data collection, writing the paper and approved the final manuscript for submission. RE participated in research design, writing the paper and approved the final manuscript for submission. WGL is the senior author and acts as the guarantor for the overall content.

  • Funding OPJ is supported by a Joint Surgical Research Fellowship from the Royal College of Surgeons of England and Health Education and Improvement Wales. No specific funding was received for this study.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Ethics approval Not applicable.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement Data are available upon reasonable request.

  • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.