Surgical simulation and applicant perception in otolaryngology residency interviews

Objective The traditional resident applicant interview involves multiple oral interviews. The implementation of surgical simulations adds an additional dimension of assessment but can be perceived in a stressful way by applicants. The purpose of this project is to describe low‐fidelity simulations t...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The Laryngoscope 2018-11, Vol.128 (11), p.2503-2507
Hauptverfasser: Masood, Maheer M., Stephenson, Elizabeth D., Farquhar, Douglas R., Farzal, Zainab, Shah, Parth V., Buckmire, Robert A., McClain, Wade G., Clark, J. Madison, Thorp, Brian D., Kimple, Adam J., Ebert, Charles S., Kilpatrick, Lauren A., Patel, Samip N., Shah, Rupali N., Zanation, Adam M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 2507
container_issue 11
container_start_page 2503
container_title The Laryngoscope
container_volume 128
creator Masood, Maheer M.
Stephenson, Elizabeth D.
Farquhar, Douglas R.
Farzal, Zainab
Shah, Parth V.
Buckmire, Robert A.
McClain, Wade G.
Clark, J. Madison
Thorp, Brian D.
Kimple, Adam J.
Ebert, Charles S.
Kilpatrick, Lauren A.
Patel, Samip N.
Shah, Rupali N.
Zanation, Adam M.
description Objective The traditional resident applicant interview involves multiple oral interviews. The implementation of surgical simulations adds an additional dimension of assessment but can be perceived in a stressful way by applicants. The purpose of this project is to describe low‐fidelity simulations that were implemented for the 2016 to 2017 residency interviews and obtain applicant perception of these simulations. Methods Six simulation modules were created, which reflected tasks used in six subspecialties within otolaryngology (pediatrics, otology, laryngology, facial plastics, rhinology, and head/neck). Applicants were guided in the procedures by both an attending and resident. Afterward, applicants were anonymously surveyed on their perception of the tasks using a 5‐point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Somewhat Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Somewhat Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree). Results A total of 41 applicants were interviewed. The following were measured: enjoyable (98.5% strongly agree, 2.5% somewhat agree; mean: 4.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.92, 5.02), educational (88% strongly agree, 12% somewhat agree; mean: 4.88; 95% CI, 4.78, 4.98), recommended for future use (92.7% strongly agree, 7.3% somewhat agree; mean: 4.93; 95% CI, 4.85, 5.01), and stressful (63.5% strongly disagree, 19.5% somewhat disagree, 17% neutral; mean: 1.54; 95% CI, 1.30, 1.78). Conclusion Implementation of a low‐fidelity multi‐station surgical simulation experience is feasible in an interview day. Majority of applicants viewed the simulations in a positive manner. Surgical simulations may provide a useful holistic evaluation of an applicant in future interviews, especially if done in a setting that minimizes stress and maximizes the educational experience. Level of Evidence 2b. Laryngoscope, 2503–2507, 2018
doi_str_mv 10.1002/lary.27211
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2031420779</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2139012233</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3571-adc401dab9f028eff9fcc1e0fea582d91d55a8b8ff722265d31312bec8e1605b3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kEFr3DAQhUVpaLZJLv0BwdBLKDjRSCvbOoYlaQsLgWwLyUnI8mhR0FqOZDfsv482u-2hh5wG5n28mfcI-QL0EihlV17H7SWrGcAHMgPBoZxLKT6SWRZ52Qj2cEw-p_REKdRc0E_kmMlKVpWoZ2S1muLaGe2L5DaT16MLfaH7rtDD4PO-H4sBo8HhTXB9Ecawu9evgw_rbRExuQ57s83aiPGPw5d0So6s9gnPDvOE_L69-bX4US7vvv9cXC9Lw0UNpe7MnEKnW2kpa9BaaY0BpBa1aFgnoRNCN21jbc0Yq0THgQNr0TQIFRUtPyEXe98hhucJ06g2Lhn0XvcYpqQY5TBntK5lRr_-hz6FKfb5O8WASwqMcZ6pb3vKxJBSRKuG6DY5rQKqdlWrXXT1VnWGzw-WU7vB7h_6t9sMwB54cR6371ip5fX94970FR3Biu8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2139012233</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Surgical simulation and applicant perception in otolaryngology residency interviews</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library All Journals</source><creator>Masood, Maheer M. ; Stephenson, Elizabeth D. ; Farquhar, Douglas R. ; Farzal, Zainab ; Shah, Parth V. ; Buckmire, Robert A. ; McClain, Wade G. ; Clark, J. Madison ; Thorp, Brian D. ; Kimple, Adam J. ; Ebert, Charles S. ; Kilpatrick, Lauren A. ; Patel, Samip N. ; Shah, Rupali N. ; Zanation, Adam M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Masood, Maheer M. ; Stephenson, Elizabeth D. ; Farquhar, Douglas R. ; Farzal, Zainab ; Shah, Parth V. ; Buckmire, Robert A. ; McClain, Wade G. ; Clark, J. Madison ; Thorp, Brian D. ; Kimple, Adam J. ; Ebert, Charles S. ; Kilpatrick, Lauren A. ; Patel, Samip N. ; Shah, Rupali N. ; Zanation, Adam M.</creatorcontrib><description>Objective The traditional resident applicant interview involves multiple oral interviews. The implementation of surgical simulations adds an additional dimension of assessment but can be perceived in a stressful way by applicants. The purpose of this project is to describe low‐fidelity simulations that were implemented for the 2016 to 2017 residency interviews and obtain applicant perception of these simulations. Methods Six simulation modules were created, which reflected tasks used in six subspecialties within otolaryngology (pediatrics, otology, laryngology, facial plastics, rhinology, and head/neck). Applicants were guided in the procedures by both an attending and resident. Afterward, applicants were anonymously surveyed on their perception of the tasks using a 5‐point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Somewhat Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Somewhat Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree). Results A total of 41 applicants were interviewed. The following were measured: enjoyable (98.5% strongly agree, 2.5% somewhat agree; mean: 4.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.92, 5.02), educational (88% strongly agree, 12% somewhat agree; mean: 4.88; 95% CI, 4.78, 4.98), recommended for future use (92.7% strongly agree, 7.3% somewhat agree; mean: 4.93; 95% CI, 4.85, 5.01), and stressful (63.5% strongly disagree, 19.5% somewhat disagree, 17% neutral; mean: 1.54; 95% CI, 1.30, 1.78). Conclusion Implementation of a low‐fidelity multi‐station surgical simulation experience is feasible in an interview day. Majority of applicants viewed the simulations in a positive manner. Surgical simulations may provide a useful holistic evaluation of an applicant in future interviews, especially if done in a setting that minimizes stress and maximizes the educational experience. Level of Evidence 2b. Laryngoscope, 2503–2507, 2018</description><identifier>ISSN: 0023-852X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1531-4995</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/lary.27211</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29696657</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Allergy/rhinology ; Attitude of Health Personnel ; Clinical Competence ; Education, Medical, Graduate ; facial plastic/reconstructive surgery ; head and neck ; Humans ; Internship and Residency ; Interviews ; laryngology ; Otolaryngology ; Otolaryngology - education ; Otology ; pediatrics ; Personnel Selection - methods ; Simulation Training - methods</subject><ispartof>The Laryngoscope, 2018-11, Vol.128 (11), p.2503-2507</ispartof><rights>2018 The American Laryngological, Rhinological and Otological Society, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3571-adc401dab9f028eff9fcc1e0fea582d91d55a8b8ff722265d31312bec8e1605b3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3571-adc401dab9f028eff9fcc1e0fea582d91d55a8b8ff722265d31312bec8e1605b3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-3477-9898 ; 0000-0002-3678-3989 ; 0000-0003-1670-8401</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Flary.27211$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Flary.27211$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29696657$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Masood, Maheer M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stephenson, Elizabeth D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Farquhar, Douglas R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Farzal, Zainab</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shah, Parth V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buckmire, Robert A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McClain, Wade G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clark, J. Madison</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thorp, Brian D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kimple, Adam J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ebert, Charles S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kilpatrick, Lauren A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patel, Samip N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shah, Rupali N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zanation, Adam M.</creatorcontrib><title>Surgical simulation and applicant perception in otolaryngology residency interviews</title><title>The Laryngoscope</title><addtitle>Laryngoscope</addtitle><description>Objective The traditional resident applicant interview involves multiple oral interviews. The implementation of surgical simulations adds an additional dimension of assessment but can be perceived in a stressful way by applicants. The purpose of this project is to describe low‐fidelity simulations that were implemented for the 2016 to 2017 residency interviews and obtain applicant perception of these simulations. Methods Six simulation modules were created, which reflected tasks used in six subspecialties within otolaryngology (pediatrics, otology, laryngology, facial plastics, rhinology, and head/neck). Applicants were guided in the procedures by both an attending and resident. Afterward, applicants were anonymously surveyed on their perception of the tasks using a 5‐point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Somewhat Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Somewhat Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree). Results A total of 41 applicants were interviewed. The following were measured: enjoyable (98.5% strongly agree, 2.5% somewhat agree; mean: 4.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.92, 5.02), educational (88% strongly agree, 12% somewhat agree; mean: 4.88; 95% CI, 4.78, 4.98), recommended for future use (92.7% strongly agree, 7.3% somewhat agree; mean: 4.93; 95% CI, 4.85, 5.01), and stressful (63.5% strongly disagree, 19.5% somewhat disagree, 17% neutral; mean: 1.54; 95% CI, 1.30, 1.78). Conclusion Implementation of a low‐fidelity multi‐station surgical simulation experience is feasible in an interview day. Majority of applicants viewed the simulations in a positive manner. Surgical simulations may provide a useful holistic evaluation of an applicant in future interviews, especially if done in a setting that minimizes stress and maximizes the educational experience. Level of Evidence 2b. Laryngoscope, 2503–2507, 2018</description><subject>Allergy/rhinology</subject><subject>Attitude of Health Personnel</subject><subject>Clinical Competence</subject><subject>Education, Medical, Graduate</subject><subject>facial plastic/reconstructive surgery</subject><subject>head and neck</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Internship and Residency</subject><subject>Interviews</subject><subject>laryngology</subject><subject>Otolaryngology</subject><subject>Otolaryngology - education</subject><subject>Otology</subject><subject>pediatrics</subject><subject>Personnel Selection - methods</subject><subject>Simulation Training - methods</subject><issn>0023-852X</issn><issn>1531-4995</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kEFr3DAQhUVpaLZJLv0BwdBLKDjRSCvbOoYlaQsLgWwLyUnI8mhR0FqOZDfsv482u-2hh5wG5n28mfcI-QL0EihlV17H7SWrGcAHMgPBoZxLKT6SWRZ52Qj2cEw-p_REKdRc0E_kmMlKVpWoZ2S1muLaGe2L5DaT16MLfaH7rtDD4PO-H4sBo8HhTXB9Ecawu9evgw_rbRExuQ57s83aiPGPw5d0So6s9gnPDvOE_L69-bX4US7vvv9cXC9Lw0UNpe7MnEKnW2kpa9BaaY0BpBa1aFgnoRNCN21jbc0Yq0THgQNr0TQIFRUtPyEXe98hhucJ06g2Lhn0XvcYpqQY5TBntK5lRr_-hz6FKfb5O8WASwqMcZ6pb3vKxJBSRKuG6DY5rQKqdlWrXXT1VnWGzw-WU7vB7h_6t9sMwB54cR6371ip5fX94970FR3Biu8</recordid><startdate>201811</startdate><enddate>201811</enddate><creator>Masood, Maheer M.</creator><creator>Stephenson, Elizabeth D.</creator><creator>Farquhar, Douglas R.</creator><creator>Farzal, Zainab</creator><creator>Shah, Parth V.</creator><creator>Buckmire, Robert A.</creator><creator>McClain, Wade G.</creator><creator>Clark, J. Madison</creator><creator>Thorp, Brian D.</creator><creator>Kimple, Adam J.</creator><creator>Ebert, Charles S.</creator><creator>Kilpatrick, Lauren A.</creator><creator>Patel, Samip N.</creator><creator>Shah, Rupali N.</creator><creator>Zanation, Adam M.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3477-9898</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3678-3989</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1670-8401</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201811</creationdate><title>Surgical simulation and applicant perception in otolaryngology residency interviews</title><author>Masood, Maheer M. ; Stephenson, Elizabeth D. ; Farquhar, Douglas R. ; Farzal, Zainab ; Shah, Parth V. ; Buckmire, Robert A. ; McClain, Wade G. ; Clark, J. Madison ; Thorp, Brian D. ; Kimple, Adam J. ; Ebert, Charles S. ; Kilpatrick, Lauren A. ; Patel, Samip N. ; Shah, Rupali N. ; Zanation, Adam M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3571-adc401dab9f028eff9fcc1e0fea582d91d55a8b8ff722265d31312bec8e1605b3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Allergy/rhinology</topic><topic>Attitude of Health Personnel</topic><topic>Clinical Competence</topic><topic>Education, Medical, Graduate</topic><topic>facial plastic/reconstructive surgery</topic><topic>head and neck</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Internship and Residency</topic><topic>Interviews</topic><topic>laryngology</topic><topic>Otolaryngology</topic><topic>Otolaryngology - education</topic><topic>Otology</topic><topic>pediatrics</topic><topic>Personnel Selection - methods</topic><topic>Simulation Training - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Masood, Maheer M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stephenson, Elizabeth D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Farquhar, Douglas R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Farzal, Zainab</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shah, Parth V.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Buckmire, Robert A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McClain, Wade G.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Clark, J. Madison</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Thorp, Brian D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kimple, Adam J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ebert, Charles S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kilpatrick, Lauren A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Patel, Samip N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shah, Rupali N.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zanation, Adam M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>The Laryngoscope</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Masood, Maheer M.</au><au>Stephenson, Elizabeth D.</au><au>Farquhar, Douglas R.</au><au>Farzal, Zainab</au><au>Shah, Parth V.</au><au>Buckmire, Robert A.</au><au>McClain, Wade G.</au><au>Clark, J. Madison</au><au>Thorp, Brian D.</au><au>Kimple, Adam J.</au><au>Ebert, Charles S.</au><au>Kilpatrick, Lauren A.</au><au>Patel, Samip N.</au><au>Shah, Rupali N.</au><au>Zanation, Adam M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Surgical simulation and applicant perception in otolaryngology residency interviews</atitle><jtitle>The Laryngoscope</jtitle><addtitle>Laryngoscope</addtitle><date>2018-11</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>128</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>2503</spage><epage>2507</epage><pages>2503-2507</pages><issn>0023-852X</issn><eissn>1531-4995</eissn><abstract>Objective The traditional resident applicant interview involves multiple oral interviews. The implementation of surgical simulations adds an additional dimension of assessment but can be perceived in a stressful way by applicants. The purpose of this project is to describe low‐fidelity simulations that were implemented for the 2016 to 2017 residency interviews and obtain applicant perception of these simulations. Methods Six simulation modules were created, which reflected tasks used in six subspecialties within otolaryngology (pediatrics, otology, laryngology, facial plastics, rhinology, and head/neck). Applicants were guided in the procedures by both an attending and resident. Afterward, applicants were anonymously surveyed on their perception of the tasks using a 5‐point Likert scale (1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Somewhat Disagree, 3 = Neutral, 4 = Somewhat Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree). Results A total of 41 applicants were interviewed. The following were measured: enjoyable (98.5% strongly agree, 2.5% somewhat agree; mean: 4.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 4.92, 5.02), educational (88% strongly agree, 12% somewhat agree; mean: 4.88; 95% CI, 4.78, 4.98), recommended for future use (92.7% strongly agree, 7.3% somewhat agree; mean: 4.93; 95% CI, 4.85, 5.01), and stressful (63.5% strongly disagree, 19.5% somewhat disagree, 17% neutral; mean: 1.54; 95% CI, 1.30, 1.78). Conclusion Implementation of a low‐fidelity multi‐station surgical simulation experience is feasible in an interview day. Majority of applicants viewed the simulations in a positive manner. Surgical simulations may provide a useful holistic evaluation of an applicant in future interviews, especially if done in a setting that minimizes stress and maximizes the educational experience. Level of Evidence 2b. Laryngoscope, 2503–2507, 2018</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>29696657</pmid><doi>10.1002/lary.27211</doi><tpages>5</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3477-9898</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3678-3989</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1670-8401</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0023-852X
ispartof The Laryngoscope, 2018-11, Vol.128 (11), p.2503-2507
issn 0023-852X
1531-4995
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2031420779
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library All Journals
subjects Allergy/rhinology
Attitude of Health Personnel
Clinical Competence
Education, Medical, Graduate
facial plastic/reconstructive surgery
head and neck
Humans
Internship and Residency
Interviews
laryngology
Otolaryngology
Otolaryngology - education
Otology
pediatrics
Personnel Selection - methods
Simulation Training - methods
title Surgical simulation and applicant perception in otolaryngology residency interviews
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T16%3A02%3A51IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Surgical%20simulation%20and%20applicant%20perception%20in%20otolaryngology%20residency%20interviews&rft.jtitle=The%20Laryngoscope&rft.au=Masood,%20Maheer%20M.&rft.date=2018-11&rft.volume=128&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=2503&rft.epage=2507&rft.pages=2503-2507&rft.issn=0023-852X&rft.eissn=1531-4995&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/lary.27211&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2139012233%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2139012233&rft_id=info:pmid/29696657&rfr_iscdi=true