Gynecology-obstetric resident surgery training: a national evaluation

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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Archives of gynecology and obstetrics 2019-11, Vol.300 (5), p.1353-1366
Hauptverfasser: Gac, M. M., Duminil, L., Bonneau, S., Gabriel, R., Graesslin, O., Raimond, Emilie
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1366
container_issue 5
container_start_page 1353
container_title Archives of gynecology and obstetrics
container_volume 300
creator Gac, M. M.
Duminil, L.
Bonneau, S.
Gabriel, R.
Graesslin, O.
Raimond, Emilie
description 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 .
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s00404-019-05284-9
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2292990547</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2292990547</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-c8f217cc87f87daf6766fe74d1d25f3f411fa91fe8247ca9fdc1eca66cf9a3083</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kMtKAzEUhoMotlZfwIUMuHEzmpNkcnEnpV6g4EbXIc0kZcp0UpMZYd7e6UUFF66SkO__z-FD6BLwLWAs7hLGDLMcg8pxQSTL1REaA6MkxwLgGI2x2t4xFyN0ltIKYyBS8lM0olBQEEKO0eypb5wNdVj2eVik1rWxsll0qSpd02api0sX-6yNpmqqZnmfmawxbRUaU2fu09Td7nGOTrypk7s4nBP0_jh7mz7n89enl-nDPLdUFG1upScgrJXCS1EazwXn3glWQkkKTz0D8EaBd5IwYY3ypQVnDefWK0OxpBN0s-_dxPDRudTqdZWsq2vTuNAlTYgiSuGCiQG9_oOuQheHtXcUSAKKFwNF9pSNIaXovN7Eam1irwHrrWS9l6wHyXonWashdHWo7hZrV_5Evq0OAN0DafhqBoG_s_-p_QJG9YgJ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2291821965</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Gynecology-obstetric resident surgery training: a national evaluation</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Gac, M. M. ; Duminil, L. ; Bonneau, S. ; Gabriel, R. ; Graesslin, O. ; Raimond, Emilie</creator><creatorcontrib>Gac, M. M. ; Duminil, L. ; Bonneau, S. ; Gabriel, R. ; Graesslin, O. ; Raimond, Emilie</creatorcontrib><description>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 .</description><identifier>ISSN: 0932-0067</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1432-0711</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00404-019-05284-9</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31531778</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Adult ; Clinical Competence ; Endocrinology ; Female ; Gynecologic Oncology ; Gynecology ; Gynecology - education ; Human Genetics ; Humans ; Internship and Residency - methods ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Obstetric Surgical Procedures - education ; Obstetrics ; Obstetrics - education ; Obstetrics/Perinatology/Midwifery ; Surgery ; Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><ispartof>Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2019-11, Vol.300 (5), p.1353-1366</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019</rights><rights>Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics is a copyright of Springer, (2019). All Rights Reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-c8f217cc87f87daf6766fe74d1d25f3f411fa91fe8247ca9fdc1eca66cf9a3083</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-c8f217cc87f87daf6766fe74d1d25f3f411fa91fe8247ca9fdc1eca66cf9a3083</cites><orcidid>0000-0003-2860-5450</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00404-019-05284-9$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00404-019-05284-9$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31531778$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gac, M. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duminil, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bonneau, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gabriel, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Graesslin, O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Raimond, Emilie</creatorcontrib><title>Gynecology-obstetric resident surgery training: a national evaluation</title><title>Archives of gynecology and obstetrics</title><addtitle>Arch Gynecol Obstet</addtitle><addtitle>Arch Gynecol Obstet</addtitle><description>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 .</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Clinical Competence</subject><subject>Endocrinology</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gynecologic Oncology</subject><subject>Gynecology</subject><subject>Gynecology - education</subject><subject>Human Genetics</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Internship and Residency - methods</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Obstetric Surgical Procedures - education</subject><subject>Obstetrics</subject><subject>Obstetrics - education</subject><subject>Obstetrics/Perinatology/Midwifery</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><issn>0932-0067</issn><issn>1432-0711</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kMtKAzEUhoMotlZfwIUMuHEzmpNkcnEnpV6g4EbXIc0kZcp0UpMZYd7e6UUFF66SkO__z-FD6BLwLWAs7hLGDLMcg8pxQSTL1REaA6MkxwLgGI2x2t4xFyN0ltIKYyBS8lM0olBQEEKO0eypb5wNdVj2eVik1rWxsll0qSpd02api0sX-6yNpmqqZnmfmawxbRUaU2fu09Td7nGOTrypk7s4nBP0_jh7mz7n89enl-nDPLdUFG1upScgrJXCS1EazwXn3glWQkkKTz0D8EaBd5IwYY3ypQVnDefWK0OxpBN0s-_dxPDRudTqdZWsq2vTuNAlTYgiSuGCiQG9_oOuQheHtXcUSAKKFwNF9pSNIaXovN7Eam1irwHrrWS9l6wHyXonWashdHWo7hZrV_5Evq0OAN0DafhqBoG_s_-p_QJG9YgJ</recordid><startdate>20191101</startdate><enddate>20191101</enddate><creator>Gac, M. M.</creator><creator>Duminil, L.</creator><creator>Bonneau, S.</creator><creator>Gabriel, R.</creator><creator>Graesslin, O.</creator><creator>Raimond, Emilie</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</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>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2860-5450</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20191101</creationdate><title>Gynecology-obstetric resident surgery training: a national evaluation</title><author>Gac, M. M. ; Duminil, L. ; Bonneau, S. ; Gabriel, R. ; Graesslin, O. ; Raimond, Emilie</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c375t-c8f217cc87f87daf6766fe74d1d25f3f411fa91fe8247ca9fdc1eca66cf9a3083</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Clinical Competence</topic><topic>Endocrinology</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gynecologic Oncology</topic><topic>Gynecology</topic><topic>Gynecology - education</topic><topic>Human Genetics</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Internship and Residency - methods</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Obstetric Surgical Procedures - education</topic><topic>Obstetrics</topic><topic>Obstetrics - education</topic><topic>Obstetrics/Perinatology/Midwifery</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gac, M. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Duminil, L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bonneau, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gabriel, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Graesslin, O.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Raimond, Emilie</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 Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Archives of gynecology and obstetrics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gac, M. M.</au><au>Duminil, L.</au><au>Bonneau, S.</au><au>Gabriel, R.</au><au>Graesslin, O.</au><au>Raimond, Emilie</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Gynecology-obstetric resident surgery training: a national evaluation</atitle><jtitle>Archives of gynecology and obstetrics</jtitle><stitle>Arch Gynecol Obstet</stitle><addtitle>Arch Gynecol Obstet</addtitle><date>2019-11-01</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>300</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1353</spage><epage>1366</epage><pages>1353-1366</pages><issn>0932-0067</issn><eissn>1432-0711</eissn><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 .</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>31531778</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00404-019-05284-9</doi><tpages>14</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2860-5450</orcidid></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0932-0067
ispartof Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2019-11, Vol.300 (5), p.1353-1366
issn 0932-0067
1432-0711
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2292990547
source MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals
subjects Adult
Clinical Competence
Endocrinology
Female
Gynecologic Oncology
Gynecology
Gynecology - education
Human Genetics
Humans
Internship and Residency - methods
Male
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Obstetric Surgical Procedures - education
Obstetrics
Obstetrics - education
Obstetrics/Perinatology/Midwifery
Surgery
Surveys and Questionnaires
title Gynecology-obstetric resident surgery training: a national evaluation
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-30T19%3A32%3A10IST&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=Gynecology-obstetric%20resident%20surgery%20training:%20a%20national%20evaluation&rft.jtitle=Archives%20of%20gynecology%20and%20obstetrics&rft.au=Gac,%20M.%20M.&rft.date=2019-11-01&rft.volume=300&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1353&rft.epage=1366&rft.pages=1353-1366&rft.issn=0932-0067&rft.eissn=1432-0711&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00404-019-05284-9&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2292990547%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=2291821965&rft_id=info:pmid/31531778&rfr_iscdi=true