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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Archives of gynecology and obstetrics 2019-11, Vol.300 (5), p.1353-1366 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & 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 |