Related Experiment Videos
Evaluation of plastic surgery training programs: integrated/combined versus independent
Jason Roostaeian1, Kenneth L Fan, Sarah Sorice
1Los Angeles, Calif. From the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, David Geffen School of Medicine; and the Department of Biostatistics, University of California, Los Angeles.
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
|June 30, 2012
Summary
Plastic surgery training pathways, combined/integrated versus independent, show no difference in practice outcomes. However, faculty evaluations reveal varied strengths, with no consensus on a superior training method for resident quality.
Area of Science:
- Medical Education
- Surgical Training
- Plastic Surgery
Background:
- Comparing combined/integrated and independent (traditional) plastic surgery training programs.
- Assessing trainee quality, graduate caliber, and post-graduation practice outcomes.
Purpose of the Study:
- To differentiate between combined/integrated and independent plastic surgery training methods.
- To evaluate their impact on trainee quality and career success.
Main Methods:
- Web-based survey of 1056 American Society of Plastic Surgeons members on practice outcomes.
- Interviews with 72 plastic surgery faculty on trainee quality (knowledge, technical skills, research).
Main Results:
- No significant difference in practice type, volume, or academic achievements between training pathways.
- Combined/integrated trainees were more likely to recommend their pathway and pursue fellowships.
- Faculty evaluations showed combined/integrated residents superior in knowledge, while independent residents excelled in technical ability and research.
Conclusions:
- No superior training pathway identified for future practice outcomes.
- Faculty evaluations indicated differences in trainee quality but lacked consensus on a better pathway.