A LOOK AT THE JOINT COMMISSION FROM RESIDENCY TO RETIREMENT
from an average of 72 to 62 attendees; as a result, the
overall attendance only increased by 24 percent, from
an average of 116 to 144 participants. Costs and location
of the meeting remained unchanged; however, industry
interest in supporting the annual meeting increased.
Most residency programs in the state were enthusiastic
participants, with some teams traveling nearly 100 miles
to the event. Review of the attendance records showed
that the introduction of the surgical skills competition
increased resident attendance at the Massachusetts Chapter
annual meeting nearly twofold, and this increase was
maintained over a three-year period, during which the
regular member attendance decreased modestly. This
finding suggests that the increase in resident attendance
likely was correlated to the competition, as no other major
programmatic changes were made to the meeting and cost
and location were consistent throughout these years.
A model for other chapters
Incorporation of such competitions into ACS chapter
meetings can increase resident involvement at the local
level. The authors of this column acknowledge that
having 10 training programs in relative geographical
proximity puts Massachusetts in a unique position,
and factors such as distance and limited number of
residency programs may create hurdles in some states.
Furthermore, the authors believe that these competitions
can be useful in surgical training at the institutional level.
Many programs reported significant internal competition
among residents who were determined to make their
institution’s team, with members spending a significant
amount of time practicing simulated surgical tasks for the
competition, which they may not have done otherwise. ♦
ATTENDANCE AT THE
1. American College of Surgeons Governors
Committee on Chapter Relations. Getting
residents involved: The key to chapter success!
2012. Available at: facs.org/~/media/files/
ashx. Accessed March 28, 2016.
2. Varban OA, Ardestani A, Peyre S, Smink DS.
Assessing the effectiveness of surgical skills
laboratories: A national survey. Simul Healthc.
2013; 8( 2):91-97.
3. McCluney AL, Vassiliou MC, Kaneva PA,
et al. FLS simulator performance predicts
intraoperative laparoscopic skill. Surg Endosc.
2007; 21( 11):1991-1995.
4. Enter DH, Lee R, Fann JI, et al. “Top Gun”
competition: Motivation and practice
narrows the technical skill gap among new
cardiothoracic surgery residents. Ann Thorac
Surg. 2015;99( 3):870-875; discussion 875-876.
5. Rosser JC Jr., Rosser LE, Savalgi RS. Objective
evaluation of a laparoscopic surgical skill
program for residents and senior surgeons. Arch
Surg. 1998;133( 6):657-661.
6. Scott DJ, Goova MT, Tesfay ST. A cost-effective
proficiency-based knot-tying and suturing
curriculum for residency programs. J Surg Res.
2007;141( 1): 7-15.
7. Goova MT, Hollett LA, Tesfay ST, et al.
Implementation, construct validity, and benefit
of a proficiency-based knot-tying and suturing
curriculum. J Surg Educ. 2008; 65( 4):309-315.
8. Peters JH, Fried GM, Swanstrom LL, et al.
Development and validation of a comprehensive
program of education and assessment of the
basic fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery.
Surgery. 2004;135( 1): 21-27.