Association of Surgeons in Training, 35-43 Lincoln's Inn Fields, Holborn, London, WC2A 3PE, UK.
Association of Surgeons in Training, 35-43 Lincoln's Inn Fields, Holborn, London, WC2A 3PE, UK.
Int J Surg. 2020 Dec;84:199-206. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.02.045. Epub 2020 Mar 10.
Accurate recording of operative cases is essential during training to demonstrate experience. However, indicative numbers delineating minimum desirable experience may incentivise exaggeration or misrepresentation of experience. This study aimed to determine perceptions of real-world eLogbook use among UK surgeons in training.
An anonymous online questionnaire was disseminated electronically using a pre-planned yield-maximisation strategy, incorporating regional champions, email and social media. Evaluation employed mixed methods in a combined interpretation of quantitative and qualitative data from the questionnaire. Recommendations for development of the eLogbook were itemised from respondents' free text items and a modified Delphi process, conducted within the Council of the UK national trainee representative body, the Association of Surgeons in Training, determined the strength of each recommendation.
Analysis included 906 complete responses from training-grade surgeons (34.8% female) from all UK recognised specialties and all grades of training. More than two-thirds (68.5%) believed that overstatement or misrepresentation of case involvement occurs. A fifth (20.8%) reported witnessing trainees logging cases they had not actually participated in and almost a third (32.7%) had witnessed overstatement, yet few (15.1%) had raised such an issue with a supervisor. Most (85.2%) respondents had few or no eLogbook entries validated. More than a quarter of respondents felt pressure to overstate their involvement in cases (28.6%) and the number recorded (28.1%). Almost a third (31.5%) felt the required case number for completion of training was not achievable. Female trainees were less likely to feel well supervised (p = 0.022) and to perceive targets for completion of training were achievable (p = 0.005). Thematic analysis identified four key themes to explain logbook misuse: Pressure to achieve training milestones; eLogbook functionality issues; training deficiencies and probity.
Inaccurate operative recording was widely reported, primarily in response to perceived pressure to achieve targets for career progression. Operative logbooks may not be as accurate as intended. Consensus recommendations are made for improvement in the eLogbook and its use.
在培训过程中准确记录手术病例对于展示经验至关重要。然而,指示性的最低经验数量可能会激励夸大或歪曲经验。本研究旨在确定英国受训外科医生对真实世界电子日志使用的看法。
使用预先计划的最大产量策略,通过区域冠军、电子邮件和社交媒体,以匿名在线问卷的形式向电子方式分发问卷。使用来自问卷的定量和定性数据的混合方法对评估进行了综合解释。从受访者的自由文本项目和改良的 Delphi 过程中列出了电子日志的发展建议,该过程由英国国家受训代表机构的理事会,即外科住院医师协会进行,确定了每项建议的强度。
分析包括来自英国所有认可专业和所有培训级别的培训级外科医生的 906 份完整答卷(34.8%为女性)。超过三分之二(68.5%)的人认为存在夸大或歪曲手术参与的情况。五分之一(20.8%)报告说目睹受训者记录他们实际上没有参与的病例,近三分之一(32.7%)目睹过夸大的情况,但很少(15.1%)向主管提出过此类问题。大多数(85.2%)受访者的电子日志条目很少或没有得到验证。超过四分之一的受访者感到有压力要夸大他们在病例中的参与度(28.6%)和记录的数量(28.1%)。近三分之一(31.5%)的人认为完成培训所需的病例数量是无法实现的。女性受训者的监督效果较差(p=0.022),并且认为完成培训的目标是可以实现的(p=0.005)。主题分析确定了四个关键主题来解释日志滥用:实现职业发展目标的压力;电子日志功能问题;培训缺陷和诚信。
不准确的手术记录广泛报道,主要是为了应对实现职业发展目标的压力。手术日志可能不如预期的准确。提出了关于改进电子日志及其使用的共识建议。