Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, Alvin J. Siteman Cancer Center, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA.
Gynecol Oncol. 2020 Oct;159(1):209-213. doi: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2020.07.018. Epub 2020 Jul 19.
OBJECTIVES: Fellow involvement in patient care is important for education, but effect on patient care is unclear. Our aim was to compare patient outcomes in gynecologic oncology attending clinics versus a fellow training clinic at a large academic medical center. METHODS: A retrospective review of consecutive gynecologic oncology patients from six attending clinics and one faculty-supervised fellow clinic was used to analyze differences based on patient demographics, cancer characteristics, and practice patterns. Primary outcome was overall survival (OS); secondary outcomes included recurrence-free survival (RFS), postoperative complications and chemotherapy within the last 30 days of life. Survival analyses were performed using Kaplan-Meier curves with log-rank tests. RESULTS: Of 159 patients, 76 received care in the attending clinic and 83 in the fellow clinic. Patients in the fellow clinic were younger, less likely to be Caucasian, and more overweight, but cancer site and proportion of advanced stage disease were similar. Both clinics had similar rates of moderate to severe adverse events related to surgery (15% vs. 8%, p = .76), chemotherapy (21% vs. 23%, p = .40), and radiation (14% vs. 17%, p = .73). There was no difference in median RFS in the fellow compared to attending clinic (38 vs. 47 months, p = .78). OS on both univariate (49 months-fellow clinic, 60 months-attending clinic vs. p = .40) and multivariate analysis [hazard ratio 1.3 (0.57, 2.75), P = .58] was not significantly different between groups. CONCLUSIONS: A fellow-run gynecologic oncology clinic designed to provide learning opportunities does not compromise patient outcomes and is a safe and feasible option for fellow education.
目的:住院医师参与患者治疗对教育很重要,但对患者治疗的效果尚不清楚。我们的目的是比较在大型学术医疗中心的妇科肿瘤主治医师诊室和住院医师培训诊室就诊的患者的结局。
方法:本研究回顾性分析了来自 6 个主治医师诊室和 1 个由教员监督的住院医师诊室的连续妇科肿瘤患者,以分析患者人口统计学特征、癌症特征和治疗模式方面的差异。主要结局为总生存期(OS);次要结局包括无复发生存期(RFS)、术后并发症和生命最后 30 天内的化疗。采用 Kaplan-Meier 曲线和对数秩检验进行生存分析。
结果:在 159 例患者中,76 例在主治医师诊室就诊,83 例在住院医师诊室就诊。住院医师诊室的患者更年轻,非裔美国人更少,超重更多,但癌症部位和晚期疾病的比例相似。两个诊室的手术相关中度至重度不良事件发生率相似(15% vs. 8%,p = 0.76)、化疗(21% vs. 23%,p = 0.40)和放疗(14% vs. 17%,p = 0.73)。住院医师诊室与主治医师诊室相比,中位 RFS 无差异(38 个月 vs. 47 个月,p = 0.78)。单因素(49 个月-住院医师诊室,60 个月-主治医师诊室,p = 0.40)和多因素分析[风险比 1.3(0.57,2.75),P = 0.58]的 OS 均无显著差异。
结论:一个旨在提供学习机会的住院医师主导的妇科肿瘤诊室不会影响患者结局,是住院医师教育的一种安全可行的选择。
Aesthet Surg J. 2018-6-13
Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2011-10
Aesthet Surg J. 2019-8-22
Gynecol Oncol Rep. 2022-2
CA Cancer J Clin. 2019-2-14
Obstet Gynecol. 2018-10
J Surg Educ. 2018-8-7
Gynecol Oncol. 2017-12-6
J Grad Med Educ. 2016-10