The Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES) skills test: factors associated with first-attempt scores and pass rate

Current status of resident simulation training curricula: pearls and pitfalls

BACKGROUND

Residency programs are required to incorporate simulation into their training program. Ideally, simulation provides a safe environment for a trainee to be exposed to both common and challenging clinical scenarios. The purpose of this review is to detail the current state of the most commonly used laparoscopic, endoscopic, and robotic surgery simulation programs in general surgery residency education, including resources required for successful implementation and benchmarks for evaluation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Members of the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) Resident and Fellow Task Force (RAFT) Committee performed a literature review using PubMed and training websites. Information regarding the components of the most commonly used laparoscopic, endoscopic, and/or robotic simulation curriculum, including both formal and informal benchmarks for evaluating training competence, were collected.

RESULTS

Laparoscopic simulation revolves around the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS). Proficiency-based as well as virtual simulation have been utilized for FLS training curricula. Challenges include less direct translation to the technical complexities that can arise in laparoscopic surgery. Endoscopic simulation focuses on the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery. There are virtual reality simulation platforms that can be used for skills assessment and training. Challenges include simulator types and access, as well as structured mentoring and feedback. Robotic simulation training curricula have not been standardized. Simulation includes one primary technology, which can be prohibitive based on cost and requirements for onboarding.

CONCLUSIONS

While surgical simulation seems to be a fundamental and integrated part of surgical training, it requires a significant number of resources, which can be daunting for residency training programs. Regardless of the barriers outlined, the need for surgical simulation in laparoscopy, endoscopy, and robotics at surgical education training programs is clear.

Overcoming Barriers: Sex Disparity in Surgeon Ergonomics

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal discomfort is widely experienced by surgeons across multiple surgical specialties. Developing technologies and new minimally invasive techniques add further complexity and ergonomic stressors. These stressors differentially affect male and female surgeons, but little is known about the role these sex disparities play in surgical ergonomic stress. We reviewed existing literature to better understand how ergonomic stress varies between male and female surgeons.

STUDY DESIGN

A literature search was performed via PubMed including but not limited to the following topics: ergonomics, surgeons, female surgeons, women surgeons, pregnancy, and operating room. A review of available quantitative data was performed.

RESULTS

Female surgeons endure more pronounced ergonomic discomfort than their male counterparts, with added ergonomic stress associated with pregnancy.

CONCLUSIONS

A 4-fold method is proposed to overcome ergonomic barriers, including (1) improved education on prevention and treatment of ergonomic injury for active surgeons and trainees, (2) increased departmental and institutional support for ergonomic solutions for surgeons, (3) partnerships with industry to study innovative ergonomic solutions, and (4) additional research on the nature of surgical ergonomic challenges and the differential effects of surgical ergonomics on female surgeons.

The domino effect: the impact of gender on operative self-efficacy

BACKGROUND

Studies suggest that there are key differences in operative experience based on a trainee's gender. A large-scale self-efficacy (SE) survey, distributed to general surgery residents after the American Board of Surgery In-Training Examination in 2020, found that female gender was associated with decreased SE in graduating PGY5 residents for all 4 laparoscopic procedures included on the survey (cholecystectomy, appendectomy, right hemicolectomy, and diagnostic laparoscopy). We sought to determine whether these differences were reflected at the case level when considering operative performance and supervision using an operative assessment tool (SIMPL OR).

METHODS

Supervision and performance data reported through the SIMPL OR platform for the same 4 laparoscopic procedures included in the SE survey were aggregated for residents who were PGY5s in 2020. Independent t-tests and multiple linear regression were used to determine the relationship between trainee gender and supervision/performance ratings.

RESULTS

For laparoscopic cases in aggregate (n = 2708), male residents rated their performance higher than females (3.57 vs. 3.26, p < 0.001, 1 = critical deficiency, 5 = exceptional performance) and reported less supervision (3.15 vs. 2.85, p < 0.001, 1 = show and tell, 4 = supervision only); similar findings were seen when looking at attending reports of resident supervision and performance. A multiple linear regression model showed that attending gender did not significantly predict resident-reported supervision or performance levels, while case complexity and trainee gender significantly affected both supervision and performance (p < 0.001).

DISCUSSION

Female residents perceive themselves to be less self-efficacious at core laparoscopic procedures compared to their male colleagues. Comparison to more case-specific data confirm that female residents receive more supervision and lower performance ratings. This may create a domino effect in which female residents receive less operative independence, preventing the opportunity to establish SE. Further research should identify opportunities to break this cycle and consider gender identity beyond the male/female construct.

Medical specialty certification exams studied according to the Ottawa Quality Criteria: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Medical specialty certification exams are high-stakes summative assessments used to determine which doctors have the necessary skills, knowledge, and attitudes to treat patients independently. Such exams are crucial for patient safety, candidates' career progression and accountability to the public, yet vary significantly among medical specialties and countries. It is therefore of paramount importance that the quality of specialty certification exams is studied in the scientific literature.

METHODS

In this systematic literature review we used the PICOS framework and searched for papers concerning medical specialty certification exams published in English between 2000 and 2020 in seven databases using a diverse set of search term variations. Papers were screened by two researchers independently and scored regarding their methodological quality and relevance to this review. Finally, they were categorized by country, medical specialty and the following seven Ottawa Criteria of good assessment: validity, reliability, equivalence, feasibility, acceptability, catalytic and educational effect.

RESULTS

After removal of duplicates, 2852 papers were screened for inclusion, of which 66 met all relevant criteria. Over 43 different exams and more than 28 different specialties from 18 jurisdictions were studied. Around 77% of all eligible papers were based in English-speaking countries, with 55% of publications centered on just the UK and USA. General Practice was the most frequently studied specialty among certification exams with the UK General Practice exam having been particularly broadly analyzed. Papers received an average of 4.2/6 points on the quality score. Eligible studies analyzed 2.1/7 Ottawa Criteria on average, with the most frequently studied criteria being reliability, validity, and acceptability.

CONCLUSIONS

The present systematic review shows a growing number of studies analyzing medical specialty certification exams over time, encompassing a wider range of medical specialties, countries, and Ottawa Criteria. Due to their reliance on multiple assessment methods and data-points, aspects of programmatic assessment suggest a promising way forward in the development of medical specialty certification exams which fulfill all seven Ottawa Criteria. Further research is needed to confirm these results, particularly analyses of examinations held outside the Anglosphere as well as studies analyzing entire certification exams or comparing multiple examination methods.

Bias in Surgical Residency Evaluations: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

Given widespread disparities in the surgical workforce and the advent of competency-based training models that rely on objective evaluations of resident performance, this review aims to describe the landscape of bias in the evaluation methods of residents in surgical training programs in the United States.

DESIGN

A scoping review was conducted within PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and ERIC in May 2022, without a date restriction. Studies were screened and reviewed in duplicate by 3 reviewers. Data were described descriptively.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

English-language studies conducted in the United States that assessed bias in the evaluation of surgical residents were included.

RESULTS

The search yielded 1641 studies, of which 53 met inclusion criteria. Of the included studies, 26 (49.1%) were retrospective cohort studies, 25 (47.2%) were cross-sectional studies, and 2 (3.8%) were prospective cohort studies. The majority included general surgery residents (n = 30, 56.6%) and nonstandardized examination modalities (n = 38, 71.7%), such as video-based skills evaluations (n = 5, 13.2%). The most common performance metric evaluated was operative skill (n = 22, 41.5%). Overall, the majority of studies demonstrated bias (n = 38, 73.6%) and most investigated gender bias (n = 46, 86.8%). Most studies reported disadvantages for female trainees regarding standardized examinations (80.0%), self-evaluations (73.7%), and program-level evaluations (71.4%). Four studies (7.6%) assessed racial bias, of which all reported disadvantages for trainees underrepresented in surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Evaluation methods for surgery residents may be prone to bias, particularly with regard to female trainees. Research is warranted regarding other implicit and explicit biases, such as racial bias, as well as for nongeneral surgery subspecialties.

The Impact of Simulation Based Training on the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery Performance Examination

OBJECTIVE

To determine if simulation training is required to pass the FES skills test and assess the relationship between simulation training, clinical training, and FES skills test performance.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

The ABS began requiring completion of the Flexible Endoscopy Curriculum for all applicants beginning in 2018. The role of simulation-based training in FES skills test performance after this requirement has not been evaluated.

METHODS

De-identified data from the initial FES skills tests after the Flexible Endoscopy Curriculum requirement was reviewed, and 731 unique participants with reported simulation experience demographics were identified. Self-reported data included sex, upper (UE) and lower (LE) endoscopy experience, and simulator training hours (SE). Final FES skills exam scores and pass/fail designations for each participant were reported by the FES program staff.

RESULTS

There was a statistically discernible difference in mean FES total scores between those reporting no SE and more experienced groups ( P = 0.002), and between less and more experienced UE and LE groups ( P < 0.001). There was no statistically discernible difference in FES skills exam pass rates between SE groups ( P = 0.2), but there was a strong relationship between clinical experience (UE & LE) and pass rate ( P < 0.001). Finally, on logistic regression analysis, LE was a discernible predictor of passing [odds ratio (OR) = 1.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-1.8, P = 0.02], while UE [odds ratio (OR) = 1, 95% CI 0.8-1.3, P = 0.9] and SE (OR = 1,95% CI 0.9- 1.3, P = 0.7) were not.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no threat to the validity of the FES skills test from a need for simulation training to pass the FES skills test. Similarly, the amount of simulation practice is not predictive of passing, but can improve performance on certain FES tasks.

The American Board of Surgery flexible endoscopy curriculum prepares individuals to pass the fundamentals of endoscopic surgery manual skills test

BACKGROUND

The American Board of Surgery (ABS) has required Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES) certification for general surgery applicants since 2018. Flexible Endoscopy Curriculum (FEC) completion is recommended prior to taking the FES exam. The objective of the study was to determine if FEC completion prepares individuals to pass the FES manual skills test.

METHODS

Participants included first-attempt FES examinees from June 2014 to February 2019. De-identified data were reviewed, Self-reported data included gender, PGY, glove size, upper (UE) and lower (LE) endoscopy experience, simulation training time, and participation in an endoscopy rotation (ER). FES skills exam performance was reported by FES staff. Those completing all vs. none of the FEC were compared.

RESULTS

Of 2023 participants identified, 809 (40.0%) reported completion of all FEC components, 1053 (52.1%) completed of some, and 161 (8.0%) completed none. Men and candidates taking FES later in residency were more likely to complete all FEC requirements (p = 0.002, p < 0.001). FES pass rates were higher for those who completed all FEC components compared to those who completed none (88.4% vs 72.7%, p < 0.001). On logistic regression analysis, completion of all components (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.5-3.7, p < 0.001) and male gender (OR 3.1, 95% CI 1.7-5.7, p < 0.001) were predictors of passing, while glove size (OR 1.5, 95% CI 1.0-2.5, p = 0.08), simulator time (OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.9-1.4, p = 0.37) and PGY were not (OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.9-1.4, p = 0.38). On multivariate analysis controlling for glove size and gender, completion of all FEC components was still associated with a higher likelihood of passing the FES skills exam (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.2-2.1, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Completion of FEC is strongly associated with passing the FES skills test. This study supports the ABS recommendation for completion of FEC prior to taking the FES skills test.

Transfer of virtual reality endoscopy training to live animal colonoscopy: a randomized control trial of proficiency vs. repetition-based training

BACKGROUND

Low first-time pass rates of the Fundamentals of Endoscopic Surgery (FES) exam stimulated development of virtual reality (VR) simulation curricula for test preparation. This study evaluates the transfer of VR endoscopy training to live porcine endoscopy performance and compares the relative effectiveness of a proficiency-based vs repetition-based VR training curriculum.

METHODS

Novice endoscopists completed pretesting including the FES manual skills examination and Global Assessment of GI Endoscopic Skills (GAGES) assessment of porcine upper and lower endoscopy. Participants were randomly assigned one of two curricula: proficiency-based or repetition-based. Following curriculum completion, participants post-tested via repeat FES examination and GAGES porcine endoscopy assessments. The two cohorts pre-to-post-test differences were compared using ANCOVA.

RESULTS

Twenty-two residents completed the curricula. There were no differences in demographics or clinical endoscopy experience between the groups. The repetition group spent significantly more time on the simulator (repetition: 242.2 min, SD 48.6) compared to the proficiency group (proficiency: 170.0 min, SD 66.3; p = 0.013). There was a significant improvement in porcine endoscopy (pre: 10.6, SD 2.8, post: 16.6, SD 3.4; p < 0.001) and colonoscopy (pre: 10.4, SD 2.7, post: 16.4, SD 4.2; p < 0.001) GAGES scores as well as FES manual skills performance (pre: 270.9, SD 105.5, post: 477.4, SD 68.9; p < 0.001) for the total cohort. There was no difference in post-test GAGES performance or FES manual skills exam performance between the two groups. Both the proficiency and repetition group had a 100% pass rate on the FES skills exam following VR curriculum completion.

CONCLUSION

A VR endoscopy curriculum translates to improved performance in upper and lower endoscopy in a live animal model. VR curricula type did not affect FES manual skills examination or live colonoscopy outcomes; however, a proficiency curriculum is less time-consuming and can provide a structured approach to prepare for both the FES exam and clinical endoscopy.

Democratizing Flexible Endoscopy Training: Noninferiority Randomized Trial Comparing a Box-Trainer vs a Virtual Reality Simulator to Prepare for the Fundamental of Endoscopic Surgery Exam

BACKGROUND

A considerable number of surgical residents fail the mandated endoscopy exam despite having completed the required clinical cases. Low-cost endoscopy box trainers (BTs) could democratize training; however, their effectiveness has never been compared with higher-cost virtual reality simulators (VRSs).

STUDY DESIGN

In this randomized noninferiority trial, endoscopy novices trained either on the VRS used in the Fundamental of Endoscopic Surgery manual skills (FESms) exam or a validated BT-the Basic Endoscopic Skills Training (BEST) box. Trainees were tested at fixed timepoints on the FESms and on standardized ex vivo models. The primary endpoint was FESms improvement at 1 week. Secondary endpoints were FESms improvement at 2 weeks, FESms pass rates, ex vivo tests performance, and trainees' feedback.

RESULTS

Seventy-seven trainees completed the study. VRS and BT trainees showed comparable FESms improvements (25.16 ± 14.29 vs 25.58 ± 11.75 FESms points, respectively; p = 0.89), FESms pass rates (76.32% vs 61.54%, respectively; p = 0.16) and total ex vivo tasks completion times (365.76 ± 237.56 vs 322.68 ± 186.04 seconds, respectively; p = 0.55) after 1 week. Performances were comparable also after 2 weeks of training, but FESms pass rates increased significantly only in the first week. Trainees were significantly more satisfied with the BT platform (3.97 ± 1.20 vs 4.81 ± 0.40 points on a 5-point Likert scale for the VRS and the BT, respectively; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Simulation-based training is an effective means to develop competency in endoscopy, especially at the beginning of the learning curve. Low-cost BTs like the BEST box compare well with high-tech VRSs and could help democratize endoscopy training.