Advertisement

Satisfaction of the Irish Trauma and Orthopaedic training programme with the Intercollegiate Surgical Curriculum Programme

  • Robert Pearse PiggottEmail author
  • John Charles Kelly
  • Ruairi Farrell MacNiocaill
Original Article
  • 14 Downloads

Abstract

Background

Surgical training has undergone extensive changes in recent years. The Intercollegiate Surgical Curriculum Programme (ISCP) has been utilised in the UK for many years to facilitate the education and assessment of trainees. It was adopted by the Irish Trauma and Orthopaedics (T&O) training programme in July 2015. This study sought to evaluate the use satisfaction with ISCP in the Irish context.

Methods

A total of 58 T&O trainers and trainees undertook a paper-based survey during national training days in March and April 2017.

Results

Eighty-nine percent of trainees responded to the survey along with 85% of trainers. Seventy-nine percent of respondents had been using ISCP for over a year. Most aspects of ISPC were rated as average, with the induction process, online multi-source feedback (MSF) and overall user friendliness rating poorly amongst respondents. Seventeen percent felt that ISCP had a positive impact on training, while 66% felt that it did not adversely affect their training opportunities. Forty-three percent reported a negative impact on the trainer-trainee relationship with adoption of ISCP and only 24% felt that the educational feedback was improved with the new system. Forty-two percent agreed that ISCP created a more structured and supervised framework to the training scheme.

Conclusions

Our survey demonstrated significant concerns and reservations amongst the Irish users of ISCP. The demonstrable level of trainee dissatisfaction with ISCP may represent a frustration that key problems such as the regulated training content of jobs remains unaddressed while ISCP does little to improve meaningful formative feedback.

Keywords

ISCP Orthopaedic surgery Surgical training 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Abdelrahman T, Long J, Egan R, Lewis WG (2016) Operative experience vs. competence: a curriculum concordance and learning curve analysis. J Surg Educ 73:694–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Purcell Jackson G, Tarpley JL (2009) How long does it take to train a surgeon? BMJ b4260:339Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chikwe J, de Souza AC, Pepper JR (2004) No time to train the surgeons. BMJ 328:418–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bates T, Cecil E, Greene I (2007) The effect of the EWTD on training in general surgery: an analysis of electronic logbook records. Bull Roy Coll Surg Engl 89:106–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chesser S, Bowman K, Phillips H (2002) The European Working Time Directive and the training of surgeons. BMJ 325:S69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lowry JCJ (2005) Results of the online EWTD trainee survey. Ann R Coll Surg Engl Suppl 87:86–87Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pereira EA, Dean BJ (2009) British surgeons’ experiences of mandatory online workplace-based assessment. J R Soc Med 102:287–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pereira EA, Dean BJ (2013) British surgeons’ experiences of a mandatory online workplace based assessment portfolio resurveyed three years on. J Surg Educ 70:59–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Likert R (1932) A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 22:5–43Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Beard J (2011) Workplace-based assessment: the need for continued evaluation and refinement. Surgeon 9(Suppl 1):S12–S13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hattie J, Timperley H (2007) The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res 77:81–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Norcini JJ, Blank LL, Duffy FD, Fortna GS (2003) The mini-CEX: a method for assessing clinical skills. Ann Intern Med 138:476–481CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miller A, Archer J (2010) Impact of workplace based assessment on doctors’ education and performance: a systematic review. BMJ c5064:341Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leung WC (2002) Competency based medical training: review. BMJ 325:693–696CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bindal T, Wall D, Goodyear HM (2011) Trainee doctors’ views on workplace-based assessments: are they just a tick box exercise? Med Teach 33:919–927CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beard JD (2008) Assessment of surgical skills of trainees in the UK. Ann R Coll Surg Engl 90:282–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Breen KJ, Hogan AM, Mealy K (2013) The detrimental impact of the implementation of the European working time directive (EWTD) on surgical senior house officer (SHO) operative experience. Ir J Med Sci 182:383–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Garvin JT, McLaughlin R, Kerin MJ (2008) A pilot project of European Working Time Directive compliant rosters in a university teaching hospital. Surgeon 6:88–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dean BJF, Keeler B, Garfjeld Roberts P, Rees JL (2018) Development of a surgical trainer assessment questionnaire. ANZ J Surg 88:45–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Pearse Piggott
    • 1
    Email author
  • John Charles Kelly
    • 1
  • Ruairi Farrell MacNiocaill
    • 2
  1. 1.Cappagh National Orthopaedic HospitalDublin 11Ireland
  2. 2.Waterford University HospitalWaterfordIreland

Personalised recommendations