Leaving surgical training : some of the reasons are in surgery

In 2014, the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons identified, through internal analysis, a considerable attrition rate within its Surgical Education and Training programme. Within the attrition cohort, choosing to leave accounted for the majority. Women were significantly over-represented. It was considered important to study these ‘leavers’ if possible. An external group with medical education expertise were engaged to do this, a report that is now published and titled ‘A study exploring the reasons for and experiences of leaving surgical training’. During this time, the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons came under serious external review, leading to the development of the Action Plan on Discrimination, Bullying and Sexual Harassment in the Practice of Surgery, known as the Building Respect, Improving Patient Safety (BRIPS) action plan. The ‘Leaving Training Report’, which involved nearly one-half of all voluntary ‘leavers’, identified three major themes that were pertinent to leaving surgical training. Of these, one was about surgery itself: the complexity, the technical, decision-making and lifestyle demands, the emotional aspects of dealing with seriously sick patients and the personal toll of all of this. This narrative literature review investigates these aspects of surgical education from the trainees’ perspective

Morbidity and mortality meetings : gold, silver or bronze?

Background: Morbidity and mortality (M&M) meetings contribute to surgical education and improvements in patient care through the review of surgical outcomes; however, they often lack defined structure, objectives and resource support. The aim of this study was to investigate the factors that impact the effective conduct of M&M meetings. Methods: We conducted a rapid systematic literature review. Three biomedical databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library and the University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination), clinical practice guideline clearinghouses and grey literature sources were searched from May 2009 to September 2016. Studies that evaluated the function of a hospital-based M&M process were included. Two independent reviewers conducted study selection and data extraction. Study details and key findings were reported narratively. Results: Nineteen studies identified enablers, and seven identified barriers, to the effective conduct of M&M meetings. Enabling factors for effective M&M meetings included a structured meeting format, a structured case identification and presentation, and a systems focus. Absence of key personnel from meetings, lack of education regarding the meeting process, poor perceptions of the process, logistical issues and heterogeneity in case evaluation were identified as barriers to effective M&M meetings. Conclusion: Taking steps to standardize and incorporate the enabling factors into M&M meetings will ensure that the valuable time spent reviewing M&M is used effectively to improve patient care