COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE

Evaluation of plastic surgery training programs: integrated/combined versus independent

Jason Roostaeian, Kenneth L Fan, Sarah Sorice, Christina J Tabit, Eileen Liao, Paymon Rahgozar, Neil Tanna, James P Bradley
Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 2012, 130 (1): 157e-167e
22743900

BACKGROUND: The authors aimed to differentiate between combined/integrated and independent (traditional) methods of plastic surgery training with regard to quality of trainees, caliber of graduates, and practice or career outcomes once graduated.

METHODS: To compare combined/integrated with independent residency program training, the authors conducted a Web-based survey of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons members looking at their experience and practice outcomes (n = 1056) and interviews of plastic surgery faculty looking at the quality of trainees (n = 72). The member survey evaluated background information, research credentials, pathway satisfaction, postgraduation activities, current practice, and academic affiliation. Faculty teacher interviews focused on knowledge base, diagnostic and treatment judgment, technical abilities, research capabilities, and prediction of future career success.

RESULTS: The member survey showed no difference (p > 0.05) between combined/integrated and independent trainees in practice type (cosmetic/reconstructive), practice volume, or academic achievements. Combined/integrated trained surgeons are three times more likely to recommend their training pathway and two times more likely to enter fellowship after residency. Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society membership correlated with a greater likelihood of having an academic practice at 5 and 10 years or more and higher professorship titles. Faculty evaluations showed that combined/integrated residents were superior in knowledge (49 percent versus 32 percent) but that independent residents were superior in technical ability (51 percent versus 20 percent) and research (57 percent versus 19 percent). Most faculty were unable to choose a pathway producing superior residents.

CONCLUSIONS: Regarding future practice outcomes, there was not a superior training pathway. Regarding quality of trainees, there were differences in faculty evaluations, but there was no consensus on a better pathway.

Full Text Links

Find Full Text Links for this Article

Discussion

You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
22743900
×

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.

×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"