| Title |
SAGES’s advanced GI/MIS fellowship curriculum pilot project
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Surgical Endoscopy, January 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00464-018-6020-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Joshua J. Weis, Matthew Goldblatt, Aurora Pryor, Brian J. Dunkin, L. Michael Brunt, Daniel B. Jones, Daniel J. Scott |
| Abstract |
The American health care system faces deficits in quality and quantity of surgeons. SAGES is a major stakeholder in surgical fellowship training and is responsible for defining the curriculum for the Advanced GI/MIS fellowship. SAGES leadership is actively adapting this curriculum. The process of reform began in 2014 through a series of iterative meetings and discussions. A working group within the Resident and Fellow Training Committee reviewed case log data from 2012 to 2015. These data were used to propose new criteria designed to provide adequate exposure to core content. The working group also proposed using video assessment of an MIS case to provide objective assessment of competency. Case log data were available for 326 fellows with a total of 85,154 cases logged (median 227 per fellow). The working group proposed new criteria starting with minimum case volumes for five defined categories including foregut (20), bariatrics (25), inguinal hernia (10), ventral hernia (10), and solid organ/colon/thoracic (10). Fellows are expected to perform an additional 75 complex MIS cases of any category for a total of 150 required cases overall. The proposal also included a minimum volume of flexible endoscopy (50) and submission of an MIS foregut case for video assessment. The new criteria more clearly defined which surgeon roles count for major credit within individual categories. Fourteen fellowships volunteered to pilot these new criteria for the 2017-2018 academic year. The new SAGES Advanced GI/MIS fellowship has been crafted to better define the core content that should be contained in these fellowships, while still allowing sufficient heterogeneity so that individual learners can tailor their training to specific areas of interest. The criteria also introduce innovative, evidence-based methods for assessing competency. Pending the results of the pilot program, SAGES will consider broad implementation of the new fellowship criteria. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 15% |
| Professor | 3 | 12% |
| Lecturer > Senior Lecturer | 1 | 4% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 10 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 35% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 12% |
| Psychology | 1 | 4% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 12 | 46% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 May 2018.
All research outputs
#17,926,658
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Surgical Endoscopy
#4,423
of 6,105 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#310,534
of 441,888 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Surgical Endoscopy
#134
of 161 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,105 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,888 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 161 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.