• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer
The Association for Surgical Education

The Association for Surgical Education

Impacting Surgical Education Globally

  • About
    • By-Laws
    • Contact the ASE
    • Leadership
    • Past Presidents
    • Standing Committees
    • Global Surgical Education-Journal of the ASE
    • ASE Strategic Plan 2023-2026
  • Join!
  • Meeting
    • Annual Meeting Information
    • ASE Fall Meeting & Courses
    • Call For Abstracts
      • Scientific Sessions
      • Candlelight Session
      • Multi-Institutional Research Submissions
      • Thinking Out of the Box
      • Workshop and Panel Submissions
    • Institutional Members & Sponsors
      • 2024 ASE Institutional Members and Sponsors
    • Exhibits and Commercial Promotion Opportunities
      • 2024 ASE Industry, Foundation and Society Sponsors
      • 2024 Surgical Education Week Exhibitors
    • Meetings Archives
    • Media Gallery
  • Awards & Programs
    • Academy of Clerkship Directors
    • Academic Program Administrator Certification in Surgery
    • 2023-2024 Association for Surgical Education Curriculum in Education Innovation and Teaching (ASCENT)
    • ASE/APDS: Collaborative Grant Initiative
    • Education Awards
    • Multi-Institutional Research Grant
    • ASE DEI Underrepresented in Medicine (URiM) Scholarship Application
    • Surgical Education and Leadership Fellowship (SELF)
    • Surgical Education Research Fellowship (SERF)
      • Surgical Education Research Fellowship Graduates
    • Visiting Scholar Fellowship
    • Ethics of Surgery Fellowship (EthoS)
  • Foundation
    • Donate Now!
    • Foundation Board
    • Honoring Our Surgical Education Mentors and Educators
    • The ASE Foundation: Building for the Future – Donors
    • Deb DaRosa Scholarship Application
    • Dr. Debra DaRosa Career Development Scholarship – Donors
    • CESERT Pyramid Grant Application
    • Spotlight on CESERT Pyramid Grant Awardees!
    • Newsletter
    • Annual Report
    • Review Committee
    • Grants Awarded
    • Corporate Partners
  • Resources
    • Policy for Conducting Survey Research of ASE Members
    • Nonphysician Professional Educator
    • Educational Materials
    • Collaborative Curricula
    • Getting Started in Surgical Education Research
    • Surgical Education Research Modules
    • Surgical Education Research Webinar Series
    • Podcasts
    • Teaching Modules
    • ASE CoSEF Peer Engagement for Education Research Success Webinar Series
  • ATLAS
  • Donate
  • Login

Annual Meeting 2018 Presentations

PS2 - 02: SURGICAL PROCEDURAL MAP SCORING FOR LAPAROSCOPIC CHOLECYSTECTOMY
Daniel A Hashimoto, MD, MS1, C. Gustaf Axelsson, MD2, Cara B Jones1, Roy Phitayakorn, MD, MHPE1, Emil Petrusa, PhD1, Sophia K McKinley, MD, EDM1, Denise W Gee, MD1, Carla M Pugh, MD, PhD3; 1Massachusetts General Hospital, 2Harvard Medical School, 3University of Wisconsin

 

Introduction: Concept maps are tools that allow users to visually organize complex knowledge in a hierarchical manner. Procedural maps are modified concept maps that represent non-linear decision-making in surgery, including the effects of patient and surgeon factors on operative steps. Scoring of concept maps has demonstrated that more experienced individuals create more structurally complex maps. The objective of this study was to determine whether scoring of procedural maps can detect differences in attendings versus residents.

Methods: Attendings and residents were interviewed about operative decision-making in laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) using a cognitive task analysis framework. Interviews were transcribed and converted into individual procedural maps using a standardized protocol. Respective maps were approved by each individual. Operative steps, patient factors, and surgeon factors between attendings and residents were compared. The Novak and Gowin scoring method for concept maps was used to compare structures of attending versus resident procedural maps.

Results: Six attendings and six residents (PGY2: 2, PGY3: 3, PGY5: 1) were interviewed. Attending specialties included general (n=3), acute care (n=1), and hepatobiliary (n=2) surgery. There were no significant differences between groups in the number patient or surgeon factors identified. Attending surgeons had significantly more operative steps and crosslinks in their maps as well as a higher total score (Table 1).

Conclusion: Procedural maps for LC of attending and resident surgeons are different in a number of facets. Attending surgeons have more structural complexity in their procedural maps than residents. Further research is needed to determine whether trainees would benefit from a curriculum that incorporates procedural mapping.

Table 1. Comparison of LC map elements between attendings and residents. All values as mean ± SD. Alpha=0.05.
  Attending (n=6)

Resident (n=6)

p
Operative Steps

29.67±1.9

23.3±1.9

0.043
Patient Factors 22.2±2.3 19.2±2.4 0.39
Surgeon Factors 8.5±0.8 8.5±0.7 1.0
Crosslinks 3.2±0.5 1±0.4 0.005
Total Score 90.2±8.4 63.2±3.8 0.015

 

Footer

Contact the ASE

11300 W. Olympic Blvd
Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90064 USA
(310) 215-1226
[email protected]

Follow ASE

  • LinkedIn
  • X

Advanced Training in Laparoscopic Suturing

The Official Journal of the Association for Surgical Education

Follow GSE on X

  • X