• 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
      • Shark Tank: Multi-Institutional Research Submissions
      • Thinking Out of the Box
      • Workshop and Panel Submissions
    • Institutional Members & Sponsors
      • 2025 ASE Institutional Members and Sponsors
      • 2024 ASE Institutional Members and Sponsors
    • Exhibits and Commercial Promotion Opportunities
      • 2025 ASE Industry, Foundation and Society Sponsors
      • 2025 Surgical Education Week Exhibitors
    • Meetings Archives
    • Media Gallery
  • Awards
    • ASE/APDS: Collaborative Grant Initiative
    • ASE DEI Underrepresented in Medicine (URiM) Scholarship Application
    • Education Awards
    • Multi-Institutional Research Grant
  • Programs
    • 2023-2024 Association for Surgical Education Curriculum in Education Innovation and Teaching (ASCENT)
    • Academy of Clerkship Directors
    • Academic Program Administrator Certification in Surgery
    • Ethics of Surgery Fellowship (EthoS)
    • Surgical Education and Leadership Fellowship (SELF)
    • Surgical Education Research Fellowship (SERF)
      • Surgical Education Research Fellowship Graduates
  • 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
    • Surgical Education Research Webinar Series
    • Podcasts
    • ASE CoSEF Peer Engagement for Education Research Success Webinar Series
  • ATLAS
  • Donate
  • Login

Annual Meeting 2019 Presentations

PS5-12: THE QUALITY OF OPERATIVE PERFORMANCE NARRATIVE FEEDBACK: A COMPARISON BETWEEN END OF ROTATION EVALUATIONS AND SIMPL
Samantha L Ahle, MD1, Mary S Schuller, MSEd2, Emily Carnes2, Mickyas Eskender, MD2, Jennifer Doyle, MA3, Jeanne Koehler, PhD4, Gabrielle Shaughness, BA5, Heeyoung Han, PhD4, Boyung Suh, PhD4, Xilin Chen, MPH6, Ahmed Latif6, Gregory Wnuk, MHSA6, Jonathan P Fryer, MD, MHPE2, John D Mellinger, MD4, Brian C George, MD, MAEd5; 1Yale School of Medicine, 2Feinburg School of Medicine-Northwestern University, 3Harvard Medical School, 4SIU School of Medicine, 5University of Michigan Medical School, 6Center for Surgical Training and Research, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan

 

Purpose: Many surgical training programs administer an evaluation with which faculty members may rate and comment on trainee operative performance at the end of the rotation (EOR). Programs who are members of the Procedural Learning and Safety Collaborative (PLSC) have also implemented SIMPL, a workplace based assessment tool with which faculty can rate and comment on a trainee’s operative performance immediately after a case. It is unknown how the quality of narrative operative performance feedback in SIMPL compares to those on EOR forms.

Methods: EOR evaluation and SIMPL narrative comments from a single academic year were collected from two university-based general surgery training programs, transcribed, and deidentified. Comments were partitioned by post graduate year (PGY) and data source (EOR vs. SIMPL) before being randomly sampled for inclusion in the qualitative analysis. Comments relating to operative skills were categorized by two surgeon raters as being specific or general and as encouraging and/or corrective. Using a previously defined rubric to combine those categories, comments were then classified as effective, mediocre, or ineffective. The frequencies with which comments were rated as effective were compared using X-square analysis.

Results: A total of 400 comments were analyzed (200 each from EOR evaluations and SIMPL). 25% (n = 50) of EOR and 46% (n = 92) of SIMPL operative performance evaluation comments were deemed effective (X2 = 18.08, p < .0001).

Conclusions: Evaluators give significantly higher quality operative performance feedback when using workplace based assessment tools rather than EOR evaluations, yet gaps still remain.

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