Session Design Submission Review

In a debate, participants actively engage with complex issues, learning by listening to how two ideologies come into conflict and circumstances where each side might be right. True extemporaneous debates rely on creativity and quick decision-making, as debaters analyze and argue various aspects of a topic. Debates encourage analyzing problems from multiple angles while fostering open-mindedness and adaptability. Often the conflict inherent to extemporaneous debating can allow debaters and the audience alike to explore and better understand the conflicting value systems inherent to contentious topics. In short, debating is not about winning the argument; it is about encouraging educators to think about controversial topics through a new lens while better understanding both sides of an argument. To that end, CoSEF, in collaboration with the Communications Committee, proposes continuing our tradition of a Great Debate at Surgical Education Week. The debate will focus on a controversial topic within surgical education: virtual versus in-person residency interviews.

During this structured debate, which will follow a standardized format based on Lincoln-Douglas debate, debaters will first provide prepared arguments in the form of opening statements for (Pro Team) and against (Con Team) a debate resolution (e.g., “virtual interviews are more beneficial than in-person interviews for surgical residency recruitment”). Each debate team will be comprised of two surgical trainees. Arguments presented in the opening statement will be crafted prior to the debate with input from attending debate coaches (two per team – Dr. Amanda Cooper, Dr. Michael Ditillo, Dr. Cary Aarons, and Dr. Adnan Alseidi), selected for their expertise and interest in residency recruitment. Each team will then deliver extemporaneous rebuttals, improvised from their literature reviews prior to the debate, directly responding to arguments made in the opening statements. This structured exchange will clarify the core ideologic conflict between the Pro and Con arguments, thereby deepening audience understanding of the issue. Between each round of arguments, cross examination will occur to allow each team to clarify their arguments. A moderator (a CoSEF member with experience in debate and panel moderation) will guide the audience through the debate, introducing each segment and keeping each team to strict timing. The debate will conclude with an audience Q&A led by the moderator, during which each team will take questions from the audience.

Often two contrasting ideologies can create entrenched but conflicting beliefs amongst surgical educators. In our experience, ‘debates’ held on controversial topics during national conferences often involve pre-planned presentations for and against the topic, without any substantial back-and-forth arguing of ideas. This “Great Debate” during Surgical Education Week will help engage educators to explore and gain new insights into whether surgical residency interviews should be virtual or in-person. Through structured rebuttals that foster direct, respectful engagement, we hope the audience will reconsider previously held views, gain a deeper understanding of all sides of this issue, and make a more informed decision regarding this topic.

Simulation-based training has grown exponentially, resulting in the need for well-trained simulation educators. Surgical faculty are increasingly called upon to lead, develop, and/or implement simulation curricula with little additional training in simulation education theory or educational methodologies.

Challenges arise around the availability of simulation equipment and centers, the effectiveness of simulation teaching methodology, and objective demonstrations of improvement in trainee skills and competencies. Lack of administrative support and/or research support adds additional obstacles to the successful implementation of simulation curricula.

The Association for Surgical Education Curriculum in Education Innovation and Teaching (ASCENT) program was developed by the ASE Simulation Committee, designed to share the expertise of leaders in surgical education on topics relevant to simulation to improve knowledge and provide tools to be successful surgical simulation educators.

This session will provide new and engaging discussions with surgical education simulation leaders on delivering and evaluating simulation curricula as participants navigate their own local environment with variable resources, highlighting the newly established ASCENT program.

Moderators: Ming-Li Wang, MD, FACS and Erika Simmerman Mabes, DO, FACS

Target Audience: This panel’s purpose is to inform surgical educators, surgeons, trainees, and researchers about the development and implementation of the ASCENT curriculum and provide tools and resources for successful surgical simulation training.

Loss is an inevitable part of surgical training, yet it is rarely discussed openly. Trainees and faculty are not immune to the very real human experience of personal illness, trauma, or mental health struggles. Programs may also face the profound impact of losing someone suddenly or unexpectedly. These experiences can leave lasting effects on individuals, residency culture, and the broader surgical community.

This panel brings together educators and trainees who have experienced resident loss firsthand, whether through illness, trauma, or mental health challenges, to share their stories. By centering lived experience, the session will illuminate the emotional, professional, and cultural consequences of resident loss, while also highlighting opportunities for programs to respond with compassion, structure, and resilience.

Through storytelling, panelists will explore:

1. The human experience of loss in residency, from multiple perspectives.
2. How individuals and programs navigate grief, uncertainty, and re-entry.
3. Lessons learned about what worked, what was missing, and what could have been done differently.

Audience members will be invited to reflect on their own experiences and identify actionable steps to take back to their institutions. This session is intended for training program leadership, faculty educators, residents, and institutional leaders who want to foster a culture where loss is acknowledged, stigma is reduced, and systems of support are strengthened. Participants will leave with insights into how to approach these difficult moments with empathy and structure, as well as practical tools for supporting both individuals and the residency community during and after loss.

Surgeons and trainees face some of the highest rates of burnout, depression, and suicide across the health professions—yet these struggles often remain unspoken, hidden behind a culture of silence and resilience at all costs. This panel will create a space for open, honest dialogue within the surgical education community by bringing together voices of people in the surgical community with a lived experience with mental health struggles from different perspectives, including personal, peer, leadership, and mental health expert perspectives. Through storytelling, personal reflection, and data-driven insights, the session will illuminate the lived experience of mental health challenges in surgery and the profound consequences of unaddressed distress. By engaging with both the human stories and the structural challenges, this session will empower educators, program leaders, and trainees to return to their institutions prepared to champion a cultural shift—one where mental health is protected with the same urgency as surgical skill and patient outcomes.

Failure to rescue in surgical care is when a complication does not receive timely and appropriate treatment leading to further complications, disability, or even death.  FTR often involves the trifecta of delayed recognition, delayed communication and/or delayed action.  These clinical enterprise concepts are pertinent in surgical education as well.  Unfortunately, trainees and faculty at different stages often struggle in their competencies, as a complication of training.  Similar to clinical failure to rescue, delays in recognition, delayed communication and/or delayed action result in significant, negative downstream effects on career and well-being.  In this panel, we aim to cover struggling learners spanning UME, GME and faculty.

In this panel, panelists use case scenarios to:

1. discuss examples of failure to rescue in surgical education
2. enumerate points of rescue
3. evaluate strategies to rescue
4. draw parallels between clinical enterprise processes and educational failure to rescue.

At the conclusion of the session, attendees will:

1. Be able to recognize a struggling learner/faculty member
2. Have strategies for early intervention and avoid the “failure to rescue”
3. Have tools to address the “failure to rescue” in a more confident and productive manner

Summary Description: Departments of Surgery face unprecedented financial pressure in the current climate while still being asked to deliver excellence in education as well as patient care and research. How do we keep faculty engaged, support surgical training, and protect well-being when “margin is the mission”? This panel will share practical, creative strategies for balancing finances, incentivization, and mission in the current times.

Session Topics:

• Is Margin the Main Mission? The Financial Landscape of Academic Surgery 

Description: Candid overview of the financial pressures currently facing surgical departments: declining reimbursements, increasing administrative costs and faculty time pressures, and competition for limited institutional resources. The speaker will outline how “margin is the mission” (versus “no margin, no mission”) has become a necessary mantra, highlighting both threats and opportunities for surgical training programs.

• Beyond the Paycheck: Creative Faculty Engagement, Especially in Lean Times

With limited funds, financial incentives alone can no longer drive faculty engagement, satisfaction, and/or retention. This speaker will explore alternative strategies for engagement—recognition programs, leadership development, flexible scheduling, promotion, and education alignment—that can keep faculty motivated and invested even when compensation is tight.

• Investing in Education Without Going Broke

Description: Residency and fellowship programs are resource-intensive, yet essential. This speaker will focus on innovative approaches to fund and sustain surgical education, including partnerships, philanthropic support, use of technology, and rethinking educational efficiency. The speaker will also address how to balance fiscal discipline with maintaining a rich training environment.

• Wellness, Burnout, and the Price of Penny-Pinching

When budgets are shrinking, faculty and trainees often feel the strain most acutely. This session will examine the downstream effects of austerity—burnout, disengagement, and attrition—and discuss cost-effective ways to support wellness and resilience in surgical departments. The speaker will propose solutions that strengthen both the faculty experience and the educational mission.

Maximizing the potential of surgical faculty is essential to the success of any academic department of surgery. While faculty are typically considered independent and well-trained upon appointment, continuous, career-long development is necessary to ensure their sustained effectiveness and impact.

Furthermore, surgical faculty often assume critical educational or leadership roles without structured preparation or ongoing support. Just as maintenance of certification ensures the continued development of clinical competencies, there must also be intentional and sustained investment in the education and maintenance of teaching and leadership skills. Supporting the longitudinal growth of faculty as teachers, mentors, program directors, and institutional leaders is vital to promoting excellence in surgical education and ensuring departmental vitality.

Faculty development is a well-established concept in many areas of academic medicine; however, its application within surgery has often been underrecognized and underutilized.

This panel session aims to equip attendees with the knowledge and tools necessary to establish or enhance faculty development programs within their institutions. It will also offer strategic insights into securing the resources and institutional support needed for success.

Expert panelists—including recognized leaders in surgical education and experienced program developers—will explore key aspects of faculty development, including:

1. Defining faculty development and its essential components
2. Identifying the appropriate personnel to lead and manage such programs
3. Outlining the necessary funding and institutional resources
4. Pearls from established surgical faculty development programs

Target Audience:
This session is designed for anyone who has interest in cultivating engaged and high-performing faculty, including surgical educators, trainee, education program administrators, Vice Chairs for Education, and those responsible for faculty development initiatives.

In academia, the well-crafted Letter of Recommendation (LOR) is not merely a formality; it can be a critical determinant of a candidate’s promotion, tenure and funding. Given the import of good LORs, it is imperative for the candidate to advocate for themself effectively. This panel of departmental and MedEd leaders will share their perspectives on best practices and avoidable pitfalls when requesting a LOR.  The expert panel will also share advice for compelling content, highlighting what makes a good letter.  Finally, the learner will be introduced to a new Society member benefit aimed to help juniors increase their professional network, “The Letter Writers Repository.”

Advice will be tiered to the medical student, resident and faculty with a special focus on differentiating requests for promotion versus funding, as in grant applications.  This session will focus on how to truly advocate, both from the vantage of the candidate and from the vantage of the letter writer. It’s about transforming a competent applicant into a truly compelling applicant. The panelists will discuss how the LOR process helps to strategically position a candidate’s experiences to align with the specific values and requirements of target position, professional society or funding request by moving beyond generic praise to powerful, personalized endorsements.

Tools, Skills, and Information Surgical Educators Will Take Back:

Participants will gain a deeper understanding of the critical elements that make an LOR impactful, and what information to provide the letter writer to ensure a tailored letter.

Ultimately, this session aims to empower surgical educators at all levels of career stage and proficiency to advocate for themselves for compelling letters of recommendations that are not just strong, but also strategically powerful. This directly benefits our Society by enhancing our members’ laurels and influence.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is reshaping surgical education and clinical learning globally—yet implementation, governance, and outcomes vary widely across countries. This interactive panel convenes surgical educators from Brazil, Uganda, Nepal, and Saudi Arabia to surface what’s working now, where risks lie, and how faculty development can equip learners/surgical trainees and supervisors for responsible, high-value AI use.

Panelists will compare national/regional policies and ethical frameworks, highlighting how differing regulatory approaches influence AI use in curricula, assessment, scholarship, and clinical teaching and learning (e.g., documentation training, case preparation, literature appraisal, and research support). Panelists will showcase current educational applications: AI-assisted writing (manuscripts, grants), literature triage and quality checks, assessment and grading support (rubric alignment, formative feedback at scale, integrity safeguards), simulation and skills training with AI-guided feedback, and emerging OR “smart tower” capabilities that augment intraoperative performance. Discussion will explicitly balance opportunities with skepticism and risk management (bias, privacy, academic integrity, “skills atrophy,” and overreliance).

A major focus is faculty development and trainee preparedness: What baseline competencies should be taught in medical school and residency-equivalent programs? Which practical guardrails (syllabi language, policy templates, honor codes) help maintain scholarly integrity while leveraging AI productively? How can programs extend scarce expert feedback with AI-enabled coaching—without replacing human mentorship?

Panelists will also explore global surgery use cases: deploying AI tools to support education and research where resources are constrained, and sharing cross-border playbooks adaptable to local realities. The session includes brief “mini-demos” of practical tools for paper screening and proposal structuring, followed by a short Q&A.

Participants will leave with:

• A concise, country-by-country snapshot of policy and practice,
• A checklist for integrating AI into assessment, simulation, and scholarly work—while preserving core research and clinical reasoning skills.

Longitudinal Integrated Clerkships (LIC) create an experience where medical students participate in the comprehensive care of patients over time. LIC students simultaneously rotate through all core clerkships throughout the academic year. While the LIC structure shows promise for students pursuing a career in primary care, little is known about the impact of the LIC on surgical education or career determination. Prior studies suggest that the surgical LICs increase medical students’ interest in a surgical career and specifically participating in a rural track LIC can influence surgeons’ decision to pursue a career in surgery. One of the LIC benefits may stem from the strength of student-faculty relationships formed overtime; however, the literature lacks substantive research investigating best ways to support LIC learners specifically in surgical clerkships. Furthermore, there is little known on the influence the LIC plays on the decision to pursue a career in surgery. Our objective is to describe the LIC model as it pertains to surgical education, understand the strengths and limitations of the LIC model within surgery, and to investigate key stakeholders’ perspectives (i.e., surgical educators, clerkship directors, and surgeons) of the LIC’s impact on career decision, residency preparedness, professional identity formation, and mentorship.

This panel is designed to apply to a broad audience of surgical educators. Regardless of an individual’s experience with the LIC model, understanding the curriculum is broadly relevant and valuable, particularly if adopting the model, considering a prospective resident or faculty candidate from an LIC program, or appraising the literature. In this discussion, we will first examine the LIC curriculum model as it applies to surgical clerkships. This will include introducing the longitudinal surgical learning environment and understanding how various academic programs implement the LIC curriculum in surgery. Next, we will evaluate the strengths and limitations of the LIC to surgical learning as it applies to clinical experience, relationship formation, and team immersion. Lastly, we will highlight the perspectives and experiences of surgical educators and LIC graduates from the lens of surgical trainees and faculty.

In this 60-minute panel, the moderators (Kshama Jaiswal, Garbrielle Moore) will start by introducing the topic and panelists. Each panelist will then present for 10-minutes, concluding with a 15-minute Q&A session led by discussants.

Preference signaling was first implemented in the resident recruitment process in the 2021-2022 match as an attempt to provide an objective metric for program directors (PDs) to identify applicants highly interested in their program while decreasing interview hoarding, which had been highly prevalent since the transition to virtual interviews in 2020. In 2024, the Association for Program Directors in Surgery (APDS) increased the number of signals per applicant from 5 to 15. In an attempt to study the impact of this change, the Surgical Education Research Committee (SERC), Graduate Surgical Education Committee (GSEC), and the Collaboration of Surgical Education Fellows (CoSEF) undertook several research projects this past year, funded by the ASE, to investigate PD, medical student advisor, and applicant experiences with and attitudes toward the current preference signaling system. These mixed methods studies involved semi-structured interviews with the aforementioned stakeholder groups, qualitative thematic analysis, followed by a survey of general surgery PDs and applicants based on the themes identified. 

While many commonalities between groups were noted, such as a common understanding of the purpose of preference signaling and a need for greater transparency regarding how programs are using signals, stakeholder opinions diverged in key areas, such as how applicants should be allocating their signals and attitudes toward home or visiting sub-interns signaling their home institution. These results highlight a need for discourse between stakeholder groups with respect to the future of preference signaling. Therefore, we propose a preference signaling panel at ASE this year. Panelists will include program directors, medical school advisors, and general surgery residents from both community and academic programs, as well as a representative from the APDS signaling task force. This panel will start with a summary of the APDS signaling task force and SERC/GSE/CoSEF signaling working group findings, followed by a panel discussion of these results. The panel discussion will be structured around common themes identified in previous preference signaling work, aiming to provide pragmatic guidance on: how general surgery residency applicants should determine their competitiveness and allocate their signals, how general surgery program directors can approach interpreting signals to improve efficiency in application review, how many signals per applicant is the ideal number, how much transparency general surgery programs should provide to applicants regarding how they use signals, whether home and visiting sub-interns should signal their home or visiting institutions, and how the approach to signaling may vary for applicants who are international medical graduates, DO students, couples matching, or dual applying. The discussion will highlight where stakeholder perspectives align or diverge.

This signaling panel represents a unique integration of three major stakeholder vantage points (PDs, applicants, and medical student advisors) and will provide a holistic understanding of preference signaling. Such cross-stakeholder discourse is critical to shaping an inclusive, transparent, and evidence-driven future for surgical recruitment.

As the value of formal training in health professions education has become increasingly recognized, opportunities for early career development have expanded. Within surgical education, there are numerous pathways for residents interested in pursuing opportunities in education leadership, research, and service, though many trainees and their advising faculty may be unaware of these options. The ASE Trainee Committee (TC) and the Collaboration of Surgical Education Fellows (CoSEF) are pleased to present a dynamic panel designed for both trainees and advising faculty that explores the wide range of professional development opportunities available through surgical education fellowships.

This panel will be moderated by the chair of the ASE TC [Sophia Williams-Perez], and panelists will include members of both the TC and CoSEF. Panelists will represent the spectrum of the professional development opportunities available in surgical education, including American College of Surgeons (ACS) Accredited Education Institutes (AEI) fellowship programs [Maya Hunt and Noosha Deravi], non-ACS AEI fellowships [Emma Burke and Cait Silvestri], ASE Surgical Education Research Fellowship (SERF) [Nicole Santucci], and Behind the Knife [Steven Thornton]. The panelists’ experiences encompass pursuing scholarly opportunities at both home and away institutions.

The panel moderator will explore a variety of topics aimed at helping surgical trainees and faculty advisors (e.g., PDs, APDs, etc) become familiar with the available pathways in surgical education training. The session will begin with a moderator-led overview of various surgical education fellowships represented by select panelists. Through host-directed questions, panelists will explore the factors involved in selecting their chosen program, perceived strengths and potential drawbacks, opportunities for curriculum development and scholarship in their respective roles, funding, the availability of formal didactic instruction in health professions education, teaching responsibilities at undergraduate and graduate medical education levels, experiences balancing their roles with additional responsibilities, how participants can learn more about their fellowship if interested, and other topics that arise organically or through question and answer. The session will conclude with summative remarks from the panel. A QR code with summary content will be available.

Panel Presenters:

• Dr. Joon Shim: joon.shim@bassett.org, Bassett Medical Center
• Dr. Cherry Song: Cherry.song2@rwjbh.org, Cooperman Barnabas Medical Center
• Dr. Marcela Ramirez: Marcela.Ramirez@HCAHealthcare.com, HCA Florida Kendall Hospital
• Dr. Ugoeze Nwokedi: ujnwokedi@gmail.com, Parkview Health
• Dr. J. Kayle Lee: Jane-K.Lee@aah.org, Advocate Christ Medical Center
• Dr. Ken Lipshy: wuzupdoc12@msn.com, Hampton VA Medical Center

Panel Agenda:

5 Minutes –  Moderator’s Welcome and Panelist Introductions

• Moderator’s Opening: Welcome the audience and briefly introduce the topic of the panel: the unique challenges and rewards of being a surgical educator outside of a traditional academic setting. Set the stage by highlighting why this conversation is important for both current practitioners and future surgeons.

• Panelist Introductions: Have each panelist introduce themselves. They should briefly state their name, surgical specialty, and the type of private or independent institution they are affiliated with.

25 Minutes – The Core Topics

Panelists will present for 5 minutes each on one of the following. The goal is to get diverse perspectives and practical advice.

Establishing Your Educator Identity –

• Potential Questions to Address: How did you first start teaching in a private or independent setting? Did you have to actively create that role for yourself, or did opportunities arise naturally? What advice do you have for someone trying to get started? How do you handle PTO?

• Is there a difference between Academic, Private practice or Corporate employed teaching surgeon?
• Do you have assigned time for teaching? Do you have any type of compensation from your institutional GME program?
• Liability in private practice?

Balancing Act: Clinical Obligations and Teaching:

• Potential Questions to Address: We all know clinical practice is demanding. How do you find the time to mentor and teach effectively? Can you share a specific strategy or tool you use to balance your surgical schedule with educational responsibilities?

The Benefits of Teaching:

• Potential Questions to Address: Beyond personal satisfaction, what are the tangible benefits of being an educator? How does mentoring trainees positively impact your own clinical practice or your institution?

Advice for Trainees:

• Potential Questions to Address: For the trainees in the audience considering a career in private practice, what’s one piece of advice you’d give them about seeking out educational opportunities? What should they look for in a practice or institution?

20 Minutes –  Q&A with Audience

• Open Floor: The moderator will open the floor for questions from the audience. The moderator should encourage a wide range of questions. The moderator’s role is to ensure all panelists get a chance to answer and to keep the discussion on track.

10 Minutes –  Closing Remarks

• Wrap-up: The moderator will thank the panelists for their time and insights and thank the audience for their engagement. The moderator will ask each panelist to provide one final, concise takeaway message for the audience. This should be a brief, impactful statement summarizing their main point.

Unfortunately, the scope of DEI (Diversity Equity and Inclusion) efforts are limited and may overlook some groups that need support. This panel explores the often- unseen experiences of surgeons and surgical residents living with disabilities, whether visible, invisible, acquired, or congenital. Surgery is a field historically associated with physical endurance, speed, and perfectionism. What does it mean to inhabit the identity of both surgeon and disabled in a profession that rarely makes space for that duality?

Panelists will share their stories, challenges, and triumphs. The session will explore how to empower, support, and encourage the next generation of surgeons who identify as disabled. We will interrogate ableism in surgical training, propose solutions for accessibility and inclusion, and inspire attendees to reimagine what a surgeon looks like. It also aims to empower attendees to challenge ableism in surgery.

Residency applications continue to grow more challenging, with fewer objective data points available to evaluate candidates. In response, programs increasingly emphasize holistic review. Within this evolving landscape, the role of the “Chair letter” in surgical applications warrants reexamination.

While many specialties have moved away from Chair letters in favor of evaluations from away rotations and standardized letters—believing these better reflect applicants’ clinical performance—surgery has yet to reach consensus. Simultaneously, the adoption of standardized letters has yielded mixed results, further complicating the evaluation process.

This 60-minute panel will explore the current and future role of the Chair letter in surgical residency applications. Perspectives will be shared by UME clerkship directors and mentors, General Surgery and Surgical Subspecialty Program Directors, and Surgery Chairs. The discussion will contrast traditional Chair letters with emerging non-traditional formats, aiming to clarify their value and limitations.

The final 20 minutes will be dedicated to audience engagement, fostering dialogue and working toward consensus on best practices. Given the topic’s relevance across the UME-to-GME continuum, this session is well-suited for joint interest between ASE and APDS.

Non-technical skills—including communication, leadership, professionalism, and systems-based practice—are critical for safe and effective surgical care. However, they remain challenging to teach, observe, and assess. While surgical education has traditionally emphasized technical skill acquisition, non-technical skills are increasingly recognized as essential for trainee development and patient outcomes. Competency-based frameworks, including the ACGME milestones and Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs), offer structured ways to assess learner performance. Nonetheless, mapping abstract constructs like communication or teamwork to these frameworks remains a persistent challenge.

Format:

This panel, led by members of the ASE-ACE Committee, will consist of expert presentations followed by moderated discussion. Panelists will share their experiences, research findings, and best practices related to evaluating and mapping non-technical skills in surgical education. The session aims to foster an interactive dialogue among attendees, encouraging the exchange of ideas and strategies to enhance the assessment of non-technical skills necessary to graduate a competent resident or trainee.

Key Themes and Presentations:

(1) Defining Non-Technical Skills:

• An exploration of the core non-technical skills critical for surgical education, including communication, leadership, professionalism, and systems-based practice.
• Discussion of existing frameworks such as the SCORE curriculum, which teach four key non-technical skills: Situational Awareness, Decision Making, Communication, and Teamwork.

(2) Current Evaluation Practices:

• Examination of existing methods for assessing non-technical skills, including direct observation, simulation, formative tools, and faculty assessments.
• Case studies illustrating the application of these methods in various surgical training programs.

(3) Gaps in Existing Frameworks:

• Identification of non-technical skills that are not represented or under-represented in current EPAs and milestone mapping.
• Discussion of barriers to accurate measurement and strategies to address these gaps.

(4) Innovative Approaches to Assessment:

• Presentation of novel assessment tools and methodologies for capturing abstract skills more effectively.
• Strategies for integrating non-technical skills into competency-based evaluations, with a focus on mapping to ACGME competencies and EPAs.

Learning Objectives:

By the end of this session, participants will be able to:

• Define the core non-technical skills essential for surgical education.
• Identify current practices and tools for assessing non-technical skills in surgical trainees.
• Recognize gaps in existing frameworks and propose strategies to address these gaps.
• Implement innovative approaches to assess and map non-technical skills to ACGME competencies and EPAs.

Conclusion:

Through this discussion, attendees will gain insight into both the conceptual and practical challenges of integrating non-technical skills into surgical education. The panel will conclude with a synthesis of actionable strategies for aligning non-technical skill assessment with ACGME competencies and EPAs, emphasizing how programs can measure meaningful outcomes beyond the operating room.

This session will be of interest to a broad range of surgical educators, particularly those involved in resident evaluation and assessment. It will be especially relevant for faculty who serve on Clinical Competency Committees (CCC), Program Directors (PD), Associate Program Directors (APD), and others working within Graduate Medical Education (GME). Senior residents themselves will benefit from this session, as clearer definitions and standardized metrics for non-technical skills can help them understand expectations, enhance their learning, and inform teaching when they supervise more junior trainees.

Research training for surgical residents is considered to be essential by the RRC but currently has wide variation in how it is achieved.  In addition, funds for research and professional development time are under intense pressure as resources have been constrained.   This panel proposes to explore how research training can be maintained and perhaps even elevated for surgical trainees.  The panel intends to address 3 topics:

1. Standardizing the level of research training acquisition using the EPA framework.

• How can the EPA framework be adapted to research training?
• Should there be standardization of research training for all surgery residents and how does this get incorporated into training for those residents who do not do have protected research or professional development time?

• 2. Establishing pilot programs for surgeon scientists.

• What do physician scientist training programs look like?
• Can this be incorporated into surgical training?
• What are the expected barriers to a Surgical Scientist Training Program?

• 3. Discussing the future of funding professional development time during residency.

• How are research/professional development years during residency currently funded?
• Are current paradigms changing in a time of restricted resources?
• How can programs incorporate professional development time into a residency curriculum if there is no dedicated research time?

Plan would be for a 60 minute panel.

The reality of modern surgical training faces the paradox of duty-hour limits, increased patient safety expectations, and rising burnout risk all competing for the same finite resource of time. Simulation-based education has proven to enhance operative performance and improve patient outcomes, yet integrating simulation into residency curricula without exceeding duty hours or compromising wellness remains a major challenge.

This panel, led by simulation directors, program leaders, and education scientists, will explore strategies to align simulation, wellness, and duty-hour compliance within the modern residency framework. We will highlight data showing that proficiency-based progression (PBP) and mastery learning models lead to faster skill acquisition and better performance compared to time-based training. We will also review findings linking structured simulation curricula to improved patient safety outcomes.

Panelists will illustrate real-world scheduling innovations that optimize skill development within duty-hour boundaries. Attendees will participate in an interactive “design sprint” to create a mini-4-week “Clock-Smart” simulation plan tailored to their own institutions.

The discussion will also connect simulation with well-being and ACGME’s updated guidance on fatigue mitigation. By merging data-driven scheduling with evidence-based education, this session models a holistic approach to developing technically competent, psychologically resilient surgeons.

Attendees will leave with:
• Practical templates for time-efficient simulation integration
• Benchmarked metrics for skill acquisition, wellness tracking, and compliance
• A structured planning tool for implementing a “Clock-Smart” curriculum at their home program.

This panel embodies ASE’s mission to advance surgical education through innovation, collaboration, and actionable takeaways. Participants will engage directly through live polling, design exercises, and facilitated reflection to ensure an interactive session that moves beyond lecture to collective problem solving.

Medical students frequently report dissatisfaction with the quality and quantity of feedback they receive from surgical supervisors. In this hands-on, interactive workshop, participants will learn to use Qualtrics survey software to augment their feedback practices.

Participants will learn how to create an online, Workplace-Based Assessment (WBA) system in which each student on the surgical rotation receives a personal, mobile-friendly feedback website and dashboard. This dashboard can be accessed through a website link or by scanning an individualized QR code. Students can use this system to solicit and record feedback from supervisors—such as residents, registered nurses (RNs), and faculty—or to complete a self-assessment. The WBA uses an entrustability scale with validity evidence and is focused on providing students with formative feedback targeted to increase their independence in the AAMC Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) they are most likely to encounter during the surgery clerkship. This system can also be used to track whether core faculty in the surgery clerkship are completing required activities, such as directly observed history and physical examinations.

During the workshop, participants will learn how to create each learner’s personalized feedback website, dashboard, and QR code. Participants will also be instructed on creating QR code ‘badge backers,’ which allow students to present their feedback link to a clinical supervisor at any time. Suggestions for how to implement, organize, and scale the Qualtrics-based feedback system will also be included.

The demonstrated Qualtrics system is highly flexible and can be tailored to each participant’s specific needs regarding feedback instrument content and the target learner population. This session will be of interest to any individual seeking to learn how Qualtrics can support feedback for learners in Undergraduate Medical Education (UME). Clerkship directors, associate clerkship directors, clerkship administrators, and all individuals interested in improving the quality of medical student feedback are encouraged to attend. Participants are encouraged to bring their computers with Qualtrics log-in information to begin working on their own feedback systems during the workshop.

Across surgical societies, there is a huge interest in surgical videos. This is particularly true as we transition to an increasingly robotic world.  Editing these videos often falls to more junior surgeons. But editing a surgical video is tricky. It requires a keen understanding of the operation, comfort with the available software options, and lots of knowledge about how to make the video maximally interesting to watch while educational. (how much can I speed it up? how and when do I do overlays to point out key anatomy? how do I make the transitions smooth so that it is intuitive to follow every step of the operation? what do I need to include in the case history to make it complete? )  This would be a workshop to help the young surgeons that attend the ASE get started in making successful videos. Great videos have a knock on effect and educate the next generation of surgeons (who are increasingly reliant on them!).

this would be a workshop to help the young surgeons that attend the ASE get started in making successful videos. Great videos have a knock-on effect and educate the next generation of surgeons (who are increasingly reliant on them!).

I have a post stock (a young MD from Colombia) who is an absolute rockstar in editing videos. He just won the best video award at MIS week in Orlando. He also won the best video in a competition for the International Laparoscopic Liver Surgery Society (ILLS).  He would be a great young, dynamic, diverse face to share his tips and tricks. If you chose to pursue this idea, I could help you identify some other people who also make great videos to contribute so that there are two or three speakers in the workshop. They could easily generate materials (a brief how I do it guide) that could serve as a take away list of strategies for participants. I think this would be a very well attended session at the ASE specifically thinking of the constituents of the society.

Let me know if you’d like to discuss further. My cell phone is 415–939–5844. If helpful, I would happily forward some of his work

Brendan

Brendan C. Visser, MD

Professor of Surgery

Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Surgery

HPB Fellowship Program Director

Medical Director, Cancer Center GI Clinical Care Program

Stanford University School of Medicine

300 Pasteur Dr., H3680

Stanford, CA 94305-5655

bvisser@stanford.edu

t: 650.721.1693

f: 650.736.1663

This workshop is designed for faculty, trainees, and researchers who want to integrate artificial intelligence (AI) tools into their academic and professional work. Participants will be introduced to practical strategies for accessing and navigating widely available AI platforms (e.g., ChatGPT), with a focus on generative text and image applications. The session will cover how to write effective prompts, refine outputs, and tailor AI responses to meet academic and research needs. Attendees will gain hands-on experience generating both text and image outputs, learning skills that can be directly applied to drafting manuscripts, preparing teaching materials, creating visuals, and enhancing scholarly productivity. By the end of the session, participants will be equipped with the tools and techniques to confidently use AI in ways that they can bring back and apply at their own institutions.

Difficult conversations are inevitable in surgery, whether breaking bad news to families, supporting a colleague after a critical incident, or acknowledging one’s own emotional distress. Yet surgical training rarely provides structured opportunities to learn the skills of emotional communication and peer support. This workshop consistns of a 90-minute experiential workshop designed to give residents, fellows, faculty mentors, and simulation educators practical frameworks and tools to navigate these challenging moments. The session will integrate role play, reflective writing, and case-based discussion to move beyond theory into practice. By the end of this workshop, participants will be better equipped to communicate with empathy, support peers in moments of vulnerability, and embed structured reflection into surgical training environments, skills that strengthen both individual well-being and collective culture.

Feedback is a critical component of the learning process in a clinical setting. During clinical rotations in medical school and throughout residency, the majority of learning takes place through work-based learning, case-based learning, problem-solving, and hands-on practical experience. As such, feedback is crucial to inform residents about their accomplishments and what needs improvement. Although trainees do not have control over who, how, or when feedback is delivered, even “bad” feedback could offer valuable information.

Negative feedback, though necessary, often triggers feelings of stress, embarrassment, humiliation, or anger, likely contributing to the absence of a feedback-seeking culture identified in the clinical setting.

Research shows that a minority of surgical residents report receiving regular feedback and less than half report that feedback is consistently delivered at suitable times and locations, is sufficiently clear or includes actionable plans for improvement. Furthermore, the majority agree that faculty have insufficient skills to deliver feedback effectively, and that peer-to-peer feedback has been identified as a primary source of feedback among residents.

Researchers of feedback in undergraduate medical education note similar challenges, such as general and brief comments, delayed observations, public comments that can be perceived as shaming, and feedback offered in frustration. Although high-quality, evidence-based recommendations for giving feedback are emerging in the literature, an educational gap remains on how to handle receiving negative feedback and the accompanying emotions. Providing trainees with a framework for receiving negative feedback– even poorly delivered–can give them control over their learning, reduce stress and negative emotions, and improve their feedback experience.

This workshop aims to offer educators an approach for teaching medical students or residents how to get the most out of feedback in a way that mitigates the stress reaction and maximizes growth. Participants will observe a “training session” and facilitate their own “training session” using a Feedback Management Framework provided. Small groups will strategize how to integrate the training into their own curriculum.

Feedback is one of the most powerful tools in medical education. When delivered effectively, it enhances learning, sustains motivation, and drives performance improvement. When delivered poorly, however, it can erode psychological safety. Yet feedback delivery remains a challenge for many educators, often due to timing, discomfort, or limited structured training.

Traditional faculty development uses lectures, small-group role play, and mock learners. These methods are limited by low fidelity, massed rather than deliberate practice, high cost, and labor intensity. In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a scalable, customizable solution to enhance teaching skills. AI-powered avatars represent a novel advancement that directly addresses many challenges. By simulating learners in immersive, interactive environments—complete with character history, emotions, and clinical context—avatars allow faculty to practice delivering feedback in scenarios that mirror real teaching. Participants can rehearse particularly difficult situations, such as addressing professionalism concerns, underperformance, or peer complaints. Avatars also use structured rubrics to give immediate, standardized feedback on the educator’s performance.

Pilot work demonstrates the feasibility and promise of this approach: faculty describe avatar sessions as engaging, realistic, and directly applicable to daily teaching. Participants report improved comfort and skill in giving constructive feedback. This workshop introduces an evidence-based, technology-enabled method for strengthening feedback delivery skills and shows how to integrate it within departments and institutions. In doing so, it advances the ASE mission to foster surgical education innovation and prepares faculty to deliver the high-quality feedback essential to training the next generation of surgeons.

Learning Objectives

• Recognize the importance of effective feedback and evidence-based strategies such as the Ask–Tell–Ask (ATA) model.
• Identify challenging feedback scenarios common to educators and program directors that benefit from rehearsal.
• Practice delivering feedback in avatar-simulated encounters to build skill and confidence using this novel technology.
• Explore opportunities to integrate AI-driven avatars into faculty development for scalable, real-time coaching.

Session Methods & Format

• 0–5 min: Introduction to session goals and the impact of feedback (all facilitators)
• 5–15 min: Interactive mini-didactic on feedback principles and pitfalls (Gardner)
• 15–20 min: Participants identify difficult feedback scenarios from their own teaching
• 20–40 min: Small-group breakouts (5 groups, each led by a facilitator):
  • Faculty interact with AI avatars portraying medical students in challenging scenarios (e.g., poor presentations, professionalism concerns).
  • Participants deliver feedback using the ATA model.
  • Avatars provide rubric-based feedback; participants reflect on approach.
• 40–60 min: Large-group debrief on integrating AI avatars into curricula and faculty development.

Educational Strategies

• Experiential learning with avatars
• Immediate, rubric-based feedback
• Peer discussion and reflection
• Emphasis on scalability, realism, and application to clinical teaching

Experience of Presenters

• Aimee Gardner, PhD: Associate Dean for Faculty Development, widely published on feedback and faculty development interventions.
• Ahmad M. Hider, MD, MPhil: Surgical resident and health policy researcher focused on medical education innovation.
• Nicole Christian, MD: Breast Surgical Oncology Surgeon, Associate Program Director – General Surgery Residency
• Madhuri Nagaraj, MD: General Surgeon, Critical Care Fellow

Concise Summary:
This workshop introduces AI-powered avatars as a novel, scalable platform for practicing and improving feedback delivery. Through immersive scenarios, participants will apply evidence-based strategies, receive structured coaching, and explore AI’s potential to transform faculty development globally.