...
首页> 外文期刊>American Journal of Perinatology Reports >Debunking the Myth: Do Maternal-Fetal Medicine Fellows Negatively Impact Resident Obstetrical Skills?
【24h】

Debunking the Myth: Do Maternal-Fetal Medicine Fellows Negatively Impact Resident Obstetrical Skills?

机译:揭穿神话:做母亲胎儿医学患者对居民产科技能产生负面影响吗?

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Abstract Objective?Residency applicants often express concern that fellows negatively impact surgical opportunities, especially with less common procedures. We sought to describe the impact of maternal-fetal medicine (MFM) fellows on resident surgical opportunities. Study Design?Anonymous 27-question e-survey sent to obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN) residents in the United States and Puerto Rico in March 2018. Questions included experience as primary surgeon, for fourth year residents only, comfort performing procedures postresidency, and demographics. Residents from programs with MFM fellows (pMFM) were compared with those without (nMFM). Descriptive statistics used as appropriate. Regression was performed, controlling for significant variables. Results?A total of 417 residents completed the survey; 275 (66%) from nMFM and 142 (33%) from pMFM. PMFM residents were more likely to have 7 residents/year, be from an academic residency, and less likely to be planning to practice obstetrics postresidency (all, p??0.01). Plan to pursue MFM fellowship did not differ. NMFM residents were more likely to have been primary surgeon on a vacuum assisted delivery (77 vs. 63%, p??0.01). No difference in primary surgeon experience was seen for forceps delivery, breech deliveries, third- or fourth-degree repairs, cerclage, or cesarean hysterectomy. With regard to comfort performing procedures postresidency, vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery (VAVD) was more likely among nMFM trainees, no other differences seen. In regression models, no differences in likelihood of comfort performing procedures postresidency for any procedures based on the presence of MFM fellows were seen. Among pMFM residents, 94% stated fellows positively impacted their learning. Conclusion?MFM fellows do not appear to impact residents' perceived competency in obstetric procedures and the majority of trainees report that fellows positively impact their education.
机译:摘要目标?居住申请人经常表达令人担忧的是,对手术机会产生负面影响,特别是较少的普通程序。我们试图描述母性医学(MFM)研究员对居民外科机会的影响。学习设计?2018年3月送到美国和波多黎各的妇产科(Obgyn)居民送给妇产科(Obgyn)居民。问题包括仅为首要外科医生的经验,仅为第四年居民,舒适表演程序Postresidency和人口统计。将来自MFM研究员(PMFM)的程序的居民与没有(NMFM)的人进行比较。描述性统计数据适当使用。进行回归,控制重大变量。结果?共有417名居民完成了调查;来自NMFM的275(66%)来自PMFM的142(33%)。 PMFM居民更有可能拥有> 7个居民/年,来自学术居民,并且不太可能计划练习妇产病(全部,P?<?0.01)。追求MFM奖学金的计划没有差异。 NMFM居民更有可能是真空辅助递送的主要外科医生(77对63%,p?<0.01)。在镊子交付,臀部递送,第三或第四度维修,塞尔格植物或剖腹产镜切除术中没有看到主要外科医生经验的差异。关于舒适性表演程序Postresidency,在NMFM学员中,真空辅助阴道分娩(VAVD)更有可能,没有其他差异。在回归模型中,没有看到基于MFM研究员的存在的任何程序的舒适性执行程序Postresidency的可能性差异。在PMFM居民之间,94%的陈述研究员积极影响他们的学习。结论?MFM研究员似乎不会影响居民的产科程序的能力,以及大多数学员报告,审查员对其教育产生积极影响。

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号