Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Assessment of Their Training in Surgical Gastroenterology by Residents from Two Major Institutes in India

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Indian Journal of Surgery Aims and scope Submit manuscript

    We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

    Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

Abstract

Majority of the studies from the Indian subcontinent have focused on the analysis of surgical training from the mentor’s point of view, i.e. a top-down approach. In the present pilot study, we analysed the quality of Surgical Gastroenterology program at two of the most reputed teaching hospitals of the country by the means of feedback from the residents. The study was conducted using an objective questionnaire through the SurveyMonkey portal. The responses were objectively assessed on a Likert scale and analysed using the Z test of significance. There were a total of 113 participants from both the institutes (Male: 110; Female: 3). Majority of the residents reported overall satisfaction with the training program at both the institutes (Median score: 4–5 for most parameters). There was a higher level of satisfaction with hands-on training in the public sector (71 vs 46%; p < 0.01) and a greater level of satisfaction with research and publications noted in the private sector (87 vs 72%; p = 0.04). A higher preference to diversify into liver transplantation was noted in the residents trained from the private sector compared to the public sector. Lack of exposure to minimally invasive surgeries was a drawback noted in both private and public sector. Even though the results cannot represent the entire surgical gastroenterology training fraternity of India, the results could be used to improve other programmes. Areas of potential improvement could be hands-on exposure for residents in the private sector and wider exposure to advanced minimal access surgery and liver transplantation in the public sector.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mitchell JD, Parhar P, Narayana A (2010) Teaching and assessing systems-based practice: a pilot course in health care policy, finance, and law for radiation oncology residents. J Grad Med Educ 2:384e8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ajay K, Krishnaprasad R (2014) Feedback of final year ophthalmology postgraduates about their residency ophthalmology training in South India. Indian J Ophthalmol 62:814–817

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Grover AK (2008) Postgraduate ophthalmic education in India: are we on the right track? Indian J Ophthalmol 56:3–4

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Murthy GV, Gupta SK, Bachani D, Sanga L, John N, Tewari HK (2005) Status of specialty training in ophthalmology in India. Indian J Ophthalmol 53:135–142

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Mostafaei A, Hajebrahimi S (2011) Perceived satisfaction of ophthalmology residents with the current Iranian ophthalmology curriculum. Clin Ophthalmol 5:1207e10

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ray S, Shah I, Nundy S (2016) The research output from Indian medical institutions between 2005 and 2014. Curr Med Res Pract 6:49–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Peters AS, Kimura J, Ladden MD, March E, Moore GT (2008) A self-instructional model to teach systems-based practice and practice-based learning and improvement. J Gen Intern Med 23:931e6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Medical Council of India. Available at http://www.mciindia. org [accessed on 12.11.15].

  9. National Board of Examinations. Available at http://www. natboard.edu.in [accessed on 12.11.15].

  10. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. ACGME program requirements for graduate medical education in general surgery. Chicago (IL). Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Available at http://www.acgme.org/What-We-Do/Accreditation/Common-Program Reqirements/Commom. [accessed 13 May 2018].

  11. Chung CW, Lee KP (2002) A comparative study on residency education in general surgery. Korean J Med Educ 14:13–22

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kim JJ (2014) Residency training: training program renewal and evaluation of training. J Korean Med Assoc 57:896–898

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kim SG (2019) New start of surgical residents training: the first survey of program directors in Korea. BMC Med Educ 19:208

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Pandey S, Goel A (2020) Residents feedback on faculty and working environment: the urology training program in India. Indian J Surg 82:157–162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Benett CL, Baker O, Rangel EL, Marsh RH (2020) The gender gap in surgical residencies. JAMA Surg 155:893–894. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2020.2171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Nundy S (2012) The future of GI surgery in India. Indian J Surg 74:2–3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gopalakrishnan G (2009) Urological education in India: a status report. Indian J Urol 25:251–253

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sengupta A, Nundy S (2005) The private health sector in India. BMJ. 331:1157–1158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mori T, Hatano N, Maruyama S (1998) Significance of “hands-on training” in laparoscopic surgery. Surg Endosc 12:256–260

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Neacy K, Stern SA, Kim HM, Dronen SC (2000) Resident perception of academic skills training and impact on academic career choice. Acad Emerg Med 7:1408–1415

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Karim S, Duchcherer M (2014) Intimidation and harassment in residency: a review of the literature and results of the 2012 Canadian Association of Interns and Residents National Survey. Can Med Educ J 5:e50–e57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Katyal A, Singh PV, Bergkvist S, Samarth A, Rao M (2015) Private sector participation in delivering tertiary health care: a dichotomy of access and affordability across two Indian states. Health Policy Plan 30:i23–i31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Agha R, Muir G (2003) Does laparoscopic surgery spell the end of the open surgeon? J R Soc Med 96:544–546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Aldossary MY, Alnaimi M, Almabyouq F, Alsofyani T, AlJahdali A, Al-Buainain H (2019) Resident satisfaction regarding surgical training programme in Eastern Saudi Arabia: a cross-sectional study. Int J Surg Open 17:15–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Abelson JS, Mitchell KB, Afaneh C, Rich BS, Frey TJ, Gellman C et al (2016) Quality improvement-focused departmental grand rounds reports: a strategy to engage general surgery residents. J Grad Med Educ 8:232e6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gupta A, Kumar S, Kumar S, Mishra MC, Kumar S (2006) Surgical residency programme: training, teaching and evaluation in general surgery––a peer opinion poll in five medical colleges in Northern India. Indian J Surg 68:310–315

    Google Scholar 

  27. Javed MS, Harrison E, Taylor I (2003) The role of research in surgical training. Bull R Coll Surg Engl 85:120–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Chen XP (2017) Assessing residents’ readiness for OR autonomy: a qualitative descriptive study of expert surgical teachers’ best practices. J Surg Educ 74:e15–e21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Perone JA, Fankhauser GT, Adhikari D, Mehta HB, Woods MB, Tyler DS, Brown KM (2017) It depends on your perspective: resident satisfaction with operative experience. Am J Surg 213:253–259

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Damewood RB, Blair PG, Park YS, Lupi LK, Newman RW, Sachdeva AK (2017) “Taking training to the next level”: The American College of Surgeons committee on residency training survey. J Surg Educ 74:e95–e105

  31. Tang B, Zhang L, Alijani A (2020) Evidence to support the early introduction of laparoscopic suturing skills into the surgical training curriculum. BMC Med Educ 20:70

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgical Gastroenterology and Liver Transplantation, Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Room no. 2222, SSRB block, New Delhi, India

    Samrat Ray, Amitabh Yadav & Samiran Nundy

  2. Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, New Delhi, India

    Parmanand Tiwari

  3. Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India

    Peush Sahni & Anand Narayan Singh

Authors
  1. Samrat Ray
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Parmanand Tiwari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amitabh Yadav
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peush Sahni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Anand Narayan Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Samiran Nundy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Samrat Ray: Prepared the first draft of the manuscript. Collected all the data during the entire study period and was the primary investigator.

Parmanand Tiwari: Analysed and prepared all the tables and charts. Collected and compiled all the survey responses and performed preliminary analysis

Amitabh Yadav: Co-supervisor of the project. Edited the manuscript and methods.

Peush Sahni: Co-supervisor. Editing of the manuscript and principal investigator from AIIMS.

Anand Narayan Singh: Co-supervisor. Helped with preparation of the manuscript.

Samiran Nundy: Head supervisor of the project. Final editing of the manuscript and drafting of the study protocol. Principal designer of the study

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Samrat Ray.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

Questionnaire

(Please answer as ‘honestly’ as you can)

  1. 1.

    Basic details:

  • Gender:

  • Home/Permanent address:

  1. 2.

    Education:

  • MBBS (Institution):

  • MS/DNB (General Surgery):

  • Others:

  1. 3.

    Year of joining SGRH/AIIMS:

  2. 4.

    Why did you join SGRH/AIIMS?:

  3. 5.

    What were your top 3 choices of institution to pursue GI surgery?

  4. 6.

    About the course: (scale of 0-5; 0 being the worst and 5 being the best)

  • How was your overall learning experience?

  • How was your surgical exposure (in terms of variety of cases etc)?

  • How was the hands-on experience?

  • How was the academic experience (in terms of presentations, ward rounds etc)?

  • How was your learning experience with surgical audits and record keeping?

  • How was your experience with conducting research and publishing papers?

  • Did the training meet your expectations before you joined the course.’

  • Any other Remarks

  1. 7.

    After completion of the course, did you feel the need of pursuing further sub-specialisation? (Yes/No)

  • If answer to the above question is yes, then from where (India or abroad)

  • Compared to the place you pursued your further specialisation from, where would you place your alma mater (1- Much inferior in all aspects, 2- nearly equal, 3- somewhat better, 4- way better) [scale of 1-4]

  1. 8.

    Enumerate two strengths of the course

  2. 9.

    Enumerate two weaknesses of the course

  3. 10.

    Compared to the other institutes in India, where would you place your own institute, in terms of a training programme?

  • Above 99th percentile

  • 75-99th percentile

  • 50-75th percentile

  • Below 50th percentile

  1. 11.

    After graduating from the institute how confident were you as an independent surgeon to start off your practice? (scale of 0-5)

  2. 12.

    On a scale of 0-5, how much do you think the course curriculum needs to improve? (0-needs a lot of improvement and 5- needs no improvement at all)

  3. 13.

    Your Current status :

  • Where are you working now?

  • What is your position in your institute?

  • What is your primary area of work? (Upper GI, Lower GI, HPB, Liver transplant, Minimal access surgery, All of the above) [may have more than one response]

  • Were you satisfied with the financial returns of your work during your initial placement after completion of the course? (0-5; 0- not satisfied at all and 5- Highly satisfied)

  • Are you satisfied with the financial returns of your work presently? (0-5)

  • What are your future plans?

  1. 14.

    Would you recommend others to pursue GI surgery from your alma mater institute? (0-5; 0- not recommended at all, 5- Highly recommended)

  2. 15.

    Overall assessment of your training and subsequent achievements. (Scale of 0-5; 0- Unsatisfactory and 5- Highly satisfactory)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ray, S., Tiwari, P., Yadav, A. et al. Assessment of Their Training in Surgical Gastroenterology by Residents from Two Major Institutes in India. Indian J Surg 84 (Suppl 1), 89–98 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-021-02880-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12262-021-02880-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation