• Something wrong with this record ?

European Surgical Education and Training in Gynecologic Oncology: The impact of an Accredited Fellowship

LM. Chiva, J. Mínguez, D. Querleu, D. Cibula, A. du Bois,

. 2017 ; 27 (4) : 819-825.

Language English Country United States

Document type Journal Article

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to understand the current situation of surgical education and training in Europe among members of the European Society of Gynecological Oncology (ESGO) and its impact on the daily surgical practice of those that have completed an accredited fellowship in gynecologic oncology. METHODS: A questionnaire addressing topics of interest in surgical training was designed and sent to ESGO members with surgical experience in gynecologic oncology. The survey was completely confidentially and could be completed in less than 5 minutes. Responses from 349 members from 42 European countries were obtained, which was 38% of the potential target population. The respondents were divided into 2 groups depending on whether they had undergone an official accreditation process. RESULTS: Two thirds of respondents said they had received a good surgical education. However, accredited gynecologists felt that global surgical training was significantly better. Surgical self-confidence among accredited specialists was significantly higher regarding most surgical oncological procedures than it was among their peers without such accreditation. However, the rate of self-assurance in ultraradical operations, and bowel and urinary reconstruction was quite low in both groups. There was a general request for standardizing surgical education across the ESGO area. Respondents demanded further training in laparoscopy, ultraradical procedures, bowel and urinary reconstruction, and postoperative management of complications. Furthermore, they requested the creation of fellowship programs in places where they are not now accredited and the promotion of rotations and exchange in centers of excellence. Finally, respondents want supporting training in disadvantaged countries of the ESGO area. CONCLUSIONS: Specialists in gynecologic oncology that have obtained a formal accreditation received a significantly better surgical education than those that have not. The ESGO responders recognize that their society should lead the standardization of surgical training and promote ways of improving members' surgical skills.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc18010676
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20240731111704.0
007      
ta
008      
180404s2017 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1097/IGC.0000000000000942 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)28410284
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Chiva, Luis M $u *Department Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clinica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain; †University of Toulouse, Toulouse, France; ‡Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Charles University Hospital, Prague, Czech Republic; and §Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Kliniken Essen-Mitte, Essen, Germany.
245    10
$a European Surgical Education and Training in Gynecologic Oncology: The impact of an Accredited Fellowship / $c LM. Chiva, J. Mínguez, D. Querleu, D. Cibula, A. du Bois,
520    9_
$a OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to understand the current situation of surgical education and training in Europe among members of the European Society of Gynecological Oncology (ESGO) and its impact on the daily surgical practice of those that have completed an accredited fellowship in gynecologic oncology. METHODS: A questionnaire addressing topics of interest in surgical training was designed and sent to ESGO members with surgical experience in gynecologic oncology. The survey was completely confidentially and could be completed in less than 5 minutes. Responses from 349 members from 42 European countries were obtained, which was 38% of the potential target population. The respondents were divided into 2 groups depending on whether they had undergone an official accreditation process. RESULTS: Two thirds of respondents said they had received a good surgical education. However, accredited gynecologists felt that global surgical training was significantly better. Surgical self-confidence among accredited specialists was significantly higher regarding most surgical oncological procedures than it was among their peers without such accreditation. However, the rate of self-assurance in ultraradical operations, and bowel and urinary reconstruction was quite low in both groups. There was a general request for standardizing surgical education across the ESGO area. Respondents demanded further training in laparoscopy, ultraradical procedures, bowel and urinary reconstruction, and postoperative management of complications. Furthermore, they requested the creation of fellowship programs in places where they are not now accredited and the promotion of rotations and exchange in centers of excellence. Finally, respondents want supporting training in disadvantaged countries of the ESGO area. CONCLUSIONS: Specialists in gynecologic oncology that have obtained a formal accreditation received a significantly better surgical education than those that have not. The ESGO responders recognize that their society should lead the standardization of surgical training and promote ways of improving members' surgical skills.
650    _2
$a Evropa $7 D005060
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a nádory ženských pohlavních orgánů $x chirurgie $7 D005833
650    _2
$a gynekologie $x výchova $7 D006176
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a chirurgická onkologie $x výchova $7 D000071077
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Mínguez, Jose
700    1_
$a Querleu, Denis
700    1_
$a Cibula, David
700    1_
$a Du Bois, Andreas, $d 1956- $7 xx0320625
773    0_
$w MED00009896 $t International journal of gynecological cancer $x 1525-1438 $g Roč. 27, č. 4 (2017), s. 819-825
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28410284 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20180404 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20240731111702 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1288161 $s 1007488
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2017 $b 27 $c 4 $d 819-825 $i 1525-1438 $m International journal of gynecological cancer $n Int J Gynecol Cancer $x MED00009896
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20180404

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...