Search

Background There is an increasing global interest in selection processes for candidates to surgical training. The aim of the present study is to compare selection processes to specialist surgeon training in the European Union (EU). A secondary goal is to provide guidance for evidence-based methods by a proposed minimum standard that would align countries within the EU. Methods Publications and grey literature describing selection strategies were sought. Correspondence with Union Européenne des Médecins Specialists (UEMS) Section of Surgery delegates was undertaken to solicit current information on national selection processes. Content analysis of 13 semi-structured interviews with experienced Swedish surgeons on the selection process. Two field trips to Ireland, a country with a centralized selection process were conducted. Based on collated information typical cases of selection in a centralized and decentralized setting, Ireland and Sweden, are described and compared. Results A multitude of methods for selection to surgical training programs were documented in the 27 investigated countries, ranging from locally run processes with unstructured interviews to national systems for selection of trainees with elaborate structured interviews, and non-technical and technical skills assessments. Associated with the difference between centralized and decentralized selection systems is whether surgical training is primarily governed by an employment or educational logic. Ireland had the most centralized and elaborate system, conducting a double selection process using evidence-based methods along an educational logic. On the opposite end of the scale Sweden has a decentralized, local selection process with a paucity of evidence-based methods, no national guidelines and operates along an employment logic, and Spain that rely solely on examination tests to rank candidates. Conclusion The studied European countries all have different processes for selection of surgical trainees and the use of evidence-based methods for selection is variable despite similar educational systems. Selection in decentralized systems is currently often conducted non-transparent and subjectively. A suggested improvement towards an evidence-based framework for selection applicable in centralized and decentralized systems as well as educational and employer logics is suggested.

Objective The aim was to document empirical observations about antecedents to and practices of unsuitable behaviours amongst surgical trainees and develop an interview guide that could be used for the selection process. Design A mixed methods design was adopted combining a survey distributed to senior surgeons and heads of departments, followed by semi-structured interviews with experienced surgeons. Setting All surgical departments and hospitals in The South Swedish Health Care Region. Participants The survey was completed by 54 of 83 eligible surgeons above 50years of age, and 4 of 7 heads of surgical departments. Semi-structured interviews with 13 surgeons representing local, regional, and university hospitals from the same cohort. Results Forty-six (85%) surgeons and four of seven heads of departments responded that they had come across surgical trainees deemed unsuitable to train and work as a surgeon. All heads of department and 31 of 54 of the surgeons believed tendencies towards unsuitability are evident early during training. From the survey, 107 statements described reasons for finding a trainee unsuitable. Qualitative analysis of the interviews and free-text answers of the survey led to identification of 11 problem domains with associated “warning signs”. An interview guide to help detect unsuitability tendencies in candidates during selection procedures was constructed. Conclusions Experienced surgeons have quite consistent views on what makes a person unsuitable as a surgeon. Their views have been systematized into 11 problem domains, and a set of ‘warning signs’ for unsuitable behaviours and traits has been developed. Early detection of these signs and traits is important for the individual, the work environment, and patient safety. A recommendation for a minimum framework for selection including the constructed interview guide is presented.