PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Gary L Dunnington

Publications and source records attributed to Gary L Dunnington.

4 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2003

A model for teaching sentinel lymph node mapping and excision and axillary lymph node dissection.

BACKGROUND: The surgical skills laboratory increasingly provides opportunities for training and practice in basic surgical procedures. STUDY DESIGN: This article describes a new method for teaching trainees sentinel lymph node mapping and excision and level I/level II axillary dissection. The training session uses cadaver head and torso segments through T6 implanted with radioactive discs to simulate the sentinel node. This model is the first described to provide trainees the opportunity to practice mapping of the sentinel node and excision of the node once identified. RESULTS: A group of PGY2 and PGY3 residents participated in this laboratory experience with defined objectives, syllabus material, and training session. All participants successfully harvested the sentinel node and completed a level I/level II axillary dissection with faculty supervision and feedback. The residents rated the experience as outstanding and felt that it increased their confidence in their ability to perform the procedure in the operating room. CONCLUSIONS: Use of cadavers for surgical skills training is only one of a variety of options currently available to provide practice for surgical housestaff in the surgical skills laboratory. Such a model might well have application in training courses for surgeons in practice and courses accompanying clinical trials for sentinel lymph node mapping and excision.

Axilla↗
PubMed2003

Addressing the new competencies for residents' surgical training.

In July 2001 the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) charged U.S. residency training programs to implement a curriculum and evaluation plan covering six competencies. The authors describe the curriculum and evaluation strategy of the first surgical training program developed to meet the competencies, and list each competency and the teaching method and measurement instruments used. Implementation began July 1, 2001, and the program was fully operational on July 1, 2002. Meeting the curriculum challenges required modification of the existing curriculum and the addition of new instructional units. Nine additional evaluation instruments were needed. The largest investment was in planning and implementation, a one-time development cost. Staff workload increased by 252 hours; this is expected to be a continuing annual requirement. Faculty workload increased by two hours per resident and each resident's workload increased by 112 hours per year (2.3 hours per week). The transition was smoother than expected. Faculty and residents' buy-in was crucial. Faculty and residents were alerted to upcoming changes at the beginning of the year in a grand rounds presentation on the ACGME competencies and the approach to meeting requirements. Updates were presented periodically. The authors recommend that residency programs engaged in similar efforts make effective use of instruments developed elsewhere and collaborate with other programs rather than develop everything locally. The program's benefits include time savings and the availability of validity data and norms to inform decision making on residents' and program progress.

Clinical Competence↗
PubMed2003

The impact of a program for systematically recognizing and rewarding academic performance.

PURPOSE: To describe an academic performance incentive system (APIS) and faculty perception of it; explore the impacts of incentive level, faculty rank, clinical practice volume, and administrative responsibility on academic productivity; and describe the APIS's use in maintaining congruence between department mission and activities. METHOD: A list of teaching, research, and academic service activities was developed, which full-time faculty (n = 33) used to report activities. Clinical faculty members received incentive income based on credits earned. APIS initially distributed 1% of practice plan receipts (subsequently increased to 3% and then 5%). Productivity was measured by differences in APIS points achieved. Satisfaction of all faculty participants was measured by survey. RESULTS: Faculty members (n = 20) who participated throughout averaged 22 credits per month (nine to 42 credits), and quarterly incentive bonuses ranged from 145 US dollars to 6,128 US dollars. Average credits earned per month were 24 for the 1% incentive, 23 for the 3% incentive, and 20 for the 5% incentive. Faculty members with administrative responsibilities were as productive academically as were their non-administrative counterparts. Senior faculty members were as productive as junior faculty. Faculty members who were more productive clinically were more productive academically. Seventy percent of respondents reported they were either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the APIS. Seventy-eight percent felt that the APIS accurately reflected their academic productivity. Most respondents (81%) felt that the amount of money allocated to the incentive system was appropriate (15% felt it should be increased and one respondent recommended reduction). CONCLUSIONS: The APIS system has been well accepted by faculty and allows for data-driven discussion of the department's mission and activities.

Efficiency↗