4.0 Article

Surgical training during the COVID-19 pandemic - a single institution's trainee survey

期刊

SOUTH AFRICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 60, 期 1, 页码 40-43

出版社

SA MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.17159/2078-5151/2022/v60n1a3604

关键词

COVID-19; education; medical; graduate; specialties; surgical

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the impact of COVID-19 on surgical training and research in South Africa. The results showed a decrease in the quality of surgical training and skills acquisition among surgical trainees during the pandemic, as well as a negative impact on their mental well-being.
Background: Few studies have assessed the impact of COVID-19 on surgical training in low-and middle-income countries. The aim of this study was to survey the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on postgraduate surgical training, research and registrar wellbeing in South Africa. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted as an online survey from 5 October 2020 to 1 December 2020. The study population was registrars from all surgical disciplines at the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences of Stellenbosch University. The survey consisted of 26 multiple-choice and five open-ended qualitative questions on the impact of COVID-19 on physical and mental wellbeing, skills acquisition and postgraduate research. Results: Of 98 surgical registrars, 35 (36%) responded. Twenty-three (65.7%) reported missed planned surgical rotations, 30 (85.7%) decreased surgical training time, and 22 (62.9%) reported a perceived decrease in training quality. Simulated skills training was only available to eight (22.9%) participants. Twenty-four (68.6%) experienced burnout and/or depression symptoms during the pandemic. Twenty-seven (77.1%) reported that postgraduate research was unaffected by the pandemic. Conclusion: During the COVID-19 pandemic, surgical trainees at this institution reported a decrease in the quality of surgical training and skills acquisition and a negative impact on their mental wellbeing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据