Comparing Graduating Plastic Surgery Residents' Case Logs With Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Requirements, Content at National Meetings, and In-Service Examination Test Items

Abstract

Background: The importance of adaptable and up-to-date plastic surgery graduate medical education (GME) has taken on new meaning amidst accelerating surgical innovation and increasing calls for competency-based training standards. We aimed to examine the extent to which the procedures plastic surgery residents perform, as represented in case log data, align with 2 core standardized components of plastic surgery GME: ACGME (Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education) minimum procedure count requirements and the PSITE (Plastic Surgery In-Service Training Examination). We also examined their alignment with procedural representation at 2 major plastic surgery meetings.

Methods: Nine categories of reconstructive and aesthetic procedures were identified. Three-year averages for the number of procedures completed in each category by residents graduating in 2019-2021 were calculated from ACGME national case log data reports. The ACGME procedure count minimum requirements were also ascertained. The titles and durations of medical programming sessions scheduled for Plastic Surgery The Meeting (PSTM) 2022 and the Plastic Surgery Research Council (PSRC) Annual Meeting 2022 were retrieved from online data. Finally, test items from the 2020 to 2022 administrations of the PSITE were retrieved. Conference sessions and test items were assigned to a single procedure category when possible. Percent differences were calculated for comparison.

Results: The distribution of procedures on plastic surgery resident case logs differs from those of the major mechanisms of standardization in plastic surgery GME, in-service examination content more so than ACGME requirements. Meeting content at PSTM and PSRC had the largest percent differences with case log data, with PSTM being skewed toward aesthetics and PSRC toward reconstructive head and neck surgery.

Discussion: The criteria and standards by which plastic surgery residents are evaluated and content at national meetings differ from the procedures they actually complete during their training. Although largely reflecting heterogeneity of the specialty, following these comparisons will likely prove useful in the continual evaluation of plastic surgery residency training, especially in the preparation of residents for the variety of training and practice settings they pursue.