Objective: To gain an understanding of the relative importance of the nine surgical competencies and their 27 attributes defined by the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS), which together provide the curriculum framework for today's surgeons.
Design, setting and participants: Between 9 August and 30 September 2010, trainees and Fellows of the RACS across Australia and New Zealand actively involved in educational activities rated, via questionnaire, the importance of the RACS competencies (technical expertise, communication, professionalism, medical expertise, judgement and decision making, scholarship and teaching, collaboration and teamwork, management and leadership, and health advocacy) and associated attributes.
Main outcome measures: Importance ranking of competencies and their attributes for surgical education and training.
Results: Of 3054 questionnaires distributed, 1834 (60%) were returned. We identified clear priorities in the perceived relative importance of the nine competencies and 27 attributes. The most important attributes were competence, insight, and recognising conditions amenable to surgery; least important were responding to community and cultural needs, supporting others, and maintaining personal health and wellbeing. Key differences were noted for the competency of collaboration and teamwork, which was ranked as more important by trainees than by Fellows. Female trainees and Fellows regarded all attributes as more important than did male trainees and Fellows.
Conclusion: In a complex environment with multiple pressures, the priorities of the competencies are important. Trainees and Fellows had a very similar approach to the prioritisation of the attributes. Of concern is the lesser importance given to attributes beyond individual expertise.
- 1. US National Library of Medicine. Greek medicine: the Hippocratic Oath. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_oath.html (accessed Apr 2015).
- 2. Percival T. Medical ethics. 3rd ed. Oxford: John Henry Parker, 1849.
- 3. Cruess SR, Cruess RL. Professionalism: a contract between medicine and society. CMAJ 2000; 162: 668-669.
- 4. Gruen RL, Campbell EG, Blumenthal D. Public roles of US physicians: community participation, political involvement, and collective advocacy. JAMA 2006; 296: 2467-2475.
- 5. Davies G. Professionalism of surgeons: a collective responsibility. ANZ J Surg 2011; 81: 219-226.
- 6. Arora S, Sevdalis N, Suliman I, et al. What makes a competent surgeon?: experts' and trainees' perceptions of the roles of a surgeon. Am J Surg 2009; 198: 726-732.
- 7. Symonds IM, Talley NJ. Can professionalism be taught? Med J Aust 2013; 199: 380-381. <MJA full text>
- 8. Hafferty FW, Castellani B. The increasing complexities of professionalism. Acad Med 2010; 85: 288-301.
- 9. Hafferty FW. Definitions of professionalism: a search for meaning and identity. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006; 449: 193-204.
- 10. Royal Australasian College of Surgeons. Surgical competence and performance: a guide to the assessment and development of surgeons. Melbourne: RACS, 2008.
- 11. Frank JR, editor. The CanMEDS 2005 physician competency framework. Better standards. Better physicians. Better care. Ottawa: Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, 2005.
- 12. Balanda KP, MacGillivray HL. Kurtosis: a critical review. Amer Statist 1988; 42: 19-22.
- 13. Rowley BD, Baldwin DC Jr, Bay RC, Karpman RR. Professionalism and professional values in orthopaedics. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2000; 378: 90-96.
- 14. Cornwall R. Teaching professionalism in orthopaedic residency. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2001; 83-A: 626-628.
- 15. Rademakers JJ, de Rooy N, Ten Cate OT. Senior medical students' appraisal of CanMEDS competencies. Med Educ 2007; 41: 990-994.
- 16. Lucey C, Souba W. Perspective: the problem with the problem of professionalism. Acad Med 2010; 85: 1018-1024.
Publication of your online response is subject to the Medical Journal of Australia's editorial discretion. You will be notified by email within five working days should your response be accepted.