Informed consent for surgery has become a critical component of surgical practice. There are specific legal requirements for what has to be disclosed to patients and for the accompanying documentation. The hospital consent for surgery form with the patient’s signature is a small part of the process. A quality assurance review of the documentation of informed consent by our surgical group indicated major deficiencies and prompted this article (and its Appendix containing further information). Our intent was to inform surgeons about modern standards and to discuss particular challenges. Informed consent for surgery entails what surgeons communicate to their patients about the proposed surgery and is a key element in the trust patients have in surgeons. It is of increasing importance, and we must keep up to date with patient and legal expectations.

No abstract

Background Pelvic reconstruction with a muscle flap significantly improves postoperative outcomes following abdominoperineal resection (APR). Despite it being the gold standard, significant surgeon-selection bias remains with respect to the necessity of pelvic obliteration, flap choice, and ostomy placement. The objective of the study was to characterize management practices among colorectal surgeons (CSs) and plastic surgeons (PSs). Methods Specialty-specific surveys were distributed electronically to CSs and PSs via surgical societies. Surveys were designed to illustrate geographic and specialty-specific differences in management. Results Of 106 (54 CSs and 52 PSs) respondents (58% Canada, 21% Europe, 14% the United States, and 6% Asia/Africa), significant interdisciplinary differences in practices were observed. Most respondents indicated that multidisciplinary meetings were not performed (74% of CSs and 78% of PSs). For a nonradiated pelvic dead space with small perineal defect, 91% of CSs and 56% of PSs indicated that flap reconstruction was not required. For a radiated pelvic dead space with small perineal defect, only 54% of CSs and 6% of PSs indicated that there was no need for flap reconstruction. With respect to ostomy placement, 87% of CSs and 21% of PSs indicated that stoma placement through the rectus was superior. When two ostomies were required, most CSs preferred exteriorizing ostomies through bilateral recti and requesting thigh-based reconstruction. PSs favored the vertical rectus abdominis muscle (VRAM; 52%) over the gracilis (23%) and inferior gluteal artery perforator (IGAP; 23%) flaps. Among PSs, North Americans favor abdominally based flaps (VRAM 60%), while Europeans favor gluteal-based flaps (IGAP 78%). Conclusion A lack of standardization continues to exist with respect to the reconstruction of pelvic defects following APR and pelvic exenteration. Geographic and interdisciplinary biases with respect to ostomy placement, flap choice, and role for pelvic obliteration continues to influence reconstructive practices. These cases should continue to be approached on a case by case basis, driven by pathology, presence of radiation, comorbidities, and the size of the pelvic and perineal defect.

Objective The Fellowship Council (FC) is transitioning to a competency-based medical education (CBME) model, including the introduction of Entrustable Professional Activities (EPAs) for training and assessment of Fellows. This study describes the implementation process employed by the FC during a ten-month pilot project and presents data regarding feasibility and perceived value. Methods The FC coordinated the development of EPAs in collaboration with the sponsoring societies for Advanced GI/MIS, Bariatrics, Foregut, Endoscopy and Hepatopancreaticobiliary (HPB) fellowships encompassing the preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative phases of care for key competencies. Fifteen accredited fellowship programs participated in this project. The assessments were collected through a unique platform on the FC website. Programs were asked to convene a Clinical Competency Committee (CCC) on a quarterly basis. The pilot group met monthly to support and improve the process. An exit survey evaluated the perceived value of EPAs. Results The 15 participating programs included 18 fellows and 106 faculty. A total of 655 assessments were initiated with 429 (65%) completed. The average (SD) number of EPAs completed for each fellow was 24(18); range 0–72. Intraoperative EPAs were preferentially completed (71%). The average(SD) time for both the fellow and faculty to complete an EPA was 27(78) hours. Engagement increased from 39% of fellows completing at least one EPA in September to 72% in December and declining to 50% in May. Entrustment level increased from 6% of EPAs evaluated as “Practice Ready” in September to 75% in June. The exit survey was returned by 63% of faculty and 72% of fellows. Overall, 46% of fellows and 74% of program directors recommended full-scale implementation of the EPA framework. Conclusion A competency-based assessment framework was developed by the FC and piloted in several programs. Participation was variable and required ongoing strategies to address barriers. The pilot project has prepared the FC to introduce CBME across all FC training programs. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00464-022-09502-5.