Quality of Office‐based Procedure Training During Laryngology Fellowship

Abstract

ObjectivesThe primary objective was to assess the perspectives of recent laryngology fellowship graduates on office‐based procedure training, with a secondary objective to compare this with previous research on perspectives of fellowship directors.MethodsRecent laryngology fellowship graduates were surveyed via an online survey platform regarding post‐fellowship practice and various aspects of office‐based procedure training, including perceived competence, mentorship, and barriers.ResultsThere were 51 respondents. Seventy‐six percent of respondents felt they “definitely” received adequate office procedure training. Number of procedures as primary surgeon was significantly associated with perception of adequate training (OR 1.54, 95% CI: 1.08–2.19, p = 0.018) and high post‐fellowship office procedure volume (OR 1.56, 95% CI: 1.02–2.39, p = 0.040). Fellows reported a lower percentage of procedures as primary surgeons compared with program directors (46.8% vs. 61.9%, p = 0.028). Fellows and directors agreed that informal debriefs were more commonly employed than more structured training elements such as checklists and simulators. Of nine office procedures, laryngeal electromyography, KTP laser, and transnasal esophagoscopy had the greatest decreases in practice after training.ConclusionAlthough most recent laryngology fellowship graduates endorse adequate office‐based procedure training, a range of individual experiences exists, and office procedure volume, both overall and across individual procedures, may decrease after fellowship. Fellows performing office procedures as primary surgeons may be linked to perceived quality of training and post‐fellowship volume.Level of EvidenceN/A Laryngoscope, 2023