Sucky surgical attendings

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

dell2004

Junior Member
10+ Year Member
5+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Joined
Sep 2, 2004
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
So I'm putting myself out there at the cost of sounding like an arrogant p*i*k, but I have to say there are a few attendings at my training program that can't operate to save a patient's life (literally). Same thing goes when operating with a few of the cheifs or fellows. I mean - seriousely, what do you do when you know the patient in front of you is going to suffer unneeded harm when the instructor across the table from you doesn't have your respect, operates with two thumbs, and is the laughing-stock of the OR (he/she doesn't realize it)?

Members don't see this ad.
 
So I'm putting myself out there at the cost of sounding like an arrogant p*i*k, but I have to say there are a few attendings at my training program that can't operate to save a patient's life (literally). Same thing goes when operating with a few of the cheifs or fellows. I mean - seriousely, what do you do when you know the patient in front of you is going to suffer unneeded harm when the instructor across the table from you doesn't have your respect, operates with two thumbs, and is the laughing-stock of the OR (he/she doesn't realize it)?

What are you going to do when you are chief, fellow or an attending and some junior resident says/feels the same way about you? My vote is for you to tell them about it since they don't already know as you state above. I know you are going to want to hear this when you are in their position. Go for it dude/dudette! 😉 Funny, but I never ran into this problem in my residency program.
 
I'd totally want to hear it.....but I have to tell you there are at leat 2 attendings that really suck and a fellow I operated with the other day who looked like an intern trying to close the belly. Telling a senior trainee/surgeon to their face that their technique sucks (now matter how nice you put it and show them how to improve it) is probably pretty damning. Taking over the operation (which I've done to a certain degree) is kind of passive-aggressive but at least I know less harm is done to the patient - and that's something I can sleep with.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
It's good that you came to residency fully trained and able to explain techniques to your chiefs, fellows and attendings. I wish you were in my program (I'm a vascular attending) as I probably could learn something from you. Seriously, you owe it to the patients to share your knowledge and improve the program. You owe it to your fellow residents to improve things in the program. You could mention to your PD that you are happy to explain proper surgical technique to anyone who needs it. You would be a true asset to your program.
 
Dell - you're what a PGY-3?

I'm confused why you are suprised. You admittedly went to a big-name university program where you were worried about the great influx of fellows and how they might take away cases from residents.

And now you find that you are having to "take over" cases from attendings and fellows to save the patients? Yes, that smacks of arrogance and possibly naivete (about how good you might be).

But perhaps you got what you wished for or deserved by picking a big name program with tons of fellows and lack of surgical experience for residents. A big name program does not always produce the best technicians. This is of course a gross generalization and some of the best surgeons I've seen have come out of academic programs; then again, I've seen others who struggle. I'm not sure why you are suprised since you have expressed concerns about lack of cases and experience at such programs here on SDN in the past.

We've all had attendings whom we felt were either past their prime or made us nervous. I can think of one in particular whom we all hated operating with, even some of the junior attendings would try to avoid double scrubbing with him. And fellows will have variable skills depending on the amount of autonomy given to them during residency. It was quite a change for me coming from a residency program where we weren't allowed to do much on our own, to a fellowship where I was expected to work as a junior attending. If your Chiefs, fellows and attendings didn't have faculty who cared about their skills, they may not be aware that their skills are lacking; you'd be suprised at what bad habits are learned during residency that no one takes the time to correct.

Feel free to tell the fellows or the attendings that they suck but given you have at least 2.5 years left in your program, I wouldn't expect it to be enjoyable if you do so.
 
I will also add to what WS said in that surgical techniques can be taught to just about anyone. They must be taught and that's the key. One of my attendings who trained with Schwartz (a master technician and surgeon) always said was that he could teach anyone technique but knowing when to operate and when not to operate was the key to being a great surgeon. Should you doubt this, wait until you get to oral exams. They are not going to be testing your techniques at that point.

Surgical training as we all know, is much more than just operating. Sure, having great skills are wonderful and I have seen some RN first assistants/ physician assistants who had great technical skills but were not surgeons by any stretch of the imagination.
 
I would have to agree with the above. The most questionable acts in surgery I have seen were usually a result of a judgement call to start with. Most of us fall on the main part of the bell curve technically but function well because we have the experience to know why and what we should (and shouldn't) be doing.

That said, I would rather hear it straight up rather than be the one that everyone bad-mouths behind their back. The response you get will probably be interesting.
 
Surgical training as we all know, is much more than just operating. Sure, having great skills are wonderful and I have seen some RN first assistants/ physician assistants who had great technical skills but were not surgeons by any stretch of the imagination.

Great points by both you and WS. I totally understand and frequently point out to others that you can teach a monkey to operate, etc....but I don't know if I really believe it. While it's great to know when to operate, you also need to know how to operate. Academics are extremely important, and training programs need to prepare you for your oral boards and such, but they also need to prepare you for independent surgical practice.

Some places, famous or not, provide inadequate technical training......and this should be considered a big problem......a HUGE problem, really.....
 
I will also add to what WS said in that surgical techniques can be taught to just about anyone. They must be taught and that's the key. One of my attendings who trained with Schwartz (a master technician and surgeon) always said was that he could teach anyone technique but knowing when to operate and when not to operate was the key to being a great surgeon. Should you doubt this, wait until you get to oral exams. They are not going to be testing your techniques at that point.

Surgical training as we all know, is much more than just operating. Sure, having great skills are wonderful and I have seen some RN first assistants/ physician assistants who had great technical skills but were not surgeons by any stretch of the imagination.

On another note, it is by no means my intention to derail this thread, but I sent you a personal message a couple months ago about possibly doing research with you, but I haven't gotten an answer. I assume you're an academic physician in vascular surgery at UVA since you often mention your love for your research in posts. I know this isn't exactly a professionally acceptable way to obtain a research position, but SDN is my only way of establishing a rapport with you and since the Personal Message attempt left me wanting, I figured I would post the second message where you'd be sure to see it. I'm presently evaluating my options for this upcoming summer and would love to read some of your publications and possibly add your lab as one of my options. I have already started applying for different fellowships so my funding should hopefully be covered. I just want you to give me an answer, whether its yes or no, untill then, I'll keep on asking.
 
We've all had attendings whom we felt were either past their prime or made us nervous.

If your Chiefs, fellows and attendings didn't have faculty who cared about their skills, they may not be aware that their skills are lacking; you'd be suprised at what bad habits are learned during residency that no one takes the time to correct.

WS, you're just killing me here.

There is no shortage of idiot or past-their-prime IM physicians, but they get weeded out of the teaching service due to the results of constant superior, peer, and fellow/resident/student reviews.

I don't advocate that junior residents tell "fellows or the attendings that they suck" either, but, is there a common practice surgical protocol in the OP to halt probable patient risk when seen? Were most of the M&M's at those institutions where you encountered "sub-par surgeries" (my words) pointless to improving patient care?
 
Last edited:
And now you find that you are having to "take over" cases from attendings and fellows to save the patients? Yes, that smacks of arrogance and possibly naivete (about how good you might be).

Woah! So look....I was intentionally being a little provocative. No one is going to tell anyone they "suck" - clearly juvenille. And, I'm not proclaiming myself as the new M. Yacoub. The serious point being that when the senior person is potentially endangering the patient it becomes a real ethical and personal dilemma. How to deal with it is a real struggle - and I was looking for some genuinely sincere advice. Sorry to pollute the forum.
 
I have to reply to this because it galls me to hear someone say that a monkey could be trained to operate. Really, you would really put a knife in a monkey's hand and take a whack at your relative? It is silly to hear people talk about the surgical skills of PA's and nurses, then in the same sentence remark "well clearly they aren't surgeons because they can't make the decision when to operate". The thing that separates this group most likely is the fact that these people choose not to pursue becoming a physician, not because they cannot. There is much to be said about experience and on the job training and some of these people are quite astute and I would have much faith in them should I require their expertise. As a PA with surgical experience about to finish med school and train to be a surgeon, I can say this: I am not a surgeon yet nor would I ever intimate that I am one. I truly believe I must do my time like everyone else and have a strong reverence for the heirarchy that makes up this training. Having said this, I will also say that, no doctor, you cannot say that surgical technique is a minimal role in what makes a surgeon. It is essential. Take it from me, I know first hand this is true. I worked in a practice with a skilled surgeon, and a not so skilled surgeon. Let me tell you how difficult it was to stand opposite the not so skilled surgeon during emergency cases and feel for the patient who was unlucky to need emergent CABG when the good surgeon was on vacation. For hours, (on pump mind you) we would look at vessels and then look at films then at the vessels, then he would ask what I thought, then he would have me go get more vein, then he would look at the vessels, he would have to be reminded to give more cardioplegia, he would look around some more, he would make arteriotomy on a cliff of plaque then curse it for leaking, then make random sutures that would span across the the anastomosis many times backwalling it and requiring it to be redone. He would crank down the aortotomy so that it would tear and require many more repairs. Eventually we would come of bypass and the patients would be volume overloaded, anemic, pressor laden messes. When we did come off bypass he would watch the heart fibrillate until it nearly ballooned out of the chest then after pleading he'd pull himself away from whatever random thing he was dicking around with and defibrillate. It would take twice as long to extubate them, they would take forever to wean off oxygen, ambulate and rehabilitate. Re-exploration was much more frequent and post-operative MI was more frequent as well. My first case to scrub with him was his first operation in private practice. He takes the aortic cross clamp and says before clamping and going on bypass, "this is the first time I ever get to do this, my attending always did this part". Does this sound like poor technique only? I am saying that a ton of the essential decision making you all speak of that makes a surgeon A GOOD Surgeon, occurs in the operating room. It is these decisions that make a great surgeon seem like every case they do is effortless. Much of what I blame this guy's problems on was not enough autonomy and emphasis on forcing a resident to make those intra operative decisions. If I don't get that opportunity in residency, I fear I will be as indecisive. Putting his cross clamps on for him is like wiping his butt for him and not giving him adequate exposure. Therefore he second guessed himself and clearly was making decisions for the first time. The good surgeon, he trained at a program where he did the operating. The place he worked right after his training raved about him like he was a God. Why was he good? He was a great mixture of technical skill, doing what was right even if it meant operating all night, never taking the easy way out, and being able to make quick decisions. Saying you can teach a monkey to operate is like Tiger Woods saying he could train anyone to win the masters. It is just plain silly. I have witnessed a few chiefs go through during my med school career that were glorified first assists. If I wanted to receive training like that, I would have stayed a PA and I would never let them cut on me. If you want to be good, go to where you see the trainee doing the cases. I realize in my lowly stead as PA/MS4 I have no right to say these things and the backlash is likely. But, ask me this if five years and I assure you my opinion will not change.
 
But, ask me this if five years and I assure you my opinion will not change.

I bet this generates more backlash than anything else you said. As much as you think you know how you will be at the end of the tunnel, rest assured, you will change. Don't make assurances this early on about anything.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I bet this generates more backlash than anything else you said. As much as you think you know how you will be at the end of the tunnel, rest assured, you will change. Don't make assurances this early on about anything.

Sort of echoing what he said, though, it's obvious that technical proficiency in surgery is essential. We make jokes about teaching monkeys to operate because there are too many med students who focus on that facet of surgery and ignore the equally essential decision making, or even think that they're not cut out for surgery because they're not "naturals."

I'd be interested to hear JAD's opinion because he has pointed out on several occasions that the general surgeon in private practice is more of a simple technician than we want to believe.

For the MS4s reading this thread, I think the take home point is that you need to choose a balanced program that offers academics and a strong surgical caseload. Dell2004 had to learn the hard way that reputation isn't everything, and his current training program, a "top national academic research institution" per his previous post, may be anemic in resident autonomy and operative experience. Let's just hope that Del2004 didn't match at #1 on his ROL, otherwise Socialist has some explaining to do....

In my opinion it is completely unacceptable for a chief to serve as a glorified first assistant. As for attendings past their prime who refuse to retire....well, I haven't been anywhere during my training where there wasn't a few of these......
 
I came from a relatively strong academic university program and had no problems with resident autonomy. At no time was any resident treated as a glorified first assistant (there were plenty of PAs and RNs for that). When we reached the senior level (PGY-3), we were essentially doing the cases with the attendings not scrubbing most of the time. The only exception was on vascular where the fellow served as the attending and the chief resident (PGY-4) wasn't doing a ton of work on the case until the fellow had enough experience to allow resident to take the case. As a PGY-4 chief on pediatric surgery, I did loads of cases from start to finish because our ped surgery attendings were quite happy to allow us to do this. At other rotations, as a PGY-4, you were essentially a junior attending (private hospital, VA and surgical center).

By the time our PGY-5 chief year came, we were very comfortable with all aspect of technique and had strong academics. Teaching was golden at our program. I can also say that many times, as a junior resident, I was doing cases with the PGY-5 chief and a medical student with the attending going between rooms. Again, there was no shortage of operative instruction or academic instruction for residents at any level. Even the fellows were excellent teachers who would allow us to do plenty of their cases after they had enough experience (usually after about six months into fellowship).

As I stated above, I never encountered an attending at my program that I didn't feel was outstanding. Many of our attendings are nationally recognized by their research and writings. They were excellent teachers and wholly believed in making the residents sound and safe surgeons period in addition to making sure we received what we needed for boards (oral and written).

Any medical student who comes into a surgical resident with the belief that they have "sucky" attendings may find that they too have a thing or two to learn for those folks. While experience may be a teacher in some aspects of residency, wisdom is a better teacher. As others who have completed this process will say, there is more to being a surgeon than just technique. I can also say that you can have the best technique in the world but without the academics, you won't be practicing surgery at the attending level.

When I chose programs, I looked for a good mix of academics and apprentice-type teaching. There are many programs out there that provide those things. If they are not there, you can certainly tell because the the board pass rate will be low. Again, no amount of technique in the world can help with that.
 
...what do you do when you know the patient in front of you is going to suffer unneeded harm when the instructor ...doesn't have your respect...
I guess that is a reflection of you....
...for attendings past their prime who refuse to retire....well, I haven't been anywhere during my training where there wasn't a few of these......
agreed with above
...We make jokes about teaching monkeys to operate because there are too many med students who focus on that facet of surgery and ignore the equally essential decision making, or even think that they're not cut out for surgery because they're not "naturals."

I'd be interested to hear JAD's opinion because he has pointed out on several occasions that the general surgeon in private practice is more of a simple technician than we want to believe...
As an invited participant, I am going to weigh in on this.... all know, I can not resist baiting:poke:

I do NOT think the community surgeon to be little more then a simple technician. I do think a community surgeon learns quickly that he/she can NOT drive every little minutia of care as the grand University professor suggests.... all the while a cadre of residents scurry and absorb the mass of obligations...
....I have to say there are a few attendings at my training program that can't operate to save a patient's life (literally). Same thing goes when operating with a few of the cheifs or fellows...
So, back to the OP. I believe numerous residents do NOT appreciate the position of comfort they enjoy (in respect to the topic at hand). I remember clearly how easily I recalled the textbook answer and how obviously the attendings were in opposition to the clear textbook answer... It was obvious and I knew I was the better for recognizing it.... During the cases, I always could see the bleeder.... they were obvious and the attending was, well kind of an idiot for not recognizing the obvious..... The arrogance is more obvious now that I am graduated and responsible for everything without someone of higher "rank" to point to....

It is tragic to have a mentality that the surgeon is week when depending on a team to assist.... As an outsider sitting accross an open belly you are trying to draw comparisons between the 99th percentile and the 95th percentile. Society expects a surgeon to bat 100% homers and a rockstar baseball player nothing close to that.... Are there surgeons that I think suck? You betcha. Are you better then them.... I guess you will one day find out....

Bottom line to the OP.... you are likely not as good as you would like to think, your attendings provide you the comfort of your position that allows you the luxury of that thought. What ever you think.... you are not yet fully trained, not boardable, and I suspect lacking in broad operative experience and/or teaching experience when compared to your attendings.... I can say one thing for your attendings.... they have clearly helped you achieve a great level of confidence even if not competence.

I am going to get some more wine:meanie:

JAD
 
Last edited:
Comment : Tiger Woods was better at golf at age 17 than many PGA pros were at the peak of their careers. It is possible for random processes in nature (genes, environmental factors, etc) to give one human being vastly more ability and aptitude than another person.

Thus, it's not inconceivable that a surgical resident could in fact surpass the skill of a more experienced colleague or an attending due to faster learning combined with superior natural ability. There's examples of prodigies vastly exceeding the abilities of their more experienced elders in every field of human endeavor.

The problem is that it's very difficult to measure or prove this : there's not the set in stone scoring system that there is in a sport. And politics dictate that if the resident wants to ever be the attending, that resident had better STFU until the day residency is over. Even if that resident's opinion happens to be the truth. Some of the lawsuits mentioned in past threads here make this overwhelmingly clear.
 
Comment : Tiger Woods was better at golf at age 17 than many PGA pros were at the peak of their careers. It is possible for random processes in nature (genes, environmental factors, etc) to give one human being vastly more ability and aptitude than another person.

Thus, it's not inconceivable that a surgical resident could in fact surpass the skill of a more experienced colleague or an attending due to faster learning combined with superior natural ability...
Yes.... but Tiger plays the whole shooting match on his own taking full accountability for every shot.... Tiger swings on his own though the caddy may assist in choice of clubs. The "prodigy" surgical resident as it were does NOT. He/she is held up by the system around him/her. The final decision and/or accountability and/or liability for everything done ultimately falls on the attending.... (until the savior resident jumps accross the table to save the day). Can he/she possibly throw a brilliant stitch? Yes. To suggest that is the whole match, as it would be with Tiger, is foolish. Then as some would like to argue.... the PA is the better surgeon.

There are times and places for a resident to speak up... across an open body cavity is often too late.

JAD
 
I bet this generates more backlash than anything else you said. As much as you think you know how you will be at the end of the tunnel, rest assured, you will change. Don't make assurances this early on about anything.

Point taken.

JAD, I did have the opportunity to work with many different surgeons and was not so narrow minded to feel that one way was the only way. I was never one to jump on the Dr. so and so does it this way band wagon. I did hear the "difficult anatomy" bs many times. So much so that the scrub nurse would kick me under the table when a few of the surgeons would get going on how they were the only ones capable of dealing with such anatomic variants. I am pretty sure that only works on the doe-eyed nursing students.

There is so much truth to the statement about the comfort of not having to be responsible for all things pertaining to the patient. Ultimately the attending surgeon is accountable to the patient and their family. It is for this reason I am so concerned about being trained well so that when I do finish I can handle the responsibility. I see my PA experience as a bit of a detriment in this aspect because I have spent many more than just five years residency having a surgeon either right there or a phone call away to bounce things off of.

All I know is that come match day, I will be ecstatic to match somewhere like njbmd described. I am eager to put my first assist days in the past and move forward.
 
Yes.... but Tiger plays the whole shooting match on his own taking full accountability for every shot.... Tiger swings on his own though the caddy may assist in choice of clubs. The "prodigy" surgical resident as it were does NOT. He/she is held up by the system around him/her. The final decision and/or accountability and/or liability for everything done ultimately falls on the attending.... (until the savior resident jumps accross the table to save the day). Can he/she possibly throw a brilliant stitch? Yes. To suggest that is the whole match, as it would be with Tiger, is foolish. Then as some would like to argue.... the PA is the better surgeon.

There are times and places for a resident to speak up... across an open body cavity is often too late.

JAD

JAD, Wing Scapula or NJBMD, maybe you guys can give me an answer to this question, or anyone else for that matter.


Speaking of first assists, we have an IMG who is fully trained in CT surgery in a different country working in our CT department. According to one of the attendings, he hasn't gone through the licensing process or any sort of residency to practice as a CT surgeon in the US (I assume this is probably due to his age upon arrival to the States, he is bit older). Yet, he works as a first assist with some of our CT surgeons and does almost everything that doesn't involve touching the heart, i.e: He does a lot of the initial LIMA grafting in OP CAB procedures and such. I haven't asked him anything (out of fear of appearing rude), but I was under the impression one had to have some type of US license or certification in order to operate on patients in the U.S. Are IMGs allowed to operate as first assists without going through the residency process? or is it likely that he probably has some type of U.S training?
 
Last edited:
JAD, Wing Scapula or NJBMD, maybe you guys can give me an answer to this question, or anyone else for that matter.


Speaking of first assists, we have an IMG who is fully trained in CT surgery in a different country working in our CT department. According to one of the attendings, he hasn't gone through the licensing process or any sort of residency to practice as a CT surgeon in the US (I assume this is probably due to his age upon arrival to the States, he is bit older). Yet, he works as a first assist with some of our CT surgeons and does almost everything that doesn't involve touching the heart, i.e: He does a lot of the initial LIMA grafting in OP CAB procedures and such. I haven't asked him anything (out of fear of appearing rude), but I was under the impression one had to have some type of US license or certification in order to operate on patients in the U.S. Are IMGs allowed to operate as first assists without going through the residency process? or is it likely that he probably has some type of U.S training?

There are only a few states that license first assists. Texas springs to mind. There are probably 1-2 others. Most first assists operate under delegated physician authority. A physician in most states has broad latitude to delegate any medical act that is not the province of another licensed provider (nursing for example). They also can't do anything that requires a license (write drug orders for example). The primary requirement is that they be under direct physician supervision. There liability is completely on the physician. There is no requirement that the delegatee have any sort of training at all.

In the past it was not unusual for surgeons or hospitals to train their own first assists. I know an OMFS that trained his receptionist to first assist. However, from a liability point of view most hospitals are requiring that the first assist document some sort of training.

The other issue is billing. From a Medicare standpoint, Medicare will only pay Physicians, PAs, NPs and CNS (in some states) for first assist duties. For private payors it depends on the contract. Some will pay anyone, some will pay only physicians, most are similar to Medicare. In an academic setting they may not care. In a private practice setting you would be giving up a lot of money depending on your payor mix.

David Carpenter, PA-C
 
There are several docs at Duke that finished residency in another country, and have a special NC license that allows them to practice at Duke ONLY, without having done a US residency.

As Duke is SO wide, being able to work there only is not a detriment.
 
...an IMG who is fully trained in CT surgery in a different country working in our CT department. ...He does a lot of the initial LIMA grafting in OP CAB procedures and such. ...Are IMGs allowed to operate as first assists without going through the residency process? or is it likely that he probably has some type of U.S training?
There are only a few states that license first assists. ...Most first assists operate under delegated physician authority. ...The primary requirement is that they be under direct physician supervision. There liability is completely on the physician...

...From a Medicare standpoint, Medicare will only pay Physicians, PAs, NPs and CNS (in some states) for first assist duties...
There are several docs ...finished residency in another country, and have a special ...license that allows them to practice ...without having done a US residency...
I think your question has been mostly answered. In my experience, each state has different positions on the matter. Generally, none will allow INDEPENDENT practice. However, some states will allow IMGs that do not meet USA license requirements to work basically as an advanced PA.... I have heard them referred to as the "clinical associate". Often, a practice or institution will petition the licensing board for limited privileges under the the oversight of the USA licensed physician/practice. This is an especially true occurence in "underserved" communities. You pay the "associate" well below market (for USA grad).... he/she can take call and perform "minor" procedures. This can be from vein harvest, IMA takedown to fracture setting in the ED.... It really comes down to your licensing board, clout of petitioning body, and the circumstances of the given IMG. There are numerous sad tales of the country destroyed by civil war and the unfortunate surgeon that washes up on USA soil. He/she has numerous "peer reviewed" publications (from native country in non-English journals), etc.... The petitioning body just needs to provide enough "cover" to the licensing board... so if something goes wrong they don't look bad:meanie:.

JAD
 
...I did hear the "difficult anatomy" bs many times. ...I am pretty sure that only works on the doe-eyed nursing students...
Unfortunately, I think it does seem to work. Many nurses/staff get "experiencial" education. They often learn what they are told and/or shown. Also, there is a steady cycle of "floaters" such that one can strategically set the opera house stage.

The issue with the longstanding "senior" is troublesome... I have encountered this part on both sides. I have found some are not current or up to speed on the newest approaches and technologies. So, their big wack has a "good outcome"... The problem is it is too much wack! I especially saw this in general surgery residency. People complained about our "University" poor outcomes.... problem is the community hero would only transfer in the complex for us to take the hit on the difficult case... i.e. his "colectomies" did so well.... ours were sick and had so many complications from DVTs to ARDS... problem? well, he did the minor colon polyp colectomy with a laparotomy while we did minimally invassive colectomies on UC!!! The public does not see the details. Another example, lung cancer. I remember in residency the community senior knocking the "young" new guy for their complications.... problem was that the senior guy was declaring most to be inoperable and/or doing primarily pneumonectomies when a lobe would suffice. He would do a pneuomonectomy instead of sleeve (cause he couldn't do a sleeve) on a relatively young patient with carcinoid and good lung function.... The community does not understand the details. They see the sick "university" pneumonectomy (>65 with COPD) and the "well" community guy's pneumonectomy (<45 with a carcinoid and no COPD)...
 
I think your question has been mostly answered. In my experience, each state has different positions on the matter. Generally, none will allow INDEPENDENT practice. However, some states will allow IMGs that do not meet USA license requirements to work basically as an advanced PA.... I have heard them referred to as the "clinical associate". Often, a practice or institution will petition the licensing board for limited privileges under the the oversight of the USA licensed physician/practice. This is an especially true occurence in "underserved" communities. You pay the "associate" well below market (for USA grad).... he/she can take call and perform "minor" procedures. This can be from vein harvest, IMA takedown to fracture setting in the ED.... It really comes down to your licensing board, clout of petitioning body, and the circumstances of the given IMG. There are numerous sad tales of the country destroyed by civil war and the unfortunate surgeon that washes up on USA soil. He/she has numerous "peer reviewed" publications (from native country in non-English journals), etc.... The petitioning body just needs to provide enough "cover" to the licensing board... so if something goes wrong they don't look bad:meanie:.

JAD
Most states have a mechanism for licensing FMGs directly. Usually they require that the physician have "exceptional ability". What they are supposed to be used for is to recruit a physician with ability that doesn't exist (or is in short supply) in the US. For example in Colorado:
(3) (a) (I) Notwithstanding any other provision of this article, an applicant of noteworthy and recognized professional attainment who is a graduate of a foreign medical school and who is licensed in a foreign jurisdiction if that jurisdiction has a licensing procedure may be granted a distinguished foreign teaching physician license to practice medicine in this state, upon application to the board in the manner determined by the board, if the following conditions are met:....

Basically it allows medical schools to recruit foreign faculty as long as they only practice at the medical school. How they are used in reality is probably different.

I haven't heard of clinical associates used. Unlicensed assistive personell have broad ability to work under the direct supervision of the physician. For example they could do a vein harvest while the physician was opening the chest or work on the ACL graft while the surgeon prepared the site. On the other hand they couldn't go down to the ER and set a fracture if the physician wasn't there. They couldn't round or write orders on a patient. All of that takes a license of some kind. On the other hand I am rarely suprised by what happens in the American hinterlands.

David Carpenter, PA-C
 
Comment : Tiger Woods was better at golf at age 17 than many PGA pros were at the peak of their careers. It is possible for random processes in nature (genes, environmental factors, etc) to give one human being vastly more ability and aptitude than another person.

According to UK news, he has been seriously injured in a car crash. Wishing him a speedy recovery.
 
It's good that you came to residency fully trained and able to explain techniques to your chiefs, fellows and attendings. I wish you were in my program (I'm a vascular attending) as I probably could learn something from you. Seriously, you owe it to the patients to share your knowledge and improve the program. You owe it to your fellow residents to improve things in the program. You could mention to your PD that you are happy to explain proper surgical technique to anyone who needs it. You would be a true asset to your program.

Hahaha
 
Most states have a mechanism for licensing FMGs

...I haven't heard of clinical associates used. Unlicensed assistive personell have broad ability to work under the direct supervision of the physician. For example they could do a vein harvest while the physician was opening the chest or work on the ACL graft while the surgeon prepared the site. On the other hand they couldn't go down to the ER and set a fracture if the physician wasn't there...
I have seen very busy trauma centers that had "orthopedic associates". These were IMG/FMG apparently previously trained and licensed abroad. They had some sort of licensing authorization under "supervision". They often did eval the ED patient, reduce the hip fractures, place some casts, etc.... They then would admit patient under US Grad ortho that would round in AM and/or take to OR for more definitive treatment. The ortho associate and the cardiac associates were NOT allowed complete autonomy in the sense that they could open a practice.... but they did in fact harvest vein, harvest IMA, see ortho traumas, etc.... Again, it's a state by state thing. I do not know all the details of what their licenses entailed and what all they could do....

JAD
 
I haven't heard of clinical associates used. Unlicensed assistive personell have broad ability to work under the direct supervision of the physician. For example they could do a vein harvest while the physician was opening the chest or work on the ACL graft while the surgeon prepared the site. On the other hand they couldn't go down to the ER and set a fracture if the physician wasn't there. They couldn't round or write orders on a patient. All of that takes a license of some kind. On the other hand I am rarely suprised by what happens in the American hinterlands.

David Carpenter, PA-C

The Bolded statements sound exactly right in terms what I've seen him do and not do.

I think your question has been mostly answered. In my experience, each state has different positions on the matter. Generally, none will allow INDEPENDENT practice. However, some states will allow IMGs that do not meet USA license requirements to work basically as an advanced PA.... I have heard them referred to as the "clinical associate". Often, a practice or institution will petition the licensing board for limited privileges under the the oversight of the USA licensed physician/practice. This is an especially true occurence in "underserved" communities. You pay the "associate" well below market (for USA grad).... he/she can take call and perform "minor" procedures. This can be from vein harvest, IMA takedown to fracture setting in the ED.... It really comes down to your licensing board, clout of petitioning body, and the circumstances of the given IMG. There are numerous sad tales of the country destroyed by civil war and the unfortunate surgeon that washes up on USA soil. He/she has numerous "peer reviewed" publications (from native country in non-English journals), etc.... The petitioning body just needs to provide enough "cover" to the licensing board... so if something goes wrong they don't look bad:meanie:.
JAD

Ok, this seems very probable, considering the fact that his hopital ID card (and white coat) has him listed as a general surgeon.

Well anyway, thanks for the reponses. I was simply feeding my curiosity, maybe after I get to know him I'll ask him.
 
Last edited:
... maybe after I get to know him I'll ask him.
Absolutely ask him. I have had long conversations with our displaced colleagues from abroad. I have never walked away feeling uneducated to some new perspective and/or sometimes how things are done.
 
I came from a relatively strong academic university program and had no problems with resident autonomy. At no time was any resident treated as a glorified first assistant (there were plenty of PAs and RNs for that). When we reached the senior level (PGY-3), we were essentially doing the cases with the attendings not scrubbing most of the time. The only exception was on vascular where the fellow served as the attending and the chief resident (PGY-4) wasn't doing a ton of work on the case until the fellow had enough experience to allow resident to take the case. As a PGY-4 chief on pediatric surgery, I did loads of cases from start to finish because our ped surgery attendings were quite happy to allow us to do this. At other rotations, as a PGY-4, you were essentially a junior attending (private hospital, VA and surgical center).

By the time our PGY-5 chief year came, we were very comfortable with all aspect of technique and had strong academics. Teaching was golden at our program. I can also say that many times, as a junior resident, I was doing cases with the PGY-5 chief and a medical student with the attending going between rooms. Again, there was no shortage of operative instruction or academic instruction for residents at any level. Even the fellows were excellent teachers who would allow us to do plenty of their cases after they had enough experience (usually after about six months into fellowship).

As I stated above, I never encountered an attending at my program that I didn't feel was outstanding. Many of our attendings are nationally recognized by their research and writings. They were excellent teachers and wholly believed in making the residents sound and safe surgeons period in addition to making sure we received what we needed for boards (oral and written).

Any medical student who comes into a surgical resident with the belief that they have "sucky" attendings may find that they too have a thing or two to learn for those folks. While experience may be a teacher in some aspects of residency, wisdom is a better teacher. As others who have completed this process will say, there is more to being a surgeon than just technique. I can also say that you can have the best technique in the world but without the academics, you won't be practicing surgery at the attending level.

When I chose programs, I looked for a good mix of academics and apprentice-type teaching. There are many programs out there that provide those things. If they are not there, you can certainly tell because the the board pass rate will be low. Again, no amount of technique in the world can help with that.

You are fortunate to have trained at such a good program. Though I took a different path after PGY3 in gen surg, I did NOT have anything close to the experience you describe through PGY3. I cannot say I ever actually did a case. It was VERY rare for an attending not to scrub, and in fact, residents aren't allowed to start the case without the attending in the room. Residents were spread thin enough that there was rarely more than one resident per case. Some attendings resented working with residents and didn't like residents "trying to tell them how to do the case" In my PGY 3 year I scrubbed a lap appy in the middle of the night with a new attending. He was holding the camera and I couldn't figure out why I was disoriented until we irrigated...and the water line was perfectly vertical! He didn't change the camera orientation at all, but just kept going. I wasn't sure if I should say anything or not. Only once did I have the opportunity to open the belly with an attending not scrubbed, in the last rotation of my PGY3 year (ironically, after I made the decision not to continue with surgery) My decision not to continue wasn't related to the program (though I continually worried that I would be uncomfortable operating alone) it was about wanting control of my life back and not loving it enough to put up with the back pain and fatigue.
 
When we reached the senior level (PGY-3), we were essentially doing the cases with the attendings not scrubbing most of the time.

You did a whipple or a big liver whack or a low anterior resection and your attending at the time never scrubbed in?
 
Last edited:
I came from a relatively strong academic university program and had no problems with resident autonomy. At no time was any resident treated as a glorified first assistant (there were plenty of PAs and RNs for that). When we reached the senior level (PGY-3), we were essentially doing the cases with the attendings not scrubbing most of the time.

If you were doing complex cases alone as a pgy-3 with no attending supervision, then the patients were getting poor care. Where I trained, the pgy-3 generally did hernias, breast, amputations, appies, choles, hemorrhoids, ostomy takedowns, and lines without an attending scrubbed/in the room. However, complex cases like pancreas, liver, colon cases other than a right hemi, transplant cases, thoracic cases, and vascular cases all had the pgy-3 with an attending, or a chief resident. There is simply no way that one can become skilled enough to approach best-care status by the pgy-3 year to be performing complex cases independently, and safely. You may want to clarify your statements lest someone think that your academic training program is providing unsafe, sub-standard surgical care.
 
...complex cases like pancreas, liver, colon cases other than a right hemi, transplant cases, thoracic cases, and vascular cases... There is simply no way that one can become skilled enough to approach best-care status by the pgy-3 year to be performing complex cases independently, and safely...You may want to clarify your statements lest someone think that your academic training program is providing unsafe, sub-standard surgical care.
I am glad you pointed this out, I would have to definately agree. I dare say, nobody, definately no patients, would feel they received best standard care surgical care if they knew their complex case was performed by a PGY3 "with attending not scrubbing most of the time". I'm sure this may occur. But, its occurrance does not equate best or standard care.
 
But let's assume that njbmd meant exactly what she said.

I think what's interesting and what's most useful is the VAST differences in training programs. This is a valuable thing for students to know.

In my program, it was rare, even for a Chief resident, to do any case alone. ANY CASE. Of course, the Chiefs weren't doing breast biopsies (unless they were short numbers) or appys, but just the same there are programs like mine, there are those with too much independence and there are those with a modicum of too much independence and too much oversight. I'm not sure what the average number of teaching cases we graduate with but it was almost always single digits. On some services, it was not unusual to have two attendings double scrub.😡
 
On some services, it was not unusual to have two attendings double scrub.😡

While this is an incredibly rare occurrence (usually when we are trying something only described previously in a case report or less), we, too, have an attending scrubbed for at least a portion of nearly every case (VA and acute care services are really the only potential exceptions), and most are scrubbed for the entire case (as most of our attendings aren't allowed to run two rooms). The amount of resident autonomy varies with each attending (and with each resident).
 
But let's assume that njbmd meant exactly what she said.

I think what's interesting and what's most useful is the VAST differences in training programs. This is a valuable thing for students to know.

In my program, it was rare, even for a Chief resident, to do any case alone. ...there are programs like mine, there are those with too much independence and there are those with a modicum of too much independence and too much oversight...
While this is an incredibly rare occurrence (usually when we are trying something only described previously in a case report or less), we, too, have an attending scrubbed for at least a portion of nearly every case (VA and acute care services are really the only potential exceptions), and most are scrubbed for the entire case (as most of our attendings aren't allowed to run two rooms). The amount of resident autonomy varies with each attending (and with each resident).
I think it is important for applicants & med-students to be aware of these distinguishing factors in programs too. I would also emphasize to med-students and residents the important role YOU play in this difference. On average, there is discussion of "x" thousand hours of "deliberate" practice involved in becoming a "master" of your "craft". You do not get that during residency.... no one has EVER gotten that in residency. thus the ABS, will openly discuss it taking a new grad 5-10 years to become a "master".

So, as a resident, you need to have a degree of discipline that is often absent.... accross the board. You need to engage in "active" and "deliberate" observation in all cases but especially those that your participation is limited. Numerous residents do not pre-read for a case. That is unfortunate. During the case, you should be step by step asking yourself what are you doing at this exact moment, why are you doing it, what will the next step be, why will the next step be "x", and what if.... You also need to be concentrating on all the steps the attending is doing, memorize each step... and "why". You should develop a notebook with some sketches of anatomy and landmarks and a description of step by step components of the procedure.... Then with each subsequent repetition of the procedure, you should edit your book, add the variations, etc... This is work. This is active learning during a ...RESIDENCY not just driving a bovie during a case. When you develop this amount of knowledge and awareness of the case, you can actually steer the case as first assist and then can participate above and beyond into the cognitive aspects of the case. Very few will take this disciplined approach.... in fact, many will not even read before a case.....
 
You did a whipple or a big liver whack or a low anterior resection and your attending at the time never scrubbed in?

You obviously didn't read what I wrote because at no time did I state that I was doing LARs or liver resections without an attending.

If you were doing complex cases alone as a pgy-3 with no attending supervision, then the patients were getting poor care. Where I trained, the pgy-3 generally did hernias, breast, amputations, appies, choles, hemorrhoids, ostomy takedowns, and lines without an attending scrubbed/in the room. However, complex cases like pancreas, liver, colon cases other than a right hemi, transplant cases, thoracic cases, and vascular cases all had the pgy-3 with an attending, or a chief resident. There is simply no way that one can become skilled enough to approach best-care status by the pgy-3 year to be performing complex cases independently, and safely. You may want to clarify your statements lest someone think that your academic training program is providing unsafe, sub-standard surgical care.

At no point in my previous post, did I state that I was doing complex cases alone with no attending. Hepatobiliary and Colorectal were not services that utilized PGY-3 residents as chiefs.

As a PGY-3, most of the cases that I performed were hernias, appys, choles, simple amputations and other more simplier cases. The attending was in the room, often not scrubbed but could scrub if necessary.

The other thing that you have to consider is that at my program, research years were done between PGY-2 and PGY-3 which meant that at the PGY-3 level, most of us were in our 4th year of residency (two clinical years and two research years) and had been able to scam plenty of the more junior resident cases while we were doing research so that we were pretty skilled.

As JAD stated above, no resident was allowed to enter a case without having pre-read the case. No attending would allow a resident to operate without the attending scrubbing if they were not totally comfortable that the resident was able to do the case.

Cases like LARs, APRs, hepatobiliary procedures were done by PGY-5s. A PGY-3 could scrub a more complex case but they were more "learners" than "doers" on these cases. However, lots of good experience can be gained by holding a retractor. I scrubbed plenty of APRs, LARs and other complex cases as a junior resident to get experience and to see anatomy. If something good was going, I was there to get a hand in it. While I couldn't claim the case, I could get the benefit of the operative experience and the wisdom of handling complications from the attending as they taught during the case. All in all, not bad experience for a junior resident.

Also, as a junior resident, you were not allowed to scrub a complex case with a fellow/attending unless you had pre-read, explained the case to the attending and knew the important surgical anatomy. That was just part of the heavy emphasis on teaching that my program expected of the attending staff. Again, residents were not assistants and were expected to get something out of every case that they scrubbed and I made sure that I did. That "deliberative observation" was some of the best learning that I experienced.
 
You obviously didn't read what I wrote because at no time did I state that I was doing LARs or liver resections without an attending.

At no point in my previous post, did I state that I was doing complex cases alone with no attending. Hepatobiliary and Colorectal were not services that utilized PGY-3 residents as chiefs.

As a PGY-3, most of the cases that I performed were hernias, appys, choles, simple amputations and other more simplier cases. The attending was in the room, often not scrubbed but could scrub if necessary.

I did read your previous post, which was why I posted about it. The post suggests that you are doing more than basic cases as a pgy-3, since you state that by your pgy-4 year you were functioning as a "junior attending". Junior attendings at my program (and many programs) were doing whipples, APRs, and liver cases, so a reasonable person would infer that you were doing these cases as a pgy-3 as well. I'm glad that you clarified your statements.
 
Last edited:
I did read your previous post, which was why I posted about it. The post suggests that you are doing more than basic cases as a pgy-3, since you state that by your pgy-4 year you were functioning as a "junior attending". Junior attendings at my program (and many programs) were doing whipples, APRs, and liver cases, so a reasonable person would infer that you were doing these cases as a pgy-3 as well. I'm glad that you clarified your statements.

What he said.

I never stated that you did cases without an attending.

Here's what I said:

You did a whipple or a big liver whack or a low anterior resection and your attending at the time never scrubbed in?
 
While this is an incredibly rare occurrence (usually when we are trying something only described previously in a case report or less)...

It was unusual for us, but enough that I recall it on Peds (doing some PSARPs) or Surg Onc (when we had a new attending and the other was "breaking him in").

...we, too, have an attending scrubbed for at least a portion of nearly every case (VA and acute care services are really the only potential exceptions), and most are scrubbed for the entire case (as most of our attendings aren't allowed to run two rooms). The amount of resident autonomy varies with each attending (and with each resident).

The above is what was typical for us (attending always scrubbed in for at least a portion of the procedure - the OR staff would not open the room unless the attending was in the building and you could not start a case unless he/she had been seen.

Our GS attendings couldn't/wouldn't run two rooms either but I recall seeing it done fairly frequently in ENT, Neuro and Ortho. I am not sure how they did it and we couldn't/wouldn't.
 
It was unusual for us, but enough that I recall it on Peds (doing some PSARPs) or Surg Onc (when we had a new attending and the other was "breaking him in").



The above is what was typical for us (attending always scrubbed in for at least a portion of the procedure - the OR staff would not open the room unless the attending was in the building and you could not start a case unless he/she had been seen.

Our GS attendings couldn't/wouldn't run two rooms either but I recall seeing it done fairly frequently in ENT, Neuro and Ortho. I am not sure how they did it and we couldn't/wouldn't.

Sometimes in residency I didn't even see the surgical attending during the entire case. This was not confined to general surgery either. Surgical attendings frequently ran two rooms and sometimes they tried to be sneaky and run three. A few could pull it off but most couldn't, all of which contributed to the sometimes glacial pace that the OR's seemed to frequently run.
 
For the MS4s reading this thread, I think the take home point is that you need to choose a balanced program that offers academics and a strong surgical caseload. Dell2004 had to learn the hard way that reputation isn't everything, and his current training program, a "top national academic research institution" per his previous post, may be anemic in resident autonomy and operative experience. Let's just hope that Del2004 didn't match at #1 on his ROL, otherwise Socialist has some explaining to do....
Yeah, it's a tough call. I don't want to end up somewhere that neglects keeping abreast of the latest changes in the field, but I also want to feel prepared to go right into private practice, if that's what I decide to do after 5 years. That ranklist thread is a trip though.
 
The above is what was typical for us (attending always scrubbed in for at least a portion of the procedure - the OR staff would not open the room unless the attending was in the building and you could not start a case unless he/she had been seen.

We require the attending to be physically present for the time out.
 
We require the attending to be physically present for the time out.

That's pretty common but was a source of contention during fellowship. My hospital wouldn't allow me to start unless the attending was in the room for time out, even if he wasn't scrubbing at all. Drove anesthesia nuts, "She's a god-damn board eligible surgeon who could be opearting on her own anywhere else! Let her start!":laugh:

By "opening the room" I meant that staff wouldn't open the instruments or allow the patient to be brought back unless the attending was on site.
 
We require the attending to be physically present for the time out.



Most of the surgical attendings I encountered in residency actively avoided being in the room for the time out. A lot of them didn't want to be called until the pt. was prepped and draped.
 
Most of the surgical attendings I encountered in residency actively avoided being in the room for the time out. A lot of them didn't want to be called until the pt. was prepped and draped.

Interesting. I have found the same in private practice. The first time, early on in my career, I came into the room and found the patient prepped and draped I freaked.

I had not seen the patient come into the room, she was so covered up I had to crawl under to identify her and plus, I am sort of obsessive about how I like my drapes put down. Table-view is NOT an option (for some reason whenever the OR staff drape, they always allow the towels to sag and show me table).😡

In residency, of course, we always did all the draping so I am suprised to hear that Arch had a different experience in residency.
 
At my hospital when they started going crazy with the time out rules and decided it had to be done before the pt was prepped and draped, the department decided they would put a loophole in. The "qualified" surgeon had to be in the room for the time out, which meant that if the resident was considered capable of performing the procedure they could be the one to run the time out. What surgeries qualified was dependent on the level of resident (the intern wasn't going to fly as the capable surgeon for lap ventral hernia), and if the nurse comfortable with it the attending could ok it over the phone. As a intern I mostly did cases with the attendings, sometimes a chief would teach me, and did a few subq mass excision/I+D's with the attending stopping by just long enough to sign the paperwork. Our chiefs are allowed to operate without an attending present, but on course for any complex procedure the attending is there and actively participating. In between it becomes a matter of what you have learned already, how comfortable the attending is, and every once in a while how busy the attending is (At the beginning of third year I had a trauma exlap that was in the room and the attending wanted to finish something else so he had me get started without him. The pt wasn't unstable and he was close by in case the pt became that way. It was nice to test my ability to perform the procedure without someone there to tell me what to do)
 
Are you all really saying you've never worked with an attending who was just plain bad? Bad surgical technique, bad judgement, etc... I think I was clearly able to recognize difference in surgical technique as a medical student... I clearly remember a stark difference when I went from GS to OB. That is not arrogance - that is observational experience you should glean from sitting in the OR all day for weeks at at ime. This doesn't mean the OP thought he/she could have done it better... only that they were horrified at seeing poor technique on their patient.

I have been on several rotations - with a doc of such poor technique and bedside manner that we often felt we had to save the patient from the nightmare. One chief resident even fed a patient to ensure that their surgery would be done on the day that doc was not on call... It is heartbreaking and tears you up inside.

In reference to the OP's original question: It is very difficult to remain diplomatic and point out a problem that you recognize in the middle of a case. You should, however, do it. I reviewed a case during a malpractice class where a nurse tried to get the attending to re-mark the patient so that the initials would be visible when draped. He refused, saying, "I'm not an idiot and I know my left from my right!" He then left the room to scrub and proceeded to operate on the wrong side of the body." There were 7 people in the room at the time, and nobody noticed the mistake.

Diplomacy is important. You cannot say, "wow, that anastomosis really sucks." But you can say, "Hmmm... I don't feel a thrill. I think we should take it down and re-do it." Your attending may not do what you say, but it feels better to know that you advocated for the patient. I hated walking out of the OR feeling like the patient was worse off. I really felt rotten when I didn't speak up, so I would encourage you to do it -but only when you really think it will make a difference - and MAKE SURE YOU ARE DIPLOMATIC!
 
Top