The preparation of medical students for clerkship has been criticized, in terms of both students understanding of their new role as clinical trainees and their ability to carry out that role. To begin to address this gap, the authors report the development, implementation, and assessment of a novel program in which first-year medical students shadow first-year residents during their clinical duties. The program matches each student to a single resident, whom they shadow for several hours, once per month, for eight months. In the programs inaugural year (2009–10), 83 student–resident pairs participated; over 70% responded to pre- and post-intervention questionnaires, which included an 18-item preparedness scale. The authors used those responses to evaluate the program. Compared to students in a control group, the students in the program assessed themselves as better prepared to learn in a clinical setting. The low-cost student–resident shadowing program described in this article provided an early and structured introduction to the clinical environment, which may help prepare students for the transition into clerkship.

Summary To ensure equitable representation of women and BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, person of colour) individuals in surgical specialties, it is first necessary to understand the presence and extent of the disparities that exist. We explored the websites of the 17 Canadian faculties of medicine to examine sex and racial diversity in surgical specialties and in surgical leadership positions in Canada. We categorized faculty members of each department of surgery as either male or female and White or BIPOC. The relative percentage of female academic surgeons was very low compared with Canadian demographic data, and the relative percentage of BIPOC academic surgeons was similar to Canadian demographic data. Our observations suggest that actions must be taken to improve diversity and inclusion in surgery.

Objective: This study aims to provide a focused and detailed assessment of the validity evidence supporting procedure-specific operative assessment tools in general surgery. Summary of Background Data: Competency-based assessment tools should be supported by robust validity evidence to be used reliably for evaluation of operative skills. The contemporary framework of validity relies on five sources of evidence: content, response process, internal structure, relation to other variables, and consequences. Methods: A systematic search of 8 databases was conducted for studies containing procedure-specific operative assessment tools in general surgery. The validity evidence supporting each tool was assessed and scored in alignment with the contemporary framework of validity. Methodological rigour of studies was assessed with the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument. The educational utility of each tool was assessed with the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education framework. Results: There were 28 studies meeting inclusion criteria and 23 unique tools were assessed. Scores for validity evidence varied widely between tools, ranging from 3 – 14 (maximum 15). Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument scores assessing the quality of study methodology were also variable (8.5–15.5, maximum 16.5). Direct reporting of educational utility criteria was limited. Conclusions: This study has identified a small group of procedure-specific operative assessment tools in general surgery. Many of these tools have limited validity evidence and have not been studied sufficiently to be used reliably in high-stakes summative assessments. As general surgery transitions to competency-based training, a more robust library of operative assessment tools will be required to support resident education and evaluation.