The Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 on Plastic Surgery Training: The Resident Perspective

Abstract

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to marked changes in surgical training, including that of plastic surgery residents. We performed a survey to gain an insight into the self-reported current and future impact of COVID-19 on plastic surgery residents.

Methods: A 20-point questionnaire was designed by a panel of surgical trainees and trainers, which was filled in by Belgian plastic surgery residents and their international network of peers between 19 and 26 April 2020-week 6 of stringent Belgian lockdown measures. Questions covered the impact of COVID-19 on surgical activity, surgical training, and the future of training.

Results: Thirty-five of 38 plastic surgery residents in Belgium filled in the questionnaire, as did 51 of their international peers from 9 other countries. Decreased surgical activity of >75% was reported by 86% of Belgian trainees and by 73% of international colleagues. All consultations were stopped for 26% of Belgian trainees and 37% of international peers. Forty-six percents of Belgian trainees and 27% of international peers were reassigned to different departments. Eighty-five percent of all trainees felt surgical training had suffered, yet 54% of Belgian residents and 39% of international peers felt training should not be prolonged. Anxiety regarding the pandemic was present in 54% of Belgian residents and 69% of international colleagues.

Conclusions: This is the first report, expressing the voice of a representative group of plastic surgery residents, showing a significant impact of COVID-19 on training and activity. A joint effort is needed to provide continued forms of education by virtual education and skills-based learning.

Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American Society of Plastic Surgeons.

Figures

Fig. 1.

Decline in surgical activity. A, The graph shows that 34% (12 of 35) of Belgian plastic surgery residents reported a decline in surgical activity of 90%–100%, 52% (18 of 35) a reduction of 75%, 11% (4 of 35) a decline of 50%, and 3% (1 of 35) a fall of 25%. B, The graph shows that 45% (23 of 51) of the International group of residents had a 90%–100% decrease in surgical activity, 27% (14 of 51) a 75% reduction, 20% (10 of 51) a 50% drop, and 6% (3 of 51) a 25% decrease. One respondent did not notice any change in his surgical activity.

Fig. 2.

Changes in consultation activity. A, The graph reflects that 26% (9 of 35) of Belgian residents reported to be not currently performing any form of consultations; 40% (14 of 35) were doing only consultations in person; and 34% (12 of 35) were undertaking a combination of physical and telephone consultations. No residents were doing telephone consultations alone. B, The graph shows that for our international respondents, 37% (19 of 51) were not doing any consultations, 16% (8 of 51) were undertaking only telephone consultations, 18% (9 of 51) were doing only consultations in person, and 29% (15 of 51) were doing a combination of both.

Fig. 3.

Impact on resident training. A, The graph shows the Belgian residents’ opinion on the impact of COVID-19 on resident training: 11% (4 of 35) felt it led to no change, 63% (22 of 35) were of the opinion that their surgical training had suffered; however, they had been able to use this time to perform research and increase their theoretical knowledge about the specialty; 23% (8 of 35) felt that their training had suffered in general; and 1 respondent felt that his training had benefited. B, The graph shows the results from the international network: 16% (8 of 51) felt there was no change, 49% (25 of 51) felt surgical training alone had suffered, and 35% (18 of 51) felt all of training suffered. None responded that the training had benefited.

Fig. 4.

Should training be prolonged? A, The graph shows that the majority of Belgian trainees (54%; 19 of 35) did not feel training ought to be prolonged: 29% (10 of 35) opiniated that prolongation would only be appropriate if measures lasted 6 months, and 6% (2 of 35) opiniated that prolongation would only be appropriate if measures lasted 3 months. Nonetheless, 11% (4 of 35) felt that training should already be prolonged in the current situation. B, The graph shows that internationally, 39% (20 of 51) were against training prolongation, 18% (9 of 51) for prolongation if measures lasted 6 months, and 27% (14 of 51) if measures lasted for 3 months; 16% (8 of 51) felt that training should already be prolonged.