Evaluating Plastic Surgery Resident Satisfaction Globally: Predictors and Recommendations for Training Enhancement.

Background: Measures of quality in resident training in plastic and reconstructive surgery (PRS) programs are scarce and often methodologically inconsistent. Our research provides insights from current PRS trainees globally, mapping their training inputs, expected outputs, and recommendations for program improvements.

Methods: A global online survey was conducted among PRS residents across 70 countries to gauge their satisfaction with residency training, capturing training inputs such as the number of surgeries attended and seminars they participated in. We also extracted residents' proposed recommendations for program improvement. We investigated the explanatory role of training inputs, demographics, hospital characteristics, and country income on resident satisfaction and graduate competence.

Results: The analysis incorporated data from 518 PRS residents. On average, residents attended 9.8 surgeries and 1.3 seminars per week. Simultaneously, there was a positive correlation between the perceived level of professional competency and training inputs, particularly seminars attended (p - value = 0.001). Male residents tended to report higher satisfaction (p - value = 0.045) with their training (67%) compared with their female counterparts (58%), while those with family responsibilities also demonstrated slightly higher satisfaction levels.

Conclusions: Our analysis expands the evidence base regarding a "global hunger" for more comprehensive seminar-based and hands-on surgical training. Resident recommendations on program improvement reveal the need to address gaps, particularly in aesthetic surgery training. The development of healthcare business models that allow for aesthetic procedures in training institutions is crucial in the promotion of aesthetic surgery training during residency. Policymakers, program directors, and stakeholders across the world can leverage these findings to formulate policies addressing the weaknesses of training programs.

Level Of Evidence Iii: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .