Review of Selected National Surgical Curricula: Quantity is Not the Sole Marker of Quality

BackgroundDespite marked global variations in length and structure of surgical training programs, their common end product is a trained surgeon capable of independent practice. If variations exist, yet the end product is similar, modifications to curricula could potentially enhance the quality and efficiency of surgical training. This review evaluates global general surgery training programs and compares their curricula against the established standards for assessment of curricula.MethodsA convenience sampling method was employed during an online search for nationally recognized general surgery curricula. Curricula of Australia, Canada, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America were individually reviewed and subsequently evaluated against the General Medical Council’s “Standards for curricula and assessment systems.”ResultsPostgraduate surgical training is completed in 5 years in Canada and the United States, whereas this takes a minimum of 7, 7, and 10 years in Australia, Hong Kong, and the United Kingdom, respectively. However, when their general surgery curricula are objectively compared, they are remarkably similar. The principle disparities noted were in documentation and standardization of the structured in-training assessment system.ConclusionsThis review highlights variations in the structure of general surgery training programs globally. There is a need for an objective method to assess training quality, not reliant upon quantity alone. An evidence-based approach is the gold standard in patient care; it is essential to invest resources into developing an evidence-based curricular approach to ensure surgical training quality can be accurately evaluated to maintain and enhance the standards.