Novel Debate-Style Cardiothoracic Surgery Journal Club: Results of a Pilot Curriculum

What is it about?

Background: Traditional journal clubs addressing single articles are limited by the lack of a standardized process for conduct and evaluation. We developed a novel, debate-style journal club for trainees to use best available evidence to address controversial topics in cardiothoracic surgery through discussion of realistic patient scenarios. Methods: After implementation of our new curriculum, trainee knowledge acquisition and retention were assessed by a summative test of published literature and standardized debate scoring. Feedback was additionally obtained by trainee and faculty surveys. Results: Cardiothoracic surgery trainees (n = 4) participated in five debates each over 10 monthly sessions. Written examination results after debate revealed a nonsignificant improvement in scores on topics that were debated compared with topics that were not (+9.8% versus −4.2%, p = 0.105). Trainee ability to sway the debate position supported by the attendee strongly correlated with trainee use of supporting literature (r = 0.853), moderately correlated with persuasiveness (r = 0.465), and overall effect of the debate (r = 0.625). Surveys completed by trainees and faculty unanimously favored the debate-style journal club as compared to the traditional journal club in gaining familiarity and applying published literature to questions encountered clinically. Conclusions: Our novel debate-style cardiothoracic surgery journal club is an effective educational intervention for cardiothoracic surgery trainees to acquire, retain, and gain practice in applying specialty-specific literature-based evidence to controversial case-based issues. Evaluation by multi-institutional expansion is needed to validate our preliminary findings in this initial trainee cohort.

Featured Image