Operative Performance Rating System (OPRS)



Operative Performance Rating System (OPRS)

PARTIAL MASTECTOMY WITH AXILLARY MANAGEMENT/BREAST BIOPSY

|Evaluator: | |Resident:   | |

|Resident Level: | |Program: | |

|Date of Procedure: |

| |

|Time Procedure Was Completed: |

| |

| |

|Date Assessment Was Completed: |

| |

|Time Assessment Was Initiated: |

| |

| |

Please rate this resident's performance during this operative procedure. For most criteria, the caption above each checkbox provides descriptive anchors for 3 of the 5 points on the rating scale. "NA" (not applicable) should only be selected when the resident did not perform that part of the procedure.

Case Difficulty

|1 |2 |3 |

| | | |

|Straightforward anatomy, no related prior |Intermediate difficulty |Abnormal anatomy, extensive pathology, related |

|surgeries or treatment | |prior surgeries or treatment (for example |

| | |radiation), or obesity |

|☐ |☐ |☐ |

Degree of Prompting or Direction

|1 |2 |3 |

| | | |

|Minimal direction by attending. Resident |Some direction by attending. Resident performs|Substantial direction by attending. Resident |

|performs all steps and directs the surgical |all steps but the attending provides |performs all steps but the attending provides |

|team independently with minimum or no |occasional direction to the resident and /or |constant direction to the resident and |

|direction from the attending, to either the |to the surgical team. |surgical team. |

|resident or to the surgical team. | | |

|☐ |☐ |☐ |

Procedure-Specific Criteria

Planning of Incision

|5 |4 |3 |2 |1 | |

|Excellent |Very Good |Good |Fair |Poor |NA |

|Excellent planning of | |Understands most | |Poor incision planning | |

|incision (use of wire, | |principles in planning | | | |

|if utilized) | |incision | | | |

Margins of Excision

|5 |4 |3 |2 |1 | |

|Excellent |Very Good |Good |Fair |Poor |NA |

|Excellent technique in | |Adequate margins of | |Inappropriate margins | |

|assuring appropriate | |excision | |and/or lesion entered | |

|margins of excision | | | |during dissection | |

Sentinel Lymph Node Mapping

|5 |4 |3 |2 |1 | |

|Excellent |Very Good |Good |Fair |Poor |NA |

|Rapid and efficient SLN| |Utilized scintigraphy | |Poor knowledge and | |

|mapping | |to identify SLN(s) but | |technique in SLN | |

| | |with some | |mapping | |

| | |inefficiencies | | | |

Anatomic Dissection of Borders

|5 |4 |3 |2 |1 | |

|Excellent |Very Good |Good |Fair |Poor |NA |

|Rapid Level | |Hesitant dissection, | |Poor dissection and | |

|1-2 dissection; | |but adequate | |inadequate | |

|excellent | |identification of | |identification of | |

|identification of | |borders | |borders | |

|borders | | | | | |

Identification of Nerves

|5 |4 |3 |2 |1 | |

|Excellent |Very Good |Good |Fair |Poor |NA |

|Clearly identified and | |Some unprompted nerve | |Failed to clearly | |

|preserved nerves during| |identification and | |identify nerves | |

|dissection | |preservation | | | |

Suturing Technique

|5 |4 |3 |2 |1 | |

|Excellent |Very Good |Good |Fair |Poor |NA |

|Excellent suture | |Satisfactory suture | |Poor suture placement | |

|placement, appropriate | |placement, occasional | |and knot tying | |

|tension and constant | |failures in providing | |technique | |

|square knots | |square knots | | | |

General Criteria

Instrument Handling

|5 |4 |3 |2 |1 | |

|Excellent |Very Good |Good |Fair |Poor |NA |

|Fluid movements with | |Competent use of | |Tentative or awkward | |

|instruments consistently | |instruments, | |movements, often did | |

|using appropriate force, | |occasionally appeared | |not visualize tips of | |

|keeping tips in view, and| |awkward or did not | |instrument or clips | |

|placing clips securely | |visualize instrument | |poorly placed | |

| | |tips | | | |

Respect for Tissue

|5 |4 |3 |2 |1 | |

|Excellent |Very Good |Good |Fair |Poor |NA |

|Consistently handled | |Careful tissue handling, | |Frequent unnecessary | |

|tissue carefully | |occasional inadvertent | |tissue force or damage by| |

|(appropriately), minimal | |damage | |inappropriate instrument | |

|tissue damage | | | |use | |

|Clear economy of motion, | |Efficient time and | |Many unnecessary moves | |

|and maximum efficiency | |motion, some unnecessary | | | |

| | |moves | | | |

Operation Flow

|5 |4 |3 |2 |1 | |

|Excellent |Very Good |Good |Fair |Poor |NA |

|Obviously planned course | |Some forward planning, | |Frequent lack of forward | |

|of operation and | |reasonable procedure | |progression; frequently | |

|anticipation of next | |progression | |stopped operating and | |

|steps | | | |seemed unsure of next move | |

Overall Performance

Rating of 4 or higher indicates technically proficient performance (i.e., resident is ready to perform operation independently, assuming resident consistently performs at this level)

|5 |4 |3 |2 |1 | |

|Excellent |Very Good |Good |Fair |Poor |NA |

|☐ |

Please indicate the strengths in this resident’s performance:

| |

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download