Abstract

Background: Attending surgeons must maintain balance between promoting education and assuring safe, transparent patient care. This investigation aimed to define ethics that guide surgical training. We hypothesized that resident autonomy in the operating room is influenced by attending approach to patients, specifically patients considered to be vulnerable. Materials and Methods: After IRB approval, surgeons from three institutions were invited to participate in a pilot, survey, exploring how principles of patient autonomy, physician beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice apply to participant opinions. Responses were transcribed and coded for quantitative and qualitative analysis. Results: 51 attendings and 55 residents completed the survey. We identified that patient autonomy is upheld through transparent consent practices. Intraoperative supervision is a key practice that maintains the principles of physician beneficence and nonmaleficence and mitigates the risk of resident participation. Vulnerable patients were defined by respondents as those unable to participate in their own consent and those limited by social determinants of health and barriers to medical literacy. In contrast, resident participation is not limited in the care of vulnerable patients but is restricted in cases of higher complexity and those procedures deemed to have lower error margins. Conclusions: Although residents measure the success of their training based on their level of intraoperative independence, autonomy afforded to the resident does not only depend on objective skill. There are ethical considerations that the attending must navigate as they decide on effective teaching and safe surgical management, which is especially relevant in the care of complex cases.