Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42143318›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2026

Escaping the OR: a pilot study of a Jigsaw-based workshop to teach preoperative assessment in internal medicine residency.

Ruth Abeles, Laura Eger, Tanner Slayden, Stacy Charat, Saloni Kumar Maharaj

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ruth AbelesUniversity of California, San Diego, USA. rabeles@health.ucsd.edu.
Laura EgerUniversity of California, San Diego, USA.
Tanner SlaydenUniversity of California, San Diego, USA.
Stacy CharatUniversity of California, San Diego, USA.
Saloni Kumar MaharajSchool of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPreoperative assessment is a key but inconsistently taught skill in internal medicine residency, particularly in the ambulatory setting. Many residents report low confidence and limited formal training.

objectiveTo evaluate the impact of a structured, gamified Jigsaw-based workshop on internal medicine residents' knowledge acquisition and self-reported confidence in preoperative assessment.

methodsIn 2025, we conducted a quasi-experimental pilot study at the University of California, San Diego. Primary Care Track residents (intervention group) completed a three-hour interactive Jigsaw workshop on four domains of preoperative management: cardiovascular risk, medication management, anticoagulation, and considerations for special populations. Residents in the control group received standard residency training in preoperative medicine through routine clinical exposure during inpatient rotations (wards, intensive care unit, and consult services) and outpatient settings, including continuity clinic and ambulatory electives. Additional instruction occurred through the residency's protected didactic curriculum, including Wednesday School and Friday School, four-hour conference blocks covering rotating internal medicine topics. Preoperative assessment was addressed within this broader curriculum but not through a dedicated standardized program. Pre- and post-surveys assessed knowledge (multiple-choice) and confidence (Likert scale). Due to the small sample size, formal hypothesis testing with p-values was not performed. Instead, effect sizes were calculated to estimate the magnitude of differences between the intervention and control groups.

resultsA needs assessment of 159 residents (12% response) revealed low confidence in perioperative care; over half reported no structured training. In the control group (n = 11 pre, n = 10 post), notable gains are observed in special population (40% to 49%, effect size = 0.45) and anticoagulation (41.1% to 48.50%, effect size = 2.00). Cardiovascular risk and medical management remain stable (45.40% to 39.40%, effect size = 0.18, and 60.60% to 56.1%, effect size = 0.04, respectively). In the intervention group (n = 11, n = 10 post), all categories show notable gains, with special populations and cardiovascular risk reaching statistical significance: cardiovascular risk group (37.50% to 66.70%, effect size = 4.04), medication management (64.5% to 75%, effect size = 0.45), special population (45% to 95%, effect size = 4.26), and anticoagulation (45.80% to 58.30%, effect size = 0.42). In the control group (n = 11 pre, n = 10 post), mean confidence scores remained largely unchanged, with minimal effect (2.35 vs 2.38; effect size = 0.10). In contrast, the intervention group (n = 8 pre, n = 8 post) demonstrated substantial improvements in confidence across all domains following the workshop, with mean Likert scores increasing from 1.86 to 3.18 (effect size = 2.48). Qualitative feedback showed that residents valued the interactive, case-based format and the gamified "Escape the OR" activity.

conclusionsA single Jigsaw-based workshop integrated into a primary care residency curriculum was observed to be associated with improvements in resident knowledge and confidence in perioperative assessment. These early findings suggest that structured, interactive workshops may help address gaps in perioperative education and support further evaluation of learner-centered instructional strategies in larger training settings.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceInternal MedicineInternship and ResidencyPreoperative CareCaliforniaCurriculumFemaleHumansMalePilot ProjectsGamificationPerioperative Risk AssessmentResident Education

Identifiers

PMID42143318
PMCPMC13348809

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.