Fake Educational Metrics, 3 Perforator Tips, & Feedback on Foundations

They count attendance at webinars, not whether anyone actually learned something. Trainees boast about the number of abstracts accepted at a meeting, the number of publications that nobody reads, not whether any of those findings changed clinical practice. They measure hours of “teaching delivered” or “courses run,” rather than whether trainees are more competent, confident, or safe afterwards. 

It’s the classic trap: if you can’t measure what matters, you make what’s measurable matter. So, we end up rewarding noise over nuance. Committees pat themselves on the back for glossy reports or “successful” events that generate LinkedIn posts, but the actual educational return is near zero. Online personalities in plastic surgery, podcasts, and platforms do the same, focusing on clicks, follows, and engagement graphs, rather than long-term retention, skill transfer, or exam performance.

Plastic surgery is especially vulnerable here. A trainee who binge-watches 20 conference recordings looks “engaged” in the metrics, but that says nothing about their ability to dissect a flap or counsel a patient. Societies pump out guidelines and webinars, but when the dust settles, has anything changed in the OR?

The uncomfortable truth is this: when organizations can’t measure learning, they measure loyalty and optics instead. And that creates an ecosystem where what “looks good” (numbers, logos, noise) gets rewarded over what is good (competence, clarity, patient outcomes).

👉 Maybe that’s the real challenge for us: should educational bodies start investing in real metrics like skill assessment, knowledge retention, patient outcomes, rather than vanity ones?

With love,
P’Fella ❤️