Literature DB >> 19688400

Malpractice carrier underwrites Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery training and testing: a benchmark for patient safety.

Alexandre Y Derevianko1, Steven D Schwaitzberg, Shawn Tsuda, Limaris Barrios, David C Brooks, Mark P Callery, David Fobert, Noel Irias, David W Rattner, Daniel B Jones.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) is a validated program developed by the Society of American Gastrointestinal and Endoscopic Surgeons (SAGES) to educate and assess competency in minimally invasive surgery (MIS). This study reports the first malpractice carrier-sponsored FLS course for surgeons in practice underwritten by the Controlled Risk Insurance Company of Harvard's Risk Management Foundation (CRICO/RMF). The study investigated the participating surgeons' pattern of MIS skills acquisition, subjective laparoscopic comfort level, operative activity, and perception of the FLS role in surgical education, credentialing, and patient safety.
METHODS: A 1-day postgraduate continuous medical education (CME) course consisted of didactic presentations of the leading MIS faculty, proctored FLS hands-on training, psychomotor testing, and cognitive computer-based examination. Voluntary anonymous pre- and postcourse surveys were distributed to the participants at registration and at completion of both the didactic teaching and the skills modules of the program.
RESULTS: The course was attended by 37 practicing surgeons in the Harvard system, and 86% of the survey forms were returned. The major driving forces for attending the course were directive from the chief/chairman (50%), improvement in MIS didactic knowledge (56%), and the belief that FLS would become a standard such as advanced trauma life support (ATLS), advanced cardiac life support (ACLS), or the like (53%). Surgeons reported that the FLS exam content was appropriate (Likert 4.41 +/- 0.91) and that mastery of the course material would improve safety (Likert 4.13 +/- 0.79) and technical knowledge of MIS (Likert 4.03 +/- 1.00).
CONCLUSIONS: This unique cooperative effort between a liability carrier, a professional surgical society, and proactive surgeons should be considered a model for advancing competency and patient safety. The survey results indicate a positive view of FLS in surgical training, safety, and MIS education.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19688400     DOI: 10.1007/s00464-009-0617-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Surg Endosc        ISSN: 0930-2794            Impact factor:   4.584


  47 in total

1.  Beta test results of a new system assessing competence in laparoscopic surgery.

Authors:  Lee L Swanstrom; Gerald M Fried; Kaaren I Hoffman; Nathaniel J Soper
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 6.113

2.  The MISTELS program to measure technical skill in laparoscopic surgery : evidence for reliability.

Authors:  M C Vassiliou; G A Ghitulescu; L S Feldman; D Stanbridge; K Leffondré; H H Sigman; G M Fried
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2006-02-27       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Proficiency maintenance: impact of ongoing simulator training on laparoscopic skill retention.

Authors:  Dimitrios Stefanidis; James R Korndorffer; Sarah Markley; Rafael Sierra; Daniel J Scott
Journal:  J Am Coll Surg       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 6.113

Review 4.  Lessons from the surgical experience with simulators: incorporation into training and utilization in determining competency.

Authors:  Gerald M Fried
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am       Date:  2006-07

5.  Avoiding complications of laparoscopic surgery: lessons from cognitive science and crew resource management.

Authors:  William H Parker; Alan Johns; Joseph Hellige
Journal:  J Minim Invasive Gynecol       Date:  2007 May-Jun       Impact factor: 4.137

6.  Proficiency-based laparoscopic simulator training leads to improved operating room skill that is resistant to decay.

Authors:  Dimitrios Stefanidis; Christina Acker; B Todd Heniford
Journal:  Surg Innov       Date:  2008-04-02       Impact factor: 2.058

7.  The effect of practice on performance in a laparoscopic simulator.

Authors:  A M Derossis; J Bothwell; H H Sigman; G M Fried
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 4.584

8.  Development of a model for training and evaluation of laparoscopic skills.

Authors:  A M Derossis; G M Fried; M Abrahamowicz; H H Sigman; J S Barkun; J L Meakins
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 2.565

9.  Validity of the MISTELS simulator for laparoscopy training in urology.

Authors:  Breno Dauster; Andrew P Steinberg; Melina C Vassiliou; Simon Bergman; Donna D Stanbridge; Liane S Feldman; Gerald M Fried
Journal:  J Endourol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 2.942

10.  Disruptive visions: surgical education.

Authors:  R M Satava
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2004-03-19       Impact factor: 4.584

View more
  19 in total

1.  Data-based self-study guidelines for the fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery examination.

Authors:  Maria A Cassera; Bin Zheng; Lee L Swanström
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-05-31       Impact factor: 4.584

2.  Ensuring competency: are fundamentals of laparoscopic surgery training and certification necessary for practicing surgeons and operating room personnel?

Authors:  Melanie L Hafford; Kent R Van Sickle; Ross E Willis; Todd D Wilson; Kristine Gugliuzza; Kimberly M Brown; Daniel J Scott
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2012-07-07       Impact factor: 4.584

3.  Trends and results of the first 5 years of Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) certification testing.

Authors:  Allan Okrainec; Nathaniel J Soper; Lee L Swanstrom; Gerald M Fried
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2010-09-25       Impact factor: 4.584

4.  Why fundamentals of endoscopic surgery (FES)?

Authors:  Jeffrey W Hazey; Jeffrey M Marks; John D Mellinger; Thadeus L Trus; Bipan Chand; Conor P Delaney; Brian J Dunkin; Robert D Fanelli; Gerald M Fried; Jose M Martinez; Jonathan P Pearl; Benjamin K Poulose; Lelan F Sillin; Melina C Vassiliou; W Scott Melvin
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2013-12-07       Impact factor: 4.584

5.  The current role of simulators in teaching surgical techniques.

Authors:  Daniel B Jones
Journal:  J Gastrointest Surg       Date:  2011-05-21       Impact factor: 3.452

6.  Virtual reality does not meet expectations in a pilot study on multimodal laparoscopic surgery training.

Authors:  Felix Nickel; Vasile V Bintintan; Tobias Gehrig; Hannes G Kenngott; Lars Fischer; Carsten N Gutt; Beat P Müller-Stich
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 3.352

7.  Development of a novel tool to assess skills in laparoscopic gastrectomy using the Delphi method: the Japanese operative rating scale for laparoscopic distal gastrectomy (JORS-LDG).

Authors:  Yo Kurashima; Yusuke Watanabe; Naoki Hiki; Saseem Poudel; Hidehiko Kitagami; Yuma Ebihara; Soichi Murakami; Toshiaki Shichinohe; Satoshi Hirano
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2019-02-11       Impact factor: 4.584

Review 8.  Canadian Association of University Surgeons' Annual Symposium. Surgical simulation: the solution to safe training or a promise unfulfilled?

Authors:  Peter G Brindley; Daniel B Jones; Teodor Grantcharov; Christopher de Gara
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 2.089

9.  Evaluation of advanced laparoscopic skills tasks for validity evidence.

Authors:  Dmitry Nepomnayshy; James Whitledge; Richard Birkett; Theodore Delmonico; Robin Ruthazer; Lelan Sillin; Neal E Seymour
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2014-07-09       Impact factor: 4.584

10.  Identifying the needs for teaching fundamental knowledge of laparoscopic surgery: a cross-sectional study in Japan.

Authors:  Shinichiro Yokoyama; Yusuke Watanabe; Yo Kurashima; Akihiko Oshita; Yuji Nishizawa; Takeshi Naitoh; Fumitaka Nakamura; Satoru Kikuchi; Kazuhiro Noma; Saseem Poudel; Akihiro Suzuki; Yuichi Nishihara; Masaaki Ito; Satoshi Hirano
Journal:  Surg Endosc       Date:  2018-10-22       Impact factor: 4.584

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.