W M Brinkman1, B M A Schout2,3, J B Rietbergen4, A H de Vries1, H G van der Poel4,5, E L Koldewijn1,6, J A Witjes7, J J G van Merriënboer6. 1. Department of Urology, Catharina Hospital Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Urology, Medical Centre Alkmaar, The Netherlands. 3. EMGO Institute, VU Medical Centre Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Urology, Sint Franciscus Gasthuis, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Urology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Educational Development and Research, FHML, Maastricht University, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Urology, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, The Netherlands.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To answer the research questions: (a) what were the training pathways followed by the first generation of robot urologists; and (b) what are their opinions on the ideal training for the future generation? METHODS: Data were gathered with a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews in a mixed-method research design. RESULTS: The results show that training approaches differed from hardly any formal training to complete self-initiated training programmes, with all available learning resources. The median number of supervised procedures at the start of robot-assisted laparoscopy was five (range 0-100). Before patient-related console time, respondents indicated that the minimum training of robot trainees should consist of: live observations (94% indicated this as essential), video observations (90%), knowledge (88%), table assisting (87%) and basic skills (70%). CONCLUSION: The first generation of robot urologists used different training approaches to start robotic surgery. There is a need for a structured and compulsory training programme for robotic surgery.
BACKGROUND: To answer the research questions: (a) what were the training pathways followed by the first generation of robot urologists; and (b) what are their opinions on the ideal training for the future generation? METHODS: Data were gathered with a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews in a mixed-method research design. RESULTS: The results show that training approaches differed from hardly any formal training to complete self-initiated training programmes, with all available learning resources. The median number of supervised procedures at the start of robot-assisted laparoscopy was five (range 0-100). Before patient-related console time, respondents indicated that the minimum training of robot trainees should consist of: live observations (94% indicated this as essential), video observations (90%), knowledge (88%), table assisting (87%) and basic skills (70%). CONCLUSION: The first generation of robot urologists used different training approaches to start robotic surgery. There is a need for a structured and compulsory training programme for robotic surgery.
Authors: Willem Brinkman; Isabel de Angst; Henk Schreuder; Barbara Schout; Werner Draaisma; Lisanne Verweij; Ad Hendrikx; Henk van der Poel Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2016-05-18 Impact factor: 4.584