Aemn Ismail1,2, Matthew Wood3, Thomas Ind4, Nahid Gul5, Esther Moss6,3. 1. Leicester Cancer Research Centre, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK. aemn.ismail@nhs.net. 2. University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, UK. aemn.ismail@nhs.net. 3. University Hospitals of Leicester, Leicester, UK. 4. Royal Marsden Hospital, London, UK. 5. Wirral University Teaching Hospital, Birkenhead, UK. 6. Leicester Cancer Research Centre, University of Leicester, University Road, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Technology for minimal access surgery is rapidly progressing in all surgical specialities including Gynaecology. As robotic surgery becomes established in increasing numbers of hospitals, there is no set curriculum for training in robotic gynaecological surgery or the assistant role in use in the UK. The purpose of this study was to determine a list of competencies that could be used as the basis of a core robotic gynaecological surgery curriculum, to explore its acceptability and the level of interest in undertaking training in robotics among obstetrics & gynaecology (O&G) trainees. METHODS: A four-round Delphi study was conducted using members and associates of British & Irish Association of Robotic Gynaecological Surgeons (BIARGS). In Round 1 respondents were asked to propose standards that could be used in the curriculum. In the following three rounds, the respondents were asked to score each of the standards according to their opinion as to the importance of the standard. Items that scored a mean of 80% or above were included in the final proposed curriculum. Following this, a national survey was conducted to explore the interest among O&G trainees in undertaking a formal robotic training for the first assistant and console surgeon roles. RESULTS: The items proposed were divided into three separate sections: competencies for a medical first assistant; competencies for a console surgeon; continued professional development for trained console surgeons. From the national survey; 109 responses were received of which 60% were interested in undertaking a formal training for the first assistant role, and 68% are expressing interest in training for the console surgeon role. CONCLUSION: Undertaking a Delphi exercise to determine a core gynaecological robotic training curriculum has enabled consensus to be achieved from the opinions of BIARGS members/associates. There is interest among O&G trainees at all levels of training to gain experience and develop their skills in robotic surgery by undertaking a formal training in robotic surgery at both the first assistant and console surgeon level.
BACKGROUND: Technology for minimal access surgery is rapidly progressing in all surgical specialities including Gynaecology. As robotic surgery becomes established in increasing numbers of hospitals, there is no set curriculum for training in robotic gynaecological surgery or the assistant role in use in the UK. The purpose of this study was to determine a list of competencies that could be used as the basis of a core robotic gynaecological surgery curriculum, to explore its acceptability and the level of interest in undertaking training in robotics among obstetrics & gynaecology (O&G) trainees. METHODS: A four-round Delphi study was conducted using members and associates of British & Irish Association of Robotic Gynaecological Surgeons (BIARGS). In Round 1 respondents were asked to propose standards that could be used in the curriculum. In the following three rounds, the respondents were asked to score each of the standards according to their opinion as to the importance of the standard. Items that scored a mean of 80% or above were included in the final proposed curriculum. Following this, a national survey was conducted to explore the interest among O&G trainees in undertaking a formal robotic training for the first assistant and console surgeon roles. RESULTS: The items proposed were divided into three separate sections: competencies for a medical first assistant; competencies for a console surgeon; continued professional development for trained console surgeons. From the national survey; 109 responses were received of which 60% were interested in undertaking a formal training for the first assistant role, and 68% are expressing interest in training for the console surgeon role. CONCLUSION: Undertaking a Delphi exercise to determine a core gynaecological robotic training curriculum has enabled consensus to be achieved from the opinions of BIARGS members/associates. There is interest among O&G trainees at all levels of training to gain experience and develop their skills in robotic surgery by undertaking a formal training in robotic surgery at both the first assistant and console surgeon level.