Rune Dall Jensen1,2, Charlotte Paltved3,4, Claudia Jaensch5, Jesper Durup6, Randi Beier-Holgersen7, Lars Konge8, Leizl Nayahangan8, Anders Husted Madsen4,5. 1. Corporate HR, MidtSim, Aarhus, Central Denmark Region, Denmark. Rune.Dall@RM.DK. 2. Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. Rune.Dall@RM.DK. 3. Corporate HR, MidtSim, Aarhus, Central Denmark Region, Denmark. 4. Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. 5. Department of Surgery, Hospitalsenheden Vest, Herning, Central Denmark Region, Denmark. 6. Department of Surgery, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark. 7. Department of Surgery, Nordsjællands Hospital Hillerød, Hillerød, Denmark. 8. Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation and the Capital Region of Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of simulation-based training in surgical education is well known. However, the development of training programs should start with problem identification and a general needs assessment to ensure that the content is aligned with current surgical trainee needs. The objective of the present study is to identify the technical skills and clinical procedures that should be included in a simulation-based curriculum in general surgery. METHODS: A national, three-round Delphi process was conducted to achieve consensus on which technical skills and clinical procedures should be included in a simulation-based curriculum in general surgery. In total, 87 key opinion leaders were identified and invited to the study. RESULTS: Round 1 of the Delphi process had a response rate of 64% (56/87) and a total of 245 suggestions. Based on these suggestions, a consolidated list of 51 technical skills or clinical procedures was made. The response rate in Delphi round 2 was 62% (54/87) resulting in a pre-prioritized order of procedures for round 3. The response rate in Delphi round 3 was 65% (35/54). The final list included 13 technical skills and clinical procedures. Training was predominantly requested within general open surgical skills, laparoscopic skills, and endoscopic skills, and a few specific procedures such as appendectomy and cholecystectomy were included in the final prioritized list. CONCLUSION: Based on the Delphi process 13 technical skills and clinical procedures were included in the final prioritized list, which can serve as a point of departure when developing simulation-based training in surgery.
BACKGROUND: The efficacy of simulation-based training in surgical education is well known. However, the development of training programs should start with problem identification and a general needs assessment to ensure that the content is aligned with current surgical trainee needs. The objective of the present study is to identify the technical skills and clinical procedures that should be included in a simulation-based curriculum in general surgery. METHODS: A national, three-round Delphi process was conducted to achieve consensus on which technical skills and clinical procedures should be included in a simulation-based curriculum in general surgery. In total, 87 key opinion leaders were identified and invited to the study. RESULTS: Round 1 of the Delphi process had a response rate of 64% (56/87) and a total of 245 suggestions. Based on these suggestions, a consolidated list of 51 technical skills or clinical procedures was made. The response rate in Delphi round 2 was 62% (54/87) resulting in a pre-prioritized order of procedures for round 3. The response rate in Delphi round 3 was 65% (35/54). The final list included 13 technical skills and clinical procedures. Training was predominantly requested within general open surgical skills, laparoscopic skills, and endoscopic skills, and a few specific procedures such as appendectomy and cholecystectomy were included in the final prioritized list. CONCLUSION: Based on the Delphi process 13 technical skills and clinical procedures were included in the final prioritized list, which can serve as a point of departure when developing simulation-based training in surgery.
Authors: Tetsuya Nakazato; Zachary Callahan; Kristine Kuchta; John G Linn; Raymond J Joehl; Michael B Ujiki Journal: Surgery Date: 2019-08-07 Impact factor: 3.982
Authors: L J Nayahangan; L Konge; T V Schroeder; C Paltved; K G Lindorff-Larsen; B U Nielsen; J P Eiberg Journal: Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg Date: 2017-03-01 Impact factor: 7.069
Authors: Justin W Collins; Jeffrey Levy; Dimitrios Stefanidis; Anthony Gallagher; Mark Coleman; Tom Cecil; Anders Ericsson; Alexandre Mottrie; Peter Wiklund; Kamran Ahmed; Johann Pratschke; Gianluca Casali; Ahmed Ghazi; Marcos Gomez; Andrew Hung; Anne Arnold; Joel Dunning; Martin Martino; Carlos Vaz; Eric Friedman; Jean-Marc Baste; Roberto Bergamaschi; Richard Feins; David Earle; Martin Pusic; Owen Montgomery; Carla Pugh; Richard M Satava Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2019-01-19 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Susan R Dawe; John A Windsor; Joris A J L Broeders; Patrick C Cregan; Peter J Hewett; Guy J Maddern Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Dimitrios Stefanidis; Nick Sevdalis; John Paige; Boris Zevin; Rajesh Aggarwal; Teodor Grantcharov; Daniel B Jones Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 12.969