Peter Hertz1,2, Kim Houlind3,4, Jan Jepsen5,6, Lars Bundgaard7, Pernille Jensen8,9, Mikkel Friis10, Lars Konge6,11, Flemming Bjerrum12,6. 1. Department of Surgery, Hospital Lillebaelt, University of Southern Denmark, Sygehusvej 24, 6000, Kolding, Denmark. Peter.hertz@rsyd.dk. 2. Department of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Kolding, Denmark. Peter.hertz@rsyd.dk. 3. Department of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Kolding, Denmark. 4. Department of Vascular Surgery, Hospital Lillebaelt, University of Southern Denmark, Kolding, Denmark. 5. Department of Urology, Herlev-Gentofte Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. 6. Center for HR and Education, Copenhagen Academy for Medical Education and Simulation (CAMES), The Capital Region of Denmark, Denmark. 7. Department of Surgery, Hospital Lillebaelt, University of Southern Denmark, Vejle, Denmark. 8. Department of Gynecology, Faculty of Health, Aarhus University Hospital, Institute of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. 9. Department of Clinical Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark. 10. Department of Skills Training and Simulation, NordSim, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark. 11. University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. 12. Department of Surgery, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted surgery is increasing and there is a need for a structured and evidence-based curriculum to learn basic robotic competencies. Relevant training tasks, eligible trainees, realistic learning goals, and suitable training methods must be identified. We sought to develop a common curriculum that can ensure basic competencies across specialties. METHODS: Two robotic surgeons from all departments in Denmark conducting robotic-assisted surgery within gynecology, urology, and gastrointestinal surgery, were invited to participate in a three-round Delphi study to identify learning goals and rank them according to relevance for a basic curriculum. An additional survey was conducted after the Delphi rounds on what training methods were considered best for each learning goal and who (console surgeon/patient-side assistant) should master each learning goal. RESULTS: Fifty-six robotic surgeons participated and the response rates were 86%, 89%, and 77%, for rounds 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The Delphi study identified 40 potential learning goals, of which 29 were ranked as essential, e.g., Understand the link between arm placement and freedom of movement or Be able to perform emergency un-docking. In the additional survey, the response rate was 70%. Twenty-two (55%) of the identified learning goals were found relevant for the patient-side assistant and twenty-four (60%) were linked to a specific suitable learning method with > 75% agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings can help training centers plan their training programs concerning educational content and methods for training/learning. Furthermore, patient-side assistants should also receive basic skills training in robotic surgery.
BACKGROUND: Robotic-assisted surgery is increasing and there is a need for a structured and evidence-based curriculum to learn basic robotic competencies. Relevant training tasks, eligible trainees, realistic learning goals, and suitable training methods must be identified. We sought to develop a common curriculum that can ensure basic competencies across specialties. METHODS: Two robotic surgeons from all departments in Denmark conducting robotic-assisted surgery within gynecology, urology, and gastrointestinal surgery, were invited to participate in a three-round Delphi study to identify learning goals and rank them according to relevance for a basic curriculum. An additional survey was conducted after the Delphi rounds on what training methods were considered best for each learning goal and who (console surgeon/patient-side assistant) should master each learning goal. RESULTS: Fifty-six robotic surgeons participated and the response rates were 86%, 89%, and 77%, for rounds 1, 2 and 3, respectively. The Delphi study identified 40 potential learning goals, of which 29 were ranked as essential, e.g., Understand the link between arm placement and freedom of movement or Be able to perform emergency un-docking. In the additional survey, the response rate was 70%. Twenty-two (55%) of the identified learning goals were found relevant for the patient-side assistant and twenty-four (60%) were linked to a specific suitable learning method with > 75% agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings can help training centers plan their training programs concerning educational content and methods for training/learning. Furthermore, patient-side assistants should also receive basic skills training in robotic surgery.
Authors: Andrew P Stegemann; Kamran Ahmed; Johar R Syed; Shabnam Rehman; Khurshid Ghani; Ricardo Autorino; Mohamed Sharif; Amrith Rao; Yi Shi; Gregory E Wilding; James M Hassett; Ashirwad Chowriappa; Thenkurussi Kesavadas; James O Peabody; Mani Menon; Jihad Kaouk; Khurshid Ahad Guru Journal: Urology Date: 2013-02-26 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Karl-Friedrich Kowalewski; Mona W Schmidt; Tanja Proctor; Moritz Pohl; Erica Wennberg; Emir Karadza; Philipp Romero; Hannes G Kenngott; Beat P Müller-Stich; Felix Nickel Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2018-02-12 Impact factor: 4.584
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
Authors: Tara N Cohen; Jennifer T Anger; Falisha F Kanji; Jennifer Zamudio; Elise DeForest; Connor Lusk; Ray Avenido; Christine Yoshizawa; Stephanie Bartkowicz; Lynne S Nemeth; Ken Catchpole Journal: J Patient Saf Date: 2022-07-07 Impact factor: 2.243
Authors: Peter Hertz; Kim Houlind; Jan Jepsen; Lars Bundgaard; Pernille Jensen; Mikkel Friis; Lars Konge; Flemming Bjerrum Journal: Surg Endosc Date: 2021-10-27 Impact factor: 3.453